sue

Qwerty: Of course , you are right, all we have is circumstantial evidence that the AFL has not behaved like good chaps. If we knew for sure about a smoking gun, then it would be news outside of Demonland forums.

I was at the match and was appalled by the announcer and when he actually shut up and stopped running ads we were blasted with loud distorted music. I don't know what happens at the MCG but if it is anything like what happened at Manuka then I'd be deeply embarrassed as a MFC supporter. One poster excused the announcer on the grounds that he needed to explain things to an uneducated crowd. That is complete nonsense. First of all, shouting the score and stating that GWS would have to catch up etc is hardly educative. Second, the Canberra crowd knows footy as well as any crowd. When public servants were first transferred from Melbourne and Sydney, most came from Melbourne, so there is a long history of footy in Canberra. But the AFL missed the bus (reality or virtual) by doing nothing around the time the Canberra Raiders got under way, with the result that both Rugby codes now dominate in the city. But those who roll up at Manuka know a holding the ball decision from 'no prior opportunity' as well as any umpire. hmmm..... edit to ad: Congrats to the MFC though. In previous years MFC country members had crud seats behind the goals at the city end. This year we were well placed on the wing. (Fortunately in the second half most of the play was on the other side of the ground.)

If you sign up for an AFL ID then you can get a 2 week free trial for AFL Live access.

This reminds me why when people say the AFL is corrupt, they are correct. Perhaps not in the sense of accepting backhanders, nobbling tribunals etc (though nothing would surprise me), but certainly in the sense that their processes are improper and the AFL is not consistently governed.

Players will sledge for whatever reason they can use unless the AFL has made it clear a particular sledge is forbidden (eg racist remarks, and rightly so). They haven't produced a 'No Mention of Mental Illness' policy yet, and in any case it would be a can of worms given the enormous uncertainties of what can be said and to whom. I'm not surprised that some Hawthorn players may have gone to far in trying to put their opponent off. But I am surprised that the Hawthorn supporters would think that booing him would have that effect or that it would occur to them to do so at all. On the other hand, I'm equally surprised that they would be booing him for any dastardly deed he did to other clubs. Puzzled.

I don't usually barrack for Hawthorn but find myself doing it today despite myself. I think it is because if Hawthorn are dominating I don't have to see those ex-Demons at the other end.

It may not be an offence to suborn a witness to an AFL Tribunal. Legal experts? What about CAS?

Why was a 'peace-deal' needed? But I guess the term 'peace deal' was the work of a sub-editor and not the multi-millionaire. But just going on the direct quotes of Salvo's words, what transparent nonsense. Why was it a problem that Charter & Essendon had not spoken for months? Why should they speak at all? I smell a rat. (And I have a very weak sense of smell usually.)

Watts came in pretty quickly too, though because he bent over, he was easily pushed over. Speaking of leadership the commentators didn't bag Ablett when he didn't congratulate that Coutts(?) guy for his first ever goal even though he was standing very close. Admittedly the game was effectively over at the time, but I can imagine the all round bagging that eg. Grimes would have got for that.

I'd expect that when the playing committee/coach have difficult choices as to who to drop and who to bring in, the likely opposition line-up is probably a bigger factor in the decision than the relatively emotional factors that have been raised in this thread. That also makes it easier to justify their omission to the players who are dropped.

I know this has been raised many times, but this para really gets me: So despite him having evidence that proves the players innocent he has let them be dragged through the dirt for 2 years by not presenting it. Yet the media still go to that $#^%# for comments.

Or the AFL Live on phones & tablets. After the chorus from outraged complainants, they seem to have fixed it to allow display on TV's without any fanfare. There is a 2 week free trial if you sign up via the AFL web pages rather than from within the app (where I don't think that option exists - may b wrong).

Without a blood test (or similar), how would they ever prove that what was injected was actually X unless someone spills the beans, or (foolishly) records of X are kept. Sounds like a license to use drugs for which no test has yet been developed, especially if a club's managers are prepared to lie to the players.

I reckon Hal Hunter will be settled out of court with the usual vows of silence. $1 to 2M should do it. So let's assume $68M max will do the entire 34. Pocket money for the CEO. Dees2014 - on what basis do you know "for a fact that WADA are APPALLED by Essendon's actions."

T_U: In your criticisms of other posters views you make the bolded point. The same comment applies to you I presume. None of us know, but we can all offer opinions. One thing we all agree on is that EFC behaved outrageously. The extent to which all or some players were complicit and how clearly that is proven or otherwise is disputed. But even if one believes that the level of proof was insufficient, I think most of us have a strong gut feeling (or call it experience of life and human foibles) that at least some of the players are guilty at the very least that they deliberately closed their eyes and covered their ears.

I think WADA has to get serious about this case. It seems to me that EFC bumbled their way to this point. I'm not referring to their legal and PR tactics, but to what happened earlier so that the AFL Tribunal, kosher or not, could come up with this decision. Other codes around the world could look at this case and systematically do what Essendon did probably more by luck than 'good' management. WADA can't allow that.

So how do you stop players and clubs cheating if they just arrange their affairs like EFC did (or didn't)?

Dank to sue (or so he says), should be interesting: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-02/stephen-dank-to-sue-asada-chief-ben-mcdevitt-reports/6368224

Leaving aside the issue of the required level of burden of proof/sufficient evidence, it is clear that the club, if not the players, was up to no good. I think we all believe that. No? Does anyone seriously believe (I mean gut feeling, not evidence-based) that absolutely every player was duped, none at all smelled a rat given the circumstances that are acknowledged to be true by EFC in Ziggy's report? I do, but then I was told that by the fairies at the bottom of my garden. Oh, OK., I'll control my anger at what this wretched team has done to my game. I'll put the probability that was the case at 20%.

For the whole regime to work, if players are duped, they must have to prove they were duped, not the other way around. Otherwise there is a big loophole. Of course, since you can't be duped unless someone duped you, part of the proof would require testifying against those who duped you which makes an interesting situation.

So to avoid being found guilty of intent to take, all a player has to do is sign a form which states that what he will be injected with is kosher, and then never ask "what was I being injected with". All a club has to do is to get the injections done by someone who is outside of their direct control and trust he "keeps" no records. What the hell - allow the players to ingest and inject whatever they like even if it kills them and their kids. After all this is a free enterprise society, the players need to maximise their income and there is far too much regulation.

I agree Robbiefrae13. They had a burden of proof subject to interpretation between the usual civil & criminal ones and chose to be legalistic at the wrong end of that spectrum in my learned Demonland opinion (ie not having seen all the relevant docs....).

Sorry Redleg. I agree this Tribunal is more respectable than the usual one. But in my view if Jones merely guided the mugs who let Hall off, he should have resigned in protest at their manifestly corrupt decision. That makes me think he has a tendency to bow to the AFL's interests in the manner I suggested. I agree being ex-footballer doesn't necessarily mean bias. But you mentioned it as a factor helping them understand the pressure to comply within clubs. My point is that such pressure should have nothing to do with the decision based on the evidence. But it will be another, possibly subconscious factor, making such a Tribunal look hard to find a reason to do what pleases the AFL and players. You wrote: Comfortable satisfaction is somewhere in the middle. Not too big a stretch I would have thought. But a very elastic stretch. It would seem that the Tribunal was at one end of the rubber band. I guess I am saying this should have been considered by a tribunal which was entirely independent of the AFL. Three judges who know nothing about footy and are not associated with the fraternity of the game like the current 3 were, would be best. Now maybe on the basis of the evidence and the burden of proof an independent tribunal might have come to the same decision. But a bad taste persists.

It should and may have have been investigated. But if you get a hold of the actual disks (and tapes), write random stuff all over them 20 times and trash them sufficiently and throw in the river then forensics won't help much.

I usually agree with what you write Redleg but this time I think you are being too soft on the Tribunal. While I can see what you are saying ,the flakiness of the Tribunal over the years and its tendency to bow to AFL interests rather than justice is clear to all of us. The Barry Hall case says it all to me. It will always be suspect and likely to look hard for a way of pleasing the AFL if they can without unduly troubling their consciences (which I will accept the current Tribunal might have had in this case). Your last comment about 2 of them being footballers and know the pressure on players to comply etc is perhaps why these guys were not suitable. The question of pressure to comply was not part of the case nor the decision apparently. Having such sympathy for the players would be a bias which should not be relevant to weighing the evidence.