Chris

Somehow I embeded my comment into yours. Must be fat fingers on little phone keyboard.

Once again you have picked the bit you want. The littigator has clearly written about the situation with which law the case will be heard in, not justs in the context of compelling witnesses.

I was warned that you pick and choose quotes to suit your purpose. Thanks for proving it!Can I suggest you read the whole thing and not just pick the bits you like. You may also note, she is not absolute in this and leaves doubt, as I say. The link you include is also not absolute, and leaves the door open to Swiss Law, and it doesn't actually provide any discussion in the seat of law etc as the litigator does. Nice try though

CAS decide where it is held, this may well decide which law it is held under. If it was in Sydney there would be little chance of it being Swiss. If it is in Switzerland then I would assume WADA will say Swiss, EFC players Aus, and CAS swiss. That would mean Swiss.

They is the hope with subpeona, but it may not work. The issue with the law used comes done to where the court is and where the charges were laid. The want of CAS to have it Switzerland is that they can then argue to have it heard under Swiss law, and they may well win. My understanding is that this is a basis of law, not just the code. Where I think some get confused is the code that will be heard, it is still the AFL anti doping code that the hearing is based on. It is deciding on a breach of this code, not of the broader, but very similar WADA code. We may end up with a hearing about the Australian code being heard under Swiss law.

Have a read of a recent social litigator post. It will put doubt in your mind as to which law applies. My take on it, from this blog by an actual lawyer, is that it will end up being Swiss law, it is still somewhat up in the air though.

This actually shows what has happened to the club very clearly. Pre 2008 we were coached by the Rev, his mantra was all about out scoring the opposition, we scored highly, made finals most years, but the list got old and footy moved on and needed a more defensive mindset to win. The Rev got the sack (bad decision). 2008-2011 we were coached by Bailey. Bailey worked with the assets we had, which was high scoring ability, and tried to bring in the defensive structures with some effect. We still got beaten up a bit but as the tally for 2011 shows, we were scoring well and getting there with the defensive stuff. We lose one game by a massive margin to possibly one of the best sides ever and Bailey got sacked (another mistake) 2012 is where the whole thing crashes, Neeld was employed as coach (another mistake). Neeld appears to completely ignore any strengths the team has in attack and throws it out the window. We adopt a purely defensive game which the players don't adhere to, and it doesn't work anyway as it is based on Collingwoods game plan from the previous few years, which everyone now knows how to beat. We go throught two years far worse than the others. Neeld is thankfully sacked in 2013 (the right decision) 2014, We have Roos as coach who also lives by the defence first mantra, the difference between Roos and Neeld is that Roos hasn't lost the players and the players buy in. The team throughout 2014 is one of the harder teams to score against, we just have no attack, Neeld and injuries have thrown all attacking forces the club has/had off the ground. 2015, Roos states he will bring a more attacking flair to the club to compliment the stronger defensive side, this has been clearly evident in some of the games, we have however lost some of the defence as the players are still working out how to do both. Are we a better side than 2007? Defensively yes, offensively no, overall, probably not. Are we a better side than the Neeld years, Yes, Yes, and Yes. We are on the up, you just need to know where to look to see it.

Maybe she meant venereal? There are certainly aspects of the organisation that would fit under teat word!

Improbability or impossibility?

If it was still in the hands of the boys club I would agree. I don't think CAS will let it go as easily. Fact is the players said they were injected with thymosin (supposedly the good one), but no one can actually show any evidence that the good one was ever at the club (bar a hand written illegal label on a vile). ASADA can show TB4 was ordered by and delivered to the person in charge of the program, CAS may well put two and two together and get 4, unlike the boys club tribunal who came up with zero.

The highlighted bit is exactly what I think the EFC will push for and what the public will be suckered in to thinking they need. The other consideration is that with 2 years away from the game, as in no training, no meaningful contact, no games, the players that have been banned may be very rusty upon their return. They would take a pre season or two to iron out I would think. That of course is assuming they want to go back to the place that put them in the position they are in now.

I don't think the want is for us to benefit from their demise, or that they should be closed down. The fear comes from knowing the AFL and the boys club involved and seeing the writing on the wall that the AFL will give the Dons the type of draft concessions they bestowed on the two new clubs. The same concessions that have contributed to holding us back, and the other clubs at the bottom. It is more a fear of being disadvantaged due to the AFL rebuilding the Dons just to watch them benefit in the long run and having the clubs that actually pay for their rebuild being those stuck at the bottom, such as us. I guess it would be another example of the big clubs getting anything to remain big, while the little clubs get small handouts and told to keep quiet, look at our fixture from a commercial point of view for a good example.

Depends on the corner you are talking about. We started so far away form the corner you are talking about that we need to turn at least five others before we get to that one in order to even consider turning it. The others for me would be: 1 - Win a game without it looking like an absolute fluke (Adelaide Last year) 2 - Beat someone other than an expansion side, or fellow cellar dweller (EFC) 3 - Be competitive in more games than you are not (last year) 4 - Be considered a legitimate favourite in a game (this year) 5 - Not be one of the bottom teams (this year, there are at least three below us) 6 - Become consistently competitive (the holy grail we are striving for at the minute) Corner from here - Win two in a row (hopefully this year) - Beat a top four side (hopefully next year, if not this year) - Win more than you lose (hopefully next year, but probably year after) - Win a final (2017) - Make top four (2018) - Win a flag (2019-20)

So that is: Collingwood at the G StKilda at Etihad Geelong in Geelong Weagles in Darwin Essendon at the G I think we are a chance against the Pies, should beat StKilda but have two hoodoo hanging over the game, Geelong are vulnerable but I don't think this year, Weagles, who knows in Darwin, Cheats, we should beat, as we have before. I think it is a bit much to say we will be far from favourites in any of them, If we aren't favourite in at least one then we will be close in at least two. Of course this all depends on which Dees team pulls on the jumper.

Maybe the reason he ran the experiment on the players was because of his deep seated concerns over animal rights and experimentation. It all starts to make more sense!

Wouldn't getting garbage time wins against crap sides be turning a corner? I ask as it is something we haven't managed to do before, so surely doing it now would show we are on the up? It is depressing to think that is an improvement, but it is.

WADA wont give one F*(k about what our media say, actually the more they say the more determined they may get. What is worrying is that the EFC campaign is softening up the punters for the AFL to remove itself from the WADA code, or give the EFC a massive hand up if they are missing most of their list. Neither of which should be done, and the former would make me walk from the game full stop. There was a noticeable pause in the propaganda after the appeal was announced, I think they were genuinely surprised and unprepared as they thought the AFL had done the job and no one would dare question it. How wrong they were. The whole time the EFC have managed the process, they have shifted from the club being hard done by to the players, this was in the hope that public opinion would be to let the players off (and in doing so the club get off as well). They have now shifted back very much to the impact on the club, is this because they see the writing on the wall that the players are gone? They seem to now be trying to get the same sympathy for the club that they tried to generate for the players, the end goal is the same, what is best for the club. At no point in this entire episode have the EFC actually acted for the players, the players just seem too blind to see it.

It's as if someone is trying to prove my point, here is the latest of the delusional comments you find on the HS site from those who have had their fair share of the Kool-Aid. "For Heaven's sake! How much of the Taxpayers' money will be spent on this. It's time that the ASADA Bureaucrats, who after all are the "unelected paid servants of the Taxpayers", stopped this vendetta against the Essendon Football Club and its players. What are they trying to prove?"

Essendon's PR machine has been magnificent from day 1. They have spouted absolute shite but if you look at things such as Stand By Hird, Don the Sash etc etc they have been very good, with a lot of help from the their mates at the Hun, there is also a very good reason for their cooperation but I wont go there for fear of over stepping the line. The sheer number of people in the public who feel the players are hard done by, that the club has copped enough, that the whole thing should be over, is testament to the effectiveness of the EFC media machine. This is also shown in the bile that is pushed Caro's way anytime she says anything, along with a few of her compatriots as well. Would not surprise me if it is used as a case study for 'how to bluff the punters to believe your BS' in the future.

Noticing a shift in the media campaign from the EFC in the last couple of days. Straight after the appeal was announced it was all about how everyone was surprised (must have been because they still don't understand the position they are in), and how they wished WADA would just let them be. Very few Jounos actually came out and said it how it was, and that is that the appeal should be welcomed as it will get everything out in the open once and for all. I have noticed in the last day or so that we are seeing articles talking about how this has affected the list at Essendon, from standing by their loyal players, to what could have been with the draft picks they lost. Maybe it is the cynic in me but I see this as the next stage in positioning the club as the hard done by party in the whole affair, and how they have already copped their whack, and been wonderful in standing by their players etc etc. The cynic has been especially roused as these have come out at the same time as the announcement about the Dank appeal, the man everyone wants gone. Could it be that the EFC, through the HS, are running this campaign so we all feel sorry for the players and club while venting about Dank? Will be interesting to se if this line continues from the complicit media over the next few weeks, or was this convenient irrelevancy just a once off?

Not once have you responded to the question asked. If it was as you say then why did the booing only start after he started standing up for Indigenous issues?

Well done on the great informative answer to my question.

Then why did it not really start until he called out the young girl and started being mor evocal about racial issues? I agree it is not all, but I would say it is most.

Completely different with completely different connotations. Calling Goodes a monkey is racist due to the history of the word for the Indigenous community, that doesn't exist for the White fellas. I don't buy that he is boos because he is arrogant etc, he is booed because people don't agree with him calling out the young girl and his stance for reconciliation. I don't agree with all he says, but he has the right to say it and to boo him for this wreaks of racial undertones, if not overtones! Essentially you are booing him because he stands up to racism!