M_9

Those actually at the ground would have seen a definite game plan in action, as distinct from the way the Bullies went about it. Markedly different approach when playing down wind cf against the wind. Few, if any, long bombs.

I reckon I read that the players cannot be paid by the club if they are banned. Nor can they train with the club. Stand to be corrected.

Fairly certain SEN said they were broadcasting all NAB games. This was mentioned when the non-TV-broadcasting of six NAB games was discussed.

After reading the AFL Anti-doping code 'the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility' (Sect. 14.7). The date mooted for the decision is March 18th. The exception is if the players were offered and accepted Provisional suspension, which we understand did happen. I doubt that that offer was made before the IN's were issued (Nov 2014). They can claim credit for the time they suspended themselves. No Significant Fault can cut a sanction by 50%. I doubt that the players could offer 'Substantial Assistance' which would entitle them to a further discount. I reckon 2 years, discounted to 12 months, and backdated to last Nov. They'll miss all season 2015 IMO.

'ASADA also engaged consulting firm Deloitte to conduct a forensic analysis of the computer and mobile phone of one key witness.' http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-doping-saga-asada-accusations-now-turn-to-shanghai-factory/story-fni5ezdm-1227088199608

Put me down for 8. Reckon it may be 6 tops.

Slight back twinge a couple of weeks ago, so no contact work. Should be right very soon.

Humorous rant by Ealesy over at Bombertalk in relation to The Age editorial. What is causing the tainting of the AFL? Essendon, James Hird and the players sitting back and respecting the process, barely commenting on the saga unless absolutely required and when commenting, doing so in a respectful and polite manner despite not receiving anything of the sort in return? Or the likes of Caroline Wilson, Tim Lane, Jake Naill, and Samantha Lane bleating and crying and sooking and demanding and acting like tantruming 3-year-olds who want to see this matter only resolved in a manner acceptable to them. Geez, have I been getting it wrong? Paragons of virtue, that mob from Tulla.

Some quality posts on the Ess board over at BF: "Pick four nutters to take advantage of the no send off in AFL. Roll one out for each of the first four games. Would love to hear the Carlton supporters lose their [censored] as Robbie Muir breaks 6 jaws in a game of footy . 16 men left for the last half and one third of their best 18 missing more than a month. Ah, that's what I call bringing the game into disrepute." and "If found guilty, I am predicting 6 month bans backdated to September 6 which would see them miss no matches at all."

If you've got some time on your hands, there's a lot of laughs to be had by reading Bruce Francis' posts on Bombertalk or the Ess board on Bigfooty. Here's a sample from MarkG, who previously posted copious amounts of drivel on the HUN site before moving to BF and communicating with like-minded shallow end of of the gene pool swimmers: 'You don't think we our supporters can influence the decision. How about getting the AFLPA lawyers to get off their shiny arses and tell us why the AFL is saying 50:50 at best. How about the club phoning Cornes and asking who from the AFL said 50:50 at best? And then phoning the person at the AFL and asking them why they believe this. And then phone the AFLPA lawyers and get them to strengthen their case where the AFL person believes the players case is vulnerable. The players could be suspended for 2 years here. And Robbo stated that the AFL wants a guilty outcome.'

HP Assembly language. Flicking switches to enter the code. Monash Uni circa 1974.

My retort was in response to the statement that there is a difference between being found not guilty, and being found innocent. JBP's trial (where he was charged with criminal offences) was aborted when the jury could not agree. JBP emerged from the courthouse claiming he had been found innocent. The EFC players may be found not guilty. That would not mean they are innocent. More likely the circumstantial evidence was not strong enough. FWIW I think ASADA has sufficient evidence to have only a percentage of the 34 found guilty. Evidence on BF that one player has named 6 or so that he knows were injected with TB4 (along with himself).

Joh Bjelke Petersen says 'Hi'.

I posted the other day that, according to the AFL Anti-doping Code, Provisional Suspension only prohibits players from competing. At least that's how I read it. I know it was mentioned that Saad didn't train, but that may have been self-imposed or imposed by the Saints. Why have him train if he may not be re-signed? The other point to note is that players Provisionally Suspend themselves ie they need to make that request to the AFL. It is conceivable that many didn't make that request if they were steadfast in their belief that nothing banned was taken. Again, that's the way I read the Code.

I haven't found the time to pore over Bruce Francis's ramblings on Bombertalk as yet. Francis claims to have spent 40 hours interviewing Dank. I find that surprising. When Dank was asked some time ago why he didn't defend the Cronulla players he said he didn't have the time as he had clients he had to serve. Strange that he found 40 hours for Francis. Given that Francis is house-bound in Tweed Heads, that's a heck of a lot of time to spend on the phone. Anyway, here's part of Francis's answer to the question 'did he think Dank was 'the genuine article - honest?' "I don't know enough to make such a judgment. Dank has given very plausible responses to my questions but it is still impossible to make a judgment. For example, prior to speaking to him, I thought as TB-4 helped soft tissue injuries, he must have used it at EFC. I asked him what he used and why. He said Thymomodulin because it boosts the immune system and consequently helps ward off colds, flu and coughs, which are the worst things that can happen to a football team. And here's me think that a navicular, ACL or sof tissue injuries were the worst things that could happen.

It appears to be up to the AFL. You would think that the AFL gave Watson and Fletcher the go ahead to compete in the IR series because they (the AFL) didn't consider that to be competition. Perhaps one rule for Saad, another for the EFC. Is an intra-club match competition?

Looking through the AFl Anti-doping Code, I cannot see anywhere that it states that a player cannot train whilst provisionally suspended: Competing is something different: Section 14.7 (d) If an (sic) Player voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from the AFL and thereafter refrains from competing, the Player shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed. The players, if they sought it, could have been Provisionally Suspended from the moment they received their IN's. If they compete I would assume any 'time served' would be wiped.

Geez bing, given that you re-posted here it seems an odd question to ask! It appears the mods here have deleted it (understandably). I had PM'd it to WJ, and can PM it to any other DLer I think. Posts deleted from BF still reside in the ether, as you well know. Anyway, to answer your question, the person who posted what appears to be paragraphs taken from ASADA's brief of evidence comes across as a 'educated' person. He professes to be a Blues supporter, and apparently early days posted on the Essendon forum on BF, which can get you carded if you upset anyone there. When questioned about the authenticity of the material he posted, he says that one of the 34 is a mate of his. It's certainly put the wind up many on the BF Ess forum.

From Bruce Francis on Bombertalk (this bloke is a crack-up): On another issue concern has been expressed that EFC could be without 18 players for the NAB Cup. I beg to differ. EFC has been at pains to protect the identity of the players who have been charged. If those 18 were omitted from the NAB Cup we would learn their identity. I therefore believe the club would leave out an additional dozen or so top players so no one would know the identity of the 18. Thus, EFC would field a third rate side in the NAB Cup. I suspect Fox and NAB wouldn't be too pleased with that scenario. Fielding a third rate side would be much more effective than Robbo's mythical boycott. A boycott would have brought penalties and ridicule. A third-rate team sticks it up the AFL.

The same poster added: I should also point out that being knowingly injected with TB4 does not necessarily mean that they were knowingly being injected with banned substances. In fact, my understanding is that they were not knowingly injected with illegal substances and believed that TB4 was not banned.

The following was posted around 1pm today on BF. From memory the poster has a very close connection to the person whose posts were deleted the other night by a BF mod. It turns out that ASADA do have a star witness. He plays or played for Essendon and testifies that he knowingly was injected with TB4. In addition there are a number of GL entries from the Essendon financial systems that exactly correlate to Alvari's own financial records. Further, the player in question lists a long list of players who also knowingly took TB4. Finally, it would appear that TB4 was not the only thing taken by players and there are much darker shadows there. So, this is one player who clearly has gone for the "substantial assistance" clause and who's testimony should not necessarily be taken as fact. Nonetheless, this is compelling and convincing stuff.

Re the post that appeared very briefly on the Bf HTB (Hot Topic Board) late last night before being removed by a Moderator; this from the Moderator: It was removed from the HTB as there are serious implications for the person involved. the information should not be available at this time. The person who made the post has been a regular poster (allegedly a Blues supporter) and his posts have been rational and well expressed. He appears to have gone to ground. Just to repeat myself, the post appeared to be part of ASADA's evidence to the current tribunal placing TB4 on the premises. You would assume that the players have received a copy of this evidence and the poster has a mate who is one of the 34 charged. He (the poster) received a copy - probably electronic as the post appeared to be a 'cut and paste'.

The poster, when asked, said the info he posted came from 'a current or former player'. I suspect there'd be ramifications for someone. The Bf mod had all traces removed pretty quickly. They'd know exactly what can and cannot be posted with well over six million posts to the forums.

Now the players say they will boycott the NAB games unless any backdating goes to last Sept. Just one hurdle - they first have to be cleared to play before they can institute a boycott. http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-players-could-boycott-nab-challenge-games-if-afl-backdates-anti-doping-bans/story-fndv8gad-1227201050379

Gee. I was just gobsmacked. It was on page 117 of the Bruce Francis thread (now back to p116) with numerous posts deleted. The original poster had deleted their post but needed the mod to delete posts that had quoted him. From memory it was 4 or 5 paragraphs, each numbered (4 digits) that I guess was an 'evidence sheet' for want of the correct term. It detailed where the TB4 was sourced, who sourced it, who injected it and into which players it was injected. I think all names were redacted (xxxxxx sort of thing). Like all other posters I couldn't believe what I was reading. I could not have posted it here anyway.