Hello this guy is taken leave with pay. Drug cheating does pay a lot like crime !!!!

It's all very black and white. The problem is the 'massive' grey area in between.

For example (in my opinion only) the weight should bare down on the senior players mostly. They are generally responsible for the culture provided to the young up and coming players who look to them for inspiration and direction/directives. Any players who were under say 23yo(?) at the time are the the ones I feel should've received a slightly lesser penalty.

Having said that I believe the people more responsible got off very lightly......

On 20/2/2016 at 9:16 PM, ENYAW said:

Hello this guy is taken leave with pay. Drug cheating does pay a lot like crime !!!!

I know, it is disgraceful. The AFL shouldn't incentivize drug cheating the way they do. I expect they will do away with WADA soon. First the AFL reward Essendon (as a club) with inclusion in the upcoming draft, and then they reward the players financially. If the AFL get their way (and do away with WADA), then the next time this type of thing happens, they will just cover it up - like they cover everything else up.

I reckon Jake's ban is going to push Salem's move to the midfield back an extra year.

23 minutes ago, Peter Griffen said:

I reckon Jake's ban is going to push Salem's move to the midfield back an extra year.

And Grimes gets a ninth life on the wing.

22 minutes ago, Peter Griffen said:

I reckon Jake's ban is going to push Salem's move to the midfield back an extra year.

Doubt it very much. Any of Hunt, Wagner or White should step up to the plate. (I'm aware the latter two are rookies).

On 18 February 2016 at 11:46 AM, Chris said:

The ban includes getting any instruction from the club about what training you do, i.e they can't put a program together for you. In the article Roos talks about Milkshake going for a run to two every week until June July before he ramps up what he is doing. If you are really strict on the interpretation you could construe this as instruction from the club. The AFL wont have a problem with it as they would like to see the banned players running around with the rest of the team, ASADA or WADA may have a quiet word though and say that he is close to the line of instructing. 

AFL rule 1:

one rule for "marquee clubs":  another for "also rans", those that are there to make up the numbers. 

Edited February 21, 20169 yr by monoccular
Correct bloody auto text

17 clubs should gang up on the AFL and Essendon.Drug cheating whether it is deliberate or not is still an offence.The AFL need to have rules in place to discourage cheating and not reward. ASADA was a waste of time as WADA could over ride their decision. We as a club should get a refund from Essendon i.e one of their draft picks. Jake in a year's  time might not be the player some of us would expect to be. He could end up being damaged goods,then what ?

27 minutes ago, ENYAW said:

17 clubs should gang up on the AFL and Essendon.Drug cheating whether it is deliberate or not is still an offence.The AFL need to have rules in place to discourage cheating and not reward. ASADA was a waste of time as WADA could over ride their decision. We as a club should get a refund from Essendon i.e one of their draft picks. Jake in a year's  time might not be the player some of us would expect to be. He could end up being damaged goods,then what ?

I think you mean the AFL was a waste of time. It was the AFL tribunal decision that WADA appealed, not ASADA's

It was a case of buyer beware, the club knew what they were getting into.

On 12 January 2016 at 7:53 AM, Deecisive said:

They are footballers, they made the mistake of taking the easy way out by not having to think about what they were given. They mistakenly trusted/believed their Coaches and doctors, etc would do the right thing the legal thing. I doubt even Herd knew or even cared what Dank's did to the degree needed to assure himself everything was ok with his program. Who even knows if Danks told them the truth to the players anyway on what they were given, if that was the case how far does a player have to go to validate what goes into his body if the guy leading the program tells him its one thing but gives him another. Jake will serve his time and then be eligible to play again. I want him in our team rather than having him playing against us for some other side that has not chosen to climb to the lofty high ground you aspire to. Given your logic Trengrove should be dismissed, if someone slipped something into Hogans drink and he tested positive would you discard him permanently/as quickly.

There are levels of culpability I believe these guys are innocent of willingly taking illegal drugs, but they most likely did take them so they serve the time.

It's Hird not Herd and there is no need for an apostrophe and an 's' in Dank. Yes Trengove should be in as much trouble as the Essendon players. Jamar ironically is now an Essendon player. I'm happy for both to be banned for a year. If someone slips something into a player's drink that is a serious criminal offence and that person is liable to prosecution.

Edited February 27, 20169 yr by Diamond
Mistake

Just now, Diamond said:

It's Hird not Herd and there is no need for an apostrophe and an 's' in Dank. Yes Trengove should be in as much trouble as the Essendon players. Jamar ironically is now an Essendon player. I'm happy for both to be banned for a year. If someone slips something into a player's drink that is a serious criminal offence and that person is liable to prosecution.

I love how your first sentence is simply you being pedantic about grammar, and then you need to edit your own work for a mistake.  Classic.

Sue the Tird.he's rogered the comp.

Edited February 28, 20169 yr by Biffen

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned on Demonland is the AFL has said that Melksham's salary doesn’t go under Melbourne’s salary cap this year.  Therefore meaning Melb could potentially have an extra 400-500K free cap space to roll over into next year’s cap which potentially could be used to lure an out of contract player with a front ended contracted to the tune of let’s say 400-500K???

10 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned on Demonland is the AFL has said that Melksham's salary doesn’t go under Melbourne’s salary cap this year.  Therefore meaning Melb could potentially have an extra 400-500K free cap space to roll over into next year’s cap which potentially could be used to lure an out of contract player with a front ended contracted to the tune of let’s say 400-500K???

 

It was mentioned recently in the press and particularly good news for Port as it might free up a lazy $1M for them. Perhaps a positive spin for our Club might be the extra salary cap we have next year in addition to the new recruit in Melksham.

who is this Melksham many speak of.... ???  

58 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned on Demonland is the AFL has said that Melksham's salary doesn’t go under Melbourne’s salary cap this year.  Therefore meaning Melb could potentially have an extra 400-500K free cap space to roll over into next year’s cap which potentially could be used to lure an out of contract player with a front ended contracted to the tune of let’s say 400-500K???

Discussed at length in the 'Bombers' thread, a few days ago.  In summary, the benefit to mfc is likely to be around $200k.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

who is this Melksham many speak of.... ???  

Some drug cheat who once was coached by Tanya's Golden Haired Toy Boy. I can member his name.

2 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned on Demonland is the AFL has said that Melksham's salary doesn’t go under Melbourne’s salary cap this year.  Therefore meaning Melb could potentially have an extra 400-500K free cap space to roll over into next year’s cap which potentially could be used to lure an out of contract player with a front ended contracted to the tune of let’s say 400-500K???

 

That money towards Jack or Sidebottom via free agency would considerably upgrade the midfield for 2017 onwards.

37 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

That money towards Jack or Sidebottom via free agency would considerably upgrade the midfield for 2017 onwards.

It will be going straight in Hogan's wallet.

2 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

Some drug cheat who once was coached by Tanya's Golden Haired Toy Boy. I can member his name.

FMD!!!

Just now, Bitter but optimistic said:

FMD!!!

And FMD again!!!!!

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

who is this Melksham many speak of.... ???  

 

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

who is this Melksham many speak of.... ???  

Bub, I think he was a prospective new employee that was selected without a full reference check and a decision was made to select him against the better judgement of those that had closely followed a saga called Essendope. But there again we have a coach....no better stop there.....it gets worse. Shush we had better not go there because after all he did not take the field but rather as a coach set an example that the players felt they should follow. That's what I call leadership. But God almighty where was the wise counsel at the MFC? Oh, I forgot, we are only talking about a footy club not an organisation set up to ensure the maintenance of ethical standards!

Why should drug cheats get payed for a year's holiday and the non cheats have to work. Isn't in a footballers contract,you take a banned substance you no get paid.