16 minutes ago, CBDees said:

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

In such an integrity filled environment, one could question how many of those record numbers are individuals, and perhaps how many hundreds or thousands could be names filed by rich benefactors perhaps Little?

I know personally of several EFC members who have refused to re-sign.

10 hours ago, Carlos Danger said:

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've thumbed their nose at the AFL, the other clubs, supporters everywhere, their own players ... and the AFL has stood by and given tacit encouragement. All they did was fine them for "not" doping (which was all about their own brand management).

It still stuns me that the AFL were quite happy to sweep it under the carpet. One of their clubs dopes up en masse and they were going to hide it and let them off scot free. If not for the ACC we would never have known.

The AFL should self-report for bringing the game into disrepute.

Players are trying to have their cake and eat it!  Marsh just said they have not sought an injunction to play in 2016 because (even if WADA/CASA appeal a favourable result for the player appeal at the Swiss Federal Court) they believe they cannot get another suspension penalty having served out the 2016 suspension.    Where are these guys getting their advice!!??

Have they forgotten they were given a CAS 2 year suspension with a 1 year backdating!  If by some miracle their appeal holds and it goes back to CAS I hope they get the 2 years, no 1 year backdating but allowance for the 2016 suspension served. 

ie They will have another year to serve.  Rightly so!

Sadly, Melksham is one to appeal.  Some peer pressure happening here or I suspect some deal/tradeoff on compensation has happened. 

I fully accept his right to appeal.  As a Demons fan here was a perfect opportunity for him to start repaying the faith and follow the advice in the Mick Ellis article WJ quoted: 

If the players wanted to save their reputations, this is how they could have done so:

“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.”

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

In such an integrity filled environment, one could question how many of those record numbers are individuals, and perhaps how many hundreds or thousands could be names filed by rich benefactors perhaps Little?

I know personally of several EFC members who have refused to re-sign.

In my view, any apparent surge in membership results from the us against them mentality and we need to stand by the boys rationale.  The real affects of this travesty will be felt in the longer term, if, as suspected, the EFC are on the receiving end of some beltings.  Remember, despite the fact they have had dibs on top up players, most of those chosen have not had a pre-season and won't have match conditioning.  They are a long way behind the rest of the field.

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

In my view, any apparent surge in membership results from the us against them mentality and we need to stand by the boys rationale.  The real affects of this travesty will be felt in the longer term, if, as suspected, the EFC are on the receiving end of some beltings.  Remember, despite the fact they have had dibs on top up players, most of those chosen have not had a pre-season and won't have match conditioning.  They are a long way behind the rest of the field.

This nails it I think.  

15 hours 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!

Hope the players are "comfortable satisfied" with this.

Is Milkshake a party to this tomfoolery ?

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Is Milkshake a party to this tomfoolery ?

twas quoted all 34 signed on, but who can trust what you read

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

twas quoted all 34 signed on, but who can trust what you read

Looks like the hird mentality reigns supreme.   

Totally disgusted - don't these blokes, EFC and the AFL realise they are bringing the game into disrepute to anyone outside of the EFC/AFL cult? Do they really think that getting off on a technicality will prove their innocence?  Clearly this is insurance driven and thus against the long-term interests of the players who have been conned by the EFC and the AFL. 

I reckon WJ is on the money. This is a gambit to set up the next manoeuvre, which is to sue the club and the AFL.

"We did everything we possibly could to clear our names. Including appealing to the Swiss high court, the UN and the ministry of magic. The only course left to us is to seek compensation for our damaged reputations, in the form of $$$$$$. Now cough up."

No injunction? I don't think the lawyers genuinely believe there is much chance of success. An injunction would put the cat among the pigeons if (when) the appeal fails.

I think EFC and AFL are going along with it as there is only upside for them ... if the appeal gets up, they can forever and a day crow about the snow white innocence of the players.

Dunno about the players ... they may actually believe there is a substantive chance of this appeal getting up. I would say "get used to disappointment" but they're well versed in that already.

14 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

I reckon WJ is on the money. This is a gambit to set up the next manoeuvre, which is to sue the club and the AFL.

"We did everything we possibly could to clear our names. Including appealing to the Swiss high court, the UN and the ministry of magic. The only course left to us is to seek compensation for our damaged reputations, in the form of $$$$$$. Now cough up."

No injunction? I don't think the lawyers genuinely believe there is much chance of success. An injunction would put the cat among the pigeons if (when) the appeal fails.

I think EFC and AFL are going along with it as there is only upside for them ... if the appeal gets up, they can forever and a day crow about the snow white innocence of the players.

Dunno about the players ... they may actually believe there is a substantive chance of this appeal getting up. I would say "get used to disappointment" but they're well versed in that already.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was EFC's next appeal step if the Swiss court falls through.

there's always the un international court of justice after this .........popcorn

IMO it is easy to see why the Drugies from the EFC would go down this path.

I cannot see how they can lose.

No financial commitment, if they lose they are no worse off, their suspensions cannot increase.

From their view there is nothing to lose? 

My only observation is that there will be ten very pixxed off "Top-Up" players should the current 'player's appeal' get up!  What a shambles for Essendon FC team structures if it occurs part-way into the season and they have to try to re-integrate their twelve stars who haven't had a pre-season or are (officially) privy to the strategies rehearsed by their new coach during the off-season!  I only hope that it happens the week before they play us!

9 minutes ago, old dee said:

IMO it is easy to see why the Drugies from the EFC would go down this path.

I cannot see how they can lose.

No financial commitment, if they lose they are no worse off, their suspensions cannot increase.

From their view there is nothing to lose? 

That's where I disagree with the learned opinion ascribed to WJ a few posts back.  The way I see it, if they 'get off' then it will be harder for the players to sue anyone. That seems to be the motivation of the insurance companies funding this (if that is the really the case?)  But once they have got a bit older and beyond their playing days and the effects of team spirit, they will regret that.

2 minutes ago, CBDees said:

My only observation is that there will be ten very pixxed off "Top-Up" players should the current 'player's appeal' get up!  What a shambles for Essendon FC team structures if it occurs part-way into the season and they have to try to re-integrate their twelve stars who haven't had a pre-season or are (officially) privy to the strategies rehearsed by their new coach during the off-season!  I only hope that it happens the week before they play us!

As I understand it the best case scenerio is it will take three months for the case to be looked at and then some time after before a decision think mid year before a result. Remember they have not asked for a stay of on the penalties. None of the 12 will be available when they play us and neither will our cheat.

 

 

19 minutes ago, old dee said:

IMO it is easy to see why the Drugies from the EFC would go down this path.

I cannot see how they can lose.

No financial commitment, if they lose they are no worse off, their suspensions cannot increase.

From their view there is nothing to lose? 

Not sure about that od.

If the Swiss Fed Court grants their appeal WADA can go back to CAS for a rehearing.  If CAS again finds them guilty it can apply a 2 year suspension.  They received a 1 year backdate which CAS does not (I don't think) have to grant them on a rehearing.  So without the backdating they would still have 1 year to serve.

Having said that it is all quite academic.  From what Marsh said this morning, they are arguing that CAS had no right, under Australian law, to hear the case de novo.  International law trumps national laws.

27 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there's always the un international court of justice after this .........popcorn

hence my comment some pages back about potential scouts looking for digs in South Holland  lol

10 minutes ago, sue said:

That's where I disagree with the learned opinion ascribed to WJ a few posts back.  The way I see it, if they 'get off' then it will be harder for the players to sue anyone. That seems to be the motivation of the insurance companies funding this (if that is the really the case?)  But once they have got a bit older and beyond their playing days and the effects of team spirit, they will regret that.

 

That's how I see it too.  And that is the crux of the insurance company offering to pay for the appeal. $500k now is small change compared with who knows what in the future and I would think $50mill is a low starting point, with no ceiling. Imagine if they start to develop cancer in 5-10-20 years or their children have birth defects. 

5 minutes ago, sue said:

That's where I disagree with the learned opinion ascribed to WJ a few posts back.  The way I see it, if they 'get off' then it will be harder for the players to sue anyone. That seems to be the motivation of the insurance companies funding this (if that is the really the case?)  But once they have got a bit older and beyond their playing days and the effects of team spirit, they will regret that.

You may be right sue but remember we are not talking about rocket scientists. 

These are people who have been brain washed from day one of their careers that you must comply with and follow the group think.  Group think got them into this position in the first place they are now continuing with that same thought pattern.

And we all should remember they are innocent just ask Gil the Pieman. 

Further to my last post, even if they lose the appeal, I wonder if merely endlessly supporting appeals and stating their innocence would make it harder for the players to sue. Have any lawyers, bush or otherwise, commented on that?

After the Swiss High Court . . . The 'Pharmacy Guild of Mexico'?

The further it goes, the clearer the picture seems to emerge of the character of those involved.  Totally unashamed, untroubled by being seen to be arguing loopholes rather than innocence, brushing off or destroying evidence, defying the world.  At every development, I find it is further than I'd imagined possible.  

How did Melbourne interview Melksham and not see this matter of attitude/character?  Or did MFC in doing their due diligence on Melksham actually see no real problem with the EFC culture?  The AFL appear to have been comfortable with Essendon's values and conduct, the players' association likewise, MFC certainly have to have looked into part of it and apparently saw no issue of concern - where in the football world does it stop?  Are we all implicated, in that the key entities in the football world in fact all condone (maybe even are quietly embracing) the Essendon initiative?  Are all developing their plans for undetected compliance with this new regime?  

Where in the football world is the unambiguous condemnation of everything to do with what Essendon did?  Why is nobody who speaks with authority in the football world shouting "enough!"?

This does nothing to endeavour Melksham into our culture. No buy-in whatsoever.

Very disappointing.