Lucifers Hero

AFLPA have said law suits will follow but are very very keen to settle out of court. They know it can take years for a hearing and a court decision before players see any money. Also, while the players have a case on failure of duty of care as evidenced by the worksafe EFC guilty plea, their case may not be so strong on loss of reputation and loss of earnings given they gave their consent and that CAS found them guilty. Even on failure of duty of care players will need to show that they have suffered some damage/loss and while they have suffered mentally they haven't (yet) physically. For all the noise about suing, players won't want those principles tested in court; the AFL want the saga to go away; EFC don't want anymore dirty laundry aired in public; WADA doesn't allow payment while suspended but players want their coin. A dilemma, yes? Well, no! I believe they will settle out of court asap and player 2016 contract payments will be invisibly rolled into the negotiated settlement. Confidentiality agreements will be signed and who knows there may even be a 'hush money' component to the settlement so 'no talk' clauses can be included. All part of the horse trading to quickly get money into players hands asap and to silence everyone! Will there be a player who cannot be bought and who takes his chances in court? I suspect the AFL going after Hal Hunter for costs, was a strategically timed warning across the bow to any player wanting to break away. Players will be 'paid' (and it will all be swept under the carpet). But players will not get their reputations back.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-cas-verdict-banned-bombers-meet-and-continue-their-fight-20160115-gm6qrn.html 'It is now almost certain they will seek financial compensation against the Bombers...' Maybe the AFLPA is only representing the 34 suspended players ie the guilty and not all players injected ie the innocent! At least some players are coming to their senses and giving the AFLPA the flick: "There have been suggestions the players have split into three groups, with one agent seeking outside legal opinion for a group of players". It is in the AFLPA's interests, not necessarily the players, to do a 'deal' with the AFL and EFC. The more players that seek independent (and dare I say it competent) legal advice the more likely we are to see it play out in court. That would be a very good outcome...at least there would be some truth told for a change.

No unfortunately! They are trying to scare the beejesus out of anyone who even thinks of taking EFC/AFL to court. Disgraceful that a multi-billion $ AFL is trying to get a few pennies from a kid who is simply exercising his rights. A kid that was abused in their care. Its ok for EFC, Hird etc to exercise their legal rights but oh no, not a kid who is probably scared stiff of what they put in him. Meanwhile they are concocting a plan to give millions to fund the suspended players. Meanwhile AFLPA wants the player legal suits against the very same EFC/AFL settled out of court. Which players, Mr Marsh? Is Hal Hunter not one of them? Hunter is not even asking for money or damages he just wants his medical records! Today is truly a black day in sport. All at the AFL/EFC/AFLPA should hang their heads in shame.

That is why he is now friendless (except with lawyers!) Tim Watson said this week he no longer has contact with Hird. If Tim has jumped off the band wagon there could hardly be anyone of note left on it. It would be a diabolical slap in the face to Essendon stalwarts/greats (David Evans, Tim Watson, Jobe Watson, Bomber Thompson et al) if Tanner repeats his invitation to Hird to come back into the fold.

I would think the new Leadership Group will be announced over the next few weeks. I'm wondering whether Gawn might be a smokey for the LG? He has cemented his place in the side, is highly regarded by coaches and players and in a position to motivate on and off the field. Even tho only 24 he is a senior player, based on our age profile and experience at our club.

The AFL should strip him of his Hall of Fame status. Maybe give him a new honour: Hall of Infamy!!

Macca wasn't even there in 2012!! He was coach of the Bulldogs. Hird seems so obsessed by his own imaginings he has lost sight of even the most basic facts!

hello...prey do tell, dc....

He is probably going to regurgitate the fluff he has written over the last three years. He is probably smarting that his 'bestie' is giving an interview to Tracey Holmes on Sunday. Will be surprised if he has anything new. Just Robbo being Robbo who can't allow himself to be upstaged!

Yes to the second part, not quite to the first as WADA did not even try to link how TB4 got to EFC. WADA basically said it doesn't matter where or how Dank got the TB4 we believe it was used on the players, they consented and here are the 16 strands of evidence to support this belief. CAS was comfortably satisfied that players were injected with TB4. Again, my paraphrasing and interpretation.

Quite right. And the AFL Tribunal didn't give any weight to the player behaviour evidence as they could not link Dank getting TB4 to EFC therefore could not link it to the players. ie the chain broke down. The Tribunal thinking process was along the lines of: if we cannot be comfortably satisfied what Dank did with the TB4 he got from Alavi (if it was TB4) there is no reason to look at whether Dank used it on the players therefore players cannot be found guilty. Note: My paraphrasing and interpretation.

The Australian is reporting that 'St Kilda are adamant they will not be liable to pay the salary of former Essendon player Jake Carlisle'. Tricky situation. Part of me says players not being paid is part of the penalty. AFL should be no different. I would hate to see players swooning around France (like their disgraced coach) while suspended. But part of me thinks livelihoods are at stake: homes, children's education, family health. Hopefully, all players are treated the same. The Saints have upped the ante for the AFL on what they do next re payments! I suspect the AFL will look for some 'financial engineering' to ensure players get funds, at something like their contract levels while paying lip service to WADA rules. Leopards don't change their spots!

Finally the media publishes the core of CAS's decision! This article explains it perfectly:http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-essendon-decision--how-could-a-different-decision-emerge-from-the-same-evidence-20160113-gm4q4w.html Tanner et al have been disingenuous (or haven't read the judgement) at 'being confused' as to how the AFL Tribunal can come to one decision and CAS a different decision. As I've mentioned in several posts it comes down to the 'strands in a cable' vs the 'links in a chain' approach. Extract: "The links in the chain involved sport scientist Stephen Dank procuring TB-4, it being compounded for Dank, and then Dank administering the TB-4 to the players. In relation to the first two links, the AFL tribunal found the evidence was insufficient. Once the chain was broken, the AFL tribunal decided it could not then determine whether Dank administered the peptide and, accordingly, found in favour of the players. By contrast, WADA adopted the "strand in a cable" approach....Accordingly, WADA set about producing evidence on these "missing links" and attempted to present all the different items of evidence (which constituted 16 separate strands), which alone might have been capable of an innocent explanation, but taken together established guilt to the CAS panel's comfortable satisfaction. Under the "strand in a cable" analysis, each piece of evidence, or "strand", was not required to bear the entire weight of the standard of proof – because some of the weight could be carried by the other strands. Ultimately the CAS panel accepted this more holistic evidentiary approach and focused more on whether there was evidence that Dank handled TB-4 and administered it to the players, rather than when, how and from where he sourced it." From my reading of the judgement, the 'strands' were things like players: not disclosing supplements to ASADA testers (30 times!), not asking the club doctor, not checking with ASADA/WADA website, consenting to the injection regime, the injection regime being almost identical to that use for TB4, the chemical make up of a supplement was almost identical to that of TB4, it was shown Dank did have TB4 and in quantities he could not have used elsewhere etc etc. Because the AFL Tribunal could not 'connect the dots' it never even looked at whether Dank administered TB4 to the players! WADA, didn't try to 'connect the dots'! Instead opting for the 'strands' approach. It seems, the AFLPA legal team had not prepared a defense to this approach! Caught flat footed! WADA's chief lawyer, Richard Young has successfully used the 'strand in a cable' approach before. The AFLPA lawyers were given the opportunity by CAS to object to that approach. Why they didn't absolutely beggars belief!

My thinking is the AFL don't want to admit he was a bad choice and embarrass themselves and Marsh by sacking him now. Gil likes to avoid drama and is a softly, softly sort of guy (to his detriment) A lot easier to let Marsh walk the plank when the dust settles and he goes 'to a better job'. Think Adrian Anderson. Just hypothesising :-)

BBob read sections 168 to 170 . Essentially, the backdating was for delays in the process outside the players control.

And if the AFL really understands how incompetent the AFLPA (and its legal team) has been throughout this saga his contract will not be renewed. Yesterday, when Gil said the AFL 'fully accept the CAS decision as their support for anti-doping' (or words like that), it was a subtle way to diffuse Marsh's call for the AFL to walk away from the WADA code. On all levels Marsh was downright embarrassing yesterday. He may well be looking for a new job in 18 months time!

Now that the verdict is in and if AFLPA's conflict of interest with AFL funding, prevents players from suing EFC/AFL I would think some players (or group of players) hire their own legal counsel (ala Hal Hunter) and sue anyway. Given AFLPA incompetence in the whole ASADA/WADA/CAS process suggests they should go their own way regardless of what AFLPA want to do...especially those no longer in the AFL. I would also expect that at some stage a player will do a 'tell all' interview/book. After all, what have they to lose! They certainly don't owe anyone in the industry anything!! Surely, someone will expose Dank and Hird. So far they could not do that for fear of incriminating themselves. Those 2 guys let them take the rap - they did nothing to help the players for their own self-preservation. They sent them into the lion's den and let them be mauled. The secret is out now so they no longer need to protect the guilty. Time to spill the beans, fellas!

Not an apologist for Dr Reid but he is mainly a 'game day' doctor. He may or may not personally attend all training sessions and he may or may not go to his private consulting or at the club. There is a fair chance all the injections etc happened when Reid wasn't on the premises. That at least one player (who had been his private patient since 1999 ie someone who should have known better) withheld info Dr Reid suggests the good doctor was sidelined, bigtime!

Its interesting that AFLPA and player lawyers broke the news to the players, not Essendon. It wasn't until EFC/Hird lost the first Fed Court case that players decided to run their own race, with AFLPA. It seems they badly misunderstood the ASADA/WADA appeal process. It seems only EFC/AFL/AFLPA were surprised when WADA appealed. They also seriously underestimated Richard Young and failed to research how he wins his cases. They seemed to not understand how to mount a defense at CAS: they allowed WADA to take a 'strands in a 'strands in a cable approach'. They clearly didn't understand what that meant and thought the 'link in the chain approach' used at the AFL Tribunal would win the day (see 110 and 111 of CAS judgement). Eventually they realised their blunder and tried to get the WADA approach thrown out but it was too late. Clearly the AFLPA were way out of their depth!! Why did AFLPA not get a crack international lawyer who understands WADA, CAS, Richard Young, 'strands in a cable vs links in a chain' etc, etc? It was the biggest mistake of the many mistakes by AFLPA. Yesterday, was a tad late for 'crocodile tears' from Marsh...really just 'crying over spilt milk'. He looked like a poor loser refusing to accept the umpires decision.

This is EFC bb! You know those guys that think themselves above the law and will bend the rules to suit themselves!. Any idea where to find the Code that talks to player payments while suspended?

Someone should pay him...Essendon are paying 'their' players - whether this is just those still on their list or not I don't know...I suspect it is. It would be wrong if all 34 players are not treated the same. The AFL said today any payments to players by Ess would be within their TPP. However, if we are 'morally' obliged by the AFL to pay Melksham it should NOT be in our TPP in my opinion. From a cash flow and profit perspective I think there is a strong case for the non-ess affected clubs to request the AFL to pay the salary. Port, Bulldogs, StK and us are the poorest clubs in the league and can least afford to throw away a few hundred thousands of dollars. Edit: "...Bombers chief executive Xavier Campbell confirmed the banned players would be paid during their suspensions. "They will be paid by the club. We'll have to work within the confines of the WADA code and we'll work closely with the AFL and we've had discussions to that effect," Campbell said. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-12/manifestly-unfair-bombers-hit-at-cas-verdict?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/essendon-verdict-players-not-at-fault-says-bill-shorten-20160112-gm42j8.html It is disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition (our alternative Prime Minister) is effectively undermining CAS's decision, without any consideration for the clean sportspeople that represent our country. He clearly hasn't read the judgement so appears a bit of an uninformed dill!

I had the same reaction 'rjay'. Whatever his mistakes in 2012 Jobe has been honest, courageous and dignified over the last 3 years. He would not want the stigma of this to forever cloud his brownlow victory. The sad thing is he may well have won it without the supplements. We will never know. I also expect him to hand it back before the AFL meets.

This article lists the losers (nearly everyone) and the winners (only WADA. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-cas-verdict-no-winners--or-are-there-20160112-gm3xor.html It misses the biggest winner of all: All athletes that represent Australia! Without the CAS verdict our country, all our sports and our athletes will have been tainted with the Essendon cheating brush. Imagine the damage that would have been done to our international sporting reputation. Imagine the sledging our athletes would have to endure. The AFL may want to protect the integrity of their two-bit sport (with all sorts of manipulations and spin) But, today I am very happy that the integrity of all Australian athletes has been protected and when they represent us they can hold their heads high and be proud that cheats will be found out and punished.

The AFL sanctioned EFC and Hird for 'poor governance'. Since then Worksafe found them guilty of an unsafe workplace and CAS found the players guilty of drug cheating. Surely, the AFL has to go back and raise new sanctions against EFC based on this new evidence. The AFL decision on this, Watson's brownlow and removing EFC from the ANZAC day game, will be telling. Can't help but think the AFL they will stoop to new lows in spin, whitewash and camouflage to protect EFC and the AFl 'brand'.