8 minutes ago, Dee voted said:

Normally a medical is part of the process of changing footy clubs - if Monfries had elevated levels of TB-4 in his blood, surprising it didn't show up.

I would doubt that TB-4 testing would comprise any part or a routine medical, but I guess maybe such things will have to become routine, sadly.  Oh how I loathe the EFC for what they have done to our sport. 

That 12 (12!!!!) Players did not take part is the biggest smoking gun for me.

It clearly says there was the option to opt out.

12 players took responsibility for themselves.

34 didn't. 

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

I like your use of 'supposedly'... 'Macca'

edit: I also agree there is a story not yet being told here.

The 12 could have implicated the 34 (early on) just by being honest and candid.

But it didn't happen ... it's why I maintain that the investigative journalistic skills (on the sporting side of things) is poor in this country. Lazy or incompetent or perhaps just negligent.

Just now, Macca said:

The 12 could have implicated the 34 (early on) just by being honest and candid.

But it didn't happen ... it's why I maintain that the investigative journalistic skills (on the sporting side of things) is poor in this country. Lazy or incompetent or perhaps just negligent.

Not many looked very hard in obvious places did they !

Hilarious seeing some of what's written now.

15 minutes ago, monoccular said:

1.  Essendon at that stage hoodwinked the whole football community

2. One shouldn't reward cheats, but this is exactly what the AFL are going to do.  Top up players.  Draft picks based on 2016 outcome.  Salary cap changes and some even suggest assistance.  Prime time scheduling, including ANZAC DAY.  If that isn't rewarding cheating don't know what is. 

Exactly mono it is all about the potential loss of the Essendrug supporter base.

drug cheating is a minor consequence.

the AFL are showing us they are every bit as bad as the East Germans, Russians and Chinese.

 

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

The 12 could have implicated the 34 (early on) just by being honest and candid.

But it didn't happen ... it's why I maintain that the investigative journalistic skills (on the sporting side of things) is poor in this country. Lazy or incompetent or perhaps just negligent.

Well they did interview kyle and he was roundly panned by all and sundry to the point where he should probably be suing some people now (like spike) for defamation 

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

The 12 could have implicated the 34 (early on) just by being honest and candid.

But it didn't happen ... it's why I maintain that the investigative journalistic skills (on the sporting side of things) is poor in this country. Lazy or incompetent or perhaps just negligent.

My father used to tell me.

Never ask a question that you don't want to hear the answer to. 

Seems relevent here.

33 minutes ago, Macca said:

Here are the 12 players that were not issued with infraction notices who were on Essendon's list going into the 2012 season.

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

 

So there's 12 players who did not receive infraction notices - why not?

What did they all not do to escape trouble? ... did they all say no? Were they all frightened of needles like Zaharakis 'supposedly' was?

And why hasn't our media interviewed them? Surely there is a story there ... a big story in my opinion. It's as if they've all been collectively hidden away so as they don't say anything.

We know that Hunter is taking court action but what of the other 10? (apart from Zaharakis) ... as is highlighted above, 4 of them are still active players at the EFC ... do the 34 who were busted wonder why those 4 (plus the other delisted 8 players) were somehow passed over by ASADA/WADA?

There's probably a number of other questions surrounding the (non) dirty dozen.

Essendon's 2012 list

The 34 who were charged (and busted)

 

You bring up an interesting point Macca, I work with Hal Hunters mother and noticed he wasn't named in the Age's list anywhere of banned players. I know his mother is livid that he was injected last time we talked and is scathing of the club, as we would expect and he is taking court action as we know. How odd he is not named?

1 hour ago, biggestred said:

Well they did interview kyle and he was roundly panned by all and sundry to the point where he should probably be suing some people now (like spike) for defamation 

The story broke with the Reimers interview didn't it? (with Barrett)

Yep, he was ostracised but a decent journalist would have isolated the innocent 12 and put a juicy story together.

And it could have happened very early on ... but the answer almost certainly rests with what 'old dee' has intimated in the above post #632

1 hour ago, Earl Hood said:

You bring up an interesting point Macca, I work with Hal Hunters mother and noticed he wasn't named in the Age's list anywhere of banned players. I know his mother is livid that he was injected last time we talked and is scathing of the club, as we would expect and he is taking court action as we know. How odd he is not named?

There are a stack of unanswered questions

I can recommend a good AFL podcast, Junktime AFL. They have a special edition, covering this week's news:

"From Wayne Jackson Studios, Adam and Michael look at all of the ramifications of the Essendon suspensions. Just how will this effect rodeo in Australia? Where will the suspended players train? Who will play James Hird in the movie? And we spare a thought for the forgotten victims: the betting agencies."

http://junktimeafl.libsyn.com/

You can listen directly, using the link above, or subscribe, using your favourite podcast player app.

Green Demon, James Hird to be played by Hans Gruber, the finest villain Bruce Willis ever duelled with.

1 minute ago, Captain Todd said:

Green Demon, James Hird to be played by Hans Gruber, the finest villain Bruce Willis ever duelled with.

I kind of like the idea of Lance Armstrong playing hirdy. Would need a wig though 

8 hours ago, monoccular said:

1.  Essendon at that stage hoodwinked the whole football community

2. One shouldn't reward cheats, but this is exactly what the AFL are going to do.  Top up players.  Draft picks based on 2016 outcome.  Salary cap changes and some even suggest assistance.  Prime time scheduling, including ANZAC DAY.  If that isn't rewarding cheating don't know what is. 

M you have neglected to mention the fact that Esendon managed to secure six first and second round draft picks for trading out five of their compromised players. The fact that they now have Parish and Francis from last year's draft and other future stars makes a mockery of their supposed need for ten "top-up" players to augment the 37 players on their current list (including the five rookies)!

1 hour ago, Macca said:

The story broke with the Reimers interview didn't it? (with Barrett)

Yep, he was ostracised but a decent journalist would have isolated the innocent 12 and put a juicy story together.

And it could have happened very early on ... but the answer almost certainly rests with what 'old dee' has intimated in the above post #626

There are a stack of unanswered questions

As with any tricky and difficult to prove cases, there are are some Implicated parties who are granted immunity if they can provide damning evidence at timely stages of investigations. These wheeling and dealings are usually secretive. Read "protected witnesses". There may be a few friendly informants for the prosecution amongst those twelve. Hasn't anyone watched GOOD FELLAS?

1 minute ago, america de cali said:

As with any tricky and difficult to prove cases, there are are some who are granted immunity that can provide damning evidence at early stages of investigations. These wheeling and dealings are usually secretive. Read "protected witnesses". There may be a few friendly witnesses for the prosecution amongst those twelve.

That's a good point ... and it may just be on the money - perhaps Reimers & Hunter could have been candidates.

Our media is mostly hopelessly compromised though ... in terms of unearthing all the nitty-gritty details, they failed miserably. The public were never fully informed - not even close.

This site and these threads have provided more relevant information.

57 minutes ago, Captain Todd said:

Green Demon, James Hird to be played by Hans Gruber, the finest villain Bruce Willis ever duelled with.

Still find it a bit weird that Hans Gruber and Severus Snape are the same guy....

Made the news on CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/12/sport/afl-essendon-doping-scandal/index.html

 

 

 

1 hour ago, biggestred said:

That 12 (12!!!!) Players did not take part is the biggest smoking gun for me.

It clearly says there was the option to opt out.

12 players took responsibility for themselves.

34 didn't. 

I do think this needs to be investigated. The only one to have been really identified has been Zakariris (sp?) so far for the simple reason he didn't like needles! What are the other reasons? Maybe there are others amongst them who opted out on moral grounds, or dare I say it on the legal grounds as laid down by the WADA code. If this is the case, then clearly they are extremely relevant to this case, and should be heard. If they were, Essendon would hate it!

4 hours ago, biggestred said:

I kind of like the idea of Lance Armstrong playing hirdy. Would need a wig though 

Nah, just needs to back off on the testosterone a smidg.

8 hours ago, Deestar9 said:

Pretty sure bans are from March 2015 to March 2017.  The reason most can come back in November is because you can resume training when you have less than a quarter of your ban left to serve. 

They can come back in November because that's when the bans end. 2 years till March 2017, subtract the 4 ½ months they already served (provisional suspension) puts them in November.

Training allowance is the SHORTER of 1/4 of the ban or 2 months, so in this case, it'll be 2 months. They can start training mid-September.

I am still livid about the AFL immediately coming out and awarding them ten "top-up" players!

When they did this previously (for the three weeks of the NAB Challenge only) they tried to represent the furphy that EFC players were embarked on a 'voluntary 4.5 month suspension' (notwithstanding the fact that on that occasion they continued to train with the rest of the lis)! 

At that stage, they had 34 effected players meaning that they were incapable of fielding a side so there was some (tenuous) justification. This time around, they have less than a quarter of their total list effected (viz. 12 out of 39, including their 5 rookies) so can quite easily field a (weakened) team which is consistent with the position that they dug for themselves. It is I fathomable why the AFL should try and dilute the penalty imposed by the CAS, trying to effectively override arguably the highest authority in World sport.

Esendon (as a Club) should take their medicine alongside their players for their primarily role in this sordid saga. As it is now, the penalty on the EFC has been effectively watered down by 80% due to the reduction of the percentage of guilty players on their list over time, coupled with the latitude given by reducing the ban from two years to a single playing season. Other Clubs, such as Port, the Saints, the Dogs and the Dees, have all been impacted in this without being given 'top-up' players or other compensation for either their suspended players or their foregone first and second round draft picks! Further, the other seventeen Clubs have all lost games in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 seasons to a team comprised primarily of drug cheats! 

Read today that the AFL and Essendon seem to be unsure wether the players can be paid or not.

Hello after years of this being a possibility no body thought to ask the question.

No one on Tueswday rang WADA?

We are being led by some people of poor quality

1 hour ago, CBDees said:

I am still livid about the AFL immediately coming out and awarding them ten "top-up" players!

When they did this previously (for the three weeks of the NAB Challenge only) they tried to represent the furphy that EFC players were embarked on a 'voluntary 4.5 month suspension' (notwithstanding the fact that on that occasion they continued to train with the rest of the lis)! 

At that stage, they had 34 effected players meaning that they were incapable of fielding a side so there was some (tenuous) justification. This time around, they have less than a quarter of their total list effected (viz. 12 out of 39, including their 5 rookies) so can quite easily field a (weakened) team which is consistent with the position that they dug for themselves. It is I fathomable why the AFL should try and dilute the penalty imposed by the CAS, trying to effectively override arguably the highest authority in World sport.

Esendon (as a Club) should take their medicine alongside their players for their primarily role in this sordid saga. As it is now, the penalty on the EFC has been effectively watered down by 80% due to the reduction of the percentage of guilty players on their list over time, coupled with the latitude given by reducing the ban from two years to a single playing season. Other Clubs, such as Port, the Saints, the Dogs and the Dees, have all been impacted in this without being given 'top-up' players or other compensation for either their suspended players or their foregone first and second round draft picks! Further, the other seventeen Clubs have all lost games in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 seasons to a team comprised primarily of drug cheats! 

Damn right, CBD.

And besides, Article 11.2 of the WADA Code says:

'If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are found to have committed an anti-doping violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g. loss of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation.'

I presume that the penalties already imposed on EFC by the AFL can't be construed as a response to this requirement since the players have only now been officially found to have committed the violations (the fines etc were also penalties imposed before the completion of the ASADA investigation and, in any case, were for 'bringing the game into disrepute' not for doping).

What's happened to the AFL's responsibilities under the WADA code?

When it comes to fulfilling their WADA obligations, the AFL are going right to the edge of a cliff, but not going over.

I don't know exactly what their obligations are, but do I know that they are not avoiding them.

I fear they have been duped.

Finally the media publishes the core of CAS's decision!  This article explains it perfectly:http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-essendon-decision--how-could-a-different-decision-emerge-from-the-same-evidence-20160113-gm4q4w.html

Tanner et al have been disingenuous (or haven't read the judgement) at 'being confused' as to how the AFL Tribunal can come to one decision and CAS a different decision.  As I've mentioned in several posts it comes down to the 'strands in a cable' vs the 'links in a chain' approach. 

Extract:

"The links in the chain involved sport scientist Stephen Dank procuring TB-4, it being compounded for Dank, and then Dank administering the TB-4 to the players.  In relation to the first two links, the AFL tribunal found  the evidence was insufficient. Once the chain was broken, the AFL tribunal decided it could not then determine whether Dank administered the peptide and, accordingly, found in favour of the players.

By contrast, WADA adopted the "strand in a cable" approach....Accordingly, WADA set about producing evidence on these "missing links" and attempted to present all the different items of evidence (which constituted 16 separate strands), which alone might have been capable of an innocent explanation, but taken together established guilt to the CAS panel's comfortable satisfaction.

Under the "strand in a cable" analysis, each piece of evidence, or "strand", was not required to bear the entire weight of the standard of proof – because some of the weight could be carried by the other strands.

 Ultimately the CAS panel accepted this more holistic evidentiary approach and focused more on whether there was evidence that Dank handled TB-4 and administered it to the players, rather than when, how and from where he sourced it."

From my reading of the judgement, the 'strands' were things like players: not disclosing supplements to ASADA testers (30 times!), not asking the club doctor, not checking with ASADA/WADA website, consenting to the injection regime, the injection regime being almost identical to that use for TB4, the chemical make up of a supplement was almost identical to that of TB4, it was shown Dank did have TB4 and in quantities he could not have used elsewhere etc etc.

Because the AFL Tribunal could not 'connect the dots' it never even looked at whether Dank administered TB4 to the players!  WADA, didn't try to 'connect the dots'!  Instead opting for the 'strands' approach.  It seems, the AFLPA legal team had not prepared a defense to this approach!  Caught flat footed!

WADA's chief lawyer, Richard Young has successfully used the 'strand in a cable' approach before.  The AFLPA lawyers were given the opportunity by CAS to object to that approach.  Why they didn't absolutely beggars belief!