10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

think tania might be of the female persuasion 

but no longer relevant 

51 minutes ago, sue said:

Disagree. By continuing to defend the EFC position (in effect) why should it help  the players in suing EFC later.  I'd assume the opposite - by claiming via endless appeals that they are innocent, they imply they believe the EFC program was kosher. So how could they then sue them without changing their story markedly. ("I was duped, but I believe I wasn't up until we lost that last appeal" does not sound like a winner.) 

As several posters have pointed out, the players are painting themselves into a corner and are getting bad advice which doesn't appear to be in their interests. Why? How can they be so dumb? Is there no one to make them see sense? 

My guess is that they are so keen to be able to say they are clean (no matter how laughably the circumstances that declare them so) that they are easily hoodwinked by suited men (I trust no woman is involved....) who have other agendas.

This is the logic.

At some stage the players sue EFC for compo. EFC's insurance company are actually the one's that will pay out. The insurance company says "So you want us to pay you $34mill because you were found guilty by CAS. We think the CAS decision was wrong. The only way to prove that would have been to appeal. Did you appeal?  No!  Well then it's your fault you are still found guilty it's our view if you had appealed you would have got off and we wouldn't be here fighting you off. So bad luck we aint paying."

Whereas by appealing they make sure the insurance company/EFC cannot argue this." What would you do? Given it's not going to cost you anything.  

If the players appeal and succeed they won't have a compo case against EFC.  If they don't appeal they might do themselves out of any compensation. They've got to be sitting there hoping their appeal is going to fail. Forget about saving reputations. That isn't going to happen even if they win on the technicalities they are arguing.

This has the potential to go on for years if the win on appeal. If they lose then it goes no further. If they win, then it potentially goes back to CAS to hear the appeal just on limited legal issues. Whatever that outcome either party can appeal to Swiss Fed Crt then the losing party can appeal again to the appeal court. Potentially another 4 hearings at around 6-8 mth intervals after the 6-8mth interval waiting for this appeal. 

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think i saw somewhere that they did in fact raise an objection to the fact it was a de novo hearing

tough shlt...not their call. All Appeals to CAS are De Novo.   End of the day they agreed...All over red rover !

If the insurance company was to ask why you didnt appeal the correct answer is because there was no legitimate basis upon which to do so !!

someone needs to start a new breakaway league just like the vfl did to the vfa a long time ago. only way to clean this @#$% up

5 hours ago, robbiefrom13 said:

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!"?

Robbie,

Good post. I think we need to accept that there are large sections of the AFL community (not only at Essendon) who simply do not understand the implications of what Essendon have done, or don't want to know. Sadly, as much as I admire the Roos regime, I think the MFC is amongst them. 

I think it is not generally wilfull (at least with non Essendon supporters), it is more a naivety about the real world, and seems to be worryingly present with Goodwin who was the person who championed the arrival of Melksham to the club. 

If you don't believe me on this, just look at the posts after I questioned several months ago on here what I regarded as the negligence of the club in having anything whatever to do with Essendon under the current circumstances. There were many DL'ers who clearly thought that it was the ultimate impertinence to question the wisdom of the club hierarchy on this. If the club were a corporation, at the very least the Board Risk Committee would be fired, but more likely the CEO as well, such is the level of incompetence this represents.

This by no means is confined to the MFC, but it does I think partially explain why the EFC saga has continued for so long to get so much oxygen when it had no justification for doing so.

question

how long will it take the swiss court to decide if the appeal is accepted for trial?

Just now, daisycutter said:

question

how long will it take the swiss court to decide if the appeal is accepted for trial?

One of the most intelligent questions

It's the one the shamedia avoid 

Most pundits seem to think it goes to a hearing...and then.  No the request is reviewed quite mercilessly and only if approved, is seen as having legs will it advance.

It won't advance 

I'm pretty convinced the appeal will never get up. Their entire argument is ridiculous.

It would take a grievous error in CAS' judgment for the appeals board to even contemplate a hearing, something as drastic as WADA using fraudulent evidence in their case. I'm not even sure new evidence from Essendon would be admissible in an appeal (not that this would ever happen, as we're endlessly reminded, "there's no proof they took any drugs!"

If the appeal does not get off thew ground i look forward to reading Bruce francis's 20 page dissection of their 200 word dismissal (written in French)

" the Swiss court made several key legal mistakes in their frankly corrupt decision to summarily dismiss the players right of appeal. Under the Human Rights Charter....."

They all should have just gone to Bruce years ago !! Be all over now

Insurance companies are not benevolent funds, they are funding this to try to save money, presumably hoping something will come up that will help reduce how much players will be seeking when the sue.  This also delays when they get sued so that a few more players will hopefully have left, retired, etc. as life could get pretty nasty down in bomber land when you have players playing for the club in an active suit against the club during a playing season.  The club and the insurance company have shown their approach with the way they are going at Hal Hunter, something for all the others to look forward to/

5 hours ago, monoccular said:

Given the moral scruples of those in charge here I would not be at all surprised were there are a few numbered anonymous bank accounts in Zurich that could benefit certain folk back here.

You gotta love paying their taxes....

5 hours ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

Why?

Things could get murky if things need to be moved "out of harms way" in layman's language the squeaky clean Olympic image soon to be at the forefront

of Aussie sport etc etc.This will take priority. I guess a semi conspiracy could develop.

Two things.  Love to be wearing an  Invisibility cloak in ESS rooms this season,  and looked at Melksham again today against Adelaide and he looked a tough nut, hates the ball though (other peoples).  My moral compass is taking a real battering with this bloke with us. Will have to stay reasonably inebriated all season.

 

Now Luke Beveridge is getting in on the action, trying to outdo the idiotic comments made by his club's president.

These idiots just do not get it. If Roosy came out blasting WADA and citing Essendon's removal from finals 3 years ago as "punishment enough," I'd be after blood.

Just now, SaberFang said:

Now Luke Beveridge is getting in on the action, trying to outdo the idiotic comments made by his club's president.

These idiots just do not get it. If Roosy came out blasting WADA and citing Essendon's removal from finals 3 years ago as "punishment enough," I'd be after blood.

Read about Luke and immediately thought he'd gone to the Dark side.

Surprised he's so ignorant of what is required and by whom. He seems to be pandering to his paymaster, but he could well be his own fool.

Yep, just doesn't get it. 

Some political apologists for Essenscum are also wanting to grill Ben. Am confident Ben is capable of eating them and spitting out. Senate committee my foot....lackeys !!!

4 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Now Luke Beveridge is getting in on the action, trying to outdo the idiotic comments made by his club's president.

These idiots just do not get it. If Roosy came out blasting WADA and citing Essendon's removal from finals 3 years ago as "punishment enough," I'd be after blood.

He is just towing the company line.

But it is a serious, serious worry that there is an AFL coach (or any coach, anywhere) who doesn't get the rule that: players are responsible for what goes into their bodies.  No excuses, no exceptions!

Would love for Ben to come straight back at him advising him of his "misunderstandings"

I think the silence from ASADA is quite classy really. Leaving these AFL idiots to stew in their own bile.

15 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

I think the silence from ASADA is quite classy really. Leaving these AFL idiots to stew in their own bile.

Agreed on the classy comment. The only problem is that it leaves the "AFL idiots" to shout about how unfair it all is in the media without any kind of retort. Although we can see how juvenile the whining is, I'd bet that a lot of people won't. The end result will be more sympathy for Essendon and less outrage at AFL concessions made to them. 

I'm not sure about that... Public opinion swung against Essendon quite a bit when WADA won, and nobody was on the player's side (outside the media) when they appealed. Of course, I'm only basing that on a small group of personal friends, family and comments sections on other websites. I'm sure the delusional Hird fanatics will never see the light.

You're right, there was definitely a swing. Especially after the whole non-disclosure during ASADA testing came out.

I just reckon people have short memories, and if the pro-EFC whiners keep raging in the media, it'll undermine the previous swing.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Read about Luke and immediately thought he'd gone to the Dark side.

Surprised he's so ignorant of what is required and by whom. He seems to be pandering to his paymaster, but he could well be his own fool.

Yep, just doesn't get it. 

Some political apologists for Essenscum are also wanting to grill Ben. Am confident Ben is capable of eating them and spitting out. Senate committee my foot....lackeys !!!

I think you are right there BB, sadly. One quote from the article says it all for me:   "The Essendon players have been treated like a European cycling team who should know better. Well, no, they shouldn't know better because they had no grounding to work from."    (where is the emoticon for smacking one's head on the desk?)
 

Beveridge has just added his name to the list of AFL land people who simply have no understanding or concept of what the WADA code is and what it stands for. I am not surprised they don't seem to know but I am surprised at just how little they seem to know. It really is embarrassing!

Here are the names I can remember

• The 34 players
• James Hird
• Paul Little
• Steven Dank
• The EFC board
• Many EFC supporters
• Andy D
• Gil Mc
• Paul Marsh
• Neil Balme
• Luke Beveridge
• Peter Gordon
• Bomber Thompson
• 90% of the media (the exceptions are Whateley and Wilson and maybe one or two others)
• AFL commission

I am sure there are others. Appalling state of affairs.