bing181

Provisional suspensions are credited against any full suspension, and they can only do it once. Apparently they have around 4 ½ months "in the bank". Banned players can return to training with the club 2 months before the end of any suspension. (actually ... shorter of 2 months or 1/4 of suspension period). i.e. If the players get a 6 month ban, they wouldn't have to stop anything (4 ½ month credit and immediate return to training). (I make no claims for having any expertise in these areas ... I've just followed cycling fairly closely for a long time, and well ... you get exposed to a lot of doping cases ...!!)

Based on? As previously: a) if there is/was enough evidence for ASADA/AFL to prosecute any of the admin/support staff they would already have been in the dock alongside Dank b) guilt (or otherwise) of the players is not of itself evidence of anything in regard to third parties, which then leaves us with a) Once again, I don't know of any cases where for the same offence, support staff (if charged) haven't been charged simultaneously with athletes, and I know of no cases where support staff have been charged on the basis of a guilty verdict for an athlete. I've already requested that anyone who has any examples to the contrary post it here so we can see/understand the circumstances - but none have been forthcoming.

What smutty innuendos?

It's not just in drugs-in-sport cases that small-fry take the punishment while the ringleaders walk away scot-free. Unfortunately. FWIW, I think where this has the potential to get nasty for the higher-ups is when banned-players turn on the club and coaches through civil prosecutions.

Perhaps not, but then find some examples where athletes and associated support staff were prosecuted at different times (years later) for the same offence. I don't know of any ... maybe you do.

Only if they have the evidence. If they didn't have it when the initial prosecutions were brought, hard to see how they would have it now. (sorry, meant to include this in my post above, not trying to take over the thread or get my post count up ...!)

Yes, but not on the back of successful prosecutions of an athlete. To my knowledge - such as it is, I could be wrong - when coaches and support staff are charged, it's at the same time as the athletes - as in the Armstrong case. If there was evidence to successfully prosecute Hird, or Goodwin, they would have been included originally, as Dank was. The way I see it, the only way they could now be prosecuted (when they weren't before) would be if there was substantial new evidence implicating them. OK, there haven't been any leaks and no-one knows, but I'd be surprised if that was the case. Also, the support staff who have been charged in other cases, were directly involved in doping offences: purchasing, distributing, administering etc. Once again, I'm not aware of any of those applying to Hird or Goodwin. IMHO ...

If you mean Dr. Ferrari and the Armstrong case, a) WADA wasn't involved b) USADA went after them when they had the evidence. That evidence surfaced on the back of the Federal Enquiry, which (only) started in 2010. There won't be any new prosecutions.

But of course. I was just commenting on possible time frames. I don't and didn't expect to see Melksham in the red and blue this year, and perhaps some/most of the next.

The mind boggles.

Well, we now have something of a vested interest in this. For our and Melksham's sakes, I'd prefer it was as early as possible, especially if the ban pans out to 13 - 14 months (18 months, minus the 4 ½ months provisional). He would miss 2016, but how much of 2017 he misses would depend on when the axe falls.

At which point I stopped reading. Satellites do not measure temperature.

... that's cheating JB, you've used more than 3 words.

Have to adjust my Sarcasometer ... my apologies. Thanks for the other info, and the work overall, much appreciated.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are two changes, one of which is throwing me: - no longer possible to Like your own post (OK ... can live with that ... probably) - the thread no longer automatically scrolls to the first unread post. (or am I missing something?)

I'd say that the AFL are fairly good at "fixing" problems (cough cough) - just not all that good at a) acknowledging that they exist in the first place and b) actually resolving them. It's the "just make it go away" approach.

I understand about the "de novo" part, but equally, I don't know that there's going anything that fundamentally changes the substance of the charges against the players to the extent that the club would be seen in a different light by WADA/ASADA. The AFL? They're doing everything they can to make this go away, so not much joy there. As to facts ... a) It's not WADA who will find anyone guilty, it's the CAS. b) it's not EFC who are facing charges, but (ex) Essendon players. c) it's not the AFL who hand down penalties, it's CAS (again). The AFL will have to impose them and enforce them, but CAS sets them - which is one of the reasons the AFL made a submission. As to belligerent ... not my intention, sorry if it comes across that way.

As an aside on that, my son has come through elite level tennis - or, just under elite level - and the constant technical work is a real grind. A couple of kids above him, who at the age of 12 had full sponsorships with Nike, scholarships etc., have now stopped completely, as they're just burnt out. I wouldn't worry too much about the draftees having to work on their technique, it's the intent and application that's important, and if they have that, it'll sort itself out.

First up, there isn't and won't be any new information, no-one's going to suddenly turn up with a 3 year old vial of TB4 that was at the back of someone's locker. Secondly, as for "new charges", what kind of charges? If it's for/against individuals, that's already been covered. Finally, as to what Essendon were punished for, it was clear what it was for, in the same way that it was clear what our $500K fine was for. Essendon as a club couldn't have been charged for implementing a banned drug program, because that hadn't been proved (and still hasn't), but they certainly weren't barred from the finals and draft picks etc. etc. because they'd been a bit sloppy in the accounting department.

What Armstrong precedent? In the Armstrong case, the non-cyclists (support staff) involved were all charged at the same time as part of the same process. If there was a case against Goodwin or any other support staff, they would already have been charged - as Dank has been. The current case is the end of it for the players and any/all individuals involved, and the AFL have already punished Essendon as a club.

Lots of speculation. And not just here. I fail to see how anyone, much less the AFL, can give assurances about the outcome of an independent judiciary panel. We will not see Melksham next year.

We haven't given up anything. Which you choose to ignore.

They'll get some sort of "no significant fault" discount of 6 months, perhaps (though unlikely IMHO) 12 months. That would make it more like 13+ months. They'll miss a season. In part why Melksham was offered a 4 year deal IMHO. Would be interested to see the details of the contract.

And so it starts! Thus the need for mids, mids, mids and more mids. All very well people trying for nearest to the pin on the first 22, but we'll be doing well if we ever get that first 22 on the ground at once, let alone keeping them there for the season.

Two parallel threads going on here ... we are nothing if not multitaskers. Weideman: will be surprised if he gets anything more than a token game or two late in the season. Has missed a lot of footy/training over the last 2 years, and has his work cut out, for this year at least.