1 hour ago, Green Demon said:

Do I have this correct - The EFC Team doctor was excluded from the whole Dank process, and was not made aware of it by anyone in the club, by any of the players?

Surely, that defies belief.

At a minimum, wouldn't the players expect him to be involved in this, if it was all above board?

 

Why didn't the players ask him?

Because it was "black ops". They were in on the secretive nature of this. Reid knew enough to 'allegedly' write a letter that no-one has admitted receiving. Very self-serving. Yet it has come out that Reid knew nothing.. Well it can't be both.

Reid should have known what was going on. That was his job. The supposed fact that the players didn't ask him cooked their goose as well.

And through all of this, the bit I don't get is that you have a bogan like Dank, with no qualifications, saying 'i'm a genius with this stuff, trust me'. It's beyond belief. One look at Dank tells you he is a dodgy character and a charlatan. And not one player sought anther opinion? Please.

 

I agree with your assessment above. If it was above board why didn't Reid know? Why didn't the players tell ASADA what supplements they had been taking?

 

Defies belief, They deserve no sympathy and are as guilty as sin.

 

This may have been addressed before but can someone explain to me why the 2 year penalty was backdated to the date the AFL let them off?  The banned players played during that period which makes no sense to me. 

In reality it's a 23 week ban. 

"A negligence that beggars belief "

Nice editorial in The Age slamming all

(Someone else kindly do the link pls )

Negligence that beggars belief

Warning: The following might be full of errors. Feel free to correct anything that's factually incorrect.

I understand that appeals of CAS decisions are rarely, if ever, pursued. Is it correct that a CAS decision can only be appealed on the application of the law rather than the merits? For what it's worth (and I'm not a lawyer), I would have thought that if the players believe that the outcome (meaning either the penalty or the finding) was manifestly unfair and given that only one of the current players was actually called to give evidence, I wonder whether the grounds necessary to lodge an appeal might have been met? Anyway, has anyone at Essendon or representing the players made absolutely clear that they will not be pursuing an appeal?

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Warning: The following might be full of errors. Feel free to correct anything that's factually incorrect.

I understand that appeals of CAS decisions are rarely, if ever, pursued. Is it correct that a CAS decision can only be appealed on the application of the law rather than the merits? For what it's worth (and I'm not a lawyer), I would have thought that if the players believe that the outcome (meaning either the penalty or the finding) was manifestly unfair and given that only one of the current players was actually called to give evidence, I wonder whether the grounds necessary to lodge an appeal might have been met? Anyway, has anyone at Essendon or representing the players made absolutely clear that they will not be pursuing an appeal?

The only thing I remember being said is the players are " Highly likely" to take action against the club, and the EFC were keen to move on from this.

Not an apologist for Dr Reid but he is mainly a 'game day' doctor. 

He may or may not personally attend all training sessions and he may or may not go to his private consulting or at the club.  There is a fair chance all the injections etc happened when Reid wasn't on the premises. 

That at least one player (who had been his private patient since 1999 ie someone who should have known better) withheld info Dr Reid suggests the good doctor was sidelined, bigtime!

6 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not an apologist for Dr Reid but he is mainly a 'game day' doctor. 

He may or may not personally attend all training sessions and he may or may not go to his private consulting or at the club.  There is a fair chance all the injections etc happened when Reid wasn't on the premises. 

That at least one player (who had been his private patient since 1999 ie someone who should have known better) withheld info Dr Reid suggests the good doctor was sidelined, bigtime!

Yep. And that's how CAS read the situation.

Now that the verdict is in and if AFLPA's conflict of interest with AFL funding, prevents players from suing EFC/AFL I would think some players (or group of players) hire their own legal counsel (ala Hal Hunter) and sue anyway. 

Given AFLPA incompetence in the whole ASADA/WADA/CAS process suggests they should go their own way regardless of what AFLPA want to do...especially those no longer in the AFL.

I would also expect that at some stage a player will do a 'tell all' interview/book.  After all, what have they to lose!  They certainly don't owe anyone in the industry anything!!

Surely, someone will expose Dank and Hird.  So far they could not do that for fear of incriminating themselves.  Those 2 guys let them take the rap - they did nothing to help the players for their own self-preservation.  They sent them into the lion's den and let them be mauled.  The secret is out now so they no longer need to protect the guilty.  Time to spill the beans, fellas!

 

WADA director general Howman.

"Howman said WADA launched the appeal to CAS to ensure the standard of proof required in anti-doping cases was equal worldwide.

"It's not a question extending sympathy (to the players) when you have to administer laws, it's a question of following the process and following the laws properly," Howman said.

"If you stop doing that then you open up avenues of appeal for all sorts of people in all sorts of sports around the world."

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh on Tuesday called for the AFL to consider severing ties with WADA in the wake of CAS' decision.

Howman dismissed Marsh's criticism.

"We cater for all team sports throughout the world," Howman said.

"It's not as though the AFL is alone in this."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-cas-verdict-wada-boss-david-howman-says-players-were-responsible-20160112-gm4l2w.html#ixzz3x4b49Epf
 

One day on - guess it must be time for ASADA/WADA to get back involved and look at the whole club ban that they are able invoke given that they only need 2 people from a club to hit a club ban. Or have they said they won't pursue this type of action?

The 'team sport versus individual sport' distinction is a furphy. A huge number of athletes coming under the WADA code play in team sports.

Jeffy K on the money:

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/some-good-must-come-out-of-this/news-story/a25d6dbb644ebc7cc7675f471cbcf7d6

AFL 360 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVzmUXH5kE

Where is Dank in all of this? Robbo was to scared to say his name. I'd leave town if I was Dank or hire some very burly personal security.

6 minutes ago, Ingeniokinetikey said:

AFL 360 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVzmUXH5kE

Where is Dank in all of this? Robbo was to scared to say his name. I'd leave town if I was Dank or hire some very burly personal security.

Why like Hird he has done nothing wrong and there has been a grave mistake of justice.

On Sunday night, Hird is being interviewed on ABC TV.

By Tracey Holmes.

I anticipate they will both make fools of themselves.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Warning: The following might be full of errors. Feel free to correct anything that's factually incorrect.

I understand that appeals of CAS decisions are rarely, if ever, pursued. Is it correct that a CAS decision can only be appealed on the application of the law rather than the merits? For what it's worth (and I'm not a lawyer), I would have thought that if the players believe that the outcome (meaning either the penalty or the finding) was manifestly unfair and given that only one of the current players was actually called to give evidence, I wonder whether the grounds necessary to lodge an appeal might have been met? Anyway, has anyone at Essendon or representing the players made absolutely clear that they will not be pursuing an appeal?

I would have thought that the only avenue for an individual is to argue that the collective decision was wrong in their own case. ie they had satisfactory evidence that what they were administered was legal.

Now given they have had multiple opportunities to provide such evidence and don't appear to have done so, this appeal avenue would be unlikley.

27 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

On Sunday night, Hird is being interviewed on ABC TV.

By Tracey Holmes.

I anticipate they will both make fools of themselves.

It's a given.

 

BTW Why would she be on Hird's side?

2 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

CAS put a fair bit of stress on the efforts made to keep Reid in the dark about the programme. Whether Reid managed to find out anything or not seems to have been secondary to painting a picture about secrecy and about the deceptions the players were party to.

There's a lot of talk already (in fact, there has been for a long time) about the players suing the club. But I'd be interested to know what the legal minds on Demonland think of the chances of success, given the extent to which the CAS findings implicate the players in maintaining secrecy, not checking substances etc. This is a step well beyond signing consent forms.

Added: this emphasis by CAS on the players themselves is also an obvious case against the 'not suitable for teams' line now being run since it places responsibility and consequences firmly in the hands of individual players.

One imperative about players suing the club or indeed the AFL in my opinion would be to have the Case(s) open to the public for scrutiny.

57 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Jeffy K on the money:

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/some-good-must-come-out-of-this/news-story/a25d6dbb644ebc7cc7675f471cbcf7d6

Never short of an opinion is Jeffy e.g. Clarkson should move on from Hawthorn several years ago, Hawks had the Cats mental measure, Demons should relocate. Likes the sound of his own voice.

29 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

On Sunday night, Hird is being interviewed on ABC TV.

By Tracey Holmes.

I anticipate they will both make fools of themselves.

They're both well past that.

The players will be sueing the club on the basis that the club didn't keep records of what the players were injected with. That's a health matter and something they've plead guilty to in court.

Good luck to them trying to sue for getting the injections - they had every right to say no, as about 10 of them did if we include rookies etc.

1 minute ago, chook fowler said:

Never short of an opinion is Jeffy e.g. Clarkson should move on from Hawthorn several years ago, Hawks had the Cats mental measure, Demons should relocate. Likes the sound of his own voice.

He has had some winners old Jeffy. I was in the long room one day and he was smashing down double scotch on the rocks, then went on radio to blast someone. Can't recall if it was the Clarko rant or another. Was very funny.

This instance I think he has some very valid points especially relating to the AFL, Dill and the Rhodes Scholar.

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

The 'team sport versus individual sport' distinction is a furphy. A huge number of athletes coming under the WADA code play in team sports.

even so-called individual sports operate in a team environment. e.g. the olympic swimming team use the team doctor, team coaches, etc

also many top-level individual sports competitors operate in academy environments where the are expected to use common coaches, doctors, nutritionists etc

10 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I would have thought that the only avenue for an individual is to argue that the collective decision was wrong in their own case. ie they had satisfactory evidence that what they were administered was legal.

Now given they have had multiple opportunities to provide such evidence and don't appear to have done so, this appeal avenue would be unlikley.

Fairly sure the form they signed stated that the substances were legal and that was why they signed it. To me that would give them a legal avenue to sue the club for negligence and deceit.