This is exactly why Essendon should be sued by all 34 players.

The WADA Code is not secretive...These young players have the drug code drummed into them from the day they are drafted, because of this precise outcome.

These players have been deregistered from Football

Do not take any substance you cannot source the legality of....

That means I'm looking at several life bans WYL..I was operating under the dont ask/don't tell system in my defense.

 

Well Said Fifty-5,

My take on this whole thing..

Essendon, at the end of 2011 wanted to be stronger and fitter and wanted a program that in a highly competitive competition that was cutting edge and gave them an advantage over other teams. They got it horribly wrong, and the players unwittingly or not got caught up in it. Fact of the matter is that players are responsible for what goes into their bodies and regardless of the idea of 'team mentality'/peer pressure.

I feel sorry for the players (and their families) because I don't believe any of them 'intentionally' wanted to be taking enhancing drugs and to work outside of the drugs code. But not asking questions is not an excuse either. The penalty is harsh, but fair. I just wish the AFL and Essendon had approached this whole thing in a better way than the arrogance stance that saw them try to control the situation and contrive an outcome which spun out of their control, and caused this wreck.

In terms of players coming back, they have their penalty, they serve it, and then they should be free to being able to play again, I would like a bit more humility or contrition as Fifty-5 has said, but that might come with time.

I also think some people read too much into the drug cheat label also... If these players are serious about wanting to play and move past this, you would think that they would be prime candidates for assisting with drug and education programs in sport/schools etc.. Plenty of people have stuffed up their lives in one form or another, it's how you learn from the mistakes that defines you and makes you better. These players do deserve that opportunity equally as much as they deserve the punishment that's in front of them currently.

I am having trouble putting four names together ESSENDON.....PLAYERS......GAME.....and KIDS

The AFL has forgotten the last two obviously and we should not or else they will.

Sorry if this has been raised/asked before in this looooong thread (or the other JM thread), but which of our rookies do we think will be the elevated to replace JM? The chosen player will, to some extent (maybe substantially?), offset or compensate for the lost year of JM's services.

Another possible 'offset' to the damage for us, by the way, is what might be unfolding for how Essendon can accommodate its additional players in their salary cap: that is, I suspect, that there will be an AFL-proposed/endorsed arrangement that the suspended players, because they are not 'playing', will become outside the player salary cap (though maybe not the 'taxable' football department spend). So JM would go outside our cap, if that is relevant to the rookie, or for some other reason.

 

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career.

Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

The consequence of a doctor breaking the rules are slightly more severe than players taking banned substances. And even then it is nearly impossible to get a doctor banned for life from the profession. 

Murderers don't even get life sentences here. To say that players should be banned for life is very harsh given it was a club driven program 

 

I don't really know where I stand on it all in terms of the ban, but I don't see how you can argue picking up Melksham was not a mistake. If we got him for peanuts, maybe, but we gave up a decent pick for a player who will spend his first year sitting on the sidelines. Would you trade a second rounder for Melksham if he had just done his ACL and was going to be out for the next season? I certainly wouldn't. And it is not as if this wasn't foreseeable.

Melksham needs to come out absolutely firing in 2017, and considering Simon Goodwin was behind picking him up, it also applies a little extra pressure to the start of his coaching career in 2017.

This is late, I know, but we gave up pick 2 last year for Petracca, and he won't be seen until at least half way through this year.......

 

This is late, I know, but we gave up pick 2 last year for Petracca, and he won't be seen until at least half way through this year.......

relevance?

the big difference btw paul marsh and other former aflpa ceo's is that he has no ambition beyond his current role.

 

this whole thing is such a shemozzle.

 

I take cheating seriously.

I don't want to support another club, I want to keep on supporting the club I have all my life. I just want the club I love to not have a drug cheat on its list.

Honestly I struggle to understand how some of you guys are ok with it. Melksham noew being at the MFC doesn't mitigate what he did.

I also take cheating seriously Choke as indicated in all of my previous comments on the likely impacts when I predicted that Essendon were doing exactly that.

I also believe in restitution and rehabilitation 

I would like to think the club knew Melksham would be found quilty and were helping ameliorate the impact on the competition by taking a good player from Essendon and allowing them to pick up a high draft pick.

We shouldnt have to pay him this season as he would not have been paid at Essendon but we were probably able to negotiate a better 4 year deal they could offer given they were uncertain of their position.

I would also like to hear him and the others involved declare that they had cheated (even if under the spell of Hird Bomber etc ) and regretted their actions more specifically then covering up the circumstances again under the duress of the Essendon club. That they now intend to ensure they reach their potential without performance enhancing drugs and apply themselves even more diligently as they do this.

We can use Melksham at the club as a reinforcement of the impact of drug taking and hopefully have an improved club and culture as a consequence.

We can in short make more positives from this than most clubs and of course when we play Essendon and your opponent is calling for the ball you can casually ask them if that has been approved by WADA. Until that club acknowledges its wrong (cheating) they will not be restored.

 

I also take cheating seriously Choke as indicated in all of my previous comments on the likely impacts when I predicted that Essendon were doing exactly that.

I also believe in restitution and rehabilitation 

I would like to think the club knew Melksham would be found quilty and were helping ameliorate the impact on the competition by taking a good player from Essendon and allowing them to pick up a high draft pick.

We shouldnt have to pay him this season as he would not have been paid at Essendon but we were probably able to negotiate a better 4 year deal they could offer given they were uncertain of their position.

I would also like to hear him and the others involved declare that they had cheated (even if under the spell of Hird Bomber etc ) and regretted their actions more specifically then covering up the circumstances again under the duress of the Essendon club. That they now intend to ensure they reach their potential without performance enhancing drugs and apply themselves even more diligently as they do this.

We can use Melksham at the club as a reinforcement of the impact of drug taking and hopefully have an improved club and culture as a consequence.

We can in short make more positives from this than most clubs and of course when we play Essendon and your opponent is calling for the ball you can casually ask them if that has been approved by WADA. Until that club acknowledges its wrong (chaeting) they will not be restored.

I doubt that will happen with any of the 34 ... one breaking ranks can implicate the rest (although we now know the players signed consent forms allowing the club (the EFC) to administer the "supplements") Hunter broke ranks but he wasn't one of the 34 (and so far, he's out there on his own ... none of the other 12 players (who weren't charged) have taken any action - yet)

No, they will all continue to proclaim their innocence no matter how much evidence comes to light. That's my take on it anyway - I may be wrong but some "pacts" can remain awfully strong. I also believe that many of the 34 genuinely believe that they are completely innocent. As for my take on things, I've stated those opinions on the other relevant threads.

There's not too many busted drug cheats who have later admitted their wrong doing. Martin Vinnecombe is one and I suppose Armstrong is another (in Armstrong's case, I believe he had a motive in confessing - some his and some because he had little choice)

Anyway, as you intimated dpositive, hopefully some good will come out of this almighty mess.

Most times in life, a person deserves a 2nd chance (depending on the deed that is done of course) ... in this instance, Melksham will get another chance and I support that (even though I'm dead against PED use in sport)

It should also be noted that our club recruited Melksham before the CAS hearing began (Nov 15) ... people's opinions on the verdict changed in the time frame from just before, during and after the hearing was finished. Not many were predicting a year out for the 34 back in October (when we recruited Melksham)

Edited January 16, 20169 yr by Macca

 

I agree with much of what you wrote, but not with the sentence above.  It was more than not asking questions. Why did they not mention the perfectly 'legal' injections when ASADA made its regular inquiries if they had nothing to hide?  There is no innocent answer to that as several posters have demonstrated,

Hi Sue,

You are correct, my words were trying to infer intent of the players to do something illegal from the outset. I suspect that the players knew things would have been 'right on the edge' they were asked to buy in as a group to the program and to keep it to themselves.

But at this point .... if the players were told to keep things from the doctors of the clubs, how this DIDN"T raise alarm bells with any players, or how any of the coaching staff didn't get wind of this is astounding. Further on from this when ASADA began to investigate, the players withholding information could have been as much to do with fear (still not a valid excuse) as much as anything. 

Bottom line if they don't think they did anything wrong with the program and didn't think it was illegal, why wouldn't you tell ASADA in the regular tests etc in regards to supplements, it doesn't make any sense. But then again, none of this does.

 

 

I would like to think the club knew Melksham would be found guilty and were helping ameliorate the impact on the competition by taking a good player from Essendon and allowing them to pick up a high draft pick.

Wow.

 

 

 

Bottom line if they don't think they did anything wrong with the program and didn't think it was illegal, why wouldn't you tell ASADA in the regular tests etc in regards to supplements, it doesn't make any sense. But then again, none of this does.

 

 

I've tried and failed to think up plausible excuses for the players not reporting the injections.  Here's a new attempt (boy am I leaning over backwards for these cheats):

I wonder if they didn't report it to ASADA partly (if not wholly) simply because of embarrassment caused by not knowing what they were being injected with.  What would you do if faced with a form which stated "please list any supplements you have had in the last x months' and you had no idea what they were?

 

Edited January 16, 20169 yr by sue

 

I've tried and failed to think up plausible excuses for the players not reporting the injections.  Here's a new attempt (boy am I leaning over backwards for these cheats):

I wonder if they didn't report it to ASADA because partly (if not wholly) simply embarrassment caused by not knowing what they were being injected with.  What would you do if faced with a form which stated "please list any supplements you have had in the last x months' and you had no idea what they were?

 

That's if we assume that the players had no idea of what they were injected with ... I've never assumed that and I'm baffled as to why most seem to assume that they didn't know what they were being injected with.

I suppose if one is told something hundreds of times one might be inclined to believe that something.

 

That's if we assume that the players had no idea of what they were injected with ... I've never assumed that and I'm baffled as to why most seem to assume that they didn't know what they were being injected with.

I suppose if one is told something hundreds of times one might be inclined to believe that something.

The reason people assume they didn't know is because a) that's what Essendon said (yeah, I know) and b) it seems implausible that 34 (or more) players would knowingly and willingly be injected with a banned substance. Surely with a group that large, someone's conscience is going to kick in at some point.

 

The reason people assume they didn't know is because a) that's what Essendon said (yeah, I know) and b) it seems implausible that 34 (or more) players would knowingly and willingly be injected with a banned substance. Surely with a group that large, someone's conscience is going to kick in at some point.

And 12 players look like said NO ... so it's entirely plausable that 34 willingly "went along with things" and 12 decided not to. 

It's the other 12 players that were on Essendon's list at the time that many have conveniently put aside. 

 

And 12 players look like said NO ... so it's entirely plausable that 34 willingly "went along with things" and 12 decided not to. 

It's the other 12 players that were on Essendon's list at the time that many have conveniently put aside. 

Fair point. I always thought Zaharakis "I fear needles" when he apparently has a tattoo on his arse sounded like an excuse for getting out of it without appearing to be dissenting. 

 

 

That's if we assume that the players had no idea of what they were injected with ... I've never assumed that and I'm baffled as to why most seem to assume that they didn't know what they were being injected with.

I suppose if one is told something hundreds of times one might be inclined to believe that something.

 

I'm not assuming it either. Just on my relentless crusade to turn up improbable excuses for the players.

 

Fair point. I always thought Zaharakis "I fear needles" when he apparently has a tattoo on his arse sounded like an excuse for getting out of it without appearing to be dissenting. 

I didn't know about the tattoo ... if that is true it might seem funny to some, but it pours cold water on the " I fear needles" rot ... but, even armed with that knowledge (if it's true), many would still believe the spin about Zaharakis.

I've already stated that I'd happily welcome back Melksham into the fold after he serves his time but here's the list of the 12 players (again) who were not issued with the infraction notices ... they were all on Essendon's list going into their 2012 season (when the injection program was in full swing) There is speculation that these 12 players did not sign the consent forms

Currently listed

Mark Baguley

Courtenay Dempsey

Jackson Merrett

David Zaharakis

Delisted

Anthony Long, Lauchlan Dalgleish, Jason Winderlich, Elliott Kavanagh, Nick O'Brien, Michael Ross, Kyle Reimers

Hal Hunter

 

Depending on the way the question is phrased, I'm not sure if I was player being asked the question that I would have automatically assumed that an "injection" is the same thing as a "supplement". I would have thought supplements come in other forms taken orally, such as powders, tablets and muesli bars. Having said that, I haven't heard any player say that was the case for them.

 

Depending on the way the question is phrased, I'm not sure if I was player being asked the question that I would have automatically assumed that an "injection" is the same thing as a "supplement". I would have thought supplements come in other forms taken orally, such as powders, tablets and muesli bars. Having said that, I haven't heard any player say that was the case for them.

who said the form or questioner used exactly and only the word "supplement". seems you are making a big assumption there

 

who said the form or questioner used exactly and only the word "supplement". seems you are making a big assumption there

dc, I'm making no assumptions at all. The point I was making is that IF there is no other context to make it clear, I'm not sure that I would automatically realise that an "injection" is a "supplement". But I don't know the context. 

 

I'm not assuming it either. Just on my relentless crusade to turn up improbable excuses for the players.

Improbable excuses don't make the situation any better for the players. When you think of it, the lack of any excuses probable or otherwise, just make it easier to understand the CAS judgement and the sanctions against the players.

 

It's an opinion forum Stuie, you of all people should know that.

I think if we have someone on our list who is a confirmed drug cheat, and he passed our character test, then our character test needs updating.

Exactly. The test failed. Not the player. But hey this saga breeds revisionist appraisal.

This article on the AFL site about Jake Carlisle suggests that due to his ban his contract will last a year longer than it initially would have. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but is this the case with all the banned 34? i.e. with Melksham's contract not begin until next season?

2 hours ago, Good Times Grimes said:

This article on the AFL site about Jake Carlisle suggests that due to his ban his contract will last a year longer than it initially would have. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but is this the case with all the banned 34? i.e. with Melksham's contract not begin until next season?

it's purely up to each club, and of course the player involved this started with essendon who said they would offer an extra year on the contract to their players. so far i don't know if any or how many players have taken up the offer. in essendon's case it is more about trying to compensate players and encourage them not to leave the club as dfas or trades (which is likely at least for some)

can't see mfc offering melksham an extra year at this stage. would be smarter and prudent to see what condition he comes back in sept and how he performs in 2017 season. but you never know