deanox

Who'd of thought Barry would run out for Melbourne before Hogan?

Game on.

And for those who love stats we are running at 77.2% disposal efficiency, Greater than the dogs 72.

The players have stopped caring. The deliberate rushed behind killed them. What a crock.

Anyone see the tv replay of that holding the ball? Surely he paid it the wrong way?

Why are the umpires in blue?

I didn't quite get that either. It sounded to me like the club and Hird are doing the fighting on behalf of the players. My main concern is that if this case is awarded in ASADAs favour, can the players launch legal action for the same reason but as a new interested party?

That's how I read it. It may be compete for no points. It may be retrospectively remove points for 2012/13 (which may explain why the AFL banned them from finals but didn't strip points, so that they can do that this time).

I'm 100% with you. And the Essendon players now have the chance to put their side of the story forward in the show cause notice whether it is that they believe they are innocent or whether they aren't sure. Now is their chance. AND as McDevitt said, if they continue to go along with the process and put in response to show cause consistent with their interviews, ASADA will look favourably on their assistance and on the no significant fault IF they are found to have breached the code. BUT right now they are fighting the process and not cooperating.

No, ASADA issue infraction notices to players. The AFL then bans the players.ASADA does NOT hand down penalties. Also, Under Article 11 of the WADA code, if more than two players from any team are found to have committed an anti-doping offence, the ruling body of their competition is required to impose an "appropriate sanction" against the whole team, which could include loss of points or disqualification from the competition. Yes there is scope to ban the club for future years, but there would also be scope to void all results 2012-2014 and leave it at that. Your suggestion that 12 months deregistration is required is fabricated. Go have a read of the code, it is interesting, easy to read and it isn't hard to find.

BB, did you read my last reply to you or just not respond? Based on this post you don't quite grasp the show cause notice. They aren't being asked to take a ban at this stage. They are being asked if there are any mitigating factors as to why they shouldn't be banned. They can respond protesting their innocence, that is entirely within the spirit of the show cause notice. This is their opportunity to provide their side of the story. After both sides are received, the evidence will be reviewed by the panel and if the panel believes an offence has occurred then they will be placed on the register of findings. Only THEN can a penalty be made by the AFL.

BB, I agree with you but I think you have a mistake in there. The players aren't currently being asked to take a ban. TASADA has alleged they took TB4 and the players have asked to provide their side of the story. The show cause notice is not the ban, nor is it a request to be banned. The Essendon players should respond similar to what you have just said: I don't believe I took a banned substance, and have no evidence to suggest I did. When asked to take part in a supplement program, I undertook due dilligence by going straight to my club doctor as we are taught by ASADA and the AFL. I am not qualified to understand medical or scientific jargon, so my club doctor, on my behalf, checked the legality of all supplements and produced a form listed those supplements stating they were WADA compliant. I then agreed to only be given WADA compliant substances. It is then up to ASADA to decide if they should be placed on the register of findings, and at that point the AFL selects an appropriate punishment, which, when considering the evidence and the show cause notice, could be as little as 6 months according to WADA rules IF they are satisfied that criteria are met. At that point, if an infraction notice and penalty is applied, the players have an opportunity to fight the bans based on evidence. Note: the italics section will change from player to player. Some will say "I certainly was not injected with that drug" while some will say, "I do not know what I was injected with". This is based on what they told ASADA during the interviews.

I totally agree with this.As far as I understand the situation, the players cannot be found to have "no fault or negligence". There may be scope for "no significant fault or negligence" which reduces it from 24 to 12 months. This would be case by case, and ASADA would need to be pretty satisfied that the players did try, they did check but they were tricked. Would it hold up? I'm not sure, but it is conceivable within the rules. The possible 6 month ban that had been mooted assumes reduction to 12 months for "no significant fault or negligence" then reduction to 6 months for "cooperation". Right now they have lost any chance of the latter. And by refusing to play ball and respond to show cause notices they are losing any chance of the former.

Out Cross, McKenzie In Michie, Blease Riley to start and Salem the sub. The other option is that Salem out and JKH in. I don't think we'll have three changes though.

I meant, if the players bring civil suits against the club for any combination of "unsafe work place", "administering bannd substances which prematurely ended my playing career", "lost earnings" (both as a player, and future career), "damaged reputation", "pain and suffering" etc. will the club be responsible to pay all claims out of its own pockets, or will insurance cover them? I assume the doctor would have the appropriate professional idemnity insurance, but Hird, Dank and Co, won't. I imagine a player like Jobe Watson, if banned, would be in the box seat to win a claim against the club on the above for millions in lost earnings etc. particularly if stripped of a Brownlow and misses a year or two of AFL pay, follwed by damage to his potential post-playing career. Watson might not, because Essendon might mean more to him than money, and he and family are well off already. If I was a small/mid time player earning a couple of hundred K and this was currently affecting my playing and future career, and there was a chance this would be settled for 500+ k, that would certainly set up the rest of my life. If 34 players put a case in after being banned the club will certainly fold.

I agree somewhat. IF they have players banned, I imagine they'll have 34 law suits. I am not sure what insurance will cover in the face of this sort of negligence, does anyone else know more about this sort of thing?

I think there is a clear misunderstanding here from Essendon and particularly the players. Not the misunderstanding we all already know about, but regarding the show cause notices. Up til now, the players have cooperated. ASADA have gathered all the available evidence and have a pretty good understanding of what they believe happened, and believe they can defend that understanding. They believe a banned substance was administered. Because they believe this, they must issue show cause notices. This notice asks players to provide their response to the allegations surrounding use. This is where the misunderstanding is. The players and Essendon seem to think ASADA should have just gone away because they cooperated. But they need to respond to the show cause notices. The players still have an out. They respond to the show cause notices saying: "I do not know if I was injected with a banned substance. I was assured all substances were legal according to WADA. I asked my doctor to check and he assured me they did. I asked for that in writing, and it was provided. I believe I did my due dilligence to ensure any substance administered was legal according to the WADA code. If it is proved that I was administered a banned substance this is through no fault of my own and I went above and beyond what I normally would to ensure the substane was legal." ASADA can then review the eveidence, and issue an infraction notice for use. The AFL in conjunction with ASADA can then apply a penalty discount on the "no fault" or "no significant" fault clauses. Even if a deal WAS made that the players would get off, this process would still be required IF they were found to have taken a banned substance. I see it as being somewhat similar (although not exactly the same) as a self defence in a murder case. The police typically still lay the charge then the defendant shows why it was self defence and the court answers accordingly. The police don't walk up to the scene of the crime, take the knife from your hand and let you walk away. (OK I know that isn't a perfect analogy but I think it works) I also believe there may be some confusion between what was "a deal" and what was ASADA trying to outline to Essendon players why it would be worth their while to cooperate from the start. If no cooperation was forthcoming it was unlikely to accept a no fault or no significant fault defence.

As a defender, I'm not concerned about him getting 14 disposals. I'm much more interested in him stopping his man kicking goals. I don't think he is playing the best footy of his career, but he took some good marks last wekk (and dropped a howler) but he wasn't on his own in having a poor game. And regardles of being out of form, he wasn't in our bottom 5. Salem and Riley had 6 disposals between them. Frawley only had 8 touches. Kent and Bail eacdh had 9 touches and didn't do anywhere near enough. And if we are picking on defenders, Howe only had 10 touches, dropped a "speccy" which cost a goal, and punched a ball over the top into space where north ran onto it and kicked another goal. 2 brain fades. Given McKenzie is out, I'd suggest there are at least 3 changes before Garland gets considered, and even then I doubt he would be next cab of the rank.

Actually they name three emergencies every week. When Casey plays first they tend to only hold one back (or let that person pay half a game as happened the other week). Regardless of who is held back, all three are being treated by the coaches as part of the squad. In addition there is no intention for the held back emergency to actually play. I think that there is a fair chance the decision regarding which emergency is held over could be based on "who can afford to miss this week". Terlich has played AFL level consistently. We know what he can do. Blease on the other hand was finding good form in the VFL. Holding him back means he doesn't pay for two weeks, potentially damaging his form. If there was an injury on Friday maybe Blease came in, but they were willing to risk Terlich for 24 hours in order to make sure Blease gets a run.

Interesting contrast between nutbean and Chook here. Both of you are saying the same thing "turnovers cost goals", but you are putting the emphasise on different things. One option is that we aren't good enough at disposing the ball. (with some of the OOF and cheap turnovers this year, I'd agree). The other is "retain possession of the ball" (and I think we've started to do that). RE the second way, I see two ways of achieving this: one is working very hard to get into position to receive the ball (long leads, movement off the ball). The other is decision making (taking the first and quick option, but taking the right option. Summing up the risk between giving away possession by kicking to a contest vs taking a short option. etc.) All of these need to improve. For me, disposal will look between when we do the other things right. They can all kick a footy. If they make the right decisions, they'll look like superstars with elite kicking. They won't have improved their kicking, but they'll have stopped making bad decisions. That being said, a team of Jack Watts has more "good options" than a team of Dan Nicholsons, so better foot skills make it easier to choose a safe option. The most important thing though is running hard. North out ran us today. We manned up v. well at times but they moved well off the ball. Everyone within 50 m of the ball would be manned up, but someone else would lead from 100 m away into space (space created by their team mates drifting out of the way). We don't do that sort of running and leading. We do well when we have a spare player to kick to, but we, as a team, don't work hard enough to create that option.

McKenzie out, and Blease in is the expected change. Blease was named emergency after some good form, and back it up with 25+ disposals, so he is the first "in line". But this is not a like for like match up, abd Michie also got a lot of it at Casey. Therefore I'm going with : Michie and Blease in for McKenzie (suspended) and Salem. As mentioned above, Blease will give us something we haven't had all year, and while there is no certaity it will translate to AFL, now is as good a time as any to roll the dice, given the numbers he has been racking up. The other option is, Riley in to the 22 for McKenzie, Blease in for McKenzie, Salem to sub. Only one change, but still keeps similar "types". However I think the two changes is most likely.

I agree with this. There needs to be a single 2nd tier competition across the AFL. At the moment the best 380 players play in the AFL each week (the other AFL players are developing and have the potential to be better than some other players). The next best 400 are spread across 35+ teams (16 VFL teams, 9 WAFL teams, 10 SANFL teams and some in the other states). A second tier competition should bring the next best 400 together. It will cost more to run but it would lift the standard of the AFL astronomically. Kids would develop against the best. There would be more incentive to pay the best plays and let kids develop at tier two. More "late bloomers" will get de deponent and exposure to the system. Stand alone WAFL teams have a salary cap of 280k, I imagine others are similar. There may be an increase in costs of flights, support staff and some increase in wages but instead of showing the money across 35 teams why doesn't the money get directed to a single reserves competition. I assume the main problem is still the Victorian centric nature of a reserves competition. But we need to do something to bridge the gap.

jnrmac the only way that will happen is if it gets through the courts quickly. That way players will be banned and Essendon won't be able to field a team. The delaying tactics are designed to stretch this to at least two more years so that Essendon can turn its list over and remain semi competitive, even if players get banned. By then there may only be 8-10 left on the list so while it will hurt it won't kill them. In the mean time, they won't win any premierships, the instability and uncertainty has seen to that. But I want to see them hurt in the short term. Not so much for what they did, but for the way they have thumbed their nose at it since.

The North zone is fantastic.

I don't think this is quite actuate. Hird, Dank, Reid, Thompson and all other support staff or coaches can also be given infraction notices and banned for up to 4 years I believe. I do agree that I think what most people want is is for the club to be flayed. And I agree that the punishment so far had been insufficient AND where punishment had occurred, Essendon have deliberately and publicly thumbed their nose at it. As a result I think most people want the Essendon players to be banned so that the club is hurt. While that punishes the players, it also means the club will get it's due. Finally I think people, while mostly empathising with the players, want to see them banned, not as punishment, but as a deterrent. To ensure this doesn't happen again and to put a line through the "we didn't know" defence.