Its Time for Another

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.

I bet you they will appeal this case when they lose, thus ensuring that they stay in the finals. Problem is they already have compromised next season. They should have taken the hit straight away in July and left next season free to get on with footy.

It seems clear the ASADA and NAD legislation give ASADA the right to share information with sporting bodies. This statutory right would override the Privacy Act as between the two of them but there certainly seems to be an issue about the disclosure of parts of the report to the press by the AFL. This AFL leaking was particularly prevalent under Demetriou and mostly ended up in the hands of Caro. I always found this behaviour outrageous, e.g leaking Adelaide sanctions to the press a week before Adelaide were told them, leaking Dee's tanking sanctions to the press a week before they were officially announced.A very bad look and in this case, as you say probably a breach of the Privacy Act. None of which is relevant to this case though. The interesting point for me is that all the players maintain they don't know what they were given and neither can anyone else. So their evidence must have been a very minor part of the evidence justifying the Notices. All they would have said was when they were injected but not what they were injected with. The main evidence seems to be documents showing the actual substances, the pharmicists evidence which I don't think came from the AFL investigation. etc etc. Which is why ASADA say they could remove the AFL evidence and the Notices will still stand.

No confusion. There isn't any true journalism anymore trying to objectively report facts, it's been replaced with Opinion writers. Wilson and Robinson aren't journalists they are Opinion writers. Newspapers seem to think that is more important nowadays to prop up dying sales. Unfortunately for me, I can't stand the opinions of Caro or Robbo.

Don't agree. Virtually all the evidence in the Interim Report was collected by the AFL. It even included information cut and pasted from the AFL. It was just a Report where everything was put together. It won't effect the sanctions the AFL handed down last year. It's only relevance to these proceedings is if ASADA acted outside it's power then they might be relevant to the court using its discretion to grant an injunction stopping future notices. But I think other matters will outweigh this anyway.

Spot on. All this evidence is only relevant if Middleton decides the joint investigation was not lawful. Then they would be hoping the more muck they rake up will sway Judge to use his discretion and grant an injunction to stop ASADA issuing any further notices. I am very surprised all parties didn't agree to break the case into two parts. First was the joint investigation lawful. This is a matter of law based on the Statutes. Wouldn't have taken very long at all and would have required almost no witness testimony. Wouldn't take Judge very long to make a ruling. If it was lawful the rest wouldn't be required. If it was unlawful then go on to the rest of the evidence. Only problem with doing it this way is that if he held it was unlawful the hearing for the next stage may not have got on for a long time depending on Court availability etc.

Sorry WJ, I think you'll find that today's evidence will show this wasn't the case. Andruska was asked a whole lot of questions yesterday that should have been directed to the people that actually ran the investigation. She wasn't directly involved in it and it was one of many matters she would have dealt with as the Head of the organisation. I bet you will find that the memory of the people today who were directly involved is much sharper. There's no problem in delegating to them, they were probably more equipped to deal with actual investigations and reports than her anyway. She is an Administrator. In any case nearly all of that was irrelevant as there's only 3 questions in this case.1. Did ASADA have the power to carry out the investigation the way it did. This is a black and white legal question. Doesn't need any other evidence but a look at the Statutes that ASADA has its power from. 2. If ASADA didn't have the power do they have enough evidence that they got outside the "joint investigation" for the Notices to still be valid. If they did then no. 1 doesn't matter and the Notices will stand anyway. 3. If they didn't have the power and didn't have sufficient evidence other than the joint investigation and ASADA intend to issue new notices relying on other evidence, then Essendon and Hird are asking the Court to issue injunctions stopping ASADA from issuing any new Notices because the original one was invalid. In order to get an injunction the Applicants have to show that they have "clean hands" and are worthy parties to get the injunction. Not sure how they think they are going to argue that given their own internal Switkowski damning report. Plus all the other evidence including Hird's evidence yesterday which I think does more damage for him than help. He is saying I stood before the AFL Commission and apologised and told the Commission that it was sincere but actually I only did it because of "duress, etc". No clean hands there. Plus there's an element of public good v public harm and the harm to Australia's standing in world sport and every single Australian sportsman, would be severely compromised if ASADA were stopped from pursuing 34 drug cheats it is satisfied it has enough information on to issue Show Cause Notices.

Dons case is the information was collected illegally so current Notices are void and the consequences of the issuing of any new Notices is that the Club could be destroyed and the players could be banned for a long period so the Court should use it's discretionary powers to issue a permanent injunction against ASADA being allowed to issue any fresh Notices or taking any further action against them.

Anyone have any idea how to get tickets. Rang the Club and they don't have any ticket allocation left for members. Thank you very much. No notification about that at all. Ticketmaster haven't had any for months. Anyone know if anyone who has some they want to get rid of or any other way of getting tickets. It's for an adult and child.

Essendon are arguing it was a joint investigation which makes it void but ASADA are saying that they have the power to do either.

Little made sure that the AFL's sanctions last year were only for bad governance (eg having no records of what the players were given) but expressly were not to do with drug cheating. The problem is even if this case succeeds ASADA will just issue new notices with the evidence they got without the AFL. Assuming the players can't defend the notices they will be banned. If that happens the AFL is going to be forced to sanction the Club for drug cheating. If it doesnt' it will cause an international uproar and destroy the worldwide credibility of AFL as a sport. Think of what cycling has been going through trying to clean itself up with Armstrong etc and Athletics etc. So I can't see how the AFL could not give them very heavy sanctions for drug cheating. That settlement should have been set up to say if there are any findings of drug cheating then the sanctions agreed in the settlement cover them as well as bad governance. But as it didn't IMO more sanctions will have to be imposed.

I have tried to watch this since the adjournment at 12pm but can't seem to find it anywhere. Can anyone tell me where to find it. The url in this thread doesn't work anymore.

It was the last quarter. We were up 10.12 to 7.8 at 3/4 time. We had at least three goes to ice the game and missed them all. I can't remember exactly when in the last quarter this one happened or which of the misses it was. I'm guessing it was about 2/3rd's in the quarter. I'm pretty sure Yeater missed the first one, then probably this one, then Tony Campbell had a shot and missed when Robbie was on the goal line on his own. It was the kick out from one of these misses and passage of play that went all the way down to Buckenara on the siren. The footy Gods had smiled on us. We had the wind in the first quarter and then it swung 180o and we got it in the second. Then it swung back and we got it in the third. Then they finally had it in the fourth. We still didn't capitalise.

Probably were. It was a tough place to watch that last quarter from. All those misses. Bloody Tony Campbell blazing away and not handpassing to Robbie standing on the goal line unattended. Yeates blazing and missing. Watching that last play like it was in slow motion, as the bile built in the throat and there was a terrible feeling of inevitability as they kicked out and passed the ball down the ground to Buckenara. The free kick against Grinter. Don't even want to raise the rest. This is the first time I've watched anything from that game ever since. My memory was more forgiving of the kick than it deserved. For some reason I remembered him being on a much more acute angle and that he stumbled which caused his miskick. I was dreaming. It was actually much worse based on this footage. Not too hard an angle and no stumble.

Eishold! First of all, to all those who were there at the time or watching the game, I apologise for finding this. Look away or move on if you don't want to prove you are right about Eishold. I was sitting where the ball should have hit me on the chest as it sailed through the goals at the right angle. Blighty running right past the goals on the goal line and kicking a point has to be the worst, although it was the brain, not the kick that was off.

I agree just this once Caro isn't out of line here. Roosy raised tanking and she is responding. No problem there. I have the highest respect for Roosy but I never agreed with his view on the cost to MFC of tanking. At most if we admit it took place it was two games in 2008. The Tigers and the Saints. And the players nearly won the Tigers one anyway. It's down to a multitude of reasons but for me recruiting is the number one cause of the state we are in now. Here are the remaining 12 players on the list from 2009 out of the current list of 42 players. The bottom 5 look like they are in the process of proving they aren't up to the standard anyway, tanking or no tanking. If you look through them I don't see any performances effected by tanking. There's 9 getting a game at the moment and you can't really fault the performances of the top 5. Jamar and Frawley were All Australian in 2010 so clearly not effected by tanking. Juries Out group's problems can't be put down to tanking. There's no problem with Grimes dedication and application just his execution, his turnovers are regularly costing 2 goals a game. Spencer is still developing on an upwards trajectory, he just might not be good enough but not because of tanking. Even this group shows the number of high picks who haven't made the grade. Potentially 5 of the '09 group could be gone by the end of the year leaving only 7 from that era. Come on Roosy, move on from using Tanking as the cause of the state the team is in at the moment. Good/Improving Nathan Jones Lynden Dunn Colin Garland Neville Jetta Mark Jamar Treading water before departure James Frawley Juries Out Jack Watts Jake Spencer Jack Grimes (Because of skills not application) Proving not up to the standard Rohan Bail Jordie McKenzie Sam Blease James Strauss

This year's Premiers midfield and some halfbacks. Ben McGlynn 172 Kieren Jack 178 Craig Bird 179 Jake Lloyd 180 H Cunningham 181 Dan Hannebery 181 Lewis Jetta 181 Zak Jones 181 Tom Mitchell 181 Brandon Jack 182 Rhyce Shaw 182 Nick Smith 183 Jarrod McVeigh 184 Luke Parker 184 Only Josh Kennedy is 188 in the midfield. Malceski is 188 off the half back line. Zak Jones is out of the team because of injury and Mitchell has been injured a lot and hasn't cemented his place back in the team this year but will if he stays. Otherwise all other players are pretty much permanent members of the 22. Kind of proves height in the midfield is overrated. They seem to be reasonable competitive. It's the midfield winning games not the power forwards. They are just finishing off the midfields work.

Maybe you are the same height as him when you are in boots standing on bricks. I always thought the urban myth about Nichols was that he was 6' tall but was interested to see he was 189 not such a terrible height for a ruckman in that era. Mind you Len Thompson was 200cm's. We have a 16yr old playing for our junior team who is 203cm. Times they are a changing.

Yeh, fair cop. I was thinking that the injury is fully recovered and won't be reinjured just by running out on the ground. Some injuries run that risk no matter what they appear. Think, C Judd earlier this year.

It's a strange one given he is out of the rehab group and back into full training. Maybe they are saying 3-4 wks to lower expectations and pressure on him to push himself to play when he shouldn't.

Yeh, I had the same reaction when I first found this out. Interesting comparison is that Dermott Brereton is also 189cm. Funnily enough I always thought he was a better CHF than G Lyon because Lyon was too short for the position compared to Brereton. Lyon is 193. So, so much for that theory. I thought it would be more the other way round. Just out of interest that short ass run with player Cameron Ling, is wait for it, 189cm. Wouldn't have picked that either. And that short arse forward pocket Stevie Johnston. You guessed 189cm. I've started checking heights of players a lot more nowadays.

I've been waiting for someone to make this much sense on this issue for a while. Mind you Roosy is one of the one's who is saying Freo's tall midfield is the benchmark now. I find that strange given the Swan's very short midfield that is being raved about as the best in the business. Then again there are two things you are either born with or just don't have. Height and Speed. Combine them in the one package and you get a C Judd 189cm, (Freak) and a few others including some of the Freo boys. A very rare commodity. You usually get one or the other but not both combined with agility.