This might have been answered already, but is Chip Le Grand's book on this saga worth a read?  It's relatively cheap for the Kindle version and might check it out... if it's worth it that is.  Cheers.

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

This might have been answered already, but is Chip Le Grand's book on this saga worth a read?  It's relatively cheap for the Kindle version and might check it out... if it's worth it that is.  Cheers.

You a fiction or non fiction type ?

Just now, beelzebub said:

You a fiction or non fiction type ?

I take it you don't rate it?

The judgement itself is the most conclusive reading. 

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I take it you don't rate it?

There's a lot of the story in there for sure. He gives his slant to some events. 

If cheap....read it. Some chaff amongst the wheat

Not worth the full price though ...imho

35 minutes ago, 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.

ignoring that your post is hypothetical, you would first need to find the missing records of the injection regime and secondly you are ignoring the fact that intention to take banned substances is in itself an indictable offence and signing the "waiver" demonstrates intent.

13 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I take it you don't rate it?

just have a look at the book cover, and tell me what direction he is coming from

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_MRE170_a_TWT&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jeffrey-browne-says-jobe-watson-should-be-allowed-to-keep-his-2012-brownlow-medal/news-story/aabec6e2b2b172d3683b11a60d6217ea&memtype=anonymous

How about the other 600 clean athletes??

2 minutes ago, biggestred said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_MRE170_a_TWT&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jeffrey-browne-says-jobe-watson-should-be-allowed-to-keep-his-2012-brownlow-medal/news-story/aabec6e2b2b172d3683b11a60d6217ea&memtype=anonymous

How about the other 600 clean athletes??

given this guy is an ex afl employed lawyer it should give you an insight into the type of logic that prevails within afl house when they are trying to "manage" a "situation"

I would have thought re Jobe a self evident truth would come into play.

Someone deserving of the medal would understand.

That Jobe doesn't get it, that he hasn't already handed it back only goes to show ( to this observer ) that he isn't worthy.

#giveitbackjobe 

38 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I would have thought re Jobe a self evident truth would come into play.

Someone deserving of the medal would understand.

That Jobe doesn't get it, that he hasn't already handed it back only goes to show ( to this observer ) that he isn't worthy.

#giveitbackjobe 

Come off it. The Brownlow Medal is awarded to the "fairest and best" not the smartest or the player with an appropriate moral compass. 

Nevertheless, as things stand, he should not be able to keep it.

40 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I would have thought re Jobe a self evident truth would come into play.

Someone deserving of the medal would understand.

That Jobe doesn't get it, that he hasn't already handed it back only goes to show ( to this observer ) that he isn't worthy.

#giveitbackjobe 

The guy genuinely thinks he is innocent.

The club, the AFL and the AFLPA have told them the whole time that they are innocent, despite the fact that not one of them can say what the players were injected with (because the club obviously got rid of the records).

He may think he's innocent but he's now a banned player.

He and his mates have blackened their names.

Anyone who understood what underwrites the ideal of the Brownlow would give it back.

Doesn't surprise me he hasn't. He's Essendon.

1 hour ago, Wells 11 said:

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?

No, it's the old AFL. I haven't heard anyone from any other sport going on about this in any fashion other than "they did the crime so now do the time".

The PR war is over but there are still some skirmishes going on here and there.

1 hour ago, Wells 11 said:

Another gripe on the same lines . Why does everyone still talk about the bombers  "suppliment program" it was a performance enhancing drug program.

They won that battle in the PR war.

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I wouldn't dismiss Peter Gordon lightly. He's a specialist in class actions ...

He's a specialist in making overblown ambit claims and putting the legal squeeze on in order to get settlements (and quite coincidentally, $$$$). He has no more specialist knowledge of CAS and Swiss law than any eagle on this forum. Or any random collection of eagles in Melbourne.

He's let his emotions get the better of him here.

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

IIf 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.

The players chose to go in as a group throughout the whole ASADA/WADA/CAS process. If one player felt he was in a different category then he had the option to plough his own road. It is too late for that player to rethink his options. He can't eat his cake and expect to still have it.

If the claim is true, it is not the process that has failed. It is the legal representation of the player.

If it was so clear that player X was not injected withTB-4, then his lawyer has done a lousy job of presenting the case.

Mathew Stokes is next cab off the rank for the Bombers - and yes, he has history.

 

New Essendon motto:

Whoever it takes !

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

New Essendon motto:

Whoever it takes !

That's very good Beezlebub 

They definitely have a type.

Saad next? Then maybe Cousins to come in as VC?

Justin Charles is a certainty to be signed now.

5 hours ago, 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.

Aren't there "no records", so how would they know?

9 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Aren't there "no records", so how would they know?

I agree that any argument has to be provable. As I said, I have no idea if that's possible.

And I think Ted Fidge's point above covers it better. The players had their chance. If they didn't use it to their best advantage, that's not CAS's fault.

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
Added second sentence

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree that any argument has to be provable. As I said, I have no idea if that's possible.

And I think Ted Fidge's point above covers it better. The players had their chance. If they didn't use it to their best advantage, that's not CAS's fault.

They  really didn't do themselves any favours. The players ,IMHO, were very poorly advised.

The blind leading the blonde 

5 hours ago, 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.

Charges were brought only against players who both: 

• signed a consent form to receive Thymosin; and
• admitted receiving injections from Mr Dank.

There were 34 players that met those conditions. 

So a player now says he stopped injections before TB4 was introduced.  So one of 2 things happened:

- He didn't say it in his ASADA interview so that evidence didn't go before CAS.  I would say that is his bad luck. Too late now.

- CAS rejected that evidence (eg CAS found plenty of evidence of player cover up so they didn't give much credence to what they said, or CAS found his injection dates did match up with TB4 dates).

He gave consent to receive Thymosin, he had injections. And if no-one knew what was being injected how could the player be so sure he didn't get TB4.  A very flimsy basis for an appeal, I reckon.

The press will find lots of player anomalies in the coming weeks but I wouldn't put much cred on what they now say. 

They had their chance to tell their stories, the whole truth.  That they didn't take that opportunity is unfortunate but that is how the law works, and should work.

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

ignoring that your post is hypothetical, you would first need to find the missing records of the injection regime and secondly you are ignoring the fact that intention to take banned substances is in itself an indictable offence and signing the "waiver" demonstrates intent.

But they'll only get a couple of weeks right?