They can get coaches as well, if they are responsible for sponsoring and supporting such a program eg armstrong's coaches. They do not have to do the injecting themselves. It is as much as anything "intent". I have been predicting for some time that the CAS case will be folloowed by a number of Essendon coaches/administrators being issued with infraction notices by ASADA. I still think this will still be the case.

Hird, his assistants, the essendon admin, and the Board are in much more danger from the like of Worksafe and the law in general. Directors could come under scutiny from the company regulator if the WADA appeal succeeds for neglect of directors' duties, and hird and coaches under general anti-drug laws.

As i said in my earlier post, there is still a long way to go in this

Thanks for the clarification 'Dees2014'.

I personally would not be sad to see Godwin go as I have an issue with any recruitment from the Essendon FC.

Wouldn't it just be so Melbourne to be the first club to have to sack its senior coach before he's even been appointed?

I'm not going to play party politics on this. If he has dirty hands then he should swing with the rest of them.

Well, if that's the case we will need to find a new coach.

I have said it before - I hope to hell that the club, lead by Peter Jackson, did full due diligence on Goodwin before he was appointed.

They would be more aware than any of us here of his potential involvement in any penalties that may be imposed.

I trust Peter Jackson.

I have said it before - I hope to hell that the club, lead by Peter Jackson, did full due diligence on Goodwin before he was appointed.

They would be more aware than any of us here of his potential involvement in any penalties that may be imposed.

I trust Peter Jackson.

Fair comment Mono you would expect PJ to have it all covered but still have to worry about the ethics and decision of someone to have the injections and think it was OK, for them to be administered to all the players at the time.

We were getting fairly desperate to appoint an Ass Coach successor to Roos. Time will tell whether the Dees have it covered or whether it was terrible bad mistake.

I personally would not be sad to see Godwin go as I have an issue with any recruitment from the Essendon FC.

Well he was a gun player but . . . Essendope/Hexarelin and wasn't there some betting thing a few years back?

An untried coach with baggage does seem a strange choice for a club trying to re-invent itself.

Wouldn't it just be so Melbourne to be the first club to have to sack its senior coach before he's even been appointed?

That's both hilarious, tragic and oh so real.

As pointed out by Dees2014, we took a risk with Goodwin. In fact given that he admitted taking injections, we were taking a big risk. Possibly a very unwise decision given the circumstances. It was said that the club was happy with his admissions on interview but still seemed a surprising decision to give him the job given the circumstances. Goodwin condoned the program and took some of the injections himself, very much "whatever it takes." Brings into doubt his thinking and decision making.

Funny is it not that as soon as he was appointed almost to person MFC supporters have shut up about his involvment like a steel trap.

If Essendrug are found guilty ( still far from certain ) it is had to see how he could continue. However I presuppose that the AFL are not hypocrites

Roos has said in his initial meeting with goodwin the MFC officials asked what his involvement with the supplements saga was and they were satisfied with his answer to a point they offered him a 5 year deal, i think the only thing we need to worry about is if the guy can coach, Roosy being who is he saves him from a lot of critisism, Goodwin won't have that, if we haven't improved the blowtorch won't take long to come on

Funny is it not that as soon as he was appointed almost to person MFC supporters have shut up about his involvment like a steel trap.

If Essendrug are found guilty ( still far from certain ) it is had to see how he could continue. However I presuppose that the AFL are not hypocrites

Why do you presuppose that OD? I would have thought that was a given after this episode.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/neil-clelland-to-defend-essendon-34-in-wada-appeal-at-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/story-e6frf3e3-1227404666386

The player rep is Neil Clelland who represented the Bulldog players at the AFL Tribunal.

They have opted for 'local' knowledge rather than someone with international/sporting experience altho I am sure he will be well supported.

Nonetheless, it seems a bit of 'David and Goliath' given that WADA have Richard Young who brought down Armstrong and a few other high profile stars.

If I was to take a bet it would be on Richard Young and WADA!

On a side note, did anyone notice this story about swimmer Kylie Palmer yesterday: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/swimming/kylie-palmer-denies-doping-as-swim-bosses-lose-hope-of-quick-hearing-20150618-ghreul.html?

The interesting part is that it happened in 2013 and FINA (swimming's global body) decided for a variety of reasons to let it go but: "But in February this year WADA requested files regarding Palmer's testing before compelling FINA to issue an anti-doping violation to the Australian."

It highlights, again that sporting bodies adjudicating their own athletes will err on the lenient side.

WADA action in February could be coincidence but:

- In the aftermath of the EFC saga is WADA reviewing 'lenient anti-doping decisions' for other Australian athletes? Unlikely.

- Does WADA have new testing techniques?

Whatever the reason for WADA's delayed action the outcome isn't good for Australia's clean sport standing in the world.

Be interesting to see mood, body language etc between Goodwin and Ess when we play them.

Wonder if can of beans has been spilt.

Be interesting to see mood, body language etc between Goodwin and Ess when we play them.

Wonder if can of beans has been spilt.

Yes if you were in Goodwin's position, and knew what REALLY went on, wouldn't you come clean to ASADA? He has no need to protect Hird's mafia any longer. Indeed it may protect himself from going down with them when this whole sorry saga is exposed by the CAS enquiry and its aftermath.

Yes if you were in Goodwin's position, and knew what REALLY went on, wouldn't you come clean to ASADA? He has no need to protect Hird's mafia any longer. Indeed it may protect himself from going down with them when this whole sorry saga is exposed by the CAS enquiry and its aftermath.

Fiorst there is still a good chance they will not go down

If I was him I would be as quiet as a mouse.

If he owns up to anything the MFC will say you did not tell us any of this, breach of contract goodbye.

You are also assuming he was part of it or knows anything much

Edited June 19, 201510 yr by old dee

Fiorst there is still a good chance they will not go down

If I was him I would be as quiet as a mouse.

If he owns up to anything the MFC will say you did not tell us any of this, breach of contract goodbye.

You are also assuming he was part of it or knows anything much

Yes there is no certainty in any of this.

I would prefer he had gone public and I think the assurances from MFC at the time were that he did.

If he knows nothing or has been misled that could be a serious matter for both him and those who appointed him as he has at least been involved with an organisation which conducted a "pharmacological experiment". Perhaps it would be best if that involvement or lack of involvement was explained more transparently.

If he did know and didnt report to ASADA that is also serious and he will need to take the full repercussions.

Was he called by ASADA?

He may already have disclosed and been cleared by ASADA. If this is so there should be greater disclosure from him and the club and this may well be subject to continuing case.

Fiorst there is still a good chance they will not go down

If I was him I would be as quiet as a mouse.

If he owns up to anything the MFC will say you did not tell us any of this, breach of contract goodbye.

You are also assuming he was part of it or knows anything much

Fair points OD. To clarify, I am not suggesting he says anything now, but as this process emerges over the coming months it will become obvious if it is going somewhere, and in that process i have no doubt WADA wil be looking for insiders to testify.

He would obviously only cooperate if on balance of probabilities he was better off cooperating than not. After all, if he were sent an infraction notice post the players' hearing as i think hird, reid and thompson will be, he is unlikely to coach melbourne anyway.

I find it interesting that the general populous still cant see the inevitability of the process.

We're just going through the motions prior to the naughty ones being adjudged in the rightful surrounds. After the players will come the coaches and such. My view is WADA will only go after the ring leaders. These clearly being Hird, Danks Charter and the Weapon. The club should also find itself on the undesirable end of penalties and sanctions as can be laid ( by them Wada as viewed by Cas, not the AFL )

Its a slow train for sure. ..but then again whos been setting the points for derailing !!

My thinking is peripheral staff wont be targeted (especially if helpful)

Some more reading . . . (a ploy to keep this thread on page one?)

The ‘comfortable satisfaction’ standard of proof:
applied by the court of arbtiration
for sport in drug-related cases
Dr Chris Davies

This article seeks to examine Briginshaw3 in regards to standards of
proof and the context of the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ comment made in
the case. general principles of evidence relevant to the discussion will
be examined. the main purpose of this article, however, is to examine
these principles, particularly standards of proof, in a selection of Cas
drug cases, to see how closely Cas adopt these common law principles
in the conduct of its arbitrations. it will also examine the question as
to whether Cas operates more like a common law or a civil system
body. the article begins with a brief overview of the common law
principles relating to evidence.

Cas has also made it clear that ‘oth the initial
arbitration panel (as with the initial decision maker) and the appeal
arbitration panel are not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform
themselves in such manner as the arbitrators think fit.’22 these points
must therefore be kept in mind when examining Cas decisions, even
though Cas has applied standards and burdens of proof, presumptions
and also made use of both direct and circumstantial evidence, all of
which are found in the common law rules of evidence

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austlii.edu.au%2Fau%2Fjournals%2FUNDAULawRw%2F2012%2F2.pdf&ei=-rCEVfSTKoTmmAWs5YHQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHx6Mfx3rXDvMvXPvbderu6Y7YWnA

I find it interesting that the general populous still cant see the inevitability of the process.

We're just going through the motions prior to the naughty ones being adjudged in the rightful surrounds. After the players will come the coaches and such. My view is WADA will only go after the ring leaders. These clearly being Hird, Danks Charter and the Weapon. The club should also find itself on the undesirable end of penalties and sanctions as can be laid ( by them Wada as viewed by Cas, not the AFL )

Its a slow train for sure. ..but then again whos been setting the points for derailing !!

My thinking is peripheral staff wont be targeted (especially if helpful)

And being "helpful" is the point. That will be clearly part of the bargaining process with WADA. I agree WADA will only want the ringleaders, except I can't see how they would not include as well as Hird, also Thompson, Reid, and at least some of the Executive and Board. If Workcover execute eventually they will be after them rather than the players.

Goodwin may well escape - I hope he does. My point being is he will have a better chance if he tells WADA everything he knows rather than staying in solidarity with the HIrd mafia.

Some more reading . . . (a ploy to keep this thread on page one?)

The ‘comfortable satisfaction’ standard of proof:

applied by the court of arbtiration

for sport in drug-related cases

Dr Chris Davies

This article seeks to examine Briginshaw3 in regards to standards of

proof and the context of the ‘comfortable satisfaction’ comment made in

the case. general principles of evidence relevant to the discussion will

be examined. the main purpose of this article, however, is to examine

these principles, particularly standards of proof, in a selection of Cas

drug cases, to see how closely Cas adopt these common law principles

in the conduct of its arbitrations. it will also examine the question as

to whether Cas operates more like a common law or a civil system

body. the article begins with a brief overview of the common law

principles relating to evidence.

Cas has also made it clear that ‘oth the initial

arbitration panel (as with the initial decision maker) and the appeal

arbitration panel are not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform

themselves in such manner as the arbitrators think fit.’22 these points

must therefore be kept in mind when examining Cas decisions, even

though Cas has applied standards and burdens of proof, presumptions

and also made use of both direct and circumstantial evidence, all of

which are found in the common law rules of evidence

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austlii.edu.au%2Fau%2Fjournals%2FUNDAULawRw%2F2012%2F2.pdf&ei=-rCEVfSTKoTmmAWs5YHQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHx6Mfx3rXDvMvXPvbderu6Y7YWnA

By the way, the conclusion of this very authoritative article states:

"While Cas has stated that it is not bound by the rules of evidence, it is required to examine and apply standards, burdens of proof and presumptions. it is suggested that the manner in which this is done is consistent with that of the common law, with the one minor departure being the establishment of a clear third standard of proof, that of comfortable satisfaction, which is defined as being between the two common law standards. The standard of proof for the athlete is,however, based upon the balance of probabilities, which Cas has defined as being 51 per cent".

Lance Uppercut might like to read and absorb this conclusion since he has continually accused me of mis-stating this position. It is much more complex and nuanced than you make it out to be Lance. Get used to it.

Anyone read the excerpt from chip book in the oz today?

Anyone read the excerpt from chip book in the oz today?

Yes.......

The Gospel according to Chip!

I particularly like the bit where "Saint James"

ascends to heaven. Quite moving!

Anyone read the excerpt from chip book in the oz today?

Nope, don't have access. I guess it is a pile of horse s@$t.

Any chance of a summation of the delusion?

Nope, don't have access. I guess it is a pile of horse s@$t.

Any chance of a summation of the delusion?

Basically noone at the club had any idea it was all Dank.

If you go to google news and search for "James Hird and Essendon’s drugs scandal: the inside story" it will bypass the pay wall

Edited June 20, 201510 yr by Raul Poos