Leaderboard

Good luck to him.

Stuie.....Calm down son.....Not every topic has to be a fight.......It's just DC's opinion which differs from mine but really who cares?

Dank, for nearly 4 years, has been spouting the same garbage, that the truth will come out. During this time he has refused to give evidence to a myriad of hearings. Steve/James don't worry, the truth has already come out and it is this " an incompetent Bomber administration, presided over an illegal drug taking operation, by its players and put their professional and personal futures at risk ".

Finally the media publishes the core of CAS's decision! This article explains it perfectly:http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-essendon-decision--how-could-a-different-decision-emerge-from-the-same-evidence-20160113-gm4q4w.html Tanner et al have been disingenuous (or haven't read the judgement) at 'being confused' as to how the AFL Tribunal can come to one decision and CAS a different decision. As I've mentioned in several posts it comes down to the 'strands in a cable' vs the 'links in a chain' approach. Extract: "The links in the chain involved sport scientist Stephen Dank procuring TB-4, it being compounded for Dank, and then Dank administering the TB-4 to the players. In relation to the first two links, the AFL tribunal found the evidence was insufficient. Once the chain was broken, the AFL tribunal decided it could not then determine whether Dank administered the peptide and, accordingly, found in favour of the players. By contrast, WADA adopted the "strand in a cable" approach....Accordingly, WADA set about producing evidence on these "missing links" and attempted to present all the different items of evidence (which constituted 16 separate strands), which alone might have been capable of an innocent explanation, but taken together established guilt to the CAS panel's comfortable satisfaction. Under the "strand in a cable" analysis, each piece of evidence, or "strand", was not required to bear the entire weight of the standard of proof – because some of the weight could be carried by the other strands. Ultimately the CAS panel accepted this more holistic evidentiary approach and focused more on whether there was evidence that Dank handled TB-4 and administered it to the players, rather than when, how and from where he sourced it." From my reading of the judgement, the 'strands' were things like players: not disclosing supplements to ASADA testers (30 times!), not asking the club doctor, not checking with ASADA/WADA website, consenting to the injection regime, the injection regime being almost identical to that use for TB4, the chemical make up of a supplement was almost identical to that of TB4, it was shown Dank did have TB4 and in quantities he could not have used elsewhere etc etc. Because the AFL Tribunal could not 'connect the dots' it never even looked at whether Dank administered TB4 to the players! WADA, didn't try to 'connect the dots'! Instead opting for the 'strands' approach. It seems, the AFLPA legal team had not prepared a defense to this approach! Caught flat footed! WADA's chief lawyer, Richard Young has successfully used the 'strand in a cable' approach before. The AFLPA lawyers were given the opportunity by CAS to object to that approach. Why they didn't absolutely beggars belief!

I don't think we will allow him to train with us in September. We will be in the middle of our finals campaign.

Good luck to the Russian he wanted to play on we moved him on which i think was the right decision.

did you mean "moments of claret"?

It's funny how posters here lament the bias of pro-Essendon media personalities who blindly support their club, yet we chastise Melbourne personalities refusing to do the same. Lyon should be applauded for calling a spade a spade and not blindly supporting his former club, rather displaying objectivity as a commentator even if it's an inconvenient truth about past mistakes of the MFC. The point Lyon was making about our laughable "guilty for not tanking" finding was just how corrupt the AFL is; a corporation who now put their business interests before justice, and he was 100% correct.

- Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs: 1 upgraded rookie for each suspended player (1 for 1) - Essendon: 6 upgraded rookies plus 10 top-up players (16 players for 12 suspended players) This is what annoys me more than anything about the situation, it's so blatantly obvious all efforts to help those affected by the suspensions are being directed solely towards the one club responsible for the situation.

Here is another strand of the 'cable' that needs investigating. Where are the records of the drug programme? Footy clubs keep records of everything: skinfolds; player weight; calories consumed; running times; km run in games etc etc etc. Here is a programme that required a budget of around $700k and a team of people to administer. Where is the data? Where are the records? The club was clearly tipped off and got rid of the records. Why the media silence over this? How can anyone have sympathy for a club that does this? This is deplorable.

As much as I wish Jamar well, I'd be much happier if no ex-MFC player helped Essendon out of their self-dug hole. Wil be hard to watch especially when they play us.

I might try the strands in the cable approach next time i have an argument with my wife

He has lots of experience at playing with poor teams that should hold him good stead.

This from "News" website today " St Kilda CEO yesterday seemed unaware that Jake Carlisle could not train with or have any contact with the ST Kilda club" This is the CEO and Former chief of the Players union and he knows this little. Any wonder the Players are in this hole.

Last time Whateley interviewed Hird, Tanya took notes, the main one underlined was "Don't let Whateley interview James, he asks "inappropriate" questions and has unbiased knowledge on the subject"

Go back through Holmes' Twitter feed or Google "Tracey Holmes Essendon" and you'll find it's obvious why the Hird camp picked her to conduct the interview. I can't think of a sports journalist who has been more one-sided towards the Essendon side of the rumpus.

Please record this so we can see the results. I assume you will be wearing a fire-proof suit?

We have plenty of youngsters on our list. It is not a failing this year, to not have taken another. If we wanted another, we would have paid out Terlich. We clearly wanted some more experience and hence the three we traded for. Not everyone added to a list makes the 22, especially in the first year anyway. It is done, so let's move on.

The stance taken by Paul Marsh, head of the players association, on the Essendon verdict, dramatically illustrates why this organisation is about as dysfunctional as Essendon itself. The Association is supposed to look after the interests of ALL AFL players, yet it has consistently pursed through the the last three years the interests of the Essendon 34 instead of championing the health of the AFL's entire playing group. I can think of no more important industrial relations issue than ensuring all employees have a safe work environment, yet in spite of Essendon's being condemned by WorkSafe and indeed being heavily fined for it, and CAS condemning it as being unsafe over a two year period, the AFLPA chooses to condemn these judgements and takes no stance about workplace safety in general, or the disgrace of the EFC's behaviour. Further, shouldn't one of the primary roles of the organisation dedicated to the welfare of the players be to ensure that the AFL fields a fair competition. Instead Marsh has said nothing about a doped up Essendon in 2012/2013 creating an UNFAiIR playing field, thereby substantially affecting the welfare of the players from the other 17 clubs. Nothing could illustrate more dramatically how out of touch the AFLPA is when yesterday Marsh called for the AFL to abandon its support for the WADA code. The implications of this action would be the AFL players would have no internationally sanctioned protection and enforcement of safe work places, and would have to rely on the imperfect and dysfunctional rules of the AFL, in much the same way as the American NFL do who operate outside WADA rules. This is not altogether unrelated to the fact that there are scandal, after scandal after scandal in the NFL, usually related to unrestricted drug use. It should not be something the AFL should aspire to. It is about time the AFL players of integrity stood up to Marsh's regime. What was it about "what happens when good men do nothing........."? Scandals like Essendon occur that's what, with catastrophic results, not least for the players.

Read today that the AFL and Essendon seem to be unsure wether the players can be paid or not. Hello after years of this being a possibility no body thought to ask the question. No one on Tueswday rang WADA? We are being led by some people of poor quality

The two highest polling and untainted players deserve to be the fairest and best. Not awarding the Brownlow means giving in to the culture introduced into the game by the machinations of the Danks of this world - something we shouldn't allow to happen. Cotchin and Mitchell deserve to share the medal.

As their has been a lot of speculation (especially after the essendon verdict) wether we should have kept our 2nd round pick this year, i thought i would check our recent history of what we have done with this pick over the recent seasons. Only players picked in 2nd round, not taking into consideration priority picks and expansion team extra picks. Rating System: Good,Pass and Bad. N/A = traded out pick. 2014- Alex Neal-Bullen pick 40 11games. Good 1st Season but too early to rate. 2013 N/A 2012 Jack Viney (f/s) pick 26 49 games. GOOD 2011 Rory Taggert pick 36 0 games. Bad 2010 Jeremy Howe pick 33 100 games. Good 2009 Luke Tapscott pick 18 48 games. Bad 2008 James Strauss pick 19 24 games. Bad 2007 Adam Maric pick 21 31 games. Bad 2006 Ricky Pettard pick 30 84 games. Pass 2005 N/A 2004 N/A 2003 N/A 2002 Jared Rivers pick 26 194 games. Good So since 2013 and going back to 2002 , we have traded out our 2nd rounder 4 times, made three good picks, 1 ok pick and 4 bad ones. About a 50% chance to get a 100 game player out of the draft with our second pick. We should still get 100 games out of Melksham so although the trade looks damning, it won't be the worse bit of business that the footy department has conducted.

Except apparently at Essendon they were trained to lie to ASADA when repeatedly asked re supplements Off shore - maybe St James spent some of his paid exile in some Swiss bank vaults? Pit really pisses me off when Danks says it is all so unfair but will not produce the clearing evidence. And as many have reiterated, clubs keep records of absolutely everything ....... except details of what they, in their delusional state, may have considered ground breaking sports medical breakthroughs.

Red I think it's because a football club get a bigger fine for not tanking then it does for have a program of injecting illegal substances to its players.

You are trained as an athlete not to trust your doctor and to check that what they say you are getting is not banned. This is drummed into athletes, why the AFL feel they are different and their poor little boys need protection is beyond me. Time for the whole league to grow up and join the 20th century, let alone the 21st!

Spot on. Doc Reid was incredibly unlucky that the letter was not received. Even more unlucky, he forgot to follow up on it.

I have heard so many people draw the analogy that when you go to your doctor and he says take these - you usually don't question - you expect everything to be on the up and up and you trust . I agree however..... As soon as I get outside and someone asks me 30 times if my doctor gave me something I don't reply " nothing........he gave me nothing"

It'll be another opportunity for us to see how delusional the golden boy is.

Melksham, every day of the week.

The way I read it is that the AFL Tribunal was looking for any excuse to exonerate the players. I'm just amazed that they didn't give more weight to the fact that the players did not mention the supposedly legal injections when responding to the regular ASADA questionnaires. That screams GUILTY to me even if there was no other evidence. How are the EFC apologists in the media dealing with that? Ignoring it?

Agree, not the worst decision. Also, we can add the fact that although Melksham will not play in 2016, it is not likely that a Round 2 pick would do so either. So I reckon the rationale behind a lot of the hand-wringing boils down to the argument that Melksham does not look like an A Grader, but there is always hope than a new R2 pick will turn out to be one. Pretty weak reason to condemn the club.

Damn right, CBD. And besides, Article 11.2 of the WADA Code says: 'If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are found to have committed an anti-doping violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g. loss of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation.' I presume that the penalties already imposed on EFC by the AFL can't be construed as a response to this requirement since the players have only now been officially found to have committed the violations (the fines etc were also penalties imposed before the completion of the ASADA investigation and, in any case, were for 'bringing the game into disrepute' not for doping). What's happened to the AFL's responsibilities under the WADA code?

Excellent topic. Without doubt the PA has been and continues to be a source of evil. Their pursuit of free agency - and now to extend it further - alone may yet destroy the game.

Anyone who has listened to her program "the ticket" and commentary on this saga would realise she is hopelessly biased when it comes to this topic. This is simply a forum for the cannonisation of St James to join his place amongst the martyres.

I certainly won't be watching this drivel. Stage managed spin orchestrated by Hird et al. Thought Tracey Holmes was better than this. Not good use of the public broadcasters time and resources.

I wouldn't be troubled about the Russian. I am more worried that the AFL website is suggesting Daniel Cross as one of Essendon's "top-up" players. This cosy top-up arrangement is going to impact on every Club to their detriment in addition to the damage caused by the banned players at other Clubs.

Can confirmed Russian was down at Essendon today wearing their uniform. Will be one of their top ups. Gawn vs Jamar round 2.. I know who id rather have.

So in effect, you think Melksham (and all the Essendon 34) should be banned for life and that CAS got it wrong? Because that's the natural extension of your argument. IMO, they have broken the rules and have received a significant punishment. I do think it's very unbecoming that the players involved and the AFLPA continue to maintain their "innocence" and agree with you that contrition would be far better - although I haven't heard Melksham's position on this yet. If the punishment is accepted and served in good faith by the players, then they should be free to re-commence their careers.

If Whateley was doing the interview it would not be happening M9 He is doing it with her because it will full easy questions.

Drunks like robbo refer to them as moments of clarity

Demonland has gone downhill badly over the past 12 months.

From Twitter: AFL ‏@AFL 31m31 minutes ago Managers of the 34 suspended players met with the AFLPA yesterday to get an initial picture of the ramifications. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-13/managers-of-banned-players-in-hastily-arranged-meeting-with-aflpa … Given it appears to be the blind leading the blind, I'm not sure if anyone there could actually see the picture.

I find it amusing to read RESPONSIBILITIES and AFL in the same sentence.

The Hun reports that fitness staff cannot prepare programs or run training sessions for the players. But Matt Finnis says Carlisle will have a program prepared for him so that he will be spot on for 2017 season. The penalties for not adhering to the WADA code is enormous. If found not to be adhering. They can then have the 2 year ban added on to their existing ban. (ie) Nov. 13 2016 will then become Nov. 2018. who will be the first to slip up?

As the former head of the Players Union you would think he would know the WADA code inside out. What did he do at the union all those years. Our game is being run by idiots

Here are the 12 players that were not issued with infraction notices who were on Essendon's list going into the 2012 season. Currently listed Mark Baguley Courtenay Dempsey Jackson Merrett David Zaharakis Delisted Anthony Long, Lauchlan Dalgleish, Jason Winderlich, Elliott Kavanagh, Nick O'Brien, Michael Ross, Kyle Reimers Hal Hunter So there's 12 players who did not receive infraction notices - why not? What did they all not do to escape trouble? ... did they all say no? Were they all frightened of needles like Zaharakis 'supposedly' was? And why hasn't our media interviewed them? Surely there is a story there ... a big story in my opinion. It's as if they've all been collectively hidden away so as they don't say anything. We know that Hunter is taking court action but what of the other 10? (apart from Zaharakis) ... as is highlighted above, 4 of them are still active players at the EFC ... do the 34 who were busted wonder why those 4 (plus the other delisted 8 players) were somehow passed over by ASADA/WADA? There's probably a number of other questions surrounding the (non) dirty dozen. Essendon's 2012 list The 34 who were charged (and busted)

Yep, the parallels are amusing. I was listening to SEN this afternoon and the hosts were going on about top-up players. Eventually one of them said something like, "just get the kids in! Throw them into the furnace and see who thrives! They have some great young talent and this Parish kid seems like a future captain, so throw them in and see who stands up and leads their team, it'll be really exciting." I laughed. As a wise man once said, history is doomed to repeat itself.

it's not tainted, just the person who happened to win it with the aid of peds cotchin and mitchell should get it.........because they were the best and fairest......no question now the fact that time has passed is lamentable, but it didn't stop the afl awarding brownlows to those who lost on countbacks in the past

I think rjay made the point in another thread, and it was also well argued by Barrett on Footy Classified last night, that it's a farce that the AFL are even giving Jobe a say in the matter. It's like asking a criminal to help decide his sentence. The AFL are running a competition, not a reality tv show where the viewer gets a vote - they should make decisions, not outsource them because they seem too hard and don't want a PR catastrophe. As noted above, it should have been done yesterday. I think Watson will do the honourable thing and hand it back.

As a commentator Lloyd is hopeless he has never been able to change from an EFC player to a commentator. His comments are always tainted by his obvious bias. I never listen to him.