On 25/01/2016 at 06:41, Lucifer's Hero said:

Interesting to read that Dr Reid gave evidence via video link to CAS - first time I've heard that.  He has been completely exonerated by CAS.  It is a bit shameful that the AFL went after him they way they did. 

Overall, it certainly reads like it was an open and shut case! 

 

Might be exonerated...but definitely guilty as to absolving him (Reid) I'm not so quick.

Fantastic Summary:  Why can't our journalists summarise the case like that. Its a shame Robbo will never read it and certainly could never understand it. Chip Le Grande is the only one who comes close to the level of investigative journalism and intellect required to explain the tragedy and the intent and guilt of those involved.

A slight shiver down the spine when I was reminded of Melbourne's contact with Dank... We dodged a bullet there..more good luck than good management I suspect.

 

 

 

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:02, Bigred said:

Fantastic Summary:  Why can't our journalists summarise the case like that. Its a shame Robbo will never read it and certainly could never understand it. Chip Le Grande is the only one who comes close to the level of investigative journalism and intellect required to explain the tragedy and the intent and guilt of those involved.

A slight shiver down the spine when I was reminded of Melbourne's contact with Dank... We dodged a bullet there..more good luck than good management I suspect.

 

We would've rolled over, admitted guilt, and had our entire list serve a full 2 years on the sidelines.

 

The convicted drug cheats only lose 12 of 34, for 1 year, with ZERO team penalty.

 

I think we all know the path to take when we feel like cheating.......essedon, the drug fuelled cheaters, wrote a lovely script to follow.

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 09:54, beelzebub said:

Might be exonerated...but definitely guilty as to absolving him (Reid) I'm not so quick.

Yes evidence on Reid a little bit grey as to be thoughtful.

I do feel things are going to warm up soon though for a few people. It's like having the last several pages missing out of a ripping yarn the way it is at the moment...

  On 25/01/2016 at 10:02, Bigred said:

Fantastic Summary:  Why can't our journalists summarise the case like that. Its a shame Robbo will never read it and certainly could never understand it. Chip Le Grande is the only one who comes close to the level of investigative journalism and intellect required to explain the tragedy and the intent and guilt of those involved.

A slight shiver down the spine when I was reminded of Melbourne's contact with Dank... We dodged a bullet there..more good luck than good management I suspect.
 

 

From the article:

"The key take-away point is that Thymomodulin is not a Thymosin. This needs to be kept in mind when it is claimed that the players were injected with Thymomodulin. Mr Dank demonstrated his awareness of this difference, when Mark Robinson from the Herald Sun asked him if he had ordered ‘Thymosin’ for the Melbourne Demons. Mr Dank replied: ‘No. It was Thymomodulin.’"

IF we had not dodged that bullet, I would suggest it would have been the end of our club after the tanking saga, and our on-field performances recently. 

We have seen the effect it has had on Essendon to date, with more to come, when civil actions are brought to the courts by the 34. 

Our whole history could have been wiped out by this quack.

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 05:16, Whispering_Jack said:

Top 15 questions answered

This bloke has a fairly sound knowledge of the situation. 

A law student, I believe.

Great article. Answered the questions well and filled in some holes. 

  On 25/01/2016 at 07:05, Whispering_Jack said:

Astute observer but not the Social Litigator who is someone else altogether.

He links to the social littigator within the article. Her name is Natalie Hickey. 

The players knew they would be found guilty, they just thought the panel would give them a no fault reduction, all along the players have been looking for loopholes, if only the players asked Dr reid about tb-4 then all of this would not have happened, they tried to keep secrets and we all know when u keep secrets it looks bad, often the cover up is worse then the crime, when the 34 tried to keep it secret how can anyone believe them now?

Jobe should definitely keep his Brownlow though

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 13:40, biggestred said:

Jobe should definitely keep his Brownlow though

 

Yeah, poor bugger.

 

The only thing he did wrong was being injected with a banned, performance enhancing drug, and as anyone in the afl will tell you, its not really worth suspending anyone over.

 

Maybe he should be awarded this years also.  

  On 22/01/2016 at 06:31, biggestred said:

Just more propaganda in the fight to get the AFL to move away from the WADA code.

dont forget - the code is there so that clean athletes can participate fairly and so that athlete health isnt jeopardised by ingesting unknown substances or unsupervised quantities of substances. Sound familiar??

Sure.......but the TV deal is really important.   Suspension of an entire club would hit revenue deeply, especially an "important club"  

  On 22/01/2016 at 10:43, Sir Why You Little said:

Once the TV Rights deals were into the $ Billions it was always going to get dirty. I am just a little suprised at how quickly it has happened. 

The AFL funding the PA is just wrong...

Interesting that Peter Gordon, with all his legalese, hasn't mentioned this huge conflict of interest issue. 

I can see why Gordon is looking at an appeal with an injunction to allow his players to play and therefore avoid the CAS result pending its outcome. It allows Crameri to play out another year of his contract and who knows if he'll be needed next year?

Who knows how many of the remaining 12 at Essendon would be required players next year or would want to play there? In the event that they get an injunction, the process will only keep this hanging over their heads for another 12 months. But do they really want that?

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 19:30, The Oracle said:

I can see why Gordon is looking at an appeal with an injunction to allow his players to play and therefore avoid the CAS result pending its outcome. It allows Crameri to play out another year of his contract and who knows if he'll be needed next year?

Who knows how many of the remaining 12 at Essendon would be required players next year or would want to play there? In the event that they get an injunction, the process will only keep this hanging over their heads for another 12 months. But do they really want that?

I doubt it 'Oracle'.  I reckon some, maybe a lot of players will take their medicine.  Just get it over and done with. 

The Argentinian appeal case Gordon refers seems significantly different to this one.  The odds of winning an appeal seem minute.  I would hope Melksham sits it out even if there is an injunction.  Then he will have 3 years clear run to fulfill his contract and repay the faith.

I was wondering if mfc foresaw he might get suspended (for some months if not all season) and gave him a training program before the verdict just in case.  We probably recruited accordingly - maybe it was easier giving Jones a rookie spot - experienced on baller for experienced on baller.  I wouldn't be surprised by such proactiveness as we aren't asking for a top-up player. 

And we have been ahead of the game in other list management areas in recent years. 

 

  On 25/01/2016 at 11:04, Chris said:

He links to the social littigator within the article. Her name is Natalie Hickey. 

Was orinally a contributor but seems to have his own pages now.

Matters not. Some very good dissection of the whole issue.

Maybe Gordon should try to understand it  

I don't think he does lol

  On 25/01/2016 at 17:28, monoccular said:

Sure.......but the TV deal is really important.   Suspension of an entire club would hit revenue deeply, especially an "important club"  

Interesting that Peter Gordon, with all his legalese, hasn't mentioned this huge conflict of interest issue. 

Gordon is conflicted himself.

Do the players have to give their permission for ANY appeal to go ahead?

  On 26/01/2016 at 00:39, willmoy said:

Do the players have to give their permission for ANY appeal to go ahead?

Yes

  On 26/01/2016 at 00:39, willmoy said:

Do the players have to give their permission for ANY appeal to go ahead?

i'd imagine that only the legal representatives of those charged and suspended (the players) could lodge an appeal. obviously with the assent of the players who would be exposed to the expenses of any appeal

the rest is just "noise"

I wouldn't dismiss Peter Gordon lightly. He's a specialist in class actions and this class of 34 may be able to identify sufficient grounds for appeal. If it is correct as claimed somewhere (in The Age today, perhaps?) that one of the 34 ceased his involvement in the injection program before TB-4 was ever introduced, that player clearly has been unfairly treated by CAS. I'm not arguing the facts - I don't know whether that claim is true, false or provable. But ask yourself this question: If Jake Melksham was that player and it can be clearly demonstrated that he could not have been injected with TB-4, is it fair that he cannot play for us this year? And if the process has failed that one player, I think it raises doubts about the whole CAS process which may be worthy of an appeal.

  On 26/01/2016 at 00:48, beelzebub said:

Yes

All of them? Or just any one of them? And if one appeals, does the decision of that one stand for all players of just the one who appeals?

  On 25/01/2016 at 21:41, beelzebub said:

Was orinally a contributor but seems to have his own pages now.

Matters not. Some very good dissection of the whole issue.

Maybe Gordon should try to understand it  

I don't think he does lol

There arent any ambulances to chase so he doesn't seem to quite get it  

  On 26/01/2016 at 00:39, willmoy said:

Do the players have to give their permission for ANY appeal to go ahead?

interesting to me how much talk there is about appealling. what about " its gone on for so long....just get it over with....the pressure involved in the wait is worse than any sentence" what all that really meant was "hurry up and find us innocent" because now they were found guilty everyone seems to want the process to continue. 

As its Australia day I have to add this. Ive always felt it was the Australian way to be "clean athletes" that we cared about that side of things. ...and Ive always judged  harshly the shadowy worlds of the eastern europeans etc . If an Aussie won a medal it would give me extra pleasure to know it was "clean". The way Fitzpatrick in particular, but all  the AFL bigwigs as well as MOST of the media has responded to all of this has been very disillusioning.  Now theres talk about leaving the WADA code?! wtf is going on. Seems like what we really care about is image and brand protection...and drugs  are ok. Is this the new Australia?

Another gripe on the same lines . Why does everyone still talk about the bombers  "suppliment program" it was a performance enhancing drug program. Wouldnt it have been great in the tanking saga if it had been referred to as our troubled "list management strategy"

  On 26/01/2016 at 01:05, Wells 11 said:

interesting to me how much talk there is about appealling. what about " its gone on for so long....just get it over with....the pressure involved in the wait is worse than any sentence" what all that really meant was "hurry up and find us innocent" because now they were found guilty everyone seems to want the process to continue. 

As its Australia day I have to add this. Ive always felt it was the Australian way to be "clean athletes" that we cared about that side of things. ...and Ive always judged  harshly the shadowy worlds of the eastern europeans etc . If an Aussie won a medal it would give me extra pleasure to know it was "clean". The way Fitzpatrick in particular, but all  the AFL bigwigs as well as MOST of the media has responded to all of this has been very disillusioning.  Now theres talk about leaving the WADA code?! wtf is going on. Seems like what we really care about is image and brand protection...and drugs  are ok. Is this the new Australia?

Another gripe on the same lines . Why does everyone still talk about the bombers  "suppliment program" it was a performance enhancing drug program. Wouldnt it have been great in the tanking saga if it had been referred to as our troubled "list management strategy"

I havent as yet paid my membership for this year. Nothing to do with the club and everythung to do with the issues you point to here. I think i might send an email to the club explaining that i will not support any team within a code that condines PED use the way the AFL are. I wont be paying my memebership untill the AFL make there ongoing support of the code crystal clear and stop all this embarrasing noise. I know the club are the ones to suffer but i have no other choice. Maybe an email to the club, or many saying the same thing to all clubs will be what it takes to get them to take it seriously. If the do split from WADA then i walk from the sport as a whole, my guess is that i wouldn't be the only one.

  On 26/01/2016 at 00:55, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

All of them? Or just any one of them? And if one appeals, does the decision of that one stand for all players of just the one who appeals?

Only a player giving assent can lodge appeal.

If a group agree they can be represented as such.

There will be no appeals. It's brouhaha rubbish espoused by fools not understanding the process. Just verbage designed for club member's ingestion. 

  On 26/01/2016 at 00:53, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I wouldn't dismiss Peter Gordon lightly. He's a specialist in class actions and this class of 34 may be able to identify sufficient grounds for appeal. If it is correct as claimed somewhere (in The Age today, perhaps?) that one of the 34 ceased his involvement in the injection program before TB-4 was ever introduced, that player clearly has been unfairly treated by CAS. I'm not arguing the facts - I don't know whether that claim is true, false or provable. But ask yourself this question: If Jake Melksham was that player and it can be clearly demonstrated that he could not have been injected with TB-4, is it fair that he cannot play for us this year? And if the process has failed that one player, I think it raises doubts about the whole CAS process which may be worthy of an appeal.

Suggest you read Fahey"s comments. Sums it up. Also read Chris Kiais 15 questions answered. ( worth the effort )