This is the Age piece on top-ups: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drugs-saga-other-clubs-with-banned-former-essendon-players-cant-replace-them-20160205-gmmzo7.html

Quote: "The AFL canvassed the remaining AFL clubs for their view of the bid by the four clubs to be given access to replacements. The clubs varied from the stridently opposed to those who didn't care".

Who do they fear: a resurgent Bulldogs, a knocking-on-finals-door Port.  Certainly not us nor the Saints!  Realistically, top ups won't make much difference to results and the AFL were always going to say 'no'.  So I think it is very poor sportsmanship for some clubs to 'stridently oppose' the idea.   

What sticks in my craw is the hypocrisy of those clubs.  They sit quietly while the cheats prosper from AFL largess then squeal when clubs who have wallowed at the bottom of the ladder for the best part of the last 5 years ask for help.

6 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

This is the Age piece on top-ups: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drugs-saga-other-clubs-with-banned-former-essendon-players-cant-replace-them-20160205-gmmzo7.html

Quote: "The AFL canvassed the remaining AFL clubs for their view of the bid by the four clubs to be given access to replacements. The clubs varied from the stridently opposed to those who didn't care".

Who do they fear: a resurgent Bulldogs, a knocking-on-finals-door Port.  Certainly not us nor the Saints!  Realistically, top ups won't make much difference to results and the AFL were always going to say 'no'.  So I think it is very poor sportsmanship for some clubs to 'stridently oppose' the idea.   

What sticks in my craw is the hypocrisy of those clubs.  They sit quietly while the cheats prosper from AFL largess then squeal when clubs who have wallowed at the bottom of the ladder for the best part of the last 5 years ask for help.

You see, here's the problem.

The commission was put in place to handle issues that were important to the game because when the clubs ran the show it was always run on self interest. The clubs were killing the game and losing money hand over fist.

Now we have a commission who don't want to make the decisions they should be making. They want the clubs to like them...good old "Dill the Likeable" strikes again.

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

This is the Age piece on top-ups: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drugs-saga-other-clubs-with-banned-former-essendon-players-cant-replace-them-20160205-gmmzo7.html

Quote: "The AFL canvassed the remaining AFL clubs for their view of the bid by the four clubs to be given access to replacements. The clubs varied from the stridently opposed to those who didn't care".

Who do they fear: a resurgent Bulldogs, a knocking-on-finals-door Port.  Certainly not us nor the Saints!  Realistically, top ups won't make much difference to results and the AFL were always going to say 'no'.  So I think it is very poor sportsmanship for some clubs to 'stridently oppose' the idea.   

What sticks in my craw is the hypocrisy of those clubs.  They sit quietly while the cheats prosper from AFL largess then squeal when clubs who have wallowed at the bottom of the ladder for the best part of the last 5 years ask for help.

It would be interesting for the AFL to tell us how many teams were 'stridently opposed' or indifferent to what they did for the cheats?

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

This is the Age piece on top-ups: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drugs-saga-other-clubs-with-banned-former-essendon-players-cant-replace-them-20160205-gmmzo7.html

Quote: "The AFL canvassed the remaining AFL clubs for their view of the bid by the four clubs to be given access to replacements. The clubs varied from the stridently opposed to those who didn't care".

Who do they fear: a resurgent Bulldogs, a knocking-on-finals-door Port.  Certainly not us nor the Saints!  Realistically, top ups won't make much difference to results and the AFL were always going to say 'no'.  So I think it is very poor sportsmanship for some clubs to 'stridently oppose' the idea.   

What sticks in my craw is the hypocrisy of those clubs.  They sit quietly while the cheats prosper from AFL largess then squeal when clubs who have wallowed at the bottom of the ladder for the best part of the last 5 years ask for help.

The AFL asked all the other clubs and got a negative answer....WOW WHAT A SUPRISE...

Did they also ask them whether Essendrug could Top up as well...?

And for this Dill gets $2 mill a year....

 

2 hours ago, Chris said:

For anyone interested here is a link to the 2010 AFL anti doping code. http://www.sportingpulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=3156395

No mention that I can find of any limitations on the way CAS heard the appeal. 

Also excellently covered by Chris Kaias:

https://chriskaias.wordpress.com

 

(i) The 2010 Anti-Doping Code does not specify the type of appeal

It would appear that Mr Gordon has not correctly represented what is in the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code for the following reasons:

• The 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code does not stipulate that rulings can only be appealed if the decision involves legal error or gross unreasonableness. The 2010 Code does not specify or limit the type of appeal at all; and
• As the 2010 Code does not specify the type of appeal to the AFL Appeals Board, the position would arguably be the default position under normal AFL Appeals Board procedure, which is to limit an appeal to errors of law or gross unreasonableness. The default position under the CAS procedure is a ‘de novo’ hearing.

Further to this, the 2015 Code adds provision 20.1(b), which says that Appeals Board proceedings are ‘de novo’. However, even the 2015 Code is silent on the type of appeal to the CAS.

Therefore, it is not correct to say that the rules changed in 2015. The 2010 Code did not specify the type of appeal for either the Appeals Board or the CAS, and the 2015 Code still does not refer to the type of appeal to CAS.

.... and ...

(ii) The newer 2015 Anti-Doping Code would apply in any case

Even if the 2010 Code had in some way restricted the type of appeal to the CAS, the CAS Panel noted at [114] that it is the newer 2015 Code that applies to the procedural (as opposed to the substantive) aspects of the appeal.

As argued by leading academic Richard Garnett in Substance and Procedure in Private International Law, issues concerning appeals are procedural and not substantive ([6.16]–[6.19]).

essondon should only get top ups for any player that is still under the same contract from 2012, if essendon renewed contracts after the investigation, then that was there decision knowing that said player could be banned. same as trading

25 minutes ago, scarlett said:

essondon should only get top ups for any player that is still under the same contract from 2012, if essendon renewed contracts after the investigation, then that was there decision knowing that said player could be banned. same as trading

Ooohh nice one!

53 minutes ago, scarlett said:

essondon should only get top ups for any player that is still under the same contract from 2012, if essendon renewed contracts after the investigation, then that was there decision knowing that said player could be banned. same as trading

That would be a curly one to put to Mike Fitzpatrick and Dill, They would have to think...

And the AFLPA would be frothing at the mouth...."But...But...But"

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

That would be a curly one to put to Mike Fitzpatrick and Dill, They would have to think...

And the AFLPA would be frothing at the mouth...."But...But...But"

Gil would first need to consult every remaining club once again, and not just the CEO's, but every employee right down to the cleaner.

Then just ignore the result, because AFL.

Just now, SaberFang said:

Gil would first need to consult every remaining club once again, and not just the CEO's, but every employee right down to the cleaner.

Then just ignore the result, because AFL.

Absolutely...nailed it...

But the pies are cheap....

Lets be realistic here. As far as we are concerned, not having a top up only affects Casey. 

Just now, Redleg said:

Lets be realistic here. As far as we are concerned, not having a top up only affects Casey. 

Of course not.

Its more the hypocrisy of the double  standards from the afl.

3 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Of course not.

Its more the hypocrisy of the double  standards from the afl.

you are both right, it only affects casey, but it is an hypocritical unfair decision

6 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Of course not.

Its more the hypocrisy of the double  standards from the afl.

It would be great if the AFL only had two standards!

Edited February 5, 20169 yr by Chris

8 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Of course not.

Its more the hypocrisy of the double  standards from the afl.

It might be hypocritical, but what I said is correct. No top up would or should, make our 22. Casey is the loser.

The AFL allowed the Bombers top ups, only to fulfill broadcast obligations. They will play 2 short this year, as 12 out and maximum 10 top ups. 

We played short with Mitch Clark out for a year, with Petracca and Trengove out, etc. 

It is not a catastrophe and the AFL know it.

8 hours ago, Chris said:

The Australian and Hun reporting the appeal is on with most of the 34 joining in and it is all being funded by the EFC. I would love to what grounds they are appealing on?

Hopefully Melksham sees sense and just takes the 12 months off and doesn't risk the extra year, especially if an injunction isn't granted and he has to sit out this year anyway.

I have a sneaky suspicion that if they do get an injunction and play this year then the booing of Goodes last year will seem like a welcome home celebration in comparison to what these boys will get.

I suspect there may be plenty of booing should Gil dare show his face - or even one of his faces - at the footy  

7 hours ago, SaberFang said:

So trying to get off on a technicality. Tsk, tsk. 

Take your medicine you guilty pricks.

I suspect that they may be very very wary of doing that again  

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

As long as Essendrug pay all the Bills i don't care..., but yes it would be drop drop dead hilarious if they ended up with longer sentences....

But as I read it their insurers are paying the bill.   

Does anyone know who are their insurers?  If I find out and have any policies with them I will change insurers pronto, and let them know why in very clear words.  

A public campaign should be launched to name and shame their insurers.   

I suspect part of the ploy may be that in return for funding their appeals they may have to sacrifice the right to sue EssUndone later for any health issues - physical or mental - resulting from this shameful episode of human experimentation. 

Edited February 5, 20169 yr by monoccular
Add

49 minutes ago, Redleg said:

It might be hypocritical, but what I said is correct. No top up would or should, make our 22. Casey is the loser.

The AFL allowed the Bombers top ups, only to fulfill broadcast obligations. They will play 2 short this year, as 12 out and maximum 10 top ups. 

We played short with Mitch Clark out for a year, with Petracca and Trengove out, etc. 

It is not a catastrophe and the AFL know it.

Agree 'Red', but the problem I see is the AFL consulting the other clubs.

They really need to start running the game not running a polling organisation.

Interesting that Denham said the clubs needed to be gently rubbed as they were feeling left out of the decision making process. Consultation is ok to a point but at some point leaders need to do exactly that, lead. "Dill the Likeable" seems incapable of leading, at least his legacy will be cheap chips & pies...

I will be really, really disappointed in Melksham if he's part of the group appealing. It really displays, in my opinion, a total lack of buy-in with the new culture, team and environment we're paying him big money to be part of.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-05/afls-topup-call-doesnt-make-sense-says-power?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

Finally someone in football land gets it and is prepared to speak up against the AFL, albeit in a small way.  Port CEO says: '"Let me throw this one at you, I'm assuming all clubs said no, and I don't know that, but can you imagine what Eddie (Maguire) would have said had this ruling come down against Collingwood, there would have been hell to pay," he said..."There was a consultation process with all the other clubs ... we felt it was a unique situation that required AFL leadership - make a call and get on with it, one way or another.'

I would imagine Eddie would have been one of the 'stridently opposed'!

And this: 'He (Keith Thomas) also said Port won't pay Ryder or Monfries at all and they were last paid in January.'  You have to wonder why StK has been carrying on about who is paying Carlise when the players are not allowed to be payed.

I feel for the players not been paid especially those like Ryder who has a young family.  But I believe rules need to be upheld something there has been precious little of throughout this sad and sorry saga.

Edited February 5, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

And the saga moves on to a new phase ... in the land of Swiss cheese as another group of lawyers tries to find holes in the CAS Arbitral Award ... Here