sue

The denial contingent is big on bomberblitz but more insane that that. In fact some of the posts there make the most extreme conspiracy theories of our wackiest Demonland members look relatively rational.

Reading Caro's article: Little is understood to have spoken directly to Dank in a bid to unravel what drugs were administered during the experimental program of late 2011 and 2012. Why in blazes didn't he unravel with Dank before now!

Yes OD and Daisycutter, it does beggar belief. So what do you conclude? I made some guesses in post 7868.

I guess there is some interesting points in discussing the compensation, but we all know that at bottom the AFL will just do what it likes regardless of any logic, consistency or fairness.

If so, are we really at the point of saying they were all convinced that the injections were legal and thought the waivers were to do with other matters, eg. can't sue for long-term health issues, messing-up of tattoos or whatever? That quote in the HUN today, which I and a couple of others have pointed to, shows that at least one player as recently as the last couple of months was totally brainwashed by the club. You don't need all 34 to be of one mind - some may be in the "we'll get away with it" camp, others trusted the various gods that inhabit the club, others kept quiet for a mixture of those reasons and team loyalty and others don't have a brain in the head, and maybe 1 pretended he was scared of needles. While it is surprising that still one or two didn't ring an alarm bell, perhaps we underestimate the internal loyalty of an AFL team. Well that's one positive for FA - it will help put an end to that herd/Hird mentality.

I am amazed at how some posters vent against he club about all this. Do we KNOW that we wrote a poor contract and that we didn't tell MC we didn't want him, or that if we did it was on condition of him playing a year at Casey for peanuts or whatever? I'll wait till I know more before I'll condemn MC. When it is clear that he has acted like a pr!ck I'll join in the booing.

This statement attributed to an Essendon player in the HUN article is simply amazing: The player said he had “no idea, none” that even if Essendon were successful in the Federal Court ASADA could launch a fresh investigation and re-gather the evidence needed for the issuing of show cause notices. Everyone with a passing interest in the case knew that was touted as a strong possibility. It seems the Essendon players have been cocooned in a media-free zone and totally under the mind control of the club.

Do we really know that? We are told he met C'wood before he met Roos and yes, you'd think he'd talk to the coach (though not having played he may not have had much to do with the coach). He may have met someone else at the MFC first, eg someone telling him we would only offer him something he found unacceptable. Or his manager may have been told, or may be telling him porkies. I'm not being an apologist for him. I just don't think we know enough at this stage.

If you believe your first 2 sentences, how can you say his behaviour stinks? If we decided he wasn't in good shape etc and made a low offer, why shouldn't he see if another team might offer a better deal? We really don't know enough to say that he 'owed us' to take whatever offer we made. What if we haven't made a real offer at all but are keeping quiet to maximise compensation.

We don't know enough to make any judgements at this stage. For example, if MC did take advantage of being trained by us in the last few months and during that time planned a move elsewhere, whether under medical advice or not, then he deserves condemnation. If he only changed his mind because we (for whatever reason) gave him an unexpectedly unattractive offer, then it is harder to condemn him except on the issue of loyalty for past favours (there isn't any other type of loyalty these days). But we don't know much about that either.

Will the Essendon faithful listen?

They could have a plan to hobble through the next few years. First drag this out as long as they can so older players would retire anyway (hence my question earlier). Also they could plan to trade out young blokes whom other clubs will take knowing they may miss some months . They could trade these guys for some 'clean skins' to fill the holes over the next couple of years, swap some draft picks for more and even keep some younger ones on ice while they serve their bans or trade them next year. The AFL will help. They may not be a powerhouse for several years, but I'm sure the AFL would prefer that to them fielding a VFL side. Whether that makes any sense or not would depend on a detailed analysis of their list so I could be talking through my hat. Of course there is also the possibility of a coup if they try to follow such a long-term course.

If they appeal, how long before that is heard and determined?

Gotta hand it to Robinson. In the Hun he says: Gut feel says Hird and Essendon will likely appeal because they believe their legal argument was not addressed by Middleton. Robinson may believe their legal argument was not addressed, but I doubt if Hird & Little are that stupid when the judgement was as clear as a bell. If they do appeal it will be part of a strategy to drag this out for so long that the players will be claiming their age pension before it is all finalised.

Apologies if I missed it, but I'm surprised no one (?) has commented on this: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/paul-roos-impressed-by-simon-goodwins-honesty-in-addressing-his-role-in-essendon-supplement-saga/story-e6frf3e3-1227063226346?sv=d4a1a976221752ac0149983372fe22f4

I think that must be their strategy. It is always possible that a stupid litigant will instruct his lawyers to pursue a foolish case regardless of advice, but there are surely enough people at Essendon to have intervened to stop that. So dragging things out for years might well be their strategy. Might even been seen as club bonding - us against the world etc. The AFL which doesn't want a 10 player Essendon team next year may be quite happy for this to go on for years in the background too. But it carries risks. A few cracks could become rifts, Ryder's could abound. But maybe that is less to them and the AFL than the risk of having a decimated team in the short run.

From bomberblitz - they seem to have a problem telling the time as well as the truth if you look at the first timestamp. Thought some of our depressives would like to see the reply that was made to this post Members 69 posts Posted Today, 06:29 AM mdso, on 19 Sept 2014 - 4:24 PM, said: Ask Melbourne

No, it sounded recent - like something someone from Carton club had said or something going around on social media.

Because I am a notorious sticky-beak I set up an account on bomberblitz when this all started. So I can see into the inner sanctum. I've rarely logged on, but did today. There is a mixture of views there ranging from Middleton J votes Labor (!) and it's all a plot to I'm sick of this, respond to ASADA and take the punishment if any. Mostly 'keep fighting' type posts. But I've yet to see anyone calling for Little's head and a clean sweep of the club. (If it was demonland, they'd be calls for that on a weekly basis). Admittedly I haven't the stomach to trawl through much of what is posted there so maybe someone has suggest Little dip into his private fortune and pay all the bills as well as Hird's salary. Edit: Oh, they seem to have it in for Cartlon. Has Carltank said something today about it?

I'm surprised that one of our usual doom and gloom merchants haven't already groaned that if the AFL has to rescue and rebuild Essendon that will reduce any assistance they give us. Whoops - does that make me a doom & gloom merchant?

The players wanting out must really be p!ssed off by Essendon delaying things by this fatuous case they brought. There is now surely no time for penalties to be imposed on players and accepted before the trade and drafting period. So other clubs have no information when considering trades or whatever as to when the player could actually next play. A seller of 10 foot barge poles will be making a fortune.

It was also interesting how the judge went into details about the way Hird et al impugned the ex-head of ASADA's evidence and at least by implication, her character. He said she took her time to answer questions because she was being careful to tell the truth.

One thing he didn't directly address is what if Essendon players & Hird had refused to answer question until ASADA officials left the room. However he did indirectly by saying that if the AFL had alone done an investigation it would have been proper for the AFL to give ASADA the details.

What a pleasure to hear a well-reasoned analysis, coloured neither by the Essendon apologist cheer-squad of journos, nor for that matter by those of us who have a range of reasons for wishing Essendon sunk. Clear as day. And to top it off, even if he had found it was improper, he wouldn't tell ASADA to wipe its memory.

Wasn't aiming my remark at you in particular.