6 hours ago, Chris said:

Pretty sure that rule came into the AFL code in a revision after 2012 so isn't relevant for this case. It is the same reason the support staff haven't been banned. Under the current rules they would be but under the 2012 rules they can't be. 

Nothing at all in the rules before the revision Chris or anyone?

1 minute ago, willmoy said:

Nothing at all in the rules before the revision Chris or anyone?

From memory no there was nothing about team and support people penalties. It was a addition to the rules to tighten them up and stop the EFC type thing happening. 

On 5/14/2016 at 5:47 PM, america de cali said:

This whole sage is now getting pointless and boring. Once the appeal is over, let's get back to normality. But I don't want to hear from Essendon and their media mouth  pieces say they still did nothing wrong. An emphatic sorry admission what the club did that leaves no room for revisionism.  

I haven't been following this story for a while because not much new is happening but is it correct to say that Essendon (meaning the current club administration) "say they still did nothing wrong"?

I appreciate Beelzebub's point that they haven't sufficiently admitted to some matters (what exactly happened, for example) but I thought Essendon had accepted that they did do something wrong. For example (and I know this doesn't cover everything) they pleaded guilty in the Worksafe case.

If Essendon has admitted they were wrong I think it is churlish to criticise the current administration for matters they were not a part of. You might as well argue that Paul Roos be blamed for Melbourne "tanking".

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I haven't been following this story for a while because not much new is happening but is it correct to say that Essendon (meaning the current club administration) "say they still did nothing wrong"?

I appreciate Beelzebub's point that they haven't sufficiently admitted to some matters (what exactly happened, for example) but I thought Essendon had accepted that they did do something wrong. For example (and I know this doesn't cover everything) they pleaded guilty in the Worksafe case.

If Essendon has admitted they were wrong I think it is churlish to criticise the current administration for matters they were not a part of. You might as well argue that Paul Roos be blamed for Melbourne "tanking".

LVDC  To my mind all they did with WS was cut a deal. As to anything else they still seem to think its all about us, i.e  everyone other than them.

Tanner is of the same ilk as his pedecessors, dont be fooled

The problem with this whole fiasco has been all through theyve been protected by some very motivated bodyguards, namely the AFL itself.

If this club had turned a corner it would NEVER consider allowing  Hird back through the public gate let alone an invite to the inner sanctum.

Leopards....spots

On 5/14/2016 at 10:40 PM, Ash35 said:

Bock himself, Dank and Dean Robinson have all given evidence that he took a banned substance. Receipts showing Bock paying for said substances are also involved. Look, it's fine. I understand that you guys have very little interest in Bock compared to Essendon. I'm the same. Bock not being to coach local footy in Qld doesn't affect us, but 34 past and present Essendon players being banned for 12 months is massive.

But at least pretend to be upset that a 'damn stinkin' drug cheat' in Bock has got away scott free [fresh investigation pending]. Or will that cast questions over the competency of ASADA?

I need someone to explain to me how you can justify banning the entire club from playing in the AFL in season 2016. None of the administrators in charge of the club this season were there in 2012. Obviously none of the players available to us to play this season were part of the supplements program in 2012. Remind me why they are being punished again?

Makes zero sense. But looking forward to hearing the logic behind the theory.

 

So by your logic, if VW sack it's entire management team then that should be the end of the issue with the 800,000 illegal vehicles that they have sold worldwide.

The EFC is a legal entity, the management are employees of that entity. The employees have received various forms of punishment but the EFC has only received collateral penalties other than penalties over the governance issues. The legal entity that is the EFC has received no punishment for allowing 34 players to take part in an experimental illegal (WADA) possibly dangerous drug cheating program. That the EFC did not put in place measures to ensure this would not happen indicates the willingness of the club at all levels to win whatever it costs.

The EFC has not received any direct punishment since the 34 were found guilty of cheating. Shuffling deck chairs is not punishment. 

On another note, the AFL should appoint an independent panel to manage the legal payouts to the 34 with no input from any club or the AFL. Players should be paid out regardless current status, playing, retired or at an another club. A matrix should be created, games played, b&f rating, age, contact status in 2012 etc. The EFC should not be made aware of individual payments just the total for all players.    

59 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

LVDC  To my mind all they did with WS was cut a deal. As to anything else they still seem to think its all about us, i.e  everyone other than them.

Tanner is of the same ilk as his pedecessors, dont be fooled

The problem with this whole fiasco has been all through theyve been protected by some very motivated bodyguards, namely the AFL itself.

If this club had turned a corner it would NEVER consider allowing  Hird back through the public gate let alone an invite to the inner sanctum.

Leopards....spots

Cutting a deal takes two to tango. Essendon might have managed an outcome you don't agree with. But they still had to plead guilty. What more could they do? Ask the court to impose a higher penalty?  

9 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I haven't been following this story for a while because not much new is happening but is it correct to say that Essendon (meaning the current club administration) "say they still did nothing wrong"?

I appreciate Beelzebub's point that they haven't sufficiently admitted to some matters (what exactly happened, for example) but I thought Essendon had accepted that they did do something wrong. For example (and I know this doesn't cover everything) they pleaded guilty in the Worksafe case.

If Essendon has admitted they were wrong I think it is churlish to criticise the current administration for matters they were not a part of. You might as well argue that Paul Roos be blamed for Melbourne "tanking".

All they have ever admitted is failing to keep proper records.

Even though they admit they have no idea what the players  were given they have maintained the denial that they were given any banned PED's. Anything wrong with this picture? 

23 minutes ago, It's Time said:

All they have ever admitted is failing to keep proper records.

Even though they admit they have no idea what the players  were given they have maintained the denial that they were given any banned PED's. Anything wrong with this picture? 

Or substances not medically approved for humans.

1 minute ago, america de cali said:

Or substances not medically approved for humans.

Or weird unknown substances from Mexico that no one seems to know what was in them.  

4 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Or weird unknown substances from Mexico that no one seems to know what was in them.  

Maybe Speedy Gonzales the fastest mouse in all of Mexico might know what it is.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Cutting a deal takes two to tango. Essendon might have managed an outcome you don't agree with. But they still had to plead guilty. What more could they do? Ask the court to impose a higher penalty?  

They did this because it was expedient. Nothing more. You also have to read carefully as to what they pleaded guilty to. "Providing  an unsafe Workplace"  I could get done for that if I dont put the right barriers up, or sufficient signage warning about danger..  They cut a deal.. They didnt even have to fork up the maxim  fine ffs...just a tHIRD of it !!

When have they ever held a press conference and come clean. To own up to the entirrity  of what they did and were trying to do

but your point of taking two to tango is a good one. How useless is Worksafe also !!

I sometimes wonder at the quality of our politicians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9ePn5tm1o&sns=em

3 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

I sometimes wonder at the quality of our politicians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9ePn5tm1o&sns=em

I don't.

 

I'm fully aware of just how hopeless most of them are. Not a statesman among them. 

Am I alone in thinking, even in a tiny grab like this one, that Madigan looked a bit crazy?

 

10 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

I sometimes wonder at the quality of our politicians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9ePn5tm1o&sns=em

Our politicians?

Have you been following US politics lately? 

The Brits?

Europeans?

North Korea?

 

 

At the risk of opening a hornet's nest (and because I don't want to think about the game vs Hawks) I've bumped this thread.

Worsfold is quoted as saying they will be good enough to play finals next year http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/john-worsfold-says-essendon-will-push-for-finals-in-2017/news-story/14e6068693b25e976510c6fd64d5fbb5  (another outlet said he thought they are a top 6 side next year). 

I'm sorry, any club that makes that prediction should not get a top 2 draft pick (more top picks if they get FA comp pics) and early rnd 2 picks.  The AFL will not act but surely other clubs must lobby the AFL to stop 'a finals team' getting such priority.   

I know I'm flogging a dead horse but it annoys me immensely that they are being rewarded for cheating: the sanctions (lost draft picks and fines) for cheating are being returned to them, in spades!  Not to mention other 'rewards' like superior time slots, top teams for their home games and more or better MCG games!  And they will be back at the top of the ladder as a result.  No one is batting an eyelid!!

Edited May 29, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

They certainly shouldnt get pick 1 or 2 as a result of having 12 players banned for drug taking.

Last in the order of the draft would be sufficient 

That's all we need. Essendon getting into the finals before we do. 

On 5/30/2016 at 8:49 AM, Lucifer's Hero said:

At the risk of opening a hornet's nest (and because I don't want to think about the game vs Hawks) I've bumped this thread.

Worsfold is quoted as saying they will be good enough to play finals next year http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/john-worsfold-says-essendon-will-push-for-finals-in-2017/news-story/14e6068693b25e976510c6fd64d5fbb5  (another outlet said he thought they are a top 6 side next year). 

I'm sorry, any club that makes that prediction should not get a top 2 draft pick (more top picks if they get FA comp pics) and early rnd 2 picks.  The AFL will not act but surely other clubs must lobby the AFL to stop 'a finals team' getting such priority.   

I know I'm flogging a dead horse but it annoys me immensely that they are being rewarded for cheating: the sanctions (lost draft picks and fines) for cheating are being returned to them, in spades!  Not to mention other 'rewards' like superior time slots, top teams for their home games and more or better MCG games!  And they will be back at the top of the ladder as a result.  No one is batting an eyelid!!

You can mount a case regarding draft picks; but the issue of superior time slots correlates with popularity, not integrity. Unless the AFL stands up to Channel 7 and mandates that less popular teams should get more premium timeslots, then Essendon as a team with a large following will continue to get better timeslots than we will. The issue of premium slots is important but shouldn't be confused with the integrity issue resulting from Essendon's misbehaviour. Or, to be more precise, the AFL needs to address the issue holistically and not just with respect to Essendon. 

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You can mount a case regarding draft picks; but the issue of superior time slots correlates with popularity, not integrity. Unless the AFL stands up to Channel 7 and mandates that less popular teams should get more premium timeslots, then Essendon as a team with a large following will continue to get better timeslots than we will. The issue of premium slots is important but shouldn't be confused with the integrity issue resulting from Essendon's misbehaviour. Or, to be more precise, the AFL needs to address the issue holistically and not just with respect to Essendon. 

Perfectly summed up why the afl will never give us lots of prime time slots despite their "if you play better youll get them" assurances. 

On 28/05/2016 at 7:17 AM, The Great Pretender said:

I sometimes wonder at the quality of our politicians

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9ePn5tm1o&sns=em

haha thats the guy who McDevitt made look like a total fool at the senate inquiry thing.  It was hilarious.

 Whenever they gave us decent time slots we blew it with pizz poor years.
Only have ourselves to blame.

As for the plicks getting either 1st or 2nd pick ...... 
We should be rioting in the streets now.

 

30 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

 Whenever they gave us decent time slots we blew it with pizz poor years.
Only have ourselves to blame.

As for the plicks getting either 1st or 2nd pick ...... 
We should be rioting in the streets now.

 

Yeah i remember all those friday night games in 05 when we were good*

*sarcasm

10 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You can mount a case regarding draft picks; but the issue of superior time slots correlates with popularity, not integrity. Unless the AFL stands up to Channel 7 and mandates that less popular teams should get more premium timeslots, then Essendon as a team with a large following will continue to get better timeslots than we will. The issue of premium slots is important but shouldn't be confused with the integrity issue resulting from Essendon's misbehaviour. Or, to be more precise, the AFL needs to address the issue holistically and not just with respect to Essendon. 

Agree, but any assumptions regarding the AFL actually understanding the essence of integrity will be misplaced 

10 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You can mount a case regarding draft picks; but the issue of superior time slots correlates with popularity, not integrity. Unless the AFL stands up to Channel 7 and mandates that less popular teams should get more premium timeslots, then Essendon as a team with a large following will continue to get better timeslots than we will. The issue of premium slots is important but shouldn't be confused with the integrity issue resulting from Essendon's misbehaviour. Or, to be more precise, the AFL needs to address the issue holistically and not just with respect to Essendon. 

Integrity?  Did I mention that? 

The timeslots I was referring were not TV times it was the prime 2.10 start on a Sat afternoon (and Saturday afternoons in general)  which are highly attractive to football followers thus helping increase EFC membership and gate takings.  Also, have a look at the MCG games, their Home games there, who they play and at what time and you will see it undoubtedly helps their revenue via gate takings.  All these give Ess and extra leg up in my view.  Venue, time and opponents are all in AFL control. 

Essenscum still have tentacles at the big house.  Thats how it ALL plays out. Until we can effect some sort of change or indeed get our own plant in there we will ALWAYS be treated as trailer trash