Again, I tend to agree with you, but then I realise that's pretty much the exact same tune we have all been singing for the last decade. Without being a negative nelly for the sake of it, I guess what I'm saying in this thread is that I'm far from convinced that we have turned a corner, and that this isn't as TGR would say, 'fool's gold'. I really need to see a bunch of tangible results this year.. even then, you have to think back to 2010/2011 when we genuinely looked good but it never came to bear. Hmm.

All I could add C&B would be that this time we set about drafting competitors who can play as opposed to kids that can play. 

 

All I could add C&B would be that this time we set about drafting competitors who can play as opposed to kids that can play. 

again, not being contrary for fun, but that's just another assumption that we are all hoping is the case. I don't really know about this idea that we drafted in the past without looking for 'competitors' because to a large extent if you are a standout kid at the pointy end off the draft you are a competitor by default, or you wouldn't be there. The big thing I reckon it hinges on is the quality of our development system now vs before.

 

i understand the relevance of bringing up the tanking in the context of how the afl "manages" integrity within the sport.

but turning the discussion into an afl blame game the same day the players were found guilty seemed to me to be deflecting from the guilt of essendon and the players and served to minimise that guilt or to try and apportion some of it to the afl. there certainly is a need to discuss how the afl handled this and other issues but not necessarily on such a momentous day with just a short time for the program. i'm sure efc were happy for gary to pursue that tangent at that time

Thank you.

 

I caught up with the full FC special through you tube and I thought Garry actually raised a fair point about how the tanking investigation and charges would have been dealt with quite differently if there was an independent world body that looked into "tanking" offences. Firstly, all clubs strongly suspected of tanking would have been looked at, secondly the conduct of the investigation and the "evidence" scrutinised properly and thirdly, the pronouncements written and verbal from the AFL's CEO as to what "tanking" did and did not constitute* would have to be taken into account. I'm not sure in those circumstances whether the matter would have gone as far as it did, remembering that 2 QC's had provided opinions to the effect that the charges could not be sustained in a court of law.

* granted there are differing views of what tanking means, Demetriou's statements about what was permitted eliminated most if not all of the misconceptions people had about tanking - eg resting players, playing them out of normal positions, experimenting with tactics etc. He sanctioned all of these things in articles, television interviews and in one talk given by him for a charity function I attended when it was raised in the context of Carlton in 2007.

all true Jack, but the AFL still resists placing the first 8 - 10 draft picks into a raffle drawn from a hat... so as to remove from AFL clubs the certainty of ladder positioning as a means of getting player 'X' .

 

It makes you think, if we tanked thinking "everyone else does it and gets away with it so why don't we". What's to say that was the same state of mind the EFL had with there injections? 

Who are we to know how many clubs have tried something like this which was swept under the AFL houses rug before WADA got hold of it considering the number of players that have been court for doping since this investigation on the EFC has started.  

There was a team who won 3 in a row in the early 2000 who's midfield looked freakishly bigger then any other club in the AFL. 

Is whole issue kinda makes me question a lot of past clubs now.

steroids were around in the 80's... i know a friend who was on the hawks list at the time... he calls it,  'the elephant juice'.

 

 

 

Everything the club has suffered is a punishment for their drug program.

But if you want to be vindictive, go right ahead.

Sorry, you think it is vindictive to apply a punishment to a club (EFC) that used an experimental program of banned drugs and who knows what else on young men under their care in order to gain an unfair advantage against their competitors.

I reiterate. Since the players have been found guilty of using PED's the club has received no penalty just concessions. Asking for a penalty for organising this program is hardly vindictive.

Further, the EFC and the AFL have taken legal action against one of the players (Hal Hunter) in that program because he wants to know what they injected into his body.

The EFC and the AFL are morally bankrupt organisations and they need to be shown as such. I am not vindictive, I want justice for the non cheats and players that were made guinea pigs. 

 

Yes, I think it's vindictive. Essendon have (quite rightly) been heavily punished and will be a basket case for years. Their supporters will have to put up with years of taunting about drug cheats. Yet you ask for more. I'd question whether it's really just punishment or justice you want.

The player suspensions obviously came from WADA. The club punishment as a result of the diabolical program is the AFL's responsibility, and they have already done it through fines, draft penalties, Hird's suspension (and Dank's life ban as a result of the AFL drugs tribunal). You can't punish them twice for the same error. All the perpetrators (Dank, Robinson, Hird, Thompson etc) are no longer at the club (three by sacking), and I don't see the point.

The recent team concessions came from the AFL, just to keep Essendon fielding a team. They're hardly a 'reward'. I don't think that's a bad result, and there's no way I'd want to be in their position.

 

Yes, I think it's vindictive. Essendon have (quite rightly) been heavily punished and will be a basket case for years. Their supporters will have to put up with years of taunting about drug cheats. Yet you ask for more. I'd question whether it's really just punishment or justice you want.

The player suspensions obviously came from WADA. The club punishment as a result of the diabolical program is the AFL's responsibility, and they have already done it through fines, draft penalties, Hird's suspension (and Dank's life ban as a result of the AFL drugs tribunal). You can't punish them twice for the same error. All the perpetrators (Dank, Robinson, Hird, Thompson etc) are no longer at the club (three by sacking), and I don't see the point.

The recent team concessions came from the AFL, just to keep Essendon fielding a team. They're hardly a 'reward'. I don't think that's a bad result, and there's no way I'd want to be in their position.

Until last week the players had not been found guilty of using PED's. The penalties the club had received prior to that judgement were for other indiscretions, notably failure to keep records.

How could the EFC have been penalised for something they had not been found guilty of?

Now that they have been found guilty they should have some penalty. Simple.

Please explain to me the penalty they received for organising and running a program resulting in 34 players being found guilty of using PED's? No, do not refer to governance issues I mean since guilt was proven.

 

 

Until last week the players had not been found guilty of using PED's. The penalties the club had received prior to that judgement were for other indiscretions, notably failure to keep records.

How could the EFC have been penalised for something they had not been found guilty of?

Now that they have been found guilty they should have some penalty. Simple.

Please explain to me the penalty they received for organising and running a program resulting in 34 players being found guilty of using PED's? No, do not refer to governance issues I mean since guilt was proven.

 

I think you are going to have to accept the fact, that the AFL dealt with the EFC, on the basis of their running a program of injecting players with substances, without proper supervision and record keeping. Therefore, according to the AFL, they would have already been dealt with, on the issues, leading to the current CAS finding. They won't double dip. 

Calling it a governance issue, does not change what they did, or were punished for.

 

Please explain to me the penalty they received for organising and running a program resulting in 34 players being found guilty of using PED's? No, do not refer to governance issues I mean since guilt was proven.

But the governance issues are inextricably entwined. It seems to me that WADA and ASADA are happy with the result. Either they haven't got the power to prosecute the club or they're not interested in further action. You'd best ask them.

I'd suspect it would be useless for them to keep going, given the governance penalties that have already been applied by the AFL.

I'm satisfied that Essendon has been punished enough without dragging it on for another few years.

 

But the governance issues are inextricably entwined. It seems to me that WADA and ASADA are happy with the result. Either they haven't got the power to prosecute the club or they're not interested in further action. You'd best ask them.

I'd suspect it would be useless for them to keep going, given the governance penalties that have already been applied by the AFL.

I'm satisfied that Essendon has been punished enough without dragging it on for another few years.

OK, we shall agree to differ. It is now proven that 34 players used PED's.

Last year when they were found not guilty EFC did not ask for their money back as they knew that the penalties were for governance issues not cheating.

 

Yes, I think it's vindictive. Essendon have (quite rightly) been heavily punished and will be a basket case for years. Their supporters will have to put up with years of taunting about drug cheats. Yet you ask for more. I'd question whether it's really just punishment or justice you want.

The player suspensions obviously came from WADA. The club punishment as a result of the diabolical program is the AFL's responsibility, and they have already done it through fines, draft penalties, Hird's suspension (and Dank's life ban as a result of the AFL drugs tribunal). You can't punish them twice for the same error. All the perpetrators (Dank, Robinson, Hird, Thompson etc) are no longer at the club (three by sacking), and I don't see the point.

The recent team concessions came from the AFL, just to keep Essendon fielding a team. They're hardly a 'reward'. I don't think that's a bad result, and there's no way I'd want to be in their position.

yes Mauriesy, agreed.  Why hurt a club, for individuals bad behaviour/judgements from that club, they are the cause of these issues, under the clubs banner.

 

its these individuals IMO who should have lifetime bans from all sports.  this should imo come from WADA or ASADA.

 

 

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Yes, I think it's vindictive. Essendon have (quite rightly) been heavily punished and will be a basket case for years. Their supporters will have to put up with years of taunting about drug cheats. Yet you ask for more. I'd question whether it's really just punishment or justice you want.

The player suspensions obviously came from WADA. The club punishment as a result of the diabolical program is the AFL's responsibility, and they have already done it through fines, draft penalties, Hird's suspension (and Dank's life ban as a result of the AFL drugs tribunal). You can't punish them twice for the same error. All the perpetrators (Dank, Robinson, Hird, Thompson etc) are no longer at the club (three by sacking), and I don't see the point.

The recent team concessions came from the AFL, just to keep Essendon fielding a team. They're hardly a 'reward'. I don't think that's a bad result, and there's no way I'd want to be in their position.

I am sure the AFL could find a way if they wanted to  I don't think they will, as they clearly seem more interested in sweeping the past under the carpet. If there is anything left for them to do, it is to help Hal Hunter et al find out what really was injected, rather than try to stop it, and to find out what Reid did or didn't know or do. But that would be expecting common sense to prevail ... 

Why wasn't Freo and North up for tanking last round last year.?

AFL is just gutless.