8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Just to clarify, are you referring to the claim that the players were meant to advise the testers at the time of any drug test that they had been given an injection? I presume the testers are with ASADA rather than WADA. Or are you referring to something else?

Information was withheld during ASADA and WADA interviews concerning the offsite injection programs. To me that is damming evidence that should have meant a life ban. But of course that is only my opinion

7 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Dank has been banned for life from participation within any sporting organisation.  From day one, this miscreant refused to co-operate with any investigation.  Writs were issued, with the objecitve to compel him to give evidence and the Supreme Court dismissed the application.  No doubt, the players failed to give account, on the required form, that they were being injected.  That is their major source of guilt.  However, the relevant sporting jurisdictions only needed to be reasonably satisfied of the breach, due to the circumstances which gave rise to this whole mess, but unlike a judicial court of law, there was no requirement for a burden proof which sustained a case beyond a reasonable doubt that performing enhancing drugs were being ingested..

Those frothing at the mouth and rabidly attacking the 34 players concerned, I'm sure will boycott any games in which Jake Melksham plays for the MFC.  After all, a drug cheat is a drug cheat, n'est pas? 

depends, iva, whether you believe someone who has completed his punishment should continue to be punished (in some form) or allowed to start again.

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

depends, iva, whether you believe someone who has completed his punishment should continue to be punished (in some form) or allowed to start again.

Some on here clearly don't DC.

4 hours ago, jnrmac said:

I wonder why players haven't sued Dank?

Maybe they know that he knows what thet took. Maybe has does have records that would incriminate them....

Haven't seen anyone in the media throw this up.......

Why hasn't Hird sued him? He has tried to sue everyone else.

The answer is pretty obvious.

 

 

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Exactly

They would hate to have him testify under oath

Can any sane person offer an alternative explanation?

Not sure I can fully vouch for my sanity but let me have a go.

I think 'red' & 'Jack' might tell you there is no point suing someone if they haven't got the dollars in the bank to pay out or insurance coverage.

For a change I think the EFC players & former coach might have had and have listened to reasonable legal advice on this one.

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Information was withheld during ASADA and WADA interviews concerning the offsite injection programs. To me that is damming evidence that should have meant a life ban. But of course that is only my opinion

The court of public opinion certainly turned against the Essendon 34 when it was revealed that none of them advised the testers that they had received supplements/injections as it is alleged they should have done. Do we actually know the specific question the players were asked, though? It has always seemed unlikely to me that 34 individuals could all have breached that same obligation. I'm suspicious that the question may have been poorly worded allowing the players to answer honestly while not disclosing information intended to be uncovered by that question. 

If nothing else, hopefully all professional sports people and ASADA have learned from this extended process how better to fulfil their obligations in this important area.

Have your say on whether Jobe keeps the Brownlow.

 

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-12/should-jobe-watson-keep-or-lose-his-brownlow-medal-have-your-say

Dank's defence would have been informed consent on the part of either or the club and the players.

No way would they sue him as he would have said who knew what and when.

The importation and use of the various drugs was in no way illegal as I understand it.

The taking of the drugs violated the contractual provisions of the WADA code.

The only way that it would come out to the benefit of the club is if he was contracted to provided drug A (allowed) and he administered drug B (banned). The absence of records makes a mockery of this argument.

On the issue of blame the players have done their time and should be allowed back. No need for them to be treated as heroes.

What is badly missing is contrition and acceptance of responsibility by EFC, the Coach, the relevant staff and yes.... the players. Each had fault and each bears responsibility albeit in differing ways and to differing degrees.

Looking forward to reading the judgment when available.

16 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Have your say on whether Jobe keeps the Brownlow.

 

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-12/should-jobe-watson-keep-or-lose-his-brownlow-medal-have-your-say

Gil already looking for an out. "The weight of public opinion said that a large group of people feel Jobe should keep his medal, therefore we will let him keep it."

5 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Gil already looking for an out. "The weight of public opinion said that a large group of people feel Jobe should keep his medal, therefore we will let him keep it."

Indeed.

My vomit bag is at the ready.

16 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Dank's defence would have been informed consent on the part of either or the club and the players.

No way would they sue him as he would have said who knew what and when.

The importation and use of the various drugs was in no way illegal as I understand it.

The taking of the drugs violated the contractual provisions of the WADA code.

The only way that it would come out to the benefit of the club is if he was contracted to provided drug A (allowed) and he administered drug B (banned). The absence of records makes a mockery of this argument.

On the issue of blame the players have done their time and should be allowed back. No need for them to be treated as heroes.

What is badly missing is contrition and acceptance of responsibility by EFC, the Coach, the relevant staff and yes.... the players. Each had fault and each bears responsibility albeit in differing ways and to differing degrees.

Looking forward to reading the judgment when available.

If it could be proven he did this, being banned isn't enough. He should also go to jail for assault.

From the AFL site:

"Those still hopeful Watson will retain his medal point to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal verdict in March 2015 that cleared the players.  The AFL Commission must decide if it sides with the rules governing world sport it has signed up for, or if there are extenuating circumstances for Watson and he proves to be an exception."

They are kidding aren't they !!!!

The AFL have flaunted a fragrant disregard for any moral compass or regard for ethics for well over a decade now.

The only thing more transparent than their handling of this saga is Gil's utter disdain for making decisions on "difficult" issues.

The fact this even requires a committee think-tank says it all. They are run like an inept government department, looking for any excuse to wriggle out of a decision that will negatively affect a "favourite son" (grab me a vomit bag), exactly like their laughable rigged outcomes at the MRP where they protect their best mates from losing match payments.

Jab has probably been instructed of the plan, hence he hasn't handed the medal in yet (which any man of integrity would have done first thing this morning, if not months ago when the original finding came down).

4 hours ago, Chris said:

Is that Robbo trying to write an article or Little coming up with his next marvelous ferry plan?

Robbo can write???

3 hours ago, ManDee said:

But surely Robbo still does the colouring in.

 

 

Edit:- Sorry Trigon, I hadn't read your post. Too quick for me!

ManDee's on the money...it was Robbo  doing the colouring in.

SAM'S BROWNLOW OR NOT?

Manager Peter Lenton: Sam was given the opportunity to present to the AFL why he should get the Brownlow (if Jobe stripped), but he didn't want to do that.

 

why the hell should Mitchell have to present a case, he's the highest vote getter of 2012 that isn't guilty of using Performance enhancing drugs, the fact he hasn't got it around his neck already is embarrassing, the AFL is just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

Rory Sloane could have missed a brownlow this year for a 2 second brain fade that barely left a bruise but Jobe can potentially keep his despite being found guilty of cheating. 

7 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

The AFL have flaunted a fragrant disregard for any moral compass or regard for ethics for well over a decade now.

The only thing more transparent than their handling of this saga is Gil's utter disdain for making decisions on "difficult" issues.

The fact this even requires a committee think-tank says it all. They are run like an inept government department, looking for any excuse to wriggle out of a decision that will negatively affect a "favourite son" (grab me a vomit bag), exactly like their laughable rigged outcomes at the MRP where they protect their best mates from losing match payments.

Jab has probably been instructed of the plan, hence he hasn't handed the medal in yet (which any man of integrity would have done first thing this morning, if not months ago when the original finding came down).

I'm pretty sure the WADA rules are that all awards have to be handed back.

Another one for the legal eagles out there...can the AFL be fined for bringing the AFL into disrepute?

44 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The court of public opinion certainly turned against the Essendon 34 when it was revealed that none of them advised the testers that they had received supplements/injections as it is alleged they should have done. Do we actually know the specific question the players were asked, though? It has always seemed unlikely to me that 34 individuals could all have breached that same obligation. I'm suspicious that the question may have been poorly worded allowing the players to answer honestly while not disclosing information intended to be uncovered by that question. 

If nothing else, hopefully all professional sports people and ASADA have learned from this extended process how better to fulfil their obligations in this important area.

It would be very hard to get all 34 to answer the same way unless they were prepared earlier or else the questions were absolutely specific

Agreed, it is beyond insulting that Mitchell should have to present some kind of ludicrous PowerPoint presentation to justify why he deserves the medal over a drug cheat.

Who the [censored] are the morons running the game??!

2 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

I'm pretty sure the WADA rules are that all awards have to be handed back.

Another one for the legal eagles out there...can the AFL be fined for bringing the AFL into disrepute?

it certainly does. All awards and medals....

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It would be very hard to get all 34 to answer the same way unless they were prepared earlier or else the questions were absolutely specific

And if the questions were specific (which they should be...the drug testing officers should be working from a script to avoid failure on a technicality) surely we should know what the specific questions were before we claim that the players breached a rule. I see it as quite conceivable that the players may have breached the spirit of what was intended while not being dishonest in their answers.

(Of course, I'm only speaking about breaching the specific point about answering questions, not the more important issue of breaching the rule about taking illicit substances.)  

22 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Agreed, it is beyond insulting that Mitchell should have to present some kind of ludicrous PowerPoint presentation to justify why he deserves the medal over a drug cheat.

Who the [censored] are the morons running the game??!

There isn't a checklist of questions with regards to substance declarations.  Any and all substances administered in the last 7 days are required to be declared.

" Athletes must declare any substance used in the last seven days including any substances for which they have a current and valid Therapeutic Use Exemption. Not declaring use may affect results management and have adverse consequences for the athlete. " 

Black and white.  

3 minutes ago, Trisul said:

There isn't a checklist of questions with regards to substance declarations.  Any and all substances administered in the last 7 days are required to be declared.

" Athletes must declare any substance used in the last seven days including any substances for which they have a current and valid Therapeutic Use Exemption. Not declaring use may affect results management and have adverse consequences for the athlete. " 

Black and white.  

Thanks, that's helpful. However, unless the question which is specifically asked at the time of the drug test accurately reflects that obligation it's still possible that the players did not deliberately avoid providing necessary information. (Yes, I'm being technical, but that's what working in law enforcement does to you. No-one's ever been found guilty of breaching the "spirit" of a law if it couldn't be proved that they did actually break a law.) 

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nice to see the usual Demonland puerile childish name calling responses to anybody (Robbo) who has the temerity to disagree with the group think

If anybody thought a Swiss court was going to find against an organisation based in Switzerland, that brings money into the country, are surely the ones that may be 'deluded'

It was the reason the whole process was set up this way, Google how many times it has overturned CAS decisions

This whole thing has been a politically driven [censored] up from start to finish

Hopefully once Watson hands back his Brownlow, which I think he will, just to put everything away, we can all forget this whole schamozzle

Pity Watson is not a long limbed blonde tennis player, might have had his ban reduced, consistency   bat [censored]

 

 

They had it backdated, same thing. Best you get off your high horse chap.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

 

Not sure I can fully vouch for my sanity but let me have a go.

I think 'red' & 'Jack' might tell you there is no point suing someone if they haven't got the dollars in the bank to pay out or insurance coverage.

For a change I think the EFC players & former coach might have had and have listened to reasonable legal advice on this one.

But this is not about money Rjay, this is about honour and clearing their names. You've got it all wrong......It's all about principle....

The AFL article mentions that the Commission must choose between adhering to the WADA code or finding an "extenuating circumstances" clause to get him off. Seems very black and white to me, they either ignore the code and risk ASADA coming over the top again (which worked out really well last time, didn't it Gil?) or adhere to the bloody code they are signatories of!