Whispering_Jack

The other aspect to this is the confusion about the actual drugs that were part of Essendon's programme. This article is a help - What drugs are they on about? That is also WADA's position and that of ASADA although there have been attempts by some to muddy the waters but the explanations on AFL360 by Gerard Whately and Essendon's consultant Dr. Garnham sound like spin to me. See also: ASADA'unclear on drug status' IMO whether ASADA lacks clarity on the status of AOD-9604 is totally irrelevant. The AFL Anti-Doping Code is what matters: Section 20.2 In performing its functions under this Code or otherwise, ASADA is not and must not be deemed to be the agent of the AFL. For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly stated that ASADA has no authority or capacity on behalf of the AFL to: (a) authorise or approve the use of any substance or method prohibited under this Code; (b) give advice as to the application or interpretation of this Code; and © bind or commit the AFL in any manner. Essendon cannot therefore claim this defence even if could prove that someone at ASADA told Dank or anyone else before the programme was initiated (and I doubt such proof exists) for that matter that AOD-9604 wasn't a prohibited substance. Section 26.3 The WADA Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Signatories or governments. Referral to a court won't help them unless we're talking about the Court of Arbitration for Sport (and I don't think CAS will show much sympathy for the bogus argument that the Bomber lackeys are attempting to foist on the public in this misguided PR campaign. Of even more concern to the Bombers is this one:- If you go to the AFL's charge sheet, you will find this point:- It might take time to put the case together, particularly if Dank refuses to co-operate) but if this single point is proved and evidence is produced as to which players had this stuff injected into them, then they might as well turn the lights out at Essendon (especially if the number of players is significant). More reason for the Bombers to pursue a negotiated settlement if they can before its too late.

That's a fairly reasonable summation but the Plaintiff in the court action is Hird and I don't know if he's prepared to blink. if the loss of points in 2013 is a bargaining chip, the Bombers and Hird won't want this to drag on too long because in 15 or 16 days' time, that chip could well be worthless. In the event that this happens then the picks or loss of 2014 points are in jeopardy. Do you think that scenario appeals to anyone involved at Essendon?

I'd like to point out that both the MFC and the AFL had advice from senior counsel that a case against Melbourne on the tanking allegation could not be sustained in a Supreme Court action based on the results of the 6 month investigation. The compromise (and it came out sounding ludicrous) was a commercial one based on the cost risks of fighting a long, protracted and expensive legal suit. Even that sapped a lot of energy out of the club and left many tired and worn out. It probably had some effect on team performance as well. So imagine what this will do to Essendon if it goes the full course through the legal system. I heard that Hird stated today that he's fighting on. I think he's already dead meat but if his team continues to perform as it has in the past month you can expect even his most adoring fans to turn on him and devour him as they all do to leaders of failed football teams.

Please say it isn't so.

These interviews are never long enough to get much substance out of them and my guess is that part of the interview will involve his impressions of yesterday's president's meeting. The certainly won't be any earth shattering news.

I think I can do that for you in a nutshell.There are a number of people in the legal profession who are about to earn enough money to send their children/grandchildren to some very expensive private schools.

Rohan Bail isn't in the Casey side (mystery player of the week or designated emergency?) but I'm informed that he might qualify for the finals because, apart from playing five VFL games, he also played a development league game when he was coming back from his previous injury. That would make up the six.

I don't follow how you would make the connection unless you were totally delusional. Perhaps you didn't hear the mother of the Essendon player talk about the effect of the supplements scandal on her son? Perhaps you haven't read Dr. Reid's letter? Perhaps you're not aware that Hird took responsibility for what was going on? Perhaps you haven't taken notice of the many facts that are not in dispute and/or have been admitted in the report commissioned by Essendon (The Switkowski Report)? I haven't put him on trial. I don't have to base my judgement on the outcome of such things but on what is accepted as fact and it's truly horrific although obviously beyond the comprehension of some individuals.

Medium Midfielders named for Draft

UPDATE: Phantom form guide

I just had a terrible thought. What if they analysed bananas in a lab and found they contained AOD-9604? Would we be banned from ever playing AFL or would we find safe haven at Windy Hill?

You know what horrifies me? The fact that during 2012 when a lot of this was going on in Hird's world, he was also coaching an under 9 junior football team in a competition in which I'm a life member. Now, I'm not suggesting that the activities in which he was allegedly involved at Essendon were reproduced at that level but the thought that this person was in a position to work with kids absolutely appalls and sickens me. What would they be thinking now?

My reading of WADA's ruling on AOD-9604 makes it clear that the conclusion reached by Garnham and Whateley on the supplement just doesn't make sense. I hope he comes up with a little more clarity on tonight's programme as otherwise his credibility will be completely shot as far as I'm concerned. AFL statement on status of AOD-9604 And this is what ASADA says: So my question to Garnham, Whateley et al is this:Where is the proof that prior to or at any time during which the supplements programme was in place that someone from Essendon contacted ASADA and obtained an unequivocal statement in writing that it was permissible for AOD-9604 to be injected into its players?

A few random points made by Richard Ings about the Garnham interview:- WADA determines what is banned or not; not ASADA. It is the "WADA" banned list; WADA's decision on the status of AOD-9604 is below:- http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-statement-on-substance-aod-9604; If ASADA gave incorrect or incomplete advice in 2013 on AOD-9604 that advice would not have informed decisions in 2011/12 to use or not AOD-9604; and Finally ASADA has explaining to do, as to whether it gave incomplete advice on AOD-9604 at any time.

No because given Liam's past season and a half, he won't be in great demand.I feel sad for him but that's what happens when you get involved in the mess he created for himself.

You've just noticed this now?Robbo and Whateley write for the HUN and I suspect they are being fed much of their information from the Essendon camp. Garnham himself is a consultant to the Bombers and while I have no doubt he made calls to ASADA on the S2 and S0 points raised in last night's programme, I wonder why his confusing piece of evidence has come out now and not in earlier AFL reportage. Does he have any written proof of his advice and what are WADA's rulings on the apparent conflict between S2 and S0? I've always had a lot of time for Whateley but last night wasn't his finest hour or his best interview because it didn't really explain why Essendon had such faith that its players were free to be given AOD9604. This is what S0 is about:- Staggering that Whateley should come to the conclusion that S0 is not intended to apply to AOD-9604. On the other hand, the Age is taking the opposite tack to the HUN, probably get a lot of their information from the AFL etiher directly or indirectly and is riding Essendon a lot harder. The truth? Who knows where that sits in this tangled web?

There seems to be some ambiguity here that needs to be cleared up - urgently.I was somewhat more than bemused by Whateley's presentation of this Dr. Garnham on AFL360. Firstly, Garnham was introduced as having been on an AFL panel on drugs but we learned later on that he's now a consultant to Essendon. Anyway, apparently he asked ASADA to clear up some confusion over the status of AOD-9604 under the WADA code. He claimed his advice was that it had been considered as not prohibited under S2 and therefore effectively S0 did not come into play. This simply does not make any sense to me at all. The S0 category comes into play when it is not yet determined by testing that a substance is fit for human consumption. If Garnham and Whateley's interptetation is correct then why have S0 in the first place? Whateley has asked the questions knowing the answer he was about to get from a consultant for the Essendon Football Club. It was a set up in the same way that the Brock McLean interview on OTC was a set up. The questions that should have followed never came and you have to ask yourself "why"? The answer is that the questioner already had his story and you don't spoil it by an investigation into the veracity of what was claimed. AFL360 viewers were cheated last night.

I'm fairly certain there's a professional out there who can find you some suitable medication.

The end of a sensational career. Well done Flash.

The man is simply trying to stir up a bit of controversy. The reality is that what happened with Blease or Scully who were drafted 5 and 4 years ago respectively (and there have been extenuating circumstances in both cases with the AFL having had a strong hand in us losing the latter) isn't particularly relevant to the question of whether we're entitled to draft picks at the end of 2013 when we will have a virtually new administration, new coaches and a new start. There's a rule about draft assistance on the AFL's books and if we're not entitled to it then they might as well scrap the rule if a team that's had seven down years doesn't qualify. Besides which, if the AFL wants to see crowds of 13k at the MCG like last Sunday then I guess they can please themselves.

Not many did. Craig Cameron might not have had great success as a recruiter but he presented himself to the supporters and often attended functions outlining the reasons for those decisions. He was always prepared to speak to Demonland/Demonology functions and our combined sponsorships raised thousands for the club. All that stopped when Prendergast appeared on the scene. He was always too busy and I believe made himself available at the end of our final sponsorship year at a time that didn't really suit anybody and the whole thing folded. The crowning glory of his recruiting would have to be most of the early picks of the 2008 and 2009 drafts and then, once he received the flack flick from the club he stitched us up in the tanking inquest. Mark Neeld was certainly not the greatest coach in our club's history but we can thank this bloke for providing some of the material with which he worked.

The Essendon PR machine is working overtime and is even painting the extension of time given by the AFL to enable them and the Four Aminos to present their defence as a major victory. The truth is that the AFL are bound to give a fair opportunity for the parties to defend themselves. It also gives the parties time and opportunity to negotiate themselves an outcome which could avoid bloodletting in the courts. I suspect that not many are going to come out of this well once Dank tells his story.

Getting back to Casey for a moment (but another example of how fudging some facts and ignoring others can cloud the issue with people who have an agenda). The injuries to Sam Blease, James Strauss (both season ending) and Jesse Hogan (2 - 3 weeks) at the weekend and the retirement of Joel Macdonald have cut deeply into Casey's playing stocks on the eve of the finals. So it didn't take long for some pundits in the twitterverse to drop the boots into the MFC and suggest that history will repeat itself and the club will abandon Casey again for the finals as its claimed to have done for several years now. However, the injuries are real and JMacd genuinely believes he can't go on but it doesn't stop those who have an axe to grind from hoeing into the club on the basis of some half truths about the past. This, despite the fact that I've heard the opposite and that the club is making a genuine attempt to give Casey every opportunity to succeed in its finals campaign. The Scorpions do need to win this week as an away loss to Box Hill could mean their first final will be an away fixture to Geelong.

Dean Kent goes OK for a first year player too.

Got mine. What do I do with it.