deanox

They have had allegations outlined in Show Cause notices and have been invited to provide (within 10 days) information explaining either why they are not guilty or why they should have sentences reduced for no significant fault or providing assistance etc. After their response is reviewed they may be placed on a register of findings when I believe they can no longer play.

Such an awesome tackle. Wrapped him up and dumped him. We should do that more often. Physically imposing ourselves on the game is a big step towards winning every week.

Tried to find footage of it but couldn't; anyone seen a link? When searching though, I found this: Tackles of the week - Rd 21: The last tackle is Riley and is very similar to this weeks.

Interesting point. What is Zaharakis worth in a trade?

I hope the boys can hold on!

I read into it that if they acquiesced now, their cooperation during the interviews would be taking into account. However if they launch legal action and start fighting the process now (as the club wants to do) then they will lose that benefit.

Redleg I agree entirely. I was very surprised to hear Watson's comments about what McNevit said. I don't think he understood them. He seemed to get angry and argue. If they respond to the show cause notice by saying "this may have happened but we had no idea or was happening", given their previous cooperation ASADA may settle for 6 months. If they for it in the Federal Court, I can't see ASADA being so lenient. The court action serves Essendon only, not the players, but the players haven't realised that yet.

IF he pays for Freo in 2016 I won't be angry. That's two years out of the game. If he bobs up in October this year, and not with us, I'll be very disappointed.

It is very interesting that even as insiders to the AFL, they were able to be convinced to move to Essendon with this threat hanging over their heads. Chapman, I understand end of career, but surely Goddard and manager could see the risk?

I agree 100% with this. I think it is all but certain that the club and doctors told the players that the supplements were WADA compliant, and I hope they launch a civil suit against Dank, Hird and the Club. It is dissapointing that the players took the club on face value. I bet no one in the AFL will do that again.

Fair questions, and I am only answering based on what I have read over the past 18 months. I'll do my best at providing sources: I think I define tricked as slightly different to you. If a player is told by a doc "I am giving you a vitamin shot" but is actually injected with another substance, then that is tricked. The player had no way of knowing. In this case I believe they were told exactly what they were getting; they signed consent forms naming the substances [1]. Therefore they weren't tricked; they were negligent in not satisfying themselves through the known channels (i.e. the WADA app, an internet search, a phone call etc.) that the substances were legal. While I don't dispute the club is ultimately at fault, the responsibility rests with the players. Similar to an engineer who signs someone elses drawings without checking the calculations himself. The calcs might have been done by a senior collegue, but the person who issues the drawings will be responsible if the structure is inadequate and someone is hurt. The senior collegue is at fault but the engineer who signed is responsible. Either way, if the players knew what was being injected (and they signed a consent form which listed illegal substances), then they have hardly been "tricked" have they. They are responsible for making sure all substances they ingest are legal. And as such they were negligent in not checking to confirm the substance was legal. I believe this is disinformation spread on purpose. I don't believe they have lost any records. They were on the internal intranet which I know (from an insider) is backed up regularly to an external source. To lose these records means systematic deletion. Dank has publically stated that they took TB4 and AOD9064, and that he still has records[2]. Since then he retracted it, and said he actually took another substance. Given ASADA recently reinterviewed the members of the supply chain [3], it seems most likely that ASADA have evidence showing that the illegal TB4 was actually ordered, paid for and delivered to Essendon. [1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/there-were-banned-drugs-listed-on-the-consent-forms-given-to-essendon-players/story-e6frf9l6-1226637891974 [2] http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-science-of-stephen-dank-20130823-2shhd.html [3] http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-reinterviews-key-essendon-witnesses-20140605-zrz6f.html I don't disagree that the players were probably put in a situation where they expected that due dilligence had occured. I feel sorry for them, and think it is unfair that they are the ones who must suffer, because of the actions of others. However, they were the responsible party. It was up to them to do their due dilligence, not assume someone else had done it for them. The reason they must wear the punishment, no matter how unfair, is because of the precendent that would be set, and the avaialble loophole which would then be exploited by everyone. The only way to close that loop hole for everyone, is to make sure that even accidents are not excepted. Hopefully that answers your questions.

I think it is important we either sidethe first 2-3 or frustrate them with defence from the outset. If they have any chance it will be to hit early, so they'll throw it all at that.

I agree the players have most likely been poorly advised, and empathise with them. But at the end of the day they weren't tricked. They knew the names of the substances. They are taught about the wada code. They have smart phones with Internet. Also they were adults. They could vote, shag, drive and legally sign contacts. Heck, they were all earning good money. Some very good money. And for every 18 year old mentioned there is a 28 year old who had no excuse not to know better. If your career and your livelihood depended on it, wouldn't you take personal responsibility to check? It isn't hard to type thymosin into the WADA smart phone app to double check.

Whatever happens, I am satisfied that it has ruined any premiership window Essendon had. I don't like then as a club and 2 years ago it looked like they were pushing to be a genuine threat. This year is ruined, hopefully next year too. And Fletcher may finish with ~390 games and an asterisk.

I believe the answer is yes to both of those questions. The code is written deliberately to place the onus on the athlete at all times. It is very specific. I believe this is intentional as there is know way a code can differentiate between negligent ignorance and wilful ignorance. The code deliberately punishes players in the position of the EFC players to prevent anyone ever claiming ignorance. If there was a work around every athlete would be exploiting it.

There is a difference between being a [censored] journalist, purposely taking confront positions for notoriety and deliberately attacking and undermining. Up until this point I thought he was the first. But the articles about Viney and now Roos in the past week have been undisguised deliberate attempts to attack and diminish our club, player and coach, with no substance or justification. Kicking us when we are down is poor journalism. But when it is unjustifiable and inexplicable in the context, it becomes clear he has a personal agenda. Similar to Wilson with Schwab last year (not that Schwab didn't deserve criticism, but he didn't deserve the continual campaign of personal attacks).

The article is nasty and insulting. Up to now I've thought he was an idiot. Now I'm starting to believe he really does have an anti Melbourne agenda.

Well, given the majority of the team are "smalls" on most cases that would lead us to have the same number of kpp's as our "top heavy" side this week. If we drop another tall for Hogan who is it? Dawes or Frawley are the only like for likes. Can't drop Pederson unless Hogan rucks. I think Roos wanted to have: Dawes and Hogan forward Clark forward/ruck Jamar ruck At the moment Frawley is playing Hogans position. Can we play both forward? Pederson/Gawn are fighting for the one spot if we are too top heavy. Roos tried to make Watts a mid. Does he have space for another tall forward? The set up now should reflect the long term game plan if it can.

If we drop Gawn for balance now, who goes out when Hogan is fit?

Ok I see what the misunderstanding is. In my mind anyone not in the best 22 on the list is depth. I.e. Anyone, even if they are depth with class. So if we draft 3 young guns who spend all next season at Casey, they are depth. They can come in and chop others or when needed. I am happy for our non best 22 ("depth"), to be under developed class. And I agree the problem is that at the moment we don't have any real depth. Any changes effectively make us a weaker team. There is no class on the fringe (except maybe Toumpas and Kent), so therefore we don't really have any depth. Otherwise all clubs have the equal amount of depth; it's a factor of how many are on your list.

Clarification. We will look for class, you are right but that works two ways; either we bring in ready to go class in which case the current players become depth or we bring in young class through the draft which becomes depth until it develops sufficient to push in. Either way, at the moment outside of the current 22 we have very few players worth a look; so any player injured, out of form or any young player needing a rest can't really be replaced on a weekly basis.

It's a long season rpfc. We are improving and bodily will continue to improve but we will need to recruit well in the off season to add some more depth. At the moment we don't have many changes in the wings that improve the side.

So would we like this to all come to a head this week, or wait until afterwards?

You do realise he was taking the [censored]?

Yes. Freo only got 4 against the dogs last week. http://afltables.com/afl/stats/teamshi.html#l12