Bedraggled Dee

Wilson is no different to the majority of AFL media hacks who dish up opinion peices based on unsubstantiated information without either wanting or having the time to do the hard yards a professional journalist would do to seek the truth as they see it. There are a couple of exceptions (cap doffed to Emma Quyale) who I think stand out from the pack. This effort from Wilson is just more of the same, and while I happen to agree with most of what she states and enjoy seeing Essendon get a flogging in the media it does not advance the story or provide any insights that us mere mortals havent already worked out on our own. While it does balance the opinion in the public media it really is no different from the tat published by the Essendon apparatchik's from Newscorp. Journalists are a bit like intelligence analysts they are at there best when the can be predictive and not just parrot known information. Its about taking information, corroborating it where possible, rating it and drawing logical inferences that can explain the situation. .

Thats exactly what ASADA exist for and it should not come as a suprise. If you are suspected of breaking the WADA code ASADA will be out to get you. There is nothing wrong or immoral or injust about that.

Tom is a ripper. I would love him to hang around. I think your right that people get hung up on a couple of clangers. grimes is the perfect example. Regularly cops a flogging for a clanger or two but this season he averages 71% disposal effieciency and 1.7 clanger a game from 19.5 disposals. FFS Gary Ablet is 69% and 4.2 clangers a game from 32 disposals.

I dont hink he is right but despite the ranting and raving and the rubbish he is peddling to the players and parents I dont think he is reacting emotionally. I think he thinks he has a realistic chance in the Federal Court and I think the matter is not a forgone conclusion in favour of ASADA. I think he has a history of beng a hard headed businessman and is well versed in using the legal system to get what he wants. I also think that the actions of Hird and Little have been geared towards the current court action from early in the saga. With there media lap-dogs they almost created the evidence they are now using. It was always the preference of Hird and Little to end up in court and they only signed off on the previous penaties under duress and without any contrition hoping but not realy believing that would be the end of it.

Could not have said it better Nasher.

On a positive note and I am not sure if has been mentioned in the thread previously but what a sensational goal by Dean Kent. I recon there is fair bit to work with in this bloke and he could become that x-factor that we need.

Forgot about Jetta. Maybe Jetta for Grimes, I thought he was ordinary

I am sure the bloke has had a strategy from day one and worked behind the scenes even when Evans was in the chair to that end. You dont become a billionaire by being stupid. I recon he is playing a high risk strategy because he has to. To roll over would see Hird gone and the club possibly subject to a WADA ban and further AFL sanctions. The club would also be liable for civil action by the players for lost earnings and damages. My problem is that he knows they did wrong but they are prepared to sell out the game to avoid the fallout from there actions. Hardball business but immoral IMO

Not too many changes remember we played a probable grand final team with only one forward and ruckman up front and only got spanked in the one quarter. Not a great result but also not a disaster. I would leave Gawn in the side but probably bring in JKH for either Barry or Salem. I dont think we can have both in the team against Geelongs big bodies and I just recon we look more dangerous with JKH in the side. Geelong have a great defence and we cant leave the entire forward role up to Dawes on his own. He at least needs Gawn to take a defender away. Chip will have to stay back on Hawkins IMO.

Robinson was interviewed over 5 days so am sure he made full and frank admissions and may well be on a ban right now. I think he may have been a person ASADA re-interviewed after the retired judge reviewed the case.

I think BB is right no one is untouchable its just whether deal is right or not. I want him to stay but if we offered the right deal we would be stupid not to look at it. These things need to be looked a in the context of the drat and any other deals on offer and that cant be done till you know whats available s righ now no one is untouchable. On things for sure we wont get better unless we change and you wont just be able to off load duds.

Interesting article in the Age quoting Dean Robinson's lawyer (Galbally) - Former Essendon fitness coach Dean Robinson could take AFL, ASADA to court Essentially Robinson is looking at the Hird/Bomber Federal court case with agrerat deal of interest and ironically if they are successful will seek to tie the finding to himself. This meas that essentially Essendon may have proved his case against themselves. This also opens the door for Robnson to take action aganst the AFL. If Hird and Co win this case and have the investigation quashed the AFL and ASADA will have no option but to appeal. They will need to go through evidence with a fine tooth comb to determine what remains admissable even if they lose to determine if a case can be proven, I have mentioned it before but they cant get a case up the door is open for Essendon, Hird, Dank, and Robinson to sue the the AFL and ASADA for multi millions. When you include damages and costs I would hate to think what the final cost will be. The finances of the comp will be a mess and future rights and sponsorship deals will inevitably take a whack. The chances of the AFL buying Etihad early and providing relief for the Doggies, North and the Saints will be gone and we can kiss goodbye to any assitance in the short term from the AFL. Little and Hird have put themselves and the club above the good of the competition and ultimately all players including there own in the action they have taken when they know full well that they made serious mistakes and cant say what the players were administered. I have no doubt that Little and Hird are aware of the majority of evidence against them and know that there is a case to answer. They deserve our contempt, and have mine in full measure.

Just checked and your kind of right. Demetriou was briefed by the ACC but they confirmed they did not tell him who the clubs were. He would have had to have been blind Freddie not to have known however. I think that he obvioulsy tipped them off and given the circumstances may well have said or at least hinted things that he shouldn't have. I belive the the ACC or AFP have had a quick look and decided no action is needed against AD so I dont think this issue is a big one or evidence of the process being flawed. I am just not sure what the point is other than to paint Vlad and therefor the AFL as a pack of numpty's. There is no doubt the current AFL hands off approach is a result of some of this stuff. In a sense the Bombers have bit the hand that feeds them or at least was trying to shield them.

I think Vlad was briefed by the ACC in Canberra just prior to the presser. He called Evans a couple of days before that. He obviously would have been summoned by then tot he meetng and alot of communicatons would been happening in the halls of AFL and political power. He would have been well aware of what it was all about without being told anything that was restricted or protected. He obviously knew or highly suspected that it was Essendon in the frame and while it is not ideal for Vlad to be seen to be warning the subject of an ACC enquiry I dont think he broke any laws or did anything we should not expect the CEO of the AFL to do. Hirds complaints about this a just noise to paint the picture the whole process was a debarcle and flawed.

I used to fish the Ovens around Porpunka on a regular basis. Great part of the work. Always called in at Brown Brothers and a local cheese factory on the way through

AD obviously suspected what the Bombers were up to and when summoned to an ACC briefing in Canberra joined the dots and called Evans. Thats very different from revealing the contents of and ACC report which he had not yet been briefed on. I think AD is telling truth but with spin. He did what he did to try and minimise the fallout to the Bombers and the comp and in the process put himself in the sights of Hird and his cronies who seem keen to blame him for everything. I recon Hird is such an egotist he believes that the only reason they are where they are now is because their hand was forced by the call from AD and they made a blue by self reporting. Either that or from day one they have taken the approach to deflect everything onto AD the AFL Dank and Robinson and ASADA in an immoral attempt to minimise the damage or create the questions to end up in the Federal Court. From where I stand Little and Hird (through idiots like Robsinson at the HUN) have manufactured the poor perception of ASADA and the ASADA/AFL investgation from day one.

I think the Armstrong thing will be the template for any action by the sponsors. I think they will want to be seen to be loyal because that is good for the brand but there will be a tipping point where they are comfortable to bail. My guess is it will be once the case against Essendon has been proven in the court of public opinion the trigger will be pressed.

Yes but a debut round 1 next year would be a marketers dream and I recon would be the sensible approach given his injury and lack of preparation. I dont think there is a chance in hell of Ros playing him in the ones unless he gets a couple if games in the twos and pushes for selection. it would be contrary to every comment I have heard from Roos and the selection policy this year.

Nothing exotic, Dandenong Ranges 50km east of Melbourne. Born in the UK (black country west of Birmingham)

I agree. I think infractions issued to the players will result in a flurry of ASADA/AFL action against the FD aministration and the club. If costs are awarded against Hird and the club from this trial it will be in the millions. Based on Hird and Littles behaviour to date further legal action or appeals to the court of arbitration are likely that will cost more millions. I still think workcover will whack the club which will be significant fines. Long term the players will retain the option of law suites if they get crook or suffer adverse effects. Not sure what the AFL will do but its hard to believe many in the Essendon hierachy will survive the impending purge. The AFL will have to try and ensure the club remains viable for the good of the competition but I am not convinced the even Essendon has the capacity to absorb the potential losses. You might find the odd sponsor bails in the wake of infractions not so much in response to the Australian market because there is a relatively compassionate view at least in melbourne, but globally the clubs brand will be trashed and by associated so will brand of associated sponsors. I will bet that Adidas wont want to be associated to a club that has been found guilty of doping.

How can Hird and anyone else in the fotball department be still employed. If I did that to my staff I would be sacked immediately and me and my employer investigated and probably charged by workcover. Its mind boggling that a businessman like Little has taken the stance he has. Even if (and its a big if) no banned substances were taken, the use of products not approved for human comsumption IMO is enough to sack the lot of them. And that includes that little rodent of a doctor who should hang his head in shame. I would rather be treated by a fish slapping stone worshipping faith healer than that hack.

Cant believe he is in the position to extend his contract and has never played a game. Great news through very happy. watched him in a couple of preseason games and the hype is not missplaced.

I dont think to may applicants get annonimity. Defendants may well but having a look at Hirds statement of Claims the annonimity of AFL and ASADA emloyees who are the defendants in this matter does not appear to be a concern.

I dont think they can unless the Judge supresses the information and doubt he will do that give we pretty much know who they are anyway.

So essetntially what Hird is claiming is that he was unable (in the interviews) to not inciminate himself because of the presence of AFL investigators and the AFL anti doping code rule. And that ASADA issued the interm report and shared information with the AFL that was for a purpose other than NADS ie the AFL disreput investigation. My reading of the ASADA powrs is that they can share information to reasonably allow for the investigation of NAD violations and to allow sporting bodies deal with and manage and possible breaches. The first point therefore is logically an argument about the process. If Hird was interviewed separately and the information dahred after the event he would have no case. I think he may have a point about the interim report and why it was written ad disseminated. Not sure what that would mean for ASADA or the AFL but this confirms my opnion that a complete victory for Hird and Little does nothing but confirm that they have something to hide and are more than likely guilty. Hirds reputation is shot but I would hate to see the bill the AFL would get if he successfully sued for damages. It would potentially bankrupt the competition.