Slartibartfast

I reckon most have seen both sides of the argument. I'd leave it there Nut, clear thinkers know what's right.

1. Jones 2. Watts 3. Dunn 4. Grimes 5. Vince 6. Bail

Put me on ignore. I won't be offended.

Have you thought of meditation?

Having so much hate shortens your life. Rhino is just looking after another posters health.

So if the 14 "go" and the rest don't on the basis that they admitted to taking those drugs and the others didn't why on earth didn't they shut up? How will they know which players were given those drugs if there are no records? Let's hope this soap opera finishes quickly and disappears. Yes I do. I'm not suggesting there aren't "shades" in all of this. But I do think that my example of the doc putting some AS in a pain killer without telling the player is different again and shouldn't lead to a banned athlete. Under these rules it does. It's why I think the rules are plain wrong. Saad took an energy drink. Absolutely dumb and finished his career. Seems to me this punishment is inappropriate.

My intel is the same.

Quite right but the theory is sound. We need players with a bit of development and unlike many we are prepared to trade early picks to get that. It also suits the Suns and the Giants list management strategies. Both those clubs will struggle to satisfy all the midfield talent they have so trading it out for early picks allows them to stagger the age profile of their lists whilst retaining the quality. We are in a good position as most clubs overvalue early picks. Roos doesn't. I think that there is an excellent chance of another Tyson type deal happening and because we are one of the few clubs that will deal we will get good value for our picks. I reckon history will show Adams and Caddy went for songs. Imagine what we could have organized if they'd wanted to come and we were in the game. I don't know if O'Rourke or Plowman are the right ones but the theory is very sound and suits us well. Our recruiting people have done pretty well this year by the look of things. I hope they do it again. Another "buy one get one free" deal and we are starting to look really good.

So am I right in saying: 1. If the players genuinely didn't believe they were taking banned drugs but did they're gone. 2. If a rogue sports scientist injects them with a banned substance when they are told they are getting something else they're gone. That all the Essendon players will get infraction notices because presumably they all received the same drugs, or there is a reasonable probability they received banned drugs. I'm confused. I thought the so called 14 were at risk because they thought they were taking AOD 9604 and it was banned. If the others didn't know they were taking banned substances then surely under the "unconscious" rule they would be gone as well (assuming they were conscious at the time).

No, he's gone.

Without wanting to incur a legal bill I'm interested in the concept of "burden of proof". Could the Essendon players appeal on the basis that the finding was wrong because whilst there might have been circumstantial evidence it wasn't significant to reasonably conclude they were given banned drugs. BTW, what on earth was Tania doing last night. They deserve each other.

I held high hope but he hasn't got it. Isn't a natural ball winner and can't get to good positions often enough. And although I missed the Hawks game he certainly didn't do anything to enthuse in the other two games.

Gosh, can hardly wait!

Thanks Jack. Can the findings be challenged in court? Can the standard of proof be challenged in court? What a hornets nest.

Sorry, I didn't read it that way. It's certainly an awful situation.

I'm surprised any football fan could take this approach. It will substantially disrupt a football season for the entire competition and ruin what promises to be a very good game. It does however show where your comments and views are coming from. How would you feel if it was MFC footballers?

In all of this is a conviction based on "reasonable probability" or "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Why are you debating with dopes?

He'd be licking his lips at the prospect of playing for us seeing he's said team success is the issue not money.

That puts you a long way ahead of many.

You forgot John Butcher.

Please don't confuse my silence to this silly post and others as agreement. I've made my point and I'll move on.

Point 1. It's not personal other than I look at situations and seek the "right" outcome. If these players are banned I think it's wrong. I'm not arguing the law. Point 2. I can't remember exactly but isn't there some confusion over whether AOD 9604 was banned? I thought Essendon supposedly had a letter or communication saying it was ok. And what did the club tell them? I don't think you know. I'd think it most likely they said the drugs were ok. Point 3. You've got no idea what the players wanted unless they have all confided in you. Yes they wanted to gain a competitive edge but I don't think that 43 of them were active drug cheats willing to risk their footy careers and reputations. Anyway I'll leave it again other than to say the players you've mentioned who have said they believed they took those drugs would hardly admit to that if they were cheats and thought the drugs were banned. That doesn't make sense. I know I'm pretty much one out on this both here and amongst my friends. But I'm not convinced by silly arguments of "it's the law" and "deterrent". I'm even less convinced that the players "knew". Nobody here has moved me in any way towards the view these players should suffer more than they have. I'm totally comfortable with where I stand.

The more apt question is "do you think any of these players would come".

I don't know if you've now deserted this thread given that nobody supported your view but if you go back a few pages you'll see a discussion on the issue I've had with other posters. I learned a couple of things but the major view seemed to be that it's necessary to punish the Essendon players as a deterrent. After all if they are not punished every athlete will take drugs and hide behind the "it was the coach" defence. Secondly the player is totally responsible for what goes into his body. Seeking professional advice in a professional organization and relying on coach, FD manager, conditioning coach, club doctor and supplement supplier for confirmation the drug is legal is not acceptable. In fact, if a player is injected for a bad ankle at half time and the doc puts in some anabolic steroid to hasten recovery without telling the player that is the players responsibility. He should be banned. Thirdly that the law is the law. It doesn't matter that it's bad law that didn't anticipate a particular situation and under no circumstances should people have an ability to apply equitable solutions to difficult situation. The law is the law. Of course there are some issues that may have been addressed earlier in this monster thread which I haven't seen. But the first issue is that no Essendon player has tested positive to a drug test, to my knowledge at least. Much as Jack says " it's like saying you didn't realise the speed limit was 40 and then you get booked" I'd say banning the Bomber players without a positive drug test is like sentencing someone to hang for murder without a body. For all we know Danks was playing a practical joke and was injecting saline and hoping for a significant placebo effect whilst slipping the real drugs paid for by Essendon into his pocket to be injected into the body builder down at the local gym. But he's probably too honest for that. And for those arguing for the player to be punished because if they aren't "athletes will hide behind their coaches" their response and concerns will not be allayed unless all 43 Bombers are banned as all 43 were involved in the drug program. If only 14 get "done" the other 29 have got away with it and athletes around the world will have a blueprint of how to take drugs and go unpunished. It's a stupid, dumb, inequitable, difficult and highly dangerous situation where the players face an uncertain medical future due to the trust they put in recognized and qualified professions. Those championing their disqualification from AFL footy seem to think their medical situation isn't punishing enough and that as well as their problematic medical future they should also lose their liveihood. In short the human aspect of this event should not be considered and taken into account as the law didn't address this. After all, people are not important and we don't want to dilute the law, particularly as it involves Essendon players. I don't share their view. Oh, and from my brief reading of this thread I think Trengove is safe. There is a view that there is no evidence that he put a cream on his foot that contained AOD 9604 and if there's no proof he can't be found guilty. Thank heavens for all those positive drug tests. Oh, hold on..........................