beelzebub

ASADA were soft on Cronulla and Wada admonished them for it and put them (asada) on notice.....dont you dare offer up that sort of shlt ever again. And they wont

2014.. I thinks Sue's point is the longer it drags on the more time the EFC have to develop the replacements.

Quite frankly Grace is a disgrace.. A faustian convert if ever. He should resign his Aths position immediately.

How nice of the bastards to "Agree" to play More a case I suspect of . You lot...more your arses and get out there...or.... if essendon really wanted to do us all a favour I have some suggestions !!!

...and the Olympics , Commonweath games...in fact....pretty much everything then

what did he say..

Mitch Clark is ready to excel after fighting off his foot issues article refers to Lisfranc Demon Jack Trengove out for the season article refers to navicular

only on one side Id say

EFC have been fined by the AFL for effectively sloppy management. Nothing to do with what ASADA will hang them for. The numnuts on BF suggesting a team penalty are obviously ignorant of the actual procedures and protocols. Wada/asada will deal with the players on one level and the club as a whole on another....not instead of. Poor bummers apologists...no idea !!!

Bans are NOT backdated to last game. They start from the tribunals decision. Time of provisional suspensions are taken into consideration. Again not backdated to last game....an Essendon inspired myth.

this the same current board that ALSO is backing Hird ??

you had me at this

Hes a really useful engine OD.. crikey...next youll be telling me Bananas dont wear pajamas !!

In the same way they are all just one AFL !! The coach of the swimming...( and then there are more than one ) has no say in the shot-putter nor the hurdler etc. Hird is and still is ruling.....has them by the short and curlies id say

I truly believe the only ones with any sympathies for Essendon....are already Essendon Now push is coming to shove the rest of the teams are starting to get their collective backs up ,and not before time. Essendon has been bully boy long enough

Ive got no problem ( nice of me I know ) with the scumbags on notice not playing the NAB cup.. If it were you, would you ? I doubt it. However I would hope the AFL compel its contractees not so conflicted to play . There should be no opportunity to allow those who are under notice to hide behind those that arent. There is an obligation of the players and the club to represent themselves. Grow some Gill

Difference being though its one Olympic team its actually a congregation of specific sub-teams defined by events. These have their own entourage , coaches support etc. All of the one Olympic team are not under the one tutelage etc even though there's one chef de mission its a different thing to the One entity that is the EFC where all things are ruled by one.

they HAVE seen the light.....and it scares the F*#K out of them !!

you ask as though Thomas isnt a train !! lol

IT'S COMING !!!

This case is 'breaking ground" for WADA.. its the first instance of a team rorting wholesale. My prediction.. watch for a determined rewrite of the code once this fiasco is over.

yes..youre right ET but that which RM alludes to is also fairly close to it . The essence is that the evidence satisfies the Tribunal. the Anti doping policy extract is but a homage to its originator in the WADA code , that being ( homage in so much as all signatory codes will fall in line with the WADA code ) 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an antidoping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof. heres the referenced articles: 10.4 Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances Where an Athlete or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his or her body or came into his or her Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Athlete’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced with the following: ( I'll leave off this bit...goes of for a while ) 10.6 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility If the Anti-Doping Organization establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation other than violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Athlete or other Person can prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation. An Athlete or other Person can avoid the application of this Article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the antidoping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization. Apologise for the long windedness of that but its the Code !! Elements to take out of it are ( to me ) Only need to satisfy the hearing panel. The pivot is actually Balance of Probability , and it's beholding upon the athlete to PROVE what he purports as the event and not for the Tribunal to prove its allegation. This I think is something glossed over or deliberately ignored or obfuscated by many of the essendon fan club. The ATHLETE has to show what happened as they would have it. If they can not then they will be stamped guilty immediately. Further WADA does not like it, not one iota , when athletes or teams or anyone in between decide to take the route that Essendon has. hence the provision for "Aggravated Circumstances" it would not surprise me a bit if should the Tribunals finding be anything less than 2 years that this will get ugly beyond anything imagined to date. But the thing , the essential thing to always remember about this is the ATHLETE has to provide proof, to a level of probability that what is alleged did not happen. good luck with that ...lol

Further reading suggests the following. Bans arent backdated per se. Its bordering pedantic but the bans start from the handing down from the Tribunal of the penalty. You are then to take away the time incurred having been provisionally suspended. It sort of adds up to the same thing but its very important that the ban actually( officially) starts from the tribunals decision. you are of course correct in the noting of SCN's

Now Im getting myself muddled also: But I take from the following: Commencement of Ineligibility Period Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of Provisional Suspension (whether imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility imposed. Its possible maybe to read it that suspensions begin from the time of the hearing ? ( tribunal )

A number of encouraging aspects to date. We're fitter generally and There are more that are fit Some seemed to have grown a better body ( though some havent ) Theres more raw talent at club and some other older talent seems to be coming on. We seem to be no longer in the potato business. But for me the over whelming change is that we now have more and better folk in charge and they actually know how to play winning football and even better, how to teach it we might even make a fist of this yet........ but its all conjecture til we meet somone in battle....anchors away !!!