ManDee

My favorite player Sir Robert Flower MBE DRBM Melbournes Best Ever Deserves Retrospective Brownlow Medal

Typical Saty, leaning against a tree when there is work to be done. Was Hogan working on his own or with one of the groups? Thanks

Those deck chairs down at EFC are almost worn out. James Hird played by Kate Winslet. I can see him/her now standing on the bow as the SS Essendon sinks slowly into the murky depths. He is the only survivor. Typical.

Close to half the side will be different to last time. 10-11 I think back to back is what you do when a North supporter walks into the shower,

So Hird and Reid have the goat photos. I wonder how much "the weapon" would pay for a copy? Hirdy has the 3D version complete with Dolby Surround bleating. Bomber Thompson has a Polaroid or 2. Doc Reid has a photo copy.

Not completely weaponless, they have a couple of feather dusters, some smoke and a mirror.

A fairly impressive legal team assembled by ASADA. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-confidence-built-on-heavy-hitting-legal-team-20140618-zsdt0.html I cannot imagine them going ahead with show cause notices if they don't have sufficient evidence for conviction. I spoke to an EFC supporter this morning who thought the AFL penalties last year covered the doping issues. He didn't understand all the "ASADA fuss". When I told him the AFL penalties were for bringing the game into disrepute ie failure to keep records etc.and that penalties for the actual doping are yet to be meted out he went ashen. It hadn't occurred to him that the ASADA issue was separate. Then I mentioned WorkCover and explained that it was also a separate issue. He was not happy. The misinformation from EFC and their cronies is keeping many confused. When it all finally hits they will wonder why it wasn't dealt with last year. If you're wrong admit it. Say your sorry. Make changes so that the problem cannot happen again and move on. Simple life philosophies, it's a shame EFC are still in denial. EFC cannot move on until they acknowledge the errors of the past. Man up EFC. You are playing hardball with the umpires. And we know how well that works. The enemy to EFC is within. You cannot eliminate cancer by arguing with the doctor or the AMA. .

Bit harsh Dox. I would have said, overrated money grabbing scum bag, but never one of a kind.

Weapon, who was an employee of the EFC. So ultimately it is EFC's mess.

Sorry, poor grammar gets me every time. It is written like a note to self. Perhaps "Jesse Hogan trained, details in Jesse Hogan injury update topic" or "Jesse Hogan trained, I put that bit in Jesse Hogan injury update topic" Would have made more sense with less words, and anal retentive's like me wouldn't need people like you, to point back to the sentence that didn't make sense in the first place. Thanks

Thanks Saty, You say Hogan trained, how did he train? Did he move well? Was it a long session for him? etc etc.

Well put, it makes a mockery of the EFC story that they have no records pertaining to the pharmacological program. They must think the rest of the world is stupid. To demote and then dismiss "the weapon" because of the increase in soft tissue injuries during the experimental pharmacological program, one would presume that they know that the players injured were on something different, which lead to the increase in soft tissue injury. Otherwise it could be coincidental. In which case "the Weapon" may have better luck in his wrongful dismissal case. Either way they are screwed.

Pick 5's Kade Kolydashiygsfdiasugsdigshy Jake Stringer Mathew Buntine Jared Polec Ben Cunnington Michael Hurley Jarrad Grant Travis Boak Bit of a mixed bag. I say we keep Frawley.

I think they already have. Or was it the Lewinski defence. We did not have Beta 4 with that Dank. Mind you that clinic across the road gave us a few good jabs.

This is domino theory. I reckon he is in our best dozen players. I want him to stay. However. I posed the question is he worth more to us by staying or leaving. Free agency works both ways. If he is worth more leaving then we could push. If we need him we offer him heaps to stay. It is just a theory.

Lets take this further, Several clubs need a key defender. Frawley is not a forward and is now not our best defender, we can live without him. We get compensation maybe pick 5 after our 1st pick 4? Are we better of without him? We could offer a pay cut, make him move and still get pick 5.

I wondered what that smell was. I speculate, If two players take a deal and fess up. EFC becomes a sporting team with 2 or more members banned under the anti doping code. My understanding is that, that means a mandatory 2 year banning of the club from any ASADA sporting code.. Next season the AFL creates the Tassie Bombers using available EFC players plus the EFC players as they come back from 6 month suspension in March. If extra players are required each club could provide one 50 game + player to make up the numbers (remember Ted Fidge) We could offer Shannon Byrnes. Players would be free to move from EFC as they (EFC) would have breached the conditions of their contracts. Essendon sits out two years and is entitled to return under strict conditions ie move to Tassie , do as they are told. Remember they will be near bankrupt. No sponsors and huge payments on the hangar. I dream.

Watts Salem Daylight Vince Dunn Howe

Translation - they are still struggling with getting caught cheating.

I had a nightmare last night. The AFL moved Peter Jackson to Essendon to fix up the shambles that it has become and he took Roos with him. Then I smiled, they are the shambolic remains of a once proud club, they are on the way down and are too stupid to realise the malaise they are in. It's like watching the coyote trying to row up a waterfall in an old boat full of holes. And we still have Jackson & Roos.

So what the article is are saying is that the club claimed that its employee failed to put in place a program to ensure the players did not contravene the anti doping code. Which means that the club had no system in place to ensure that no breaches took place. By their own admission they had no system to guarantee that they did not break the rules. Sorry but what was Essendon's defence again? We had no system. We have no records. We ordered and paid for stuff. Sometimes the good stuff. We paid for the stuff to be administered. We don't know what the stuff was. But none of our players took illegal substances. - According to our records which we don't have. And anyway how dare ASADA get help from the AFL after all we self reported and invited them in because we knew our shredders are really fast and they wouldn't find anything. But now it's all looking ugly, and can we blame the umpire or Andrew D or the AFL or ASADA or WADA or the system or a rogue employee or 2? No not James he has golden hair and he knows what we do with goats down at the lodge. GUILTY

http://www.ausport.gov.au/supporting/integrity_in_sport/anti_doping/anti_-_doping_policy#7 Extract from AIS Anti Doping Policy. - Note Red print is my highlight. Article 7 Proof of doping 7.1 Burdens and standards of proof ASADA or the ASC shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether ASADA or the ASC has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation that is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Policy places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Articles 19.5 and 19.7 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof. 12 NB:- to the comfortable satisfaction. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/undauslr14&div=5&id=&page= This is a third standard of proof and lies between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities". Note:- It is up to the athlete or other person to rebut the preusmption of guilt.

I think EFC taking ASADA to the federal court is bringing the game into disrepute. This is a new offence. The AFL could tell EFC to follow the normal process, they can still have their day in court. To claim ASADA have operated improperly is a blight on our game. This will not clear EFC's name, this cannot make them innocent. It is a legal ploy by EFC. The AFL have signed up to be under the ASADA umbrella, by extension that includes EFC. For EFC to challenge ASADA they question the AFL and the other 17 clubs. The clubs and the AFL should demand that EFC follow the legal process as agreed by all parties. This stalling attempt by EFC creates disharmony and disdain. Further it brings the game into disrepute. It cannot give them the day in court to clear their names they craved for only last year. If EFC think they have done no wrong they should fight the charges not the system. We should call on the AFL to tell EFC to take their medicine or fight the charges not the system.