10 minutes ago, sue said:

It is totally irrelevant whether or not the 'experiment' worked.  They weren't experimenting to see if they could find drugs that would slow the players down or make them better lovers or compose better symphonies than Beethoven.  They were trying to cheat in the game we love. Full Stop.

Nobody is saying they weren't trying to cheat, it is whether it was successful and what level of culpability the players had and whether the millions of dollars of taxpayers money poired into agencies, is like a lot of other government agencies, spent on themselves instead of the task in hand

4 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nobody is saying they weren't trying to cheat, it is whether it was successful and what level of culpability the players had and whether the millions of dollars of taxpayers money poired into agencies, is like a lot of other government agencies, spent on themselves instead of the task in hand

I've said it before the players are 100% responsible for what they put in their bodies, and responsible for keeping records which they have failed to do, if 1 player could produce records suggesting they didn't cheat, the balance of probabilities would shift drastically and i suspect they wouldn't have missed a year, your opinions of the agencies involved is irrelevant, the players are 100% culpable because they failed to do something very simple, and or didn't ask questions around what they were taking to be able to keep these sorts of records. 

 

54 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Whatever substance the Essendon players took was exoerimental, there is no scientific proof it is performance enhancing, that was the whole idea of the program to see if it did

So you think it is possible that Dank/Charter/Hird said "here's some stuff we'd like the players to take. We don't know if it's performance enhancing. In fact it might DETRACT from their performance! But let's stick it in 'em and find out. What's the diff? What's one failed season of footy, it's not like it can affect anyone's career."

 

 

Here's another possibility for you ...

They knew full well it was performance enhancing the whole time.

59 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

The effects are unknown, my point exactly, so if posters think Essendon players had an unfair advantage, then they could be wrong

Oh right. Maybe they were disadvantaged?

So cheating should only be condemned if it works. Got it.

51 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

The soft tissue injuries resulted from young players being overtrained by the 'Weapon'  the fact the players were quite good has no impact

They were charged with taking a banned substance, show me the scientific research, from a reputable source, that says thay substance does enhance performance

As every athletes physiology is different if you are going to be a drug cheat you have to have an individual program tailored for you specifically, not blanket injections and let's see what happens

Dank, Robinson and Hird had everybody conned including the agencies

Hahahaha Post of the year...You are living in your little bubble aern't you, just as you were when the walls were crashing down around Mark Neeld at the MFC

Satyr completely oblivious, and even abusing those who could plainly see what was going on

"Hird Just wanted to con everyone"

Of Course what a great useless strategy, i will just ruin my career and those of others just for a con

 

You are 99 cents in the $ Satyr

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hahahaha Post of the year...You are living in your little bubble aern't you, just as you were when the walls were crashing down around Mark Neeld at the MFC

Satyr completely oblivious, and even abusing those who could plainly see what was going on

"Hird Just wanted to con everyone"

Of Course what a great useless strategy, i will just ruin my career and those of others just for a con

 

You are 99 cents in the $ Satyr

Disagree.  I say Saty brings some sanity to what has often become an hysterical debate on this forum.  Presenting conjecture as fact is always fraught.

 

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Disagree.  I say Saty brings some sanity to what has often become an hysterical debate on this forum.  Presenting conjecture as fact is always fraught.

 

So you think it was all a con too Iva?

I am not privy to the evidence.  All I do know is that the EFC have already been found to be in breach of OH&S Law and are in the process of settling compensation claims, made by their 'employees', out of court.

25 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Hahahaha Post of the year...You are living in your little bubble aern't you, just as you were when the walls were crashing down around Mark Neeld at the MFC

Satyr completely oblivious, and even abusing those who could plainly see what was going on

"Hird Just wanted to con everyone"

Of Course what a great useless strategy, i will just ruin my career and those of others just for a con

 

You are 99 cents in the $ Satyr

i don't abuse or name call SWYL, I leave that to others, anyone can have an opinion on here, but if you have, you should be able to lucidly explain why you have reached that conclusion/opinion.

I have little time for posters who just say my opinion is rubbish or delusional without saying why, everbody else thinks otherwise is not a reason, that means everybody has taken the rumour/conjecture/[censored] presented to them as fact, which as Iv'a says is fraught with danger, and leads to hysterical reaction

Show me in writing where is says that the substance the Essendon players supposedly were injected with, is definitively performance enhancing and not just banned, and I will accept it gave the Essendon players an unfair advantage

, 

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

i don't abuse or name call SWYL, I leave that to others, anyone can have an opinion on here, but if you have, you should be able to lucidly explain why you have reached that conclusion/opinion.

I have little time for posters who just say my opinion is rubbish or delusional without saying why, everbody else thinks otherwise is not a reason, that means everybody has taken the rumour/conjecture/[censored] presented to them as fact, which as Iv'a says is fraught with danger, and leads to hysterical reaction

Show me in writing where is says that the substance the Essendon players supposedly were injected with, is definitively performance enhancing and not just banned, and I will accept it gave the Essendon players an unfair advantage

, 

There is no paperwork. It was shredded and destroyed. 

That should be a Federal offence in itself. 

8 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I am not privy to the evidence.  All I do know is that the EFC have already been found to be in breach of OH&S Law and are in the process of settling compensation claims, made by their 'employees', out of court.

This is what is not getting much coverage - I have no idea if the compensation awards are made public, but it stinks to me. It could be seen by some as a way of staying in the salary cap, yet awarding players with 'compensation' to ensure they sign on.

3 minutes ago, 3183 Dee said:

This is what is not getting much coverage - I have no idea if the compensation awards are made public, but it stinks to me. It could be seen by some as a way of staying in the salary cap, yet awarding players with 'compensation' to ensure they sign on.

No, it is a way of avoiding civil action which would cost considerably more.  The EFC insurers are doing all the work.

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

There is no paperwork. It was shredded and destroyed. 

That should be a Federal offence in itself. 

there is paperwork. see cas findings. players took banned performance enhancing substance tb4. found guilty.

but some people know better than a court

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there is paperwork. see cas findings. players took banned performance enhancing substance tb4. found guilty.

but some people know better than a court

CAS aint a Court.  The rule of Law does not apply to CAS.  Once again, it is the EFC that has been found guilty, by a jurisdiction, with a legislative framework to follow, which is legally binding, that it failed in its obligations, under OH&S Law.  Your assertion just goes to show how far off track this debate can get.

Edited September 16, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

Jake Melksham is a convicted (subject to appeal to Swiss Court) performance enhancing drug cheat, he has to live with it and no amount of rationalisation can change that.

He has also served his significant penalty and deserves every chance to create a new legacy for himself to be remembered by - hopefully as an MFC premiership player.

Edited September 16, 20168 yr by Fifty-5

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

CAS aint a Court.

What does the C stand for?

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there is paperwork. see cas findings. players took banned performance enhancing substance tb4. found guilty.

but some people know better than a court

There is no scientific evidence for a lot of these 'performance enhancing' substances, that is why I say the agencies just ban them anyway, it is a lazy way out, and gives them a justification for their existence

A lot are the substances are experimental and may enhance performance, but as I have said before each athlete's physiology is different and you need individual programs not just blanket injecting

All the players involved should have asked more questions, but when the captain and leadership group acquiesed, the rest followed

Wondering when we were going to mention Melksham on his thread.....

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

There is no scientific evidence for a lot of these 'performance enhancing' substances, that is why I say the agencies just ban them anyway, it is a lazy way out, and gives them a justification for their existence

A lot are the substances are experimental and may enhance performance, but as I have said before each athlete's physiology is different and you need individual programs not just blanket injecting

All the players involved should have asked more questions, but when the captain and leadership group acquiesed, the rest followed

And those are two massive errors that have cost the players a year and smashed their reputations as players and people within the footy world.

7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

What does the C stand for?

Court, but it does not have Judicial power.  It operates under a Code of Procedural Rules, not legislated Regulation and is not subject to the same procedural fairness rules, which a Court of Law would be.  The following sets out the nature of its 'power'

 

Quote

What law do the arbitrators apply ?

I­n the context of ordinary arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. Failing such agreement, Swiss law applies.

In the context of the appeals procedure, the arbitrators rule on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal and, subsidiarily, the law of the country in which the body is domiciled. The procedure itself is governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

 

Edited September 16, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

11 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

CAS aint a Court.  The rule of Law does not apply to CAS.  Once again, it is the EFC that has been found guilty, by a jurisdiction, with a legislative framework to follow, which is legally binding, that it failed in its obligations, under OH&S Law.  Your assertion just goes to show how far off track this debate can get.

of course it is a court, and run by legally qualified practitioners.

it is also part of a jurisdiction process signed onto by all afl players

you are only quibbling

Just now, daisycutter said:

of course it is a court, and run by legally qualified practitioners.

it is also part of a jurisdiction process signed onto by all afl players

you are only quibbling

No I'm not.  I am stating fact.  You are extrapolating the facts  

Thanks to those who genuinely took the time to enlighten, albeit somewhat rudimentally sometimes.....

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Court, but it does not have Judicial power.  It operates under a Code of Procedural Rules, not legislated Regulation and is not subject to the sane procedural fairness  rule which a a Court of Law would be.  The following sets out the nature of its 'power'

 

 

No-one is suggesting the Essendon 34 are convicted criminals.  They are convicted by a tribunal of breaching the regulations of the body concerned i.e. WADA via AFL.

It's like players found guilty of striking at the AFL tribunal.  Are you saying they're are not really guilty because it's not a court of law?

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

The effects are unknown, my point exactly, so if posters think Essendon players had an unfair advantage, then they could be wrong

The point is they took stuff and did not disclose it to ASADA.

Either they knew what it was or they didn't. In both cases they should be banned for 4 years in my view. Cheating, stupidity or both.