deanox

I suspect that if we had not had our recent run of foot injuries, or the Hogan back incident last preseason, this would not even have made a scan. Sounds to me like someone stepped on him, he has a bruise/tender spot and they scanned as utmost precaution. If it is still bruised come next weekend, they'll give him a week off because, hey, who cares if he misses a practice match.

I think if he moved, it would decrease his personal brand value as well. He needs to take that into consideration too.

Baghdad Bob where do you get those stats? Surely you didn't count them?

I have a source somewhat close to this current discussion. As far as I can tell, at Essendon IT was backed up off site and the usual IT guys didn't go out to destroy these back ups at the time. I'll see if I can get further information.

1. Yes you feel empathy towards the athlete. 2. Yes this has happened, a lot of times. 3. This wasn't a smoke mistake by a unfamiliar with the WADA code this was a months long multiple substance injection regime run differently to normal supplements programs (off site etc). 4. Sympathy doesn't mean leniency.

I suspect of the players get more than a handful of matches (I believe it should be 12-24 months) the players and Essendon will kick and scream that they were unfairly done by. They won't go quietly.

I couldn't get the ollie wines bit, had everything else! Demonland Cryptic Post Monday's!

I think you mean infraction notices. But otherwise I agree completely. November 14 is the maximum "backdating" they can hope for. Cronulla was a very special case.

I doubt think missing plays for 1-2 years will kill Essendon. But it wouldn't surprise me if 34 law suits for loss of earnings, reputation, health etc. combined with sponsor jump off does. The legal battles will drain them dry if the paves come after them. I don't know much about corporate structure but I hope the AFL isn't ultimately responsible for this. If they aren't I just cannot see the AFL being allowed to give them any financial or on field support by the other 17 clubs. I'd also love to know the "out of contract" status of non - suspended Essendon players for this year. If I want one of the 34 and players do get suspended I'd be thinking about jumping ship at the end of this season.

I think add you suggested, any "no significant fault" argument would need to show conspiracy of others to dope and mislead the players. That the players have stood by Hird suggests they won't be able to shore this. In addition, the letter from Reid suggests they all weren't on the same page. And the fact the players allowed themselves to be objected by a sports scientist off site and that they signed waiver forms listing incomplete information and potentially banned substances probably is enough to discredit that request. I think they'll get 18-24 months myself.

Read my post above, depending on the fixture dates, 18 months would give them an extra 8 games, more than 1/3 of a season.

Assuming they are given credit for the time served since the infraction notices, 18 months would take then through to 14 May 2016 (18 months after infraction notices). In 2014 this would make them miss the first 8 rounds, and in 2013 it would be the first 7 rounds. (2015 is different due to the cricket world cup) If this is the penalty, it will be interesting to see how they are allowed to manage their list.

While that could be a possible scenario, do you believe that is plausible govern the number of external reviews by independent parties? I.e. judges, usada etc. Also, remember that the ASADA action ended when the players were issued show cause notices. It was then a separate, independent (Abbott) government-appointed, anti doping review panel who took the ASADA case, reviewed it and decided to place the players on the register of findings. These steps are independent of ASADA and are effectively bipartisan. Is it really a plausible scenario when all that is considered?

I'll say it. Clubs should not be able to trade players without their consent. BUT this only applies if the AFLPA agrees to remove free agency and stops its players from forcing trades against the will of their club. Is tone the AFL stood up to the players. If they don't like it, many other players would love the honour of playing AFL, and I reckon 95% of people would be happy to watch the players that wasn't too be there.

If he was a reasonable athlete (read good pace) with a big build playing rugby he would probably be playing no. 8. A good prop could potentially transition but a lot of them are just the big blokes.

Can anyone tell me why it is suggested the Essendon players could get 6 months backdated? The cronulla players all got 12 months back dated. And the back dating was to the date the ASADA investigation concluded (in acknowledgement that ASADA delayed the process by not issuing infraction notices immediately, presumably because they were still investigating Essendon). I can only assume that the equivalent punishment in this case would be 12 months, starting from the date of infraction notices. Edit: typo and minor clarification

I don't have a link but pretty sure it was in the wada press release I response to the cronulla penalties.

Based on that bb if they have told the afl they wanted to start a voluntary suspension then the summer months will be credited as per the final line. I'd like to see the rules amended so that provisional/voluntary suspension only counts if in season.

Yep. He was the aussie team fitness advisor for 3(?) years.

I'm even less of an expert but I understood the fee was much high (closer to $100k) although I believe that included the probable cost of the lawyering to get the documents for requesting leave. $5,000 would barely get these guys out of bed.

WJ, I can't believe they are allowed to train. No other athlete in the world would be allowed to while under infraction notices. I believe that they have been given massive leeway in this. Once suspensions hit it will be the real deal but I believe it will date from either the infraction notice date (14 November) OR their last played date if they played since. So the IR rules players will get extra time, and so will any NAB cup players. Does anyone think Mark Neeld and Neil Craig learnt anything from their time at Melbourne?

I'm not sure of the lgalities of Hird's contract, but I would imagine that Essendon could argue they signed his contract extension in 2013 based upon an understanding that even though the players were under investigation, Hird had publically and privately stated that he believed all were innocent. If that is proved otherwise, Essendon would surely be able to say "Until now Hird has told us that he and the players are innocent of everything they have been achieved. This has now been proven false. Hird has lied to the EFC throughout this saga, and our contract was signed under this false understanding. Now that the tribunal is finished and the players have been found guilty, Hird's position is untenable and his contract is bneing terminated". I cannot imagine that there is a clause that says "no matter what happens you must pay me"? Surely not. Once the verdict is handed down surely the playing field changes regarding the contract? Allegations were unproven, and in fact they weren't even officially alegations just speculation, at the time of signing in 2013.

Not sure you've interpreted that correctly. Yes, either side can appeal. And Under the rules, the players would be unable to play during an appeal period "if they were challenging suspensions".

My understanding is althoughASADA handed down infraction notices, the players have been charged by the AFL. The AFL is responsible for the prosecution however ASADA is assisting them. As a result I do not think it is completely inappropriate for the AFL to be involved in these negotiations however it is inappropriate if ASADA is not involved or aware.

WJ, I believe technically the AFL are the prosecution on the current hearing, however they are acting with ASADA who is leaking the prosecution.