sue

He wasn't blaming Bob personally - unless Bob runs the whole club. Just said that that sort of attitude was a problem.

why are injections in the stomach mentioned so often? Is there a suggestion that illegal substances require that location, or is it just a media beat-up? Diabetics often inject in the stomach after all.

I agree - we don't know enough yet. But at this stage we must give the impression that we could well go to court - maybe even give the impression that we might be a little crazy about it. That makes the AFL think twice about how harsh they'll treat us since they wouldn't want to go to court either.Also, while as some say (not me) we may not survive a big legal stoush with the mighty AFL, the careers of the AFL's leadership might not survive either. That may weigh more heavily on their minds than dishing out what they, as the AFL, think we really deserve.

I think the point is that the AFL leaders may be more worried about their own careers than wanting to clobber the MFC and may back off.

True, though unlike Carlton we have had a 7 month investigation with frequent press 'updates'. But probably the general public has taken less notice of that than Demons supporters and even less than people on this forum.

I can imagine a finding which covers both bases. A bit crude and subject to criticism, but with the more serious drug issue to work on, possibly sufficient to allow everyone to move on. Along the lines of: While there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge against MFC and its officials, it is clear that the PP system has given rise to the public perception that winning games was not their highest priority. The AFL has already taken steps to ensure this cannot happen in future by taking decisive action in abolishing the PP. blah blah blah....

This may be too paradoxical for some, but it is possible to think we tanked in 2009 and at the same time believe we are not guilty of an ill-defined charge of tanking.

Assuming (as I do as a bush-lawyer) that the MFC would have a case in court that could allow admitting evidence relating to the AFL's lack of action with respect to other club's tanking, it is a game of bluff. Neither side can want it to go to court, but who would blink first? Even if it is true that the downside is worse for one side than the other, this may be balanced by the probability of winning in the game of bluff. I think/hope the drug issue will help. If the AFL dropped the tanking issue they would cop some flack, but unless there is a very smoking gun, it must suit them not to have 2+ clubs guilty of bad behaviour. And clearly the drug issue is massive compared to the vague issue of tanking. I don't think it is worth agonising over whether we should actually take it to court till we know more - charges, evidence etc. I can imagine a finding of 'guilty' but expressed in such mild terms, with qualifications about the AFL's own guilt in the matter and with such minimal or no penalties that maybe we could live without significant damage to the brand of being found guilty.

Regardless of whatever she said, the coach etc can 'tank' no matter what the players do given the ambiguity in the rules. For example if you dropped half your good players in the next match to ensure they were fit for a final match the following week, you could be charged with 'tanking'..... You might not be apparently, but you could be.

Perhaps she doesn't believe everything that is printed in her own paper.

I don't think loyalty comes into it. Nor do I accuse you of being disloyal. Yes it is about US. So what? Yes, we are on trial. Let me ask you personally - if you were the owner of the dumbest-post-cafe would you say it was not right for the case to be just about YOU given the circumstances? Would it not be partly the council's fault? Would you not whinge to your mates? Would you not fight it on the grounds of equity and bad process by the council? If not, I admire your fortitude but fear your cafe may go bankrupt. And yes, we can't do anything but see how it pans out. Doesn't mean we shouldn't comment on the situation. Edit: apologies - these last few posts should be in the tanking thread.

too dumb for you to say what is wrong with the analogy?

That is a much more complex question than you imply. For example, here is a little tale: You own a cafe across the street from Cafe Bozo. Your cafe has identical space, facilities and passing trade etc. Makes similar profits. One day Bozo covers the footpath with tables and chairs without any council permission and steals a pile of your business. The council doesn't do anything, the rules are ill-defined, so you figure you'd better do the same. You do and the council prosecutes you two years after you installed the tables. One of your friends says you brought it all on yourself because you were stupid enough to put a sign in your window saying 'Outdoor Eating Coming Soon' and your chairs were (arguably) a brighter colour. Yes, so you are to blame. But would you really feel you were solely the cause of your plight? You'd whinge to anyone who will listen and do all you legally can to ensure you are not convicted or at least reduce any penalty. You wouldn't be too pleased with your ex-friend either.

No serious leak here. You don't assemble the heads of the major codes, ACC, ASDA heavies etc, the Minister for Sport etc with 2 days notice and without first giving them a fair amount of detail, even the report. At that point there are so many involved that you know it will leak and no point in fingering anyone. Though I wonder if the ACC would be annoyed about the Bomber press conference occurring just before.

Did he actually say that? I didn't know comedy was part of his job description.

Well, maybe the Demons have been a really good side for the last few years. Just looked awful because everyone else was cheating.

I don't think it has. The AFL has leaked about us for months. Clearly to organize today's presser the Crime Commission had to inform lots of people, politicians, various codes and print the report. It is quite likely there would be a leak at a late stage, for example 2 days ago a supporter of a certain club working at the printers.... gosh I could take CW's job,

Probably, but we didn't hear much about Essendon till just before the Crime Commission's report was released just now.

Some may argue tanking comes under gambling. Personally when there was a priority pick, I think gamblers should have taken into account a team's position and goals as well as form in placing a bet. Ditto for that pre-final match when Freo fielded their reserves. Given the current press conference, it is unlikely that it is a coincidence that Essendon asked the AFL etc to investigate 2 days ago.

A bit off topic, but: You've got to hand it to journos. Here is the first few sentences by M Robinson today: UNQUESTIONABLY, James Hird would have asked himself in recent days whether he should resign as Essendon coach. The answer is no. Resign for what? That Hird even contemplated the question tells us the weight of responsibility he feels. Sentence 1 - speculation Sentence 3 - written as if the speculation was fact. It may be that I've missed seeing elsewhere (and before this article was written) that Hird had said he had considered reigning, but then sentence 1 is wrong.

I thought it was noticeable for being about the most deplorable thing I've read for a long while. It might be a good article when all that stuff is proved, but not now. Anyway, to bring the missing AD into the article, she'd have to introduce the sobbing mother of a budding administrator and invent some scandal around her child.

I doubt if she has any specific player in mind. Just had a look at bomberblitz and they just love Caro prejudging things in the way we are accustomed to. I haven't seen any shouted-down minority defending her there yet.

Apologies if this has already been posted, but there is an interesting article in crikey.com today about this. You can see the full article if you set up a 2 week free trial sub (no credit card needed). Here are a few exerts: Dr Robin Willcourt, who runs the Epigenx Integrated Medicine practice at South Yarra's Como Centre in Melbourne, told Crikey this morning Dank and his boss, Dean "the Weapon" Robinson, had came to see him last year about a proposed medical regime for Bombers stars. "We talked with Steve and Dean about the use of peptides and other supplements, but what they did with that information I don't know," Willcourt said. A script was never written, and the duo went elsewhere. Willcourt says the Bombers' blood readings made for uncomfortable reading. ... Steve swore up and down that the players weren't using peptides ... I was totally torn looking at their results because I'm looking at these players thinking 'man, you need help'. It was a very frustrating position to be in. "The problem with that is that when you're a footy player and you're working your guts out and you get injured you just don't repair properly. You just see the players getting more and more injured as time goes by." Willcourt says he thought a lot of Essendon players were taking bovine colostrum -- a substance that, while not illegal, includes an agent called IGF-1, regarded as a banned substance by the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency. He says it's possible Dank or the club had later secured peptides from another provider. "Dank was also very interested in getting placental extracts and stuff like I said to him that I didn't think they would do any good," he said. Robinson, the subject of intense media interest last year after his hiring, is a "terrific fellow" and a "fantastic chap". He has since been stood down. A pharmacist at the adjacent Como Compounding Pharmacy, Nima Alavi, told Crikey today that Dank had visited 12 months ago and was "coming in proposing all sorts of crazy things. But we don't really get involved in that sort of stuff."

Did she state these as facts of which she had been informed or, as I presume, this is just her speculating on what she thinks is likely to happen? Either that or the AFL's processes are totally corrupt and leak like a sieve. Or she has a crystal ball.

That is one explanation of whatever was signed (if anything) - better than the one I suggested about never from suing the club. But wouldn't it look very suspicious if the entire team claimed to all be suffering the same injuries?