Macca

He's trying to make something happen without any real weapons. Without him, we would have been lucky to win 4 games for the season ... his targets are unable to create separation. And it's been that way since the first game of the year. I watch them every week

Just another aspect of this saga that hasn't been uncovered ... why haven't the players, the AFL, the EFC, our media and various other organisations demanded to see these records from the anti-aging clinic? (even just to find out if the records actually exist)

The Packers will need to do something - pronto. Pats far too accomplished

When an individual athlete has been rubbed out for PED use we generally haven't known or even bothered to find out if that athlete ends up getting paid by whoever pays them. Many of these athletes who have been rubbed out have major sponsors in place and/or endorsement deals but I guess it's taken for granted that they can't compete for prizemoney because they are banned. For these footballers their main source of income is the salary that they receive from the EFC ... regardless, they'll probably find a loophole (if needed) and they'll all end up getting paid. Where it's different are those 17 players who are no longer playing AFL footy ... if any of them are getting paid in the leagues that they might play for then that money may not be as forthcoming. Not sure that the clubs in the minor leagues would be so accommodating (the Lovett-Murray situation being a case in point) So, as a consequence of that, these 17 players may be more likely to take legal action. Also, what about the 5 players at the other AFL clubs? (including our club) ... do those clubs have the same obligation to pay these banned players? As a gesture of goodwill they might do so but it's certainly a different scenario to the Essendon one. Offloading players (as the EFC seemed to do) might come at a price ... there's always a catch.

The Essendon club will certainly want to pay the players in full ... for a variety of reasons. The main 2 reasons being that the club was obviously complicit with regards to the "supplements" injection régime ... so, they are almost duty bound to pay the players in full ... the other main reason is the one that you outlined TF. Also, they'll want the players to return after their bans so paying them becomes imperative for that outcome to come to fruition. However, if they are unable or stopped from paying their players then that's when things could easily turn very ugly. It may well get ugly even if they are all paid in full ... there are so many consequences in the aftermath of this saga. Does anyone know what the actual ruling is (with regards to payment) or is it an arbitrary decision? I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

I didn't know about the tattoo ... if that is true it might seem funny to some, but it pours cold water on the " I fear needles" rot ... but, even armed with that knowledge (if it's true), many would still believe the spin about Zaharakis. I've already stated that I'd happily welcome back Melksham into the fold after he serves his time but here's the list of the 12 players (again) who were not issued with the infraction notices ... they were all on Essendon's list going into their 2012 season (when the injection program was in full swing) There is speculation that these 12 players did not sign the consent forms Currently listed Mark Baguley Courtenay Dempsey Jackson Merrett David Zaharakis Delisted Anthony Long, Lauchlan Dalgleish, Jason Winderlich, Elliott Kavanagh, Nick O'Brien, Michael Ross, Kyle Reimers Hal Hunter

And 12 players look like said NO ... so it's entirely plausable that 34 willingly "went along with things" and 12 decided not to. It's the other 12 players that were on Essendon's list at the time that many have conveniently put aside.

That's if we assume that the players had no idea of what they were injected with ... I've never assumed that and I'm baffled as to why most seem to assume that they didn't know what they were being injected with. I suppose if one is told something hundreds of times one might be inclined to believe that something.

I still think the Pats can win without Gronk but much might now be dependent on the coaching of Belichick ... if the KC d-line can get at Brady enough, they can win. They smashed him at KC 2 seasons back so it's quite achievable. That Seattle/Panthers is the pick of the games in my opinion ... Lynch being back brings the Seahawks right into it ... the Panthers have drawn the short straw of all the top seeds ... 15 & 1 and then out - straight off? As for Kelly/Kap & the 49ers ... he'll probably invigorate them off the bat but they'll need to bring in some weapons to be a threat for the playoffs (especially in that division) Hopefully he now realises that it's not all about game plans in the NFL - any team needs a number of top players to be a genuine threat.

Well, it remains to be seen whether the 34 (or some of the 34) will take the EFC to court or even if they have grounds to ... let's not forget that they signed off on the "supplements" that were given to them (Hal Hunter didn't sign off?) I can't be sure but I reckon there's a better chance that some of the other 12 players who didn't receive infraction notices (and like Hunter, didn't sign consent forms?) who might be the ones who take action. Much might depend on how the Hunter case ends up (and even that may end up in an undisclosed out-of-court settlement) Nothing can be assumed here though, all the same. It's like an unfolding mini-series with the next surprise just around the corner.

I agree there wyl ... it's not over by a long shot. I just know how fans normally act ... if there's a tiny smidgen of doubt, the fans of a team will side with one of their "champs." It's my bet that tomorrow's interview will be a well rehearsed "cluster of spin" designed to paint Hird in a better light. The interview may well have been planned long ago. I'll still tune in though.

I'm not sure that will happen Wyl ... their President wants him back in the fold and Hird is almost certainly going to try and convince the Essendon faithful that it was all the AFL's fault. Or anyone's fault but his. And many will believe him (mostly the Essendon people) As for non Essendon supporters, that's an entirely different matter. What stands out is how those involved at Essendon at the time (including the players) have never really thrown the blow-torch on Dank to the levels that they should have ... he might be public enemy no.1 for those outside of Essendon but for those on the inside at the Bombers, they've been very careful in what they've said about him. Probably for good reason too ... Dank would know a lot.

I suppose I've only started thinking more about the AFL's involvement more recently ... there's been so much to digest and process. I wouldn't rule anything out but Hird is like a cornered leopard right now ... it will be interesting to see whether anyone else corroborates what he might say. Those who could include Thompson, Evans, Robson, Reid, Corcoran, Dank, Charter, Robinson (Dean) and the EFC board members at the time - even Little (although he came on board later) It will be a fascinating interview all the same - more so for the fall out and aftermath.

I doubt that will happen with any of the 34 ... one breaking ranks can implicate the rest (although we now know the players signed consent forms allowing the club (the EFC) to administer the "supplements") Hunter broke ranks but he wasn't one of the 34 (and so far, he's out there on his own ... none of the other 12 players (who weren't charged) have taken any action - yet) No, they will all continue to proclaim their innocence no matter how much evidence comes to light. That's my take on it anyway - I may be wrong but some "pacts" can remain awfully strong. I also believe that many of the 34 genuinely believe that they are completely innocent. As for my take on things, I've stated those opinions on the other relevant threads. There's not too many busted drug cheats who have later admitted their wrong doing. Martin Vinnecombe is one and I suppose Armstrong is another (in Armstrong's case, I believe he had a motive in confessing - some his and some because he had little choice) Anyway, as you intimated dpositive, hopefully some good will come out of this almighty mess. Most times in life, a person deserves a 2nd chance (depending on the deed that is done of course) ... in this instance, Melksham will get another chance and I support that (even though I'm dead against PED use in sport) It should also be noted that our club recruited Melksham before the CAS hearing began (Nov 15) ... people's opinions on the verdict changed in the time frame from just before, during and after the hearing was finished. Not many were predicting a year out for the 34 back in October (when we recruited Melksham)

But what if that's another lie Akum? ... I wouldn't be so quick to take anything this bloke says on face value. I mean, he could say almost anything now and there are no real consequences. He's no better than Dank in that sense (in my opinion) ... or the players for that matter (who at best, have been quite deceitful) What is true is that the public have been misled ... there's been half-truths, deceit, straight out lies, cover-ups and spin ever since this story broke. However, there may well have been some AFL involvement but that doesn't excuse what the EFC and it's players did ... the deed was almost certainly done before the AFL might have found out. I'd rather hear about the AFL's possible involvement from someone other than Hird. In other words, I'm probably not going to believe him.

For his own benefit, this time around he may be best served not saying anything at all. The court of public opinion seems to have swung against him now (albeit in a mostly passive sense) and this interview may only serve to galvanise and strengthen the resolve of those who have turned on him already. Of course, the Essendon supporters who have doubts may well lose those doubts mainly because they need a reason not to hate on one of their past players (tell 'em what they want to hear) So it works in one sense but fails in another. Where it all goes from there is anyone's guess.

It's worth repeating that if any of the 34 hadn't signed the consent form we could assume that they would also have walked free. They signed off thus implicating themselves ... not smart or perhaps they felt that by signing the consent forms, that might save them at a later date ... obviously it didn't save them because in the end, they lost out (although they are still being paid?) But of course the players maintain that they don't know what they were injected with ... McVeigh contradicted that notion when he stated that "Every player knew what they were taking" and ... "It was clearly stated to us what we were taking" Conveniently, there are no records (at least, that's what we're told) Now we get today's appalling news on the Hunter case (the AFL & EFC arguing for costs) The lies and deceit surrounding this saga has been astonishing ... what is worse is how our media has been so apathetic and many have acted like cheerleaders. It seems a lot of these large sporting organisations end up following the same murky path ... integrity and doing the right thing suffers at the hands of the quest for the almighty dollar.

We were all way off with those divisional winner tips (typical) ... reckon Dallas & Indi may well have won their divisions if their QB's were healthy. The Eagles and Baltimore went backwards and the Chiefs nearly got there. I fluked Carolina although I've always thought Cam Newton could be a top player. Anyway, it looks like Big Ben might play with the aid of painkillers but he'll need to do well for Pittsburgh to have a chance - all the home teams are favoured by the odds makers but I reckon there will be at least one upset (have a guess which one?) Tips ... Sunday 8.35am Kansas City 19 @ New England 24 Sunday 12.15pm Green Bay 23 @ Arizona 22 Monday 5.05am Seattle 17 @ Carolina 21 Monday 8.40am Pittsburgh 19 @ Denver 22 Leaderboard in the tipping comp (post season) 4 - JV7, Macca 3 - cowboy_from_hell 1 - Georgiou R.R. Martin, Gorgoroth 0 - The usual suspects

Watched that Bills doco as well ... I've certainly changed my perspective on them because of what the doco contained. To sum up they were just an excellent team who just couldn't get over the final hurdle ... not chokers either. To keep coming back 4 years in a row actually takes great character ... and Kelly was a very good QB. I suppose their fans feel it though ... however, they've got nothing to be ashamed about in my opinion. Here's the doco again for those who haven't seen it ... Four Falls of Buffalo

That's a good point ... and it may just be on the money - perhaps Reimers & Hunter could have been candidates. Our media is mostly hopelessly compromised though ... in terms of unearthing all the nitty-gritty details, they failed miserably. The public were never fully informed - not even close. This site and these threads have provided more relevant information.

The story broke with the Reimers interview didn't it? (with Barrett) Yep, he was ostracised but a decent journalist would have isolated the innocent 12 and put a juicy story together. And it could have happened very early on ... but the answer almost certainly rests with what 'old dee' has intimated in the above post #632 There are a stack of unanswered questions

The 12 could have implicated the 34 (early on) just by being honest and candid. But it didn't happen ... it's why I maintain that the investigative journalistic skills (on the sporting side of things) is poor in this country. Lazy or incompetent or perhaps just negligent.

Here are the 12 players that were not issued with infraction notices who were on Essendon's list going into the 2012 season. Currently listed Mark Baguley Courtenay Dempsey Jackson Merrett David Zaharakis Delisted Anthony Long, Lauchlan Dalgleish, Jason Winderlich, Elliott Kavanagh, Nick O'Brien, Michael Ross, Kyle Reimers Hal Hunter So there's 12 players who did not receive infraction notices - why not? What did they all not do to escape trouble? ... did they all say no? Were they all frightened of needles like Zaharakis 'supposedly' was? And why hasn't our media interviewed them? Surely there is a story there ... a big story in my opinion. It's as if they've all been collectively hidden away so as they don't say anything. We know that Hunter is taking court action but what of the other 10? (apart from Zaharakis) ... as is highlighted above, 4 of them are still active players at the EFC ... do the 34 who were busted wonder why those 4 (plus the other delisted 8 players) were somehow passed over by ASADA/WADA? There's probably a number of other questions surrounding the (non) dirty dozen. Essendon's 2012 list The 34 who were charged (and busted)

Yeah, if Green Bay ever had to move states it wouldn't make any sort of sense to me at all. I'd probably still support them but it may or may not feel the same ... In your case the Rams have moved a few times but you may have only known them as a St Louis team. I've known and still know plenty of Fitzroy fans who are now full-on Brisbane fans ... I don't know many who didn't make the switch. Strangely enough, it's the older ones (at the time) who stuck and that may be because they understood the practicalities. I'm assuming everything else stays (logo, mascot, colours etc)

Here is the judgement again for those who haven't seen it ... Go to page 12 of the document for WADA's submission - here's a few notable points ... Mr Dank has a history of use of TB-4 in athlete doping programs. In 2012, the players attended a meeting with Mr Dank at which they signed forms consenting to the administration of four substances, including a specific regimen of 'Thymosin' injections, which matched a prescribed regimen of TB-4 described in an email between Mr Charter and Mr Dank. An analysis of urine samples collected from the players in 2012 also confirmed that the players were injected with TB-4. The players have therefore committed anti-doping rule violations.