Sadly that is how I end most days especially when we lose.

me too sadly, though even sadder is bbo who usually starts his day this way. says it makes him feel good.

How can you actually not turn up to your hearing initially to state your case, then appeal the result when it doesn't fall in your favour?

This guy is a complete halfwit.

Just seeking clarification...was he represented (ie, by lawyers) at his own hearing? If so, even if he wasn't physically present, I can see how an appeal may proceed. But if he wasn't there nor represented, I can't see how an appeal could be allowed.

so wada has appealed dank's not guilty on some charges to cas

and dank has appealed his guilty charges to presumably the afl tribunal

so, two appeals to two different bodies.......how does that work?

if dank's appeal to the afl tribunal is successful then wada could the appeal it to cas

this will no doubt delay the players' charges to cas

this sounds like delaying tactics. by the time it is resolved most of the players will be retired

what a circus

so wada has appealed dank's not guilty on some charges to cas

and dank has appealed his guilty charges to presumably the afl tribunal

so, two appeals to two different bodies.......how does that work?

if dank's appeal to the afl tribunal is successful then wada could the appeal it to cas

this will no doubt delay the players' charges to cas

this sounds like delaying tactics. by the time it is resolved most of the players will be retired

what a circus

Might suit the AFL to a tee.

Might suit the AFL to a tee.

I think you can delete "Might" adc

Asada wants to cross examine Dank

http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/asada-wants-the-opportunity-to-cross-examine-stephan-dank/story-fnelctok-1227451373322

Asada wants to cross examine Dank

http://mobile.news.com.au/sport/afl/asada-wants-the-opportunity-to-cross-examine-stephan-dank/story-fnelctok-1227451373322

cas delay will make a mess of essendon's trading prospects this year........such a shame

but we all know stephan has the best interests of the players at heart

Excellent news beelzebub.

If ASADA get Dank on "attempting to administer", then Essendon are cooked as well.

We can now see why WADA have asked for further time. It may make their case a "lay down misere"!

It is inconceivable that the players may get off on a technicality:

"...WADA can’t go to CAS on a matter that is still before the AFL appeals board. The key question, one being examined by lawyers on all sides of this dispute, is whether Dank, the 34 footballers and ASADA were parties to a single proceeding before the AFL tribunal or whether the case against the players and the case against Dank were separate proceedings heard together for practical reasons. Although the distinction appears prosaic, it could be the difference between doping allegations against the footballers being reheard this year, next year or not at all..." extract from LeGrand's http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/asadas-re-run-of-dank-case-raises-doubts-on-wadas-pursuit/story-fnca0u4y-1227453100717

This sounds like the was-it/was-it-not a 'joint investigation' by AFL/ASADA all over again!!

Its conceivable that 'testing' whether the two cases were 'separate proceedings' could be tied up in the courts for yonks.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hird's legal entourage men were behind the Dank appeal...bog it down in the courts is their mantra!

And EFC seem to have some influential monied people who helped before and may now support Dank.

Le Grand has a history of writing pro Ess articles so lets hope this is a 'storm in a teacup' and that the 'separate proceedings' issue is just desperate people clutching at straws!

It is inconceivable that the players may get off on a technicality:

"...WADA can’t go to CAS on a matter that is still before the AFL appeals board. The key question, one being examined by lawyers on all sides of this dispute, is whether Dank, the 34 footballers and ASADA were parties to a single proceeding before the AFL tribunal or whether the case against the players and the case against Dank were separate proceedings heard together for practical reasons. Although the distinction appears prosaic, it could be the difference between doping allegations against the footballers being reheard this year, next year or not at all..." extract from LeGrand's http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/asadas-re-run-of-dank-case-raises-doubts-on-wadas-pursuit/story-fnca0u4y-1227453100717

This sounds like the was-it/was-it-not a 'joint investigation' by AFL/ASADA all over again!!

Its conceivable that 'testing' whether the two cases were 'separate proceedings' could be tied up in the courts for yonks.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hird's legal entourage men were behind the Dank appeal...bog it down in the courts is their mantra!

And EFC seem to have some influential monied people who helped before and may now support Dank.

Le Grand has a history of writing pro Ess articles so lets hope this is a 'storm in a teacup' and that the 'separate proceedings' issue is just desperate people clutching at straws!

yes,interesting luci

i have to wonder though, how dragging this into a 4th or 5th year actually helps the club

this could have been all over including bans in under 2 years, with the club then operating fairly normally

instead they have been dysfunctional and unsuccessful for 4 years and counting

oh well, their "party" i suppose

i have to wonder though, how dragging this into a 4th or 5th year actually helps the club

Cos there will be hardly any players left of the 34 and the AFL wont punish them again even if WADA finds them guilty cos the AFL only care about $$$ and wont punish a team twice even for different offenses.

The AFL will say they've already punished them even though that was for non drug charges.

If their trading is hampered for another 4 years.
That'd be great.

It is inconceivable that the players may get off on a technicality:

"...WADA can’t go to CAS on a matter that is still before the AFL appeals board. The key question, one being examined by lawyers on all sides of this dispute, is whether Dank, the 34 footballers and ASADA were parties to a single proceeding before the AFL tribunal or whether the case against the players and the case against Dank were separate proceedings heard together for practical reasons. Although the distinction appears prosaic, it could be the difference between doping allegations against the footballers being reheard this year, next year or not at all..." extract from LeGrand's http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/asadas-re-run-of-dank-case-raises-doubts-on-wadas-pursuit/story-fnca0u4y-1227453100717

This sounds like the was-it/was-it-not a 'joint investigation' by AFL/ASADA all over again!!

Its conceivable that 'testing' whether the two cases were 'separate proceedings' could be tied up in the courts for yonks.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hird's legal entourage men were behind the Dank appeal...bog it down in the courts is their mantra!

And EFC seem to have some influential monied people who helped before and may now support Dank.

Le Grand has a history of writing pro Ess articles so lets hope this is a 'storm in a teacup' and that the 'separate proceedings' issue is just desperate people clutching at straws!

Maybe it's a bit philosophical, but I'd always prefer people in any form of prosecution to be found not guilty on a technicality than being found guilty when they're innocent. I realise it doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation, but the essential point remains - I prefer guilty people out of gaol rather than not guilty ones being incarcerated. Same principle should apply here.

Maybe it's a bit philosophical, but I'd always prefer people in any form of prosecution to be found not guilty on a technicality than being found guilty when they're innocent. I realise it doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation, but the essential point remains - I prefer guilty people out of gaol rather than not guilty ones being incarcerated. Same principle should apply here.

You are not alone LDC me too.

Other wise we might as well have mob rule.

Maybe it's a bit philosophical, but I'd always prefer people in any form of prosecution to be found not guilty on a technicality than being found guilty when they're innocent. I realise it doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation, but the essential point remains - I prefer guilty people out of gaol rather than not guilty ones being incarcerated. Same principle should apply here.

Have to agree with you LaD.

In this case the legal process is yet to be played out on the question of 'guilt'.

I prefer that process, the appeal, be heard rather than it be thrown out on a technicality.

Have to agree with you LaD.

In this case the legal process is yet to be played out on the question of 'guilt'.

I prefer that process, the appeal, be heard rather than it be thrown out on a technicality.

No dispute. Matters are always best heard if circumstances permit. Of course technicalities which prevent matters being heard should be avoided as much as possible. Sometimes, however and unfortunately, they're unavoidable.

The entire history of this Essendon saga is one of the club and its supporters arguing technicality after technicality without caring about getting to the truth about the nature of what was injected into players.

As a result, karma has stepped in with a vengeance. They are floundering as a team and the circumstances have put the club in a position where it's virtually difficult to attract players from other clubs and the entire culture has deteriorated in a system where there is a great deal of mistrust. You reap what you sow.

The entire history of this Essendon saga is one of the club and its supporters arguing technicality after technicality without caring about getting to the truth about the nature of what was injected into players.

As a result, karma has stepped in with a vengeance. They are floundering as a team and the circumstances have put the club in a position where it's virtually difficult to attract players from other clubs and the entire culture has deteriorated in a system where there is a great deal of mistrust. You reap what you sow.

Its pretty simple.

a) They either know what was injected (and if they did and it was legal believe me we would know by now); or,

b) they don't know - and that is probably worse because they used young players to experiment with unknown drugs.

EIther way they have cheated the system and should pay more than they have and the people in charge wiped out and banned for life.

Their behaviour ALL the way along this sage is despicable. They or the players have no sympathy from me.

the major problem is that essendon have no understanding whatsoever of the definition or meaning of the word cheating

and unfortunately have access to too much money

Essendon know exactly what cheating is.

They did it.

They know they did it.

They all know exactly what they got.

Every single thing they have done since has been trying to get out of it.

Like the schoolboy who is busted cheating on a test.

It wasnt me

Everyone else was doing it

Prove it

Youre just out to get me

Youve got no idea what youre doing

Its the schools fault

Etc etc

Essendon know exactly what cheating is.

They did it.

They know they did it.

They all know exactly what they got.

Every single thing they have done since has been trying to get out of it.

Like the schoolboy who is busted cheating on a test.

It wasnt me

Everyone else was doing it

Prove it

Youre just out to get me

Youve got no idea what youre doing

Its the schools fault

Etc etc

you haven't heard of a large river in north africa?

Its pretty simple.

a) They either know what was injected (and if they did and it was legal believe me we would know by now); or,

b) they don't know - and that is probably worse because they used young players to experiment with unknown drugs.

EIther way they have cheated the system and should pay more than they have and the people in charge wiped out and banned for life.

That's the nub of the issue. While most (hopefully all) of us would agree that it is better to let a guilty person off than convict an innocent one, this seems to be a circumstance where someone must be guilty of something. The only question is who.

I think we all know the answer though we might differ on how far blame should extend - it is just a matter of WADA nailing him/them.

Hird is suing his insurance co for not covering his legal bills!!

I am amused by the irony of that

I'm impressed that he wants to continue to line the pockets of the legal fraternity.

And, speechless at his audacity (albeit his legal right)

Oh, that's right he 'didn't see the Dog's loss coming'!!!

Well he better get his mind back on the job of coaching otherwise another 'reality bus' is coming his way.

Maybe he can use his payout when he gets sacked to fund this legal venture.

Hird is suing his insurance co for not covering his legal bills!!

I am amused by the irony of that

I'm impressed that he wants to continue to line the pockets of the legal fraternity.

And, speechless at his audacity (albeit his legal right)

Oh, that's right he 'didn't see the Dog's loss coming'!!!

Well he better get his mind back on the job of coaching otherwise another 'reality bus' is coming his way.

He can sue himself for negligence for not seeing the loss coming.