Way back when this all started I seem to recall reading that any substance that has not been approved for human consumption is banned.

In addition from the listed substances approved for human consumption there is a list of banned substances.

So, for a substance to be ok for an athlete to take it must firstly be an approved human consumption item, AND be one that is NOT banned. 

34 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

What relevance does this have to the story, sounds like they are trying to paint him in a certain light... Don't recall ever hearing what Hird wore to any hearings he was at?

 

"During the hearing the heavily bearded Mr Hunter - whose Facebook page says is now a "junior tattooer at Vintique Tattoos, Mordialloc" - sat behind his lawyer with his parents, dressed in an expensive-looking suit and tie."

how did the journo know the beard was heavy? did he weigh it? how would he know whether his hair follicles were of the light or heavy variety. sheesh.

i went to school with a guy who had short wavy red hair. it was like steel wool. i only knew that because i touched it once. definitely like steel wool but i couldn't say whether it was heavy or not though i have my suspicions. 

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

how did the journo know the beard was heavy? did he weigh it? how would he know whether his hair follicles were of the light or heavy variety. sheesh.

i went to school with a guy who had short wavy red hair. it was like steel wool. i only knew that because i touched it once. definitely like steel wool but i couldn't say whether it was heavy or not though i have my suspicions. 

i'm more concerned that the journo is relying on Facebook as a source of information, although at least that's been disclosed. 

So have they actually lodged their appeal?

2 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

So have they actually lodged their appeal?

Yes, according to the ABC:

Past, present Essendon players launch appeal against CAS judgement to clear their names over supplements saga

Tanner says:  "The legal advice, I understand, indicates that their prospects for success are at least reasonable."

Tbh I would want odds that are far better than 'at least reasonable' to embark on something this big, even with someone else's money.  Tanner doesn't sound convincing or even remotely confident.

A big waste of time if you ask me!

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, according to the ABC:

Past, present Essendon players launch appeal against CAS judgement to clear their names over supplements saga

Tanner says:  "The legal advice, I understand, indicates that their prospects for success are at least reasonable."

Tbh I would want odds that are far better than 'at least reasonable' to embark on something this big, even with someone else's money.  Tanner doesn't sound convincing or even remotely confident.

A big waste of time if you ask me!

Why? if it's not costing anything, where's the down side for the players? If they risk a longer suspension, then I'd agree with you. But do they? And it doesn't matter what Lindsay Tanner thinks about their chances. This is a decision of the players who (presumably) can't discuss it with the club even if they wanted to.

Tanner is a fool. Essendon deserve him

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'll take a punt and suggest that at least one EFC player checked AOD-9604 ...

No EFC players checked anything with ASADA.

AOD was always illegal under S0. Always. But there was some confusion over the information that ASADA gave the ACC, in particular, that it wasn't banned under S2, which is the class where AOD would have fallen.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, according to the ABC:

Past, present Essendon players launch appeal against CAS judgement to clear their names over supplements saga

Tanner says:  "The legal advice, I understand, indicates that their prospects for success are at least reasonable."

Tbh I would want odds that are far better than 'at least reasonable' to embark on something this big, even with someone else's money.  Tanner doesn't sound convincing or even remotely confident.

A big waste of time if you ask me!

A bit like his book.

I know that here "we have the gift that keeps on giving" but I cannot help but think that the two clubs being spoken about are not the only two.

This of course presents us with the serious dilemma of presumption.

Would it be fair to say if presumption proves correct, the first thing that will possibly become evident is illness of members of other different teams  or their families?

Would the AFL be prepared for this?

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Tanner is a fool. Essendon deserve him

tanner also said on 3aw he'd love to have the messiah james back

seems they just don't know how to move forward.......but who cares now

14 minutes ago, willmoy said:

......

Would the AFL be prepared for this?

of course not, but they would be supremely confident the could "manage" the outcome and "protect" the "brand" 

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

tanner also said on 3aw he'd love to have the messiah james back

seems they just don't know how to move forward.......but who cares now

They all deserve each other. Sheedy...Hird....just a big love in 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Why? if it's not costing anything, where's the down side for the players? If they risk a longer suspension, then I'd agree with you. But do they? And it doesn't matter what Lindsay Tanner thinks about their chances. This is a decision of the players who (presumably) can't discuss it with the club even if they wanted to.

I have a feeling that the players had no choice but to appeal given the existence of legal opinion to the effect that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. How could they make the argument for damages against the EFC if they refused to exhaust all reasonable chances of a successful appeal?

It remains an exercise in futility from my point of view except insofar as the lawyers are concerned - they're kicking all of the goals.

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

how did the journo know the beard was heavy? did he weigh it? how would he know whether his hair follicles were of the light or heavy variety. sheesh.

i went to school with a guy who had short wavy red hair. it was like steel wool. i only knew that because i touched it once. definitely like steel wool but i couldn't say whether it was heavy or not though i have my suspicions. 

Yes, by that reckoning, Santa's beard is positively obese ... 

41 minutes ago, bing181 said:

No EFC players checked anything with ASADA.

AOD was always illegal under S0. Always. But there was some confusion over the information that ASADA gave the ACC, in particular, that it wasn't banned under S2, which is the class where AOD would have fallen.

 

From 'Organised crime and drugs in sport' report 2013 . . The Dopers hung their hats on this!

Some ambiguity, but as this is not a go-to document for athletes and post dates Dopers usage (2012) you could say they were grasping at straws . . as has been their way. 

AOD -9604

Information

AOD-9604 (stands for Anti Obesity Drug number 9604) was identified in

Project Aperio as being used by professional athletes.

AOD-9604 is an experimental drug that is in a growth hormone variants that has fat burning

properties and may be used by athletes to increase power to weight ratios

by better utilisation of fat stores. Athletes may also use it to rehabilitate soft

tissue injuries.

Method of use:

• Liquid (injected)

• Cream (applied to skin)

Scheduling Status (SUSMP):

Not yet approved for human use, about to enter the final phase of clinical

human trials

Border Status:

not a border controlled drug

World Anti Doping Agency Status:

not currently prohibited

.......................................................................................................

Also ASADA internal briefing doc 'Operation Cobia'  doc (foi) Feb 2013

 page no 34 item5: Aod9604 status prohibited SO

No doubt in ASADA's mind re status of AOD!

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/618/response/2470/attach/8/Released%20document%204.pdf

2 hours ago, bing181 said:

No EFC players checked anything with ASADA.

AOD was always illegal under S0. Always. But there was some confusion over the information that ASADA gave the ACC, in particular, that it wasn't banned under S2, which is the class where AOD would have fallen.

you're right bing. i think asada/acc ucked up badly on aod either by carelessness or by being tricked, much to the good luck of essendope

When they lose their CAS appeal, is there any chance of Essendon being re-branded, re-located or even replaced?

I've got nothing but disdain for their brand with the way they've gone about the saga and how much they've dragged it out and what's even worse, are continuing to drag out.

Cronulla. NRL. Heavily discounted suspensions. Bang, got it done and moved on, 2014. It's a distant memory and nobody cares anymore. Essendon were not only given the same option, but even further discounts on the suspensions.

The pride, arrogance, stubbornness and ego of one football club should not eclipse the whole competition which is unfortunately what the AFL has allowed to happen. They are a blight on the game.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

how did the journo know the beard was heavy? did he weigh it? how would he know whether his hair follicles were of the light or heavy variety. sheesh.

i went to school with a guy who had short wavy red hair. it was like steel wool. i only knew that because i touched it once. definitely like steel wool but i couldn't say whether it was heavy or not though i have my suspicions. 

I think the journo should have talked about density, oh that has weight, mass connotations, how about thickness? Yes the beard was thick! 

Mick Ellis of Inside Football has his say and he makes some fair points:-

This cheesy Swiss appeal plan is so full of holes

 

27 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

I think the journo should have talked about density, oh that has weight, mass connotations, how about thickness? Yes the beard was thick! 

he could have just said substantial, earl. that would cover a few bases

otoh he could have just described him as a hipster

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Mick Ellis of Inside Football has his say and he makes some fair points:-

This cheesy Swiss appeal plan is so full of holes

Micks script . . .

“As a sportsman committed to clean, ethical competition, I acknowledge the possibility that I was administered a banned substance—unwittingly. I continue to hope and believe this was not the case, but those officials responsible for this are unwilling or unable to testify to the contrary and, therefore, in accordance with the worldwide doping code of personal responsibility I accept a reasonable penalty on the basis of my own failures in these unacceptable circumstances.”

 

I reckon that in about March 2012 the players got a glimpse of their big new muscles and knew they had cheated ... since then it's been rehearsed denial! Stuff em!!
 

 

7 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:

When they lose their CAS appeal, is there any chance of Essendon being re-branded, re-located or even replaced?

I've got nothing but disdain for their brand with the way they've gone about the saga and how much they've dragged it out and what's even worse, are continuing to drag out.

Cronulla. NRL. Heavily discounted suspensions. Bang, got it done and moved on, 2014. It's a distant memory and nobody cares anymore. Essendon were not only given the same option, but even further discounts on the suspensions.

The pride, arrogance, stubbornness and ego of one football club should not eclipse the whole competition which is unfortunately what the AFL has allowed to happen. They are a blight on the game.

Absolutely no way that Gil would let any meaningful punishment befall one go their darling 'special clubs'.  

The have brought our game into disrepute and when very generously and undeservedly given an opportunity to call it quits and move on continue to drag the game through the gutter.  They actually deserve total disbandment, which of course will never ever happen.  Too much $$$$$$$$ at stake both from TV rights and now more importantly gambling money.

11 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Mick Ellis of Inside Football has his say and he makes some fair points:-

This cheesy Swiss appeal plan is so full of holes

 

And makes a lot of wrong ones. They are cheats. Simple as that. He's still painting them as victims. Bullshlt. 

"Clearing their names of what, exactly?

Of being naive, unlucky and harshly treated?"

Not this at all. They have been labeled drug cheats, not just by manyhere at DL , or out there in the General Public but by ASADA/WADA and CAS  Get it right Mick

"Nobody thinks they were “drug cheats” in the pejorative sense. No matter which way this appeal goes, nobody’s view will change on that."

Actually Mick thats EXACTLY what the view of quite a few, especially those that matter,  is !!
 

"De novo (Latin, meaning “anew”*) is a form of double jeopardy—forbidden in criminal law—that allowed the World Anti-Doping Agency to rerun the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s case, to introduce fresh evidence and to change emphases, having learned from its mistakes."

Here hes really starts showing either ignorance or bias (or both ) De Nov o does indeed mean NEW. And just like any retrial its a new trial. This is not a criminal trial being replicated in teh same court after a verdict. Get it right Mick ( again ) 

"The appeal will swing on whether it retained this right after the AFL changed its own anti-doping code in 2014."

Actually, Mick, no it doesnt , come on mate keep up !! There are 2 and ONLY 2 aspects ; Jurisdiction and Appropriateness of the Laws employed. CAS have Jurisdiction and no one questioned the laws in fact all parties agreed.

 

"One thing is that Watson would get to keep his Brownlow Medal."

This will be down to AFL  skullduggery if he does.

 

"This appeal actually strikes me as the result not of rational consideration but of aggrieved players and their various backers arguing in frustrated circles at the injustice of it all to the point that they talked themselves into it."

Au Contraire, quite a rational decision, just not the players ! The Insurance company is trying to mitigate a payout.. Again Players are fodder of their own creation.

Injustice of it all  !!! ???  FFS 

Mick lines up in front of goal, kicks away across the face and out of bounds on the full !!
 

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

tanner also said on 3aw he'd love to have the messiah james back

seems they just don't know how to move forward.......but who cares now

Certainly Essendon supporters don't care. Membership is up on last year and over double ours!