sue

Well if you read my posts you will see I have already done a mea culpa for having jumped the gun, though I did believe (wrongly) I had all the facts when I first posted.

I'm not in violent disagreement, except I'm not sure that the AFL is aware of all the evidence as you assume. Did not ASADA investigate with AFL support (eg at those notorious interviews)? Surely ASADA may have turned up evidence that the AFL is not aware of (outside of the tribunal proceedings). That said, it is still unclear to me to what extent the case at the tribunal is being brought by ASADA or by some combination of ASADA and the AFL. If it is joint, then you'd expect both the AFL and ASADA to know their complete case. But that makes it all the worse that Gil commented as he did.

Afraid I disagree Ouch. Convening a tribunal is not sufficient grounds for knowing what is happening at it. If anything, having convened an enquiry or whatever, a convening body should stand well back. For example, the government convenes the courts and is effectively the prosecutor as The Queen vs Hird (I'm looking ahead ). If the proceedings are 'in camera' as these ones are, it is not appropriate for the government to know what is happening. And as we seem to be agreed, it is definitely not appropriate for the Attorney General or the PM to publicly state during the proceedings 'I have seen the evidence and I think xxxx'. But as I said earlier, if the AFL is actually present at the Tribunal then Gil is entitled to see it all, but then the problem is Gil's going public with his opinions based on 'what I know and you do not'.

In response to BB and Ouch, I do not see how any party, not actually involved in the proceedings, namely the players, Dank and ASADA should see anything until the decision is finalised. Anything else smacks of the possibility of improper influence. Now I may be wrong as to who the parties are. Perhaps the AFL is party to the proceedings? In which case I withdraw my remark. But I replace it with the comment that it is improper for Gil to have commented on it publicly. For example, I just heard him 'quoted' on ABC radio as saying the players have no case to answer. Now that it not exactly what he did say, but it shows the dangers of him saying anything at this stage.

re Garland: Anyone know the average per game for backmen over the comp?

"AFL boss Gillon McLachlan revealed on Friday he had read the majority of the evidence from the anti-doping tribunal and closing submissions." Very independent tribunal.

Quite right. If the media don't see this contradiction and give him hell for it, then they are a gutless bunch of fools beneath contempt.

A loose canon and a loud explosion will ensue: Dank said he was considering legal action against the Bombers' 2013 internal report conducted by former Telstra boss, Ziggy Switkowski. "It is really laughable to suggest we conducted anything in a pharmacologically experimental manner. It was well known what was used at Essendon Football Club so the furphy that has been portrayed by the AFL, ASADA and the Essendon Football Club, that they don't know, is completely wrong," he said.

Isn't this the first round 1 game in quite a while where we are the underdogs and don't have high expectations of a win? So I'm not going to feel as bad as I did after some other round 1 games unless we get thrashed.

I don't respect any judge who could have let Barry Hall off so he could play in a grand final and keep the AFL happy. Sorry.

I'd like to believe that. But have I got it wrong that Jones ran the panel that let Barry Hall off when he clearly should have been suspended so he could play in a grand final. Doubtless the AFL liked that result.

you've lit the blue touch paper and retreated to a safe distance. But it may be a fizzer.

As a long-time lover of aussie rules, I found that very hard to read. One lighter moment was the bit where EFC sent off some blood samples to check if something illegal could be detected. Were those untrustworthy players taking drugs outside of the official program? Or is there a more obvious explanation.... I hadn't heard about that before. Is it new? In Ziggy's report? What's the evidence it happened?

I didn't know that Jones was on the panel that let Barry Hall off for that punch. Looks like the decision will be an award to Essendon for innovation in football.

As yet another example of the media bias in this, the bloke who does the sports segments on ABC Radio National breakfast has failed to mention the fact that an ex-EFC player was suing at all. You'd think that was a pretty hot story.

As I posted earlier, when players start to sue EFC for having injected them with unknown substances, there is a good chance the supplement list will suddenly and magically be found stuck behind a life-sized picture of J Hird.

This talk of not counting the 4 points from Essendon matches this year is very discouraging. They seem to be one of the few teams we usually beat.

What does the old fool mean by a 'sting'. Surely hes not suggesting somebody tricked EFC into the experiment'?

Well their mods aren't completely crazy, just closed the thread: Ffs, you really think some of the crap posted in the last few hours is acceptable? Wishing death on people? Thread locked until mods get a chance to clean it up.

Normally I would agree with you, but I think he went a lot further than a standard statement of how WADA works. He could have said a lot less.

Sadly I think this is very likely to be the reason for anonymity. In every club there are probably enough crackpot supporters, but egged on by the victimisation line that the media and EFC have been pushing, such a supporter may well go over the edge and do anything from 'mere' harassment to something unpardonable.

Yes, but the significance is that he said it now.

I know the player in question is not supposed to be one of the 34, but maybe ASADA didn't go for him for some reason. Wouldn't it be interesting for a player in court to say to EFC you can't tell me what I was given, I demand compensation for your negligence causing me worry etc., and EFC might think the best course is to suddenly discover the records of what was administered.

Look it up in the dictionary and you will be even happier.

Ablett keen to play against us: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/gold-coast-suns-captain-gary-ablett-skips-afl-captain27s-day-t/6344502