Chris

How so? Given the charges laid by the AFL were done too soon and were jumping the gun but if you look through the timeline and details of the paper it outlines many things that have gone wrong and the use of banned substances. If there is evidence to back up 20% of what is in there (which you would assume there is as EFC accepted the findings) then they are stuffed.

The players intent was to trust the club take what ever they were told to take, especially in the early stages. The consent forms weren't until the program had been going a while. This doesn't show intent to cheat but does show intent to comply, in my book that does not get them off.

Agree it will be hard to 'prove' they took it to a beyond reasonable doubt standard, but that is not needed. Joining the dots of TB4 ordered, TB4 delivered, TB4 gone to EFC, and Playeres getting injections in line with TB4 regime and showing the classic signs of TB4 use may well be enough. One place ASADA fell over was getting the TB4 to Essendon, they showed it ordered and delivered but missed that link according to the tribunal, although the tribunal also questioned if it was TB4 even though that was what the supplier said it was as they did not deal in thymomodulin.

Evidence trails of invoices and supply of substances isn't hearsay or conjecture, neither are injection regimes (although due to lack of clear records it must be taken from the players as well as from what records there are), and both hearsay and conjecture are admissible. It is up to CAS to join the dots of all the bits of info there is.

I assume by 'hard evidence' you are meaning test results or clear records, neither are needed and the lack of the later is actually another point in the case for WADA, not against it. Who on earth spends $750k on a program without any monitoring or record keeping? The second part I highlighted is also of absolutely no consequence and if it was it would be a dereliction of the players duty to not be properly informed. It is no excuse no matter how hard done by they think they are.

I think the poll shows what I have thought for this year in that we will be just in or just out of the finals. That would be a good result from where we were at 3 years ago when we weren't even really AFL standard and that fact was partly hidden by the new teams.

I voted 5-8 but only because I felt optimistic and it was the better part of the range I think we will finish in which is 7-11.

I prefer my language the way I like my lamb! Хууль мэдэхгүй ямар ч шалтаг байна

Not the latin again! We dodged the MJ references yesterday, hopefully we can dodge this today.

They may be tech savvy but they may not be too bright. They are also brainwashed by the AFL culture to trust the club, they are explicitly told to do so when they are told to check with the doc about the banned status. ASADA may say one thing but the players are fooled into thinking the club has their best interests at heart. I don't think many of them would have been clever enough to know when to question things, that is no excuse but it would be the case with many of them.

That is a mystery to all of us, especially with work cover saying they were running an unsafe workplace that he had responsibility for. Very odd.

Yes they should have. Don't get me wrong, they are responsible and should be penalised if guilty, and penalised heavily. They are to a small degree the victims of the appalling culture of the AFL though.

The problem is that their training says to check with the club doc, not ASADA. That is where the whole AFL thing goes wrong and opens everyone up to this very situation.

The problem is that their training says to check with the club doc, not ASADA. That is where the whole AFL thing goes wrong and opens everyone up to this very situation.

I would have, but only due to having proper training in what the code is. I don't think the AFL supplied proper training or had proper processes in place (asking and trusting the doctor and club is not right). I do have some compassion for them due to this lack of real training but it is still up to them to know the substance and the code, did they check?

Agree with this. I think if you look at the likely hood of the each of the options given the gamble puts us still at little loss as the chance of a star or dud from the pick is 50/50 at best and the most likely outcome is an average player. I am not comfortable we took the chance and don't thin. It was the best option, I just don't think it was as bad a decision as put forward here. Will have to wait and see

Agree completely. The risk with Melksham is low as the consequence is low. The probablility of him being banned is high in my opinion but the risk to the club is still low. I think people here were mixing the risk with the probability.

The turning point may well be if the players are found guilty and then open up and start to talk which will give ASADA more evidence. I wouldn't discount that possibility.

Which one is which and who wins?

Fixed it for you.

Oh no, what have a started!

That all depends if you are teaching ethics or management and need examples for class or if you are a player on the end of a needle getting jabbed with god knows what.

Nice editing Stuie, showing some good skills. How about you do the same thing and post the entirety of each of those exchanges, and the preceding exchanges to provide context and you may see a different story come out.

Sorry, I forgot to allow for the collateral damage my post may cause.

I have thought the same about the management in how could they not see this coming. I have come to the conclusion that they actually didn't, that their reading of the whole thing has been that bad from day one, and their legal advice so appalling (remember the court case that embarrassed them but did serve to delay, which may have actually been their tactic) that they actually had no idea the appeal was coming. The other part of this is that I don't think so lowly of them that I would think they would drive the players into the shock of an appeal knowingly. Maybe I am given them too much credit?