sue

I don't recall that level of detail in what was published at the time. Either my memory is failing or perhaps it was in stuff not disclosed at the time?

If that quote that Daisycutter posted is not a leak, someone has done a lot of work constructing it. What is you view of it WJ?

Yes, I did start my email with a hearty 'ha ha'. But more seriously, the point I was making is that there is no reason not to expect lots of leaks from the tribunal - will be like paddling in a barbed wire canoe.

Ha ha. But since there are no penalties that I am aware of for blabbing about what happens at an AFL tribunal (except maybe players and officials who have signed up to some AFL document) anyone else can blab without fear of any consequences.

As you say, it's not a 'real trial'. But I'd love an explanation of why those who would have wanted to cross examine Charter et al, fought to stop them coming to the tribunal where they presumably could have been cross examined.

True. And they go to court to stop these guys from having to appear at the tribunal and will then whinge the evidence should be thrown out because they can't cross-examine them there. Mind boggling that they aren't crucified for this behaviour in the media.

Yes they do slide somewhat to that end. However once you have been deceived or even worse, self-deceived, it is hard to back out. Yes all true, but I'm sure these 18 year old blokes, many of whom are not the sharpest knife in the block, sat attentively and took it all in just as they did in school. BTW, I'm all for the players getting clobbered, but some more than others perhaps if the tribunal can reasonably do that, and all far less than Hird and co.

You might enquire, but you might be lied to. Personally I expect there is a spectrum of culpability amongst the players, with the so-called leaders and older players being at one end and a naive 18 year old at the other.

CFB: I'm not going to enter into the pro or anti Chip debate, but I don't think anyone in the anti camp has said he behaved as badly as $cully.

All very well, but the one standard cult environment they did not have was isolation. They had friends, family, players form other clubs, press etc outside of the EFC. Amazing that they have stuck together so solidly so far. Probably means they are innocent (as lambs).

Presumably they supported the case for them not having to attend or they wouldn't be looking for costs after winning. But you are spot on. It is all in line with the EFC tactic of wanting the truth to come out as long as it doesn't. As for Hird, he could hide behind a spiral staircase.

From the press reports I've seen it is not clear what the players lawyers were doing at the proceedings (other than asking for their costs). Were they for or against these guys being compelled to attend? I presume the latter in which case you'd have to wonder why they'd want their testimony suppressed other than being able to whinge they couldn't cross-exam them. In which case they should have joined with ASADA & AFL to be able to cross-examin. Can anyone suggest a consistent line they could take to explain this apparent contradiction between their approach to the court and the tribunal? BTW, I don't think the title of this new thread is entirely appropriate. There will be a lot more discussion about Hird and the admin, not just the 34 players.

Pleased to see optimism from you OD. If you think so unusually positively, many of us had better rush out and put money on us winning the flag.

I don't know what happened in 1924, but there is clearly an asterisk against that in your mind or you wouldn't mention it. There may not be an 'official' asterisk anywhere, but if the team that wins the cup in 2015 happens to get a top 2 position because it beat Essendon twice and the better team ending at 3 on the ladder did not, there will be an asterisk in many people's minds. Maybe not for 90 years as per 1924 to 2014. No one has said that EFC should be let off the charges because of this, but Cards response to BBPs post and others have assumed he meant that. I doubt that he did. It is perfectly possible to point to the effects on the competition of a B grade EFC team and still want EFC clobbered. I doubt the AFL is dismissing this issue as lightly as some posters have.

I don't know anything about them, but I'd be worried about 'passionate and grass roots members' being in charge if I was and EFC supporter (and still somehow rational) . What is needed is cool heads and realism not passion.

Deluded Bomber fans in control: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/james-hird-supporters-secure-essendon-board-positions-through-social-media-campaign-20141211-1256f5.html

BB you are right that what I suggested suffers from denying the teams which play EFC twice the chance to gain 4 points, thereby benefiting those teams which have a chance to beat some other team. I can think of ways of addressing that, (eg a revised 17 team draw) but none are entirely satisfactory or would be considered by the AFL. Good to see someone thinking about this (rather than some of the odd reactions that have been made to any suggestion on making the draw as fair as possible or absurdly, how doing so is somehow a tired excuse for poor performance by MFC). Of course, if EFC is hit with the wet lettuce that some are predicting, all this won't be much of an issue compared to the usual unfairness of the draw.

I thought I already had. Simply make games against EFC's 'seconds' practice matches, ie no points, no effect on percentage. Then it doesn't matter much how many times one team play them compared to another. There is still the relatively minor (compared to easy points) problem that it may give a particular team a rest at a critical time of the year. On the other hand, it is always a risk having such a rest.

I'm staggered - where oh where did I use this as an excuse for future bad performance by the Demons? I did not! I just said it introduced an unfair element into an (already unfair) draw. Have you actually read what I have written? The only teams it will affect in a significant way are those in contention for the finals. Sadly I doubt that includes us. I guess it just may affect who finishes on the bottom. Hopefully that won't be relevant for us either. I haven't even looked at the draw to see how often we or our immediate competitors play EFC.

Who said anyone was using it for excuses for the MFC. Just dismissing suggestions of how the draw may be made fairer, in this case because of a possible B grade EFC team, and saying just get on with things etc, is typical hairy-chested 'look at how tough I am' talk. Yes, I can't change what the AFL does, but so what. That can be said about any criticism or suggestion about anything posted by anyone on this forum.

Like Queen Vic I am not amused as you are. Everyone who has a pulse knows the draw is not fair. This just dramatically makes it worse. I don't think that the way to solve the unfair draw problems we already have is to introduce another unfair factor.

Couldn't disagree more deefrag. While very occasionally a team will get an advantage because they happen to play a 'gastro' team, when some teams get to play the 'gastro' team twice and others only once, then it is manifestly unfair to the teams that only get one shot at the sickos.

As others have said there are more important integrity issues. But as to the season, there are other things the AFL can do. Eg. no point or percentage in any EFC game. There might still me minor issues depending on which teams and when get more than one 'practice' match, but the'd be far less serious. However, somehow I can't see the AFL doing that. Based on past performance, they'd prefer an inequitable 'real' competition to truth and justice.

Why does Dank wait for an appearance at the Tribunal (formerly he wanted a regular court)? Dank can give his evidence to the HUN and avoid cross-examination. The fact that he hasn't even done that suggests he is full of hot air.

You may be right, but alternatively if there is a reasonably quick 'conviction' it could be too late to influence the public perception. Interesting times ahead.