Chris

About the AFL absolutely, same goes for football, but not WADA and the drug code. The AFL were dragged into in and have paid lip service only to it, which is evidenced by a lot of different things over the last 10 years or so since they signed on. I was personally introduced to the code, as it was then, about 20 years ago and lived under it for a while, I have experience in the matter, the AFL think they do but so many things point to them not having a clue.

Why do I have that Michael Jackson song stuck in my head, you know the one, it keeps going on about being black, and white, oh yeah yeah yeah. The club can be well managed and go forward and make mistakes all at the same time Stuie. I am not saying they have I am just saying they can. You defence above relies on that not being possible.

Point missed entirely Stuie. I am not talking about the specifics of the issue, and never was, I am talking about the respect and understanding of the code in general and the lengths WADA will go to to ensure it is upheld. The AFL have no idea on that front, that is why they were all surprised by the appeal. Keep misrepresenting what I have said though, it is funny for the rest of us who can actually read what I have said. Your last line doesn't make any sense either, surely you see we have changed subject, unless of course I am now part of the burn the club down group because I disagree on an unrelated point? You are very hard to follow at times.

Tell me this Stuie, Did the EFC think there would be an appeal? Did the EFC think WADA would get involved? Did the AFl think there would be an appeal? Did the AFL think WADA would get involved? Did the AFL go against the wishes of ASADA with the interim report thinking they could bully them (very unwise move)? The answers are no, no, no, no, and yes. My answers all along were yes, yes, yes, yes, and surely they wouldn't even try! Seems I am more on the money than the so called professionals in AFL land. For more evidence have look at their laughable illicit drug policy, while not a WADA matter it is ridiculous in the extreme, then have a look at the training they provide players where they are told to trust the club doctor!!!! Stupidity and a complete lack of understanding of the code or what it stands for. The AFL are monkeys when it comes to drugs in sport.

That makes far more sense. Thanks.

Yes. EFC were surprised by the appeal for crying out loud. The AFL have this whole grander than thou attitude that normally works but they didn't realise WADA don't give a stuff and will barge in where they see fit, as they have. In short the AFL are a joke when it comes to drugs in sport, the evidence of their ineptitude is everywhere to be seen and goes to all levels from the top admin staff to the juniors at AusKick.

Surely you jest! I am yet to see one person in AFL land have any really appreciation of the impact the drug scandal may have.

The risk of what? Melksham being suspended is not in itself the risk, the risk is the effect the suspension has on the club. On another note, if the reward is low then surely the loss is also low?

You missed the post in question, it comes in after your second post and takes a swipe straight out of the bat. As I said, a bit brash. I accept what you have said, it is a miscommunication.

It may well be in the brash nature of your writing but it definitely comes across differently that what you explain above.

It may well be in the brash nature of your writing but it definitely comes across differently that what you explain above.

And my point is that to determine the level of risk involved (which you have at high), then you need to bundle them and look at the whole picture. High risk of suspensions but low consequence of major ramifications of suspension = low risk overall.

This was in response to a comment of mine in response to my explanation of the risks the management have taken. " So we're now calling the people who have turned around our club incompetent based on a wild guess that Goodwin (who has not been charged with anything or even included in rumours of being so) may possibly one day be banned if everything happens to go really badly.... Right. See, that's why I'm calling it hysteria and panic." Don't know about you but that looks just like you saying I am calling the club incompetent and therefore lumping me with other who have nearly done so.

And I am not one of them yet you still respond in such a way. Maybe treat people as individuals and reply as such. As I said, it is all black and white with you.

It's all extremes with you isn't it? No nuance at all. It is either incompetent of marvellous, reverence or hysteria, no questioning possible, no way someone could think they were good but may have made a bad call.

You forgot to include consequence in your assessment of the risk level. As he is not a superstar and is just an honest role player and therefore replaceable the consequence to the team of his suspensions is very low, hence the overall risk is low as well. It is actually the opposite of Goodwin where the risk of him being suspended is low but the consequence of him being suspended is massive.

Much of the slagging as you call it is about what has happened, it is about Goodwin being employed, that has happened. It is about the thought that employing Goodwin is too large of a risk, you don't need a risk to eventuate for it to be a risk.

My concern comes from having absolutely no faith in anyone in AFL land having any real knowledge, respect, or appreciation for the WADA code and what they can and will do if they feel it is warranted. This lack of faith extends to every person in every club, they are slowly learning but there is a massive cultural issue within the league around WADA and drugs in sport. That concerns goes all the way to the Goodwin appointment, did this lack of appreciation of the circumstance cloud the judgement of risk, have they even realised it yet. Lets hope it doesn't get to that. On the mentions of Goodwin, he has been mentioned in the past for his dealing with Dank and for taking things that were banned for players but not coaches. WADA will keep everything close to their chest, hence no leaks since the AFL and EFC were removed from the play. There may be nothing in it, there maybe heaps in it, we don't know. I would be surprised if WADA/ASADA didn't go after more than just Dank.

The point you fail to appreciate Stuie is highlighted here perfectly. People are going a bit overboard with the whole Goodwin thing, he hasn't been charged yet but there is every possibility he will, just as there is every possibility he wont be, it really is irrelevant to the issues raised as well. The complaint is essentially that the people who made the decision on Goodwin have taken a risk (Melksham is irrelevant completely as he is only one player), that may be a big risk or a small risk, but the risk is there. The reality is not that you deal with what is happening (i.e face it when he is charged as some kind of big surprise EFC style), reality is that to make effective decisions you need to deal with what might happen (plan contingencies if the risk is small, not employ the bloke if the risk is large. I know this is a foreign concept to many in AFL land but it is the right way to do things). My take on the matter is that employing Goodwin is a risk and the consequences of that could be enormous for the club. I hope that they have contingencies in place for the just in case scenario (McCartney takes over for instance) and trust they do given their good record to date. As with anything the decision on Goodwin is a risk and reward scenario, maybe they all thought the possible reward of him coaching outweighed the possible risk of him not. In summary Stuie, you are right in a way, what you call panic is a little over the top, but the questions are justified. Your constant call for facts is also laughable and reminds me of the EFC fanboys on other forums. These forums are full of opinion, which by its very definition is not a fact. Opinions are based on a factors such as life experience and relevant facts known, which are few. To ignore the few facts that are known would be pretty stupid in any situation. *********Warning before I get a reply, this post is not intended to provide any facts, it is opinion only***********************************************

I would have thought that in the firm there would some sort of quality control by which the fanatical fanboy stuff would be barred from going online. Unless of course the whole firm is. Will have to keep the name in mind just in case I need a lawyer, can be just as valuable to know who not to use as it is to know who to use!

I can just see them now standing in court saying 'your honour, it's Cas, it's WADA, it's Mabo, it's Balco, it's ASADA, it's.....it's.......it's the injustice of it all, ......you know, just the vibe of the whole thing'.

I am really surprised this has been published by a legal firm. The article really washes over many points, or ignores them completely and basically serves to stick the boots into WADA and CAS, but even then it misses it mark. The diatribe at the end about players already missing games through provisional suspensions made me laugh!

Thanks to all involved in the running the site, the new site looks great.

The EFC would not accept any charges or punishment from the AFL that included anything to do with 'banned substances', inadvertently they opened themselves up to further punishment if it is proven that they too said 'banned substances'. I agree that the AFL won't follow through with it but only because they an inept organisation devoid of any ability to actually do what is best for the game. The option is open to them though.

I get "I want that f*&^cker dragged NOW!"