Slartibartfast

I read exactly these sort of comments for 2 years saying Essendon were toast. It's just a dumb comment. Sorry, but it is.

Jack this could be a watershed moment for the legal system in this country. A lawyer complaining a verdict because of a legal technicality! I'd suggest you represent the large majority of people who I suspect would support the application of law without the distortion of legal technicality and agitate for change. You'll fight most of your brothers because it seems to me the law lives and breaths on technicality. But on with my point. Essendon have been found to have administered a shambolic supplements program to its players which has the potential to have future negative health issues. They bypassed a qualified medical practitioner in favour of a "sports scientist" who has no official qualifications. They are unable (bulldust) to tell anyone what was injected into these kids to whom they owe an undeniable duty of care. They have treated these kids like objects whose health is irrelevant when put in the context of on field success. Where the *f* are the criminal charges against those that were responsible for these kids and those administered the drugs. What I don't understand is that it's illegal to inject drugs to induce death regardless that the recipient might welcome the administration but at this stage Dank can go around giving young kids drugs that are not approved for human use with unknown effects and get off unscathed. Surely he is guilty of some criminal code. It's vile and disgusting that Hird is still in the football industry let alone the coach of an AFL team. I know people on this thread have said it's a win for Dank, Alavi and Charter but it's not. And it's a huge loss for Essendon. As WJ said, Essendon got of on a technicality and the whole footy world knows it. The club has failed to recognize the level of angst in which they are held and the fact there is anyone still there who was involved in overseeing or implementing the supplements program beggars belief. Oh, and as an aside, can someone tell me how these performance enhancing drugs were not picked up in a drug test of the players. I find that odd.

jnrmac do you really believe the proposal was put to the players that they take performance enhancing illegal drugs and 34 said "yes". How do you think it went down?

Excuse my ignorance but if the Tribunal finds the Essendon players guilty tomorrow who determines the penalty and when will it be handed down? And if the Tribunal hands down the penalty why are Gil's balls relevant? And how could he hand them down if he hasn't read the transcript of evidence?

Don't say that on the Essendon thread - you'll be lynched. I was!

I've always admired lawyers and will rejoice in their good fortune.

If Howe or Vince can't play a full game and as Roos says "we have 25 or 26 to choose from" then I think we shouldn't play them.

Tom McDonald.

Hmmm, I thought you were better than this.

Thanks. I agree with much of that especially the WC situation. What with Barry getting off and WC on drugs I suspect that those two flags should be cancelled. I just think that the drug situation is so appalling the AFL were pretty impotent. Hird I suspect was on drugs for years given his relationship with Charters, the Essendon situation was always going to happen once he was made coach and the AFL couldn't stop that and young players with heaps of money are going to use recreational drugs. Personally I don't see that as an AFL problem, it's a Government problem and asking the AFL to do the Governments job doesn't do it for me. Also with spots on lists so hard to get and difficult to keep (particularly for marginal players) I don't think the AFL can stop some players looking for a way to stay in the system. Players think "if I don't I get delisted and if I do I might get banned". And for the record, how stupid is it that IF the two Collingwood players did ingest the drug by eating Mexican meat they miss 6 months of footy anyway. The problem is so much wider than the AFL. Personally I don't believe we should test for recreational drugs. But I know I'm in a small minority.

How?

Wonder if Eddie planned it?!

It makes the Essendon penalty even more interesting...... What a shame we're not talking about footy.

Suggest you watch PA and NM. Both Hinkley and Scott play a really attractive style of footy with good cattle at their disposal. I think Brisbane and Richmond play attacking attractive footy. I'm sick of Hawks and Cats, good footy but been there too long. MFC, Freo, Swans and Carlton play crap.

This is very bad for football. Very bad.

This is very bad for football and everyone will lose.

But you condemned them without knowing. I don't know either by the way, which is why I'm keeping my powder dry. I agree Gil should not be making comment based on information not in the public domain (and I don't know if he did as my desire to keep abreast of this saga evaporated long ago) but in the first instance you are not sure whether he is "entitled" to have seen the evidence and in the second you say his knowing compromises the tribunals independence. Even if he shouldn't know, how does his knowledge taint the tribunal independence? Unless you have evidence of collaboration in the decision making process your accusation is baseless. Seems to me your comments are misplaced given your lack of knowledge.

Where is the lack of independence here? He's read the evidence, there is no mention he has any input into the decision, the AFL prepared a submission I'd have thought and I would have imagined the AFL were present during the hearing although I don't know that to be true. Is it that the AFL is not a party to the hearing or were the interested parties not present when the evidence from other parties was presented? Has ASADA had access to the same material? If GIl has I bet McDermot has. I'm all for exposing corruption but I'm struggling with the independence issue hear. It actually wouldn't surprise me if the AFL and ASADA were told of the decision prior to the announcement to give them time to prepare a response. But that doesn't mean the Tribunal isn't independent.

We discovered them last year. At least we're ahead of the scientists!

There were rumours of a team with similar characteristics thrashing us at t G last year.

When you've won as few games as us over the last few years every game is hard.

There probably isn't one single reason for this move. My guess is that firstly they want to see how he goes because he has a lot of attributes that suit a key back, secondly they want to play him on good forwards to show him how to play the position and how hard good forwards work and finally to instil greater intensity into his game. I doubt they've written him off as a forward. It's probably more for his development.

Whatever happened to "Mr Conciliatory" (I must say, I lol'd at that!) . Seemed unnecessarily personal too, something you abhor. And it didn't add much to the thread. Another quality post. Thanks. BTW, you're better than that.

Careful Webber. I was nearly banned for using that concept.

I'm in no way arguing Jones = or > Salem. Just there is not the difference people think. Most would have Jones in bottom quartile of disposers of the footy and Salem top quartile. If the stats are to be believed Jones is not the FUM most think. And I agree on the stats. What if an effective disposal, what is a clanger? But whatever they are they are the same for both.