sue

Essendon just oozes contrition and regret in its decision to extend Hird the moment he was suspended. Thumbs its nose at the AFL. Perhaps the AFL might retaliate with next year's draw.

that's because he is a dee-pressive. As for Caro, I reckon she is a poor excuse for a journalist no matter whom she is fingering. Then again the number of journalists who actually do their job these days, rather than print press releases or go on personal vendettas can be counted on the fingers of a mutilated hand.

True, both are 'disrepute' cases. But surely there are degrees of disreputable behaviour.

Presumably they can claim it as a tax deduction. Still, good on them.

All true, but I thought the 'Why?" referred to your second line - "Charming way to treat your Captain of all people." So why?

Thompson coaches till the finals and every couple of days he has coffees with Hird to keep him fully informed. Hird then waltzes back to coach the finals? May not work. More likely Hird appears on the bench during the finals to inspire the team (or what is left of it).

AD says MFC is next. Whoopee.

Bomberblitz: The Dustin Fletcher Hangar is an ASADA-free zone. Validated members of Blitz can discuss the situation in the newly created sub-forum. If you can't see the sub-forum, you're not a validated member. Starting an ASADA thread in The Hangar because you lack the ability to read this thread may just earn you a one-way ticket to Bansville. Motivation?

Agree RR, but I don't understand why you reference the tanking issue as if spanking ourselves is somehow useful or relevant. The only relevance is the relative penalties for tanking and 'supplementing'. Forget the AFL's ludicrous outcome, assume we tanked outrageously and unprecedentedly, and then compare our penalties with what Essendon get for a far more serious 'crime'. How Hird can be fighting for a shorter ban than CC got is beyond reason and can only be explained by the relative power of a big club. With Free Agency, for a rich club, the loss of draft picks is probably less of an effect than it was in the past, salary caps notwithstanding.

I don't know what is in the 'official" verdict nor where to find it, so without you expanding on it, I can't be sure what you are referring to. But even if CC was guilty of the most outrageous and unprecedented tanking, the penalty for the 'supplements' program should be much higher than CC got. Of course you could argue CC should have got a smaller penalty.

Then you've just cheesed of a couple of potential assistants who wont be at your club anyway. Yes BB, it is fishing, but I don't think you'd be asking for anyone to show much of their cards. Wouldn't go further than 'are you in the market, yes or no'. Just speculating - of course the actual coach would drive all this when in place, whether or not that has happened already.

Is it not possible to get in early that you'd ask around as to who might want to be an assistant. Then be able to tell the coach once selected that a,b,c and d have all said they have an interest, so which ones interest you?

Very droll. But if you believed Essendon's performance was enhanced illegally this year, a better way to do it would be to re-calculate the ladder omitting all games they played in. (Note the 'If')

So if they can't finger at least 2 players (or coaches?) individually, then the club can't be penalised?

T_U, since you seem to be across the rules, what about the question I rasied at the bottom of the last page. Can ASADA impose penalties on a club (via the AFL) if they can't identify individual players?

In those circumstances can ASADA/WADA impose some sanction on the club?

Thanks Nasher- that answers it. Pretty amazing they weren't allowed to discuss it with other Essendon players. I wonder if they are still abiding by this. Edit: And amazing that they wouldn't be able to discuss it with their own GP. Especially since GP's often have to ask what else you are taking to ensure there is no conflict with what they are prescribing.

There is a question which no one seems to have raised - though perhaps I have missed it. Players at Essendon must have friends in other AFL teams. Surely they would discuss things about their work. If you were being injected on a regular basis, would you not mention this to other players when you discuss life in the AFL? The response from the other player would either be "Me too" which implies other clubs are doing the same, or 'WTF' which would make the Essendon player sit up and wonder. I'm not saying that the latter would necessarily make him take any action. Though the players from other clubs would presumably be asking about doing similarly within their own club. I'd expect it to leak out. Maybe it did and was the source of some of the pre-preempt ASADA rumours. Of course maybe they wouldn't discuss it with friends having been told 'this is our secret weapon'.

I don't know, the AFL knows a bit, ASADA possibly a lot more, and Dank/Essendon maybe more again, maybe not. You attribute things to me which are in your imagination, not in what I wrote. For a start, look up "If" in the dictionary. One thing I do know is that you and I will never agree - even when I wrote I agree 100% with you on the critical points you go on and on. Note to self: don't emulate RR anymore, it's a slippery slope.

How else would they know they were guilty? Well, perhaps they found out later that what they were taking was illegal. (You can be guilty in the eyes of WADA without taking things knowingly and deliberately). In any case I did not state the players knew they were guilty. I merely said IF I was guilty I'd be happy for the records to be destroyed (but added the comment I'd like to privately have my records for health reasons). I think you should reread what we both wrote. But hopefully you have something better to do. Apparently I don't. Must get a life......

I'm not assuming they took them knowingly. Anyway as I understand it that is irrelevant to WADA. Of course I don't know if the are 'seeking' protection from lack of records. But if I was guilty of something I'd be happy for there to be no (public) record of it, though for health reasons I'd like a private record. As for the other points you made, I agree with then 100%. Have said similar in earlier posts. You assume I was saying protection from penalties is greater importance than health risks etc. when I have been saying nothing of the sort.

I meant protects them from being charged with taking illegal substances (though perhaps not 100%). Clearly it doesn't protect them health and mental health-wise. Unless Essendon/Dank etc come clean and it is clear everything was safe (unlikely on both counts) they will be worrying forever. And as soon as a couple of them come down in 20 year with some odd disease, even if it is just a coincidence, it will all blow up again.

The overwhelming probability in my mind is that there were records - I don't believe any professional sporting organisation would embark on such an experimental program without keeping them. There may never be proof of the destruction of records assuming physically it was done properly. Even so there may be circumstantial evidence. For example, if they deleted entire file systems and backups which included totally innocent stuff, you have to ask why they haven't got the innocent stuff available. I don't know how strong such evidence would be considered. The only other evidence will be if someone squeals, and then it will be their word against others. The lack of records protects the players. The absence of it is proof of bad governance and any evidence of destruction is indication of a cover-up which as we know often hangs people more often than the original crime.

Saying I have no clear suggestion of the penalties, but that I thought the ones originally mentioned were too soft is not fence sitting. It is simply saying I personally have not sufficient information to suggest what compromise solution will be appropriate or work. I'm happy to be viewed by you as an inveterate fence-sitter. I'd rather be known for that than for making ex cathedra pronouncements when I don't know sufficient facts (though I'm probably guilty of that from time to time). Since, like most of us, I am not close to the AFL world, I rarely will have detailed inside knowledge. Anyway I AGREE with everything else you said above. This all started because I posted that the penalties being mentioned were too light. I then agreed with you that a compromise is required. So I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I'm glad you haven't been specific enough to suggest the number of lost draft picks, size of fine, period of point loss and severity of suspensions of individuals. Fence sitting?

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I'd prefer Hird to stay on, but have to coach a team for no points with no draft picks and maybe a few players suing him. But then I'm not a nice person.