Its Time for Another

Hi All, A friend of mine is the actor who played Ron Barassi in the musical Barassi. The great man finally went to the show and loved it so much he gave the actor the poster I have attached with a note and the letters NPUICF. It could be NPVICF. He asked him a short time later what it meant and he couldn't remember. It would be great if someone could solve this. Out of interest, Barassi had the poster for many years as it has the Premierships his team would have won if they hadn't lost to Collingwood in '58.

WJ how do you know ASADA is under no compulsion to provide evidence. Is that part of the ASADA Act or something else? In any other tribunal etc natural justice would require it to be provided. However, I can understand this if the issue here is that once there is evidence that a charged athlete took something which there clearly is here, then they have to show records of what drugs they took and if they can't show that then they are automatically guilty of drug cheating. Do you know if that is how this procedure operates. If it is then surely that is very clear and I don't understand what the players think their defence is. I can understand why this would be the case because otherwise drug cheats could just merely not keep records and be free to cheat as long as they don't get caught through failing drug tests.

They bent us right over with the Dawes trade and obviously think we are still soft. Hope they are wrong and the new regime won't succumb. Still feel sick and can't believe Clark walking out to walk down the road. It's so wrong. He will be a gun next year. Please Norm, please, your curse has done enough. It's getting worse the more the years go on, not better. Please release us.

I can't understand on what basis ASADA won't supply them the evidence they have. They know the players don't know what the hell went on so if they have evidence what possible reason would there be for not giving it to them. To demand they just agree to take sanctions when they don't know what went on and ASADA won't give them the evidence they have that convicts them is crazy. I wouldn't agree to that either. I'm pretty sure ASADA sanctions would get set aside on the basis of a failure of natural justice if they don't provide the evidence in this situation. As I understand it a lot of the players, their partners ( who have had babies or hope to have them) their families etc are very stressed about the players health. If ASADA have evidence of what they were given why on earth wouldn't they give it to them to let them all know. Crazy stuff.

This Club is on life support until it starts winning games. We have a President with impeccable football experience. That should be the focus until they start winning. Once we have a list that is competitive and people want to be associated with us as Members, Sponsors etc then worry about a President who is a spruiker but right now IMHO we have the right man for the job.

Wonder if there is a bit of a ploy here by the Club so that there isn't any definitive answer from Frawley until after today's request for a special assistance pick is decided. If he had already announced he was going there's no way the AFL would entertain a first round draft pick on top of picks 2 and 3 but without knowing if he's staying or going at this stage maybe it would help us getting a first rounder. I doubt it but hey you've got to give everything a go.

One of the things I have enjoyed most about this saga is that finally for once it doesn't involve MFC. But this part of the article could yet come back to bite us on our backsides. "The revelations come as the club prepares for the possibility of show cause notices being issued to several support staff. Insiders at ASADA have hinted that there are more show cause notices to be issued stemming from the Essendon investigation." Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Club just appoint one of the support staff who was sending emails around about being sent the good gear. Or something to that effect. Lets hope and prey our new appointee isn't about to be issued one of those notices. I never saw the references to him until he was appointed but it has to be a worry. Wouldn't that just be typical if he ends up being banned after just being appointed to us.

Correct. Same applies to Clubs but some Clubs have suggested they would challenge them.

Next. I can't see how the AFL can avoid giving them severe sanctions for running a drug cheating regime. Little made sure that he protected what was left of Hird's reputation by insisting in the settlement last year that it expressly said there was no suggestion of drug cheating and the sanctions were expressly only for poor governance. Can't possibly see how the AFL can avoid giving them very serious sanctions otherwise the reputation of the AFL as a sport will be more damaged than anything that is going to happen to Essendon. This case has set another unrelated but incredibly significant precedent. The Judge referred to the fact the players had entered into binding contracts with the AFL to be investigated and give up their right to avoid self incrimination and that contractual agreement is binding. This is the first time these contracts have ever been commented on in the Courts. The significance of this is that the court is saying the Clubs and Players contractual obligations with the League are binding. These contracts include the salary cap and the draft. In the past there have been rumours of threats by Eddie No Where that if he didn't get what he wanted he would get the salary cap etc set aside for being anti competitive but the Court is saying if you sign a contract to be part of the AFL it is binding. People have often wondered what would happen if a player or Club took it to court. Well here is the answer.

Yep, just ask Freo. Worked well for them with Clark.

One of the other significant advantages of this system is stopping compromising the draft with top teams not only getting players for nothing but every other team in the comp getting shunted a pick for each free agent that is mostly going to top teams.

Ha, that's so Yossarian.

A good mate of mine is a passionate Collingwood fan and he has watched Lumumba every game for years and can't stand him. Says he is completely unaccountable, makes horrible decisions and is a horrible user of the ball. I have debated with him several times as I'm a huge fan from what I've seen. But he is adamant and says many other Pies supporters can't stand him as well. They see a lot more of him than I have and I rate his opinion, so opinions are evidently divided on him as a player. Not sure if he would be the ultimate disciplined role player which characterises a Roos player. Having said all of that, from what I've personally ever seen, I'd love to have him. I've seen him tear a big one in several top teams over the journey as well as us.

On the other hand, PJ said on the footy show on the weekend that he had already had informal meetings with potential Senior Assistants who were contracted and under the rules he couldn't hold formal meetings with. His comment was as long as there is a coffee cup on the table its an informal meeting. So there seems to be a fair bit of it going around.

Essendon brought the court case to say the way ASADA got this evidence was illegal and the Notices should be permanently stopped from being issued. They are saying if the Notices are voided ASADA doesn't have the power to force the players to give this evidence again. I don't really understand this as ASADA has since been given legislative power to force athletes to give evidence. Apparently there is some argument that players can refuse to give evidence that is self incriminating. I don't know how that works as surely that's the point of the power. Anyway this is obviously the evidence Bombers brought the case to stop.

Skilton sacked Alves. He was a sacked player when Baras gave him a ring out of the blue and the rest is history. I heard that directly from Alves.

What he said. It was reported he was on massive money when they lured him to the Dons. MFC won't be able to pay him massive money with what they are paying Roosy. He said earlier this year on AFL360 that the succession plan wouldn't work for him under Roos. So what role would he come over for. Why would he come to Dees as an Assistant on a lowly Assistants wage. Maybe he could be the head of the footy dept but after his performance at the Dons that better not happen. According to the evidence that came out about him telling them to stop the injections and they kept going for two months afterwards, he is just as implicit in that f-up as anyone. For some reason he can't see that. Not sure we want him onboard as a head of a footy dept and can't see him as an Assistant. Doesn't make sense. Maybe the talks GOF was talking about were pre Roosy's decision to sign on for the third year.

That won't be happening. He's their number one ruckman since departure of Mummy. The other ruckman behind him are a long way behind. He won't be going anywhere. His go home factor is a bit further away than Melbourne.

Interesting that in his darkest period he has stayed in Melbourne not returned to Perth. So not sure why so many people are concerned about him only playing for a WA team. He's still here. Interesting he tweeted about doing a recovery session at StKilda. Would suggest he's training pretty hard to need a recovery session. If he continues to train hard and the body holds up, it will be interesting to see if this helps him overcome one of the reported triggers for his depression and retirement which was his body continually failing. Perhaps if he was interested in giving it a go we could take him on as a rookie. He would not be under any of the pressure that was one of the other triggers for his depression. He could come back in without any pressure and see how he went. It would be worth the gamble for MFC if he was just taking up a rookie spot. Wouldn't think it would be worth the gamble to keep him on the list. One can but dream.

I don't think the words Support and Boo go together. Once you start booing you stop being a Supporter. I've been following this crap for 50yrs, I haven't stopped being a Supporter yet and I've seen a lot worse than this mob. I don't think Jack Viney and Jonesy head out the door to play in a game like that. I don't think they deserve to be booed no matter what their teammates do. But if you boo you're booing all of them. That's Collingwood behaviour not ours. I feel ashamed to see Melbourne supporters booing the players no matter how crap they are. This type of abysmal play is usually caused by a chronic lack of confidence. Not sure booing them at the end of the game is really going to help repair that. But hey I could be wrong.

It's an interesting one. The same logic was applied to Contador, they ran his two year ban from the date he received the Notice. He appealed the Notice and was allowed to keep competing until the final hearing by the Court of Arbitration of Sport hearing which upheld the Notice. That was 18mths after the Notice so he only had to serve a 6mth ban after that hearing. The difference is he was stripped of all results during the period he competed which included the 2010 Tour de France. In the NRL case there is nothing to strip so it's a pretty minor penalty even compared to Contador but also probably reflects the general consensus that the players were forced into this situation by Dank without any intention on their part. If there is enough evidence, you have to accept the doping charge even though you weren't actively involved in meaning to do it. Essendon's problem is if they win the cases ASADA will just issue new Notices and the clock will start ticking from that time so they won't get any benefit of delay between Notices and final decision like what the NRL players are being offered. So at best their full 6 mths will run from the date of the Infraction Notices which might not be until after Christmas depending on when Middleton hands down his decision thus totally screwing their season next year. That all would have been largely avoided if they had accepted the current Notices. They may not make the finals anyway this year but it would have limited it to this season. Not great logic by Essendon. I would have got on with it if I was a player. However, I also would have wanted to see the evidence ASADA strangely have withheld to date. Don't know how you plead guilty to something you say you have no knowledge of if they won't even give you the evidence they have.

I'm not going but thanks to the generosity of Ethan Tremblay, I'm sending my 14yr old nephew for his birthday and my brother. They live there. So I'm not sure if that counts. Some unkind punters have suggested I could give him a better birthday present by making sure he doesn't go. But he is very excited to see them in the flesh. I hope and pray they put on a better show than the last game. Don't know where the Club is going to head if they do that again. Alas it is Cox's last home game, unless some how they get into the finals and end up somehow playing Freo there. So Weagles will want to put on a show for him which doesn't bode well for us.

No. 1 Pick 2016 Draft. I hope and prey we aren't in a position to pick him by then.

Yep. That would be about standard. Judges don't get to hear a case and then retire to review evidence, transcripts and law and then write a judgement. They often have to go straight on to other Court cases and the judgements pile up. I would say that he will initially isolate his Judgement to the question of whether ASADA had the statutory authority to conduct the investigation the way it did. This is just a legal argument and doesn't require him to sift through the three days of witness evidence. If he decides they did have the power then he doesn't have to go any further, if he decides they didn't then he will look into the three days of evidence in court which is relevant to what remedy he decides to give Essendon and Hird. He may in the end decide to just set aside the Notices knowing that ASADA will just issue new ones or he may decide not to set them aside to save the players from being interviewed all over again.

You raise a good point about Judge Downes. This is the part of the legal system that intrigues me. Essentially this case is a very simple case about whether the black and white letter of the law as set out in the ASADA and NAD legislation gives ASADA the power to carry out the investigation the way it did with the involvement of the AFL. Only the legislation is relevant to this, none of the rest of the witness statements etc are relevant to this point. They are only relevant if it didn't have the power. You'd think this point would be so straight forward there shouldn't even be an argument and yet all these top QC's have completely the opposite view about it so this case goes on. If ASADA has carried out this investigation incorrectly and the Notices get quashed and the Judge issues an order stopping ASADA from issuing new Notices can you begin to imagine the political fall out that is going to come down on ASADA. And by extension on all Australian athletes who compete under an anti doping body that doesn't carry out proper investigations.. The damage Essendon has created from it's pharmacological experimentation, to borrow their own report's terms, will just keep going on and on. And Hird will treat this as a victory. Even if ASADA win I would say they are going to tighten up how they operate and I truly hope the AFL has a long hard look at itself as well. That can't be a bad thing for the sport in the long term.