sue

Interesting comment from Fahey: "To me, the tragedy for me in all of this is that the Worksafe Victoria department didn't look at what this meant from an employer-employee relationship. "

Agree except if the records were kept electronically then it is harder to make them disappear because of backups, emails etc. But EFC had plenty of time to do that. However this would rely on tame IT staff and there would always be a risk their IT staff might squeal. Since it wouldn't do much for their employment future perhaps they have kept quiet, but if anything came to a real court they might speak up. On the other hand, maybe it was all on paper.

I don't swallow this incompetence line which is pushed by certain parties who have an agenda. They may have been some failings, we don't know enough to say how bad. But they are hampered by not having powers to compel witnesses.

Disagree RB. It may be boring to you but cheating is cheating and needs to be stomped on, especially cheating which could endanger the health of young blokes. More generally, although I have questioned the integrity of the AFL and in particular the Tribunal (based on its history of dubious decisions*) I don't think one has to invoke a great conspiracy in all this. A pile of interested parties whose agenda points in one direction doesn't require a meeting in a darkened room. * The counter that Jones was merely the Chairman at the Hall hearing and that somehow means he was not involved in a decision designed to please the AFL rather than justice, shows a naive confidence in how the Tribunal works.

Give it a rest TU. Clearly WJ meant the technicality of not getting the statements signed or being able to compel those jokers to give evidence. Are you suggesting the statements were a work of fiction?

Like everyone else I don't know the details of the EFC case. I was referring to the Barry Hall case where blind Freddy viewing the video of Hall's hit knows that he should have been rubbed out if the AFL Tribunal ran a kosher process. But there was a star player and a GF in prospect. Any of you blokes care to speculate why he got off then?

Sorry, I judge him by his actions, not if someone found him a good bloke on the tennis court x years ago.

yeah, we know the workings of the AFL Tribunal are kosher. LOL

If you need a laugh: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-31/unrepentant-dank-foreshadows-more-legal-action/6363252

Corrupt may be too strong a word. But I repeat: would you trust the judgment and biases of anyone who let Barry Hall off so he could play in that grand final? I don't.

OK, so to cheat without any team penalty as well as no player's penalty just don't self-report.

Just read the Age article http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/secret-report-finds-essendons-drugs-recordkeeping-was-deplorable-20150331-1mc8hi.html So all you have to do is not keep records and ship the stuff in on a dark night. How can any rational person believe they didn't keep records. No AFL club is that amateurish. AFL has just issued a guidebook on how to cheat.

How can you call that a conspiracy? It is just the way the AFL works. We've seen it all before.

Presumably an appeal is based on the Tribunal having got it wrong in view of the evidence that was already presented. Or perhaps that the process they used was flawed.

If ASADA does appeal, to whom do they appeal? Surely not the same tribunal?

Not too surprised after learning the Chairman Jones let Barry Hall off an obvious suspension so he could play in the GF. This will now probably run till most of the players are on the pension.

And so it should be. Otherwise we'd end up with just 2 teams fighting it out in the usual duopoly.

Not crazy, that's also how the legal system works in most serious cases. Do the players remain provisionally suspended until a penalty is announced, and then again while they appeal?

Good point. Alcohol can cause the performance problems posters such as DaisyC have raised. But it is treated in-club. The only reason other rec drugs are not is because they are illegal. But the response of the AFL and clubs is not to invoke the law. Bit of a mess really.

I'm not saying the club shouldn't test for rec drugs if they are worried about any of the things you raise. I just don't think the AFL need get involved. But you do raise a very interesting question about dobbing players into the cops. I can see it now, Eddie locked up for not reporting a crime he has witnessed.

Even the relatively attacking teams play boring defensive stuff a lot of the time. With all the players near the ball if is a bit like watching kids under 10 playing. If they don't introduce rules to stop it, I just hope some coach finds a way of thumping teams that get all their players near the ball.

Then the penalty should be entirely within the club. For example if you roll up too stoned to train, it has affected your performance and you will be playing in the 2s for 6 months or whatever. But if it doesn't affect your performance, I don't see it is of any interest to the club unless they have good grounds for claiming that in some long-term way it does affect performance. Just because they get paid a lot makes no difference. The fact that their union signed-up to it does. But I reckon that was a mistake.

I'm in your minority. Personally I am dead against any drugs (though hate the 'war on drugs' as the solution), but I don't see how recreational drugs which have no impact on footy performance are any business of the employer, regardless of the reputation the employer wants to spout. It's not as if they are airline pilots or even bus drivers.

Over on Bomberblitz there is a good deal of gloating going on. They can enjoy C'wood discomfiture for a while but it will rebound on them. Till now it appears that if the Bomber's don't get a severe whack, no one will mind (bar a few posters here). If C'wood is whacked Bomber's supports will face the wrath of C'wood supporters and their media allies if the Bomber's also don't get some sort of significant whack. BTW, does anyone know how long this Mexican meat stays in the system? I wonder if the whole team was tested or just these 2. If it does stay in the system, presumably ASADA will be wanting to test the whole team asap.

True and we may yet be in the firing line. But after the recent years of pain we MFC supporters have endured, a little be of schadenfreude, however misplaced, is understandable. Let's hope we stay in the clear and aussie rules is not damaged.