iv'a worn smith

Which has already been proven to be a travesty and a farce

Yes, no dispute. So what was the players' intent? EFC's may have been different, but what were players thinking they were taking? Are you saying that players from EFC are the only ones within the AFL that have had injected supplements and therefore the practice was so unusual that the players should have know better?

Agree, and therein will lie the problem. Invoices, made out to the EFC, in and of themselves, still don't make the players guilty. Also, I have never denied a "regime" of injections. What I am saying is, it cannot be proven as to what the players took.

Sorry Bub, but that is purely hearsay and conjecture. None of what you said sustains a case that banned substances were used.

Sorry HT, when it comes to IT I am a luddite of the highest order

You have answered your own questions in these 2 quotes. If we are to accept your contentions, as cited above, then that is hardly substantive. The fact remains, assuming for a moment that there existed compelling and material evidence, it has not been discovered and in my view, WADA are saying that the AFL and ASADA were delinquent in their investigations. Whether that is so or not, in the absence of hard evidence, then how do you sustain a case against individual players, who, as naive as they might of been, did what they were instructed to do by their employer, with the assurance that nothing was illegal. The Chemist and the so-called sports scientist have remained schtum on this, Essendon cannot find the records and their former "boss" maintains that he is innocent.

And the evidence is?

we probably should move this conversation to the relevant topic, but you have just answered your own question in your last post. This whole issue is so vague, with a lack of substantive evidence. Bottom line, to get back on topic, I'm looking forward to seeing Jake run out on the 'G come the first round.

Bub, point out to me where there has been a finding of players taking a banned substance. The current investigation is predicated on the basis that WADA believe that ASADA stuffed the whole thing up. There certainly was a pattern of conduct, which involved injecting players, but there has been no finding as to whether these substances were on the banned list.

Article 10.5 of the WADA Code.

There is ample precedent from WADA investigations to suggest otherwise. I look forward to Jake suiting up for the first round in 2016.

Clearly we disagree Bub. As with any of these media driven processes, there is an overarching "political" reality. Cheats???? Of course, we will have to wait and see, but I suggest young men acted on the instructions of their employer, were told everything was kosher and were asked by their employer to sign a disclaimer. In my view, by any measure of reasonableness, that will mitigate in the players favour. I'd suggest Bub, this is anything but "straight forward"

In my view, WADA is only going through this process, as they were appalled as to how the investigation was carried out by ASADA. In this case, what I believe mitigates in the players favour is the fact that they acted on the instructions of their employer, who is duty bound to provide a safe workplace. It would appear that there is a prima facie argument that this may not have occurred. If there are any sanctions handed down by WADA to players, I reckon they will be back dated (token) suspensions. In my view, WADA'S real target is the employer in this case.

Melksham with play in the red and the blue in 2016. I expect him to line up in the first round.

Not really sure LH. As I am not sure if the Hun has an "exclusive" on the excerpts of the book. I am not a subscriber to the Hun, so I can't read the article as it is a secured link. But it does surprise me that the rest of the mainstream media have not been right on to this. DB was gracious when he was sacked by the MFC. I have just watched his last press conference after the MFC sacking on youtube and I could not get over how free of anger he seemed to be. Most of us mere mortals would have been frothing at the mouth had it happened to us. All I am saying is DB was scapegoated and surely someone else was culpable, yet whoever they are??? seem to get away with it with their reputations relatively intact. I guess all I am doing is hoping that those who perhaps deserve it, get their comeuppance on the karma bus.

Of course I am not saying DB's fate would have been any different had he been treated differently by the minions of the AFL, but certainly, he was made a scapegoat and deserved some more dignity. The ole karma bus has a habit of taking the odd detour to collect a few that were not expecting it. Perhaps, it might be just worth keeping an eye on things over the next few months or so.

mmmm. By the way, anything to say now Caro?

I'd say the facts bear themselves out in the aftermath of this saga.

Yep, my comment was something of an understatement. I spoke to Chris Pollard sometime ago, who was/is the Solicitor representing the Bailey family. Of course, can't go into details, but geez some people have been very lucky to avoid litigation thus far.

Makes me just a touch angry really.

I know that we have done to death the recent history of the MFC which caused some of our darkest days, due to the words and deeds of certain individuals. To me DB was a salt of the earth bloke, for whom the players, at the time, held a great deal of respect. Some of the highlights we had under his coaching, with a very young side, suggested to me he may have been a great coach, given a chance, without the fetters of internal politics. Those that got in his way, know who they are. But to me, of greater significance is that if the story in the book regarding "threats" being made to DB has any substance at all, then that is an incredible injustice borne out of the self interest of the governing body at the time and neglect of what was essentially an 'employee'. If true, this is really an indictment. Perhaps the fact that DB was so selfless saved certain people from being issued with writs. RIP Dean

Guilty your Honour.

Whistle. Free kick ...... incorrect disposal.

You must be reading the wrong publications. There is plenty of that info around if you look for it.

Not from my experience. Sheep for wool, lambs for Sunday roasts. Of course, you have Alpacas and Llamas, but they are a very small niche agricultural business.