Dr John Dee

Well, you were right Saty in predicting that this topic would generate pages and pages of pointless bickering. Maybe you should have predicted your part in that as well.

If they remain in the AFL (which I suspect they will, no matter how protracted the battle might become) we can only wonder how long Hird's interest will continue in coaching a team without much hope of getting him to the grand final podium.

Not dreaming, laughing I suspect OD.

You what?

Thanks for the link Sue. It's a bit of a digression from the main focus here, but I agree: if the AFL knock any more spots off their image or damage the reputation of the game through inept or cynical handling of the EFC debacle it will only be the beginning of a serious decline. The Cronulla case was minor in comparison, but it has also been swept up pretty effectively by the NRL (co-operation with ASADA through the players' plea bargaining especially has been a keystone) and it's pretty much business as usual (the usual assault charges, some slightly novel recreational drug issues that don't surprise anyone etc). They may not have seen the A League coming either but at the moment they seem better placed to weather it. The NSW-Qld rivalry inflects their game in ways that the AFL can only dream of, and from my experience on the border between the two it's not just about the state of origin series. Edit: And probably should have added that meanwhile the AFLPA seems determined not only to kill the goose but to scramble the golden egg as well.

I reckon the general drift of comments and likes here is starting to be persuasive. We don't really need a thread that does little more than invite gratuitous dissing of players. If criticising players is appropriate at least it should be done in the context of specific issues in other threads. It's gone.

So we wouldn't need to wait for the wardrobe malfunction?

It's a circumlocutory way of asking who you'd delist I suppose. And for exactly this reason, i.e. it's a negative attempting to disguise itself as a positive ('recruiting choices' replacing delisting ones). They're what Don Watson calls weasel words (as are mine since I've substituted 'negative' for what should probably just be 'nastiness').

At last, something of substance, although I think you're probably being a bit generous to the OP.

Seconded Clint. I have no idea what the point of this thread is.

Have you been typing under water again Bub?

A friend of mine, who's legally blind, competes in pistol shooting (and no, the dog doesn't help her). You'd be amazed at what people who can't see can see ... and at what people who can see can't. Maybe Dawes is in the latter category.

On the Foxtel news site, Clark was apparently capable of "amassing two goals and nine touches in approximately three quarters of football." The story gets greater and greater.

I'm even older and I haven't got a clue.

Copy of what, Sue? The kinds of records involved in this whole exercise would go well beyond mere receipts. Of course your reference to 'valuable data' probably indicates that, but I can't imagine any situation involving scientific research/information/services at this level that would include the kind of agreement you're envisaging. Dank was selling his services, not his information base (which presumably wouldn't make too much sense to the EFC or anyone else without a lot of other contextual stuff anyway). There will have been records. Records on drugs, how they were used, when, and with what effects will (at least should) have been compiled by Dank. EFC ought to have received summaries of one sort or another to verify that they were getting what they were paying for ... and maybe in a form that would allow them to duplicate the Dank regime at some other stage. But there's no way Dank would have alienated his own intellectual property (although I'm having to use the word 'intellectual' here fairly loosely).

There will be doubt if the players are found not guilty of using a banned substance. Who would be found to have been administering the taking of substances found not to have been taken? Your original speculation was based on players being found "not guilty" on the grounds that they had been duped. As jnr points out, no such finding is realistically possible, but it's also not logically possible. The only finding involving "duping" would be one of guilty with penalties reduced/backdated to ensure no further time is served in suspensions. In that case attention would (should) turn immediately to Essendon, but it's presumably going to be necessary also to turn around and conduct a new hearing (possibly even a new investigation) into the club. Their guilt might be self-evident but I doubt that a finding against them will be automatic (and untroubled by the mustering of more herds - or hirds - of lawyers).

Hence my second sentence. But that would rely on a finding that they had taken PEDs. If they're "found not guilty of attempting to take PEDs" then presumably nothing will fall to Essendon to be sanctioned (banned) for.

If no players are found guilty then presumably nothing would be done (at least by the AFL) about the club since team sanctions appear to be triggered by a finding against 2 or more players. The situation you envisage might be possible if players were found guilty but no bans were issued because they are all 'victims'. Probably the best hope for action against the club would be through the channel jnr has been emphasising, i.e. Workcover. But one of the resident lawyers might have a better picture of all this. What I do know is that if they (players and club; players or club) are cleared, the din of self-righteousness from Windy Hill is going to be so loud that I'm glad I don't live in Melbourne. And little Jimmy will be able to book his halo in to have all the dents repaired.

Agree entirely (indeed it's probably considerably worse than ridiculous). But before any EFC apologists draw any conclusions about tests they'd need to know the manner in which these are conducted, what they test for, how likely TB4 or its effects would show up etc. And how do they know that ASADA, since discovering the PEDs that were purchased/supplied/probably used, hasn't been back to stored samples and had these retested for specific substances?

My colleague Dr Dank has a little time on his hands currently and may by able to help. Not sure about the wit part, though. Steve hasn't mentioned any PEDs for that.

Jeez Ernie I thought you got that bullfighting stuff out of your system years ago.

What injuries did the bus sustain?

relative?

No argument from me on any of this, DC. In the end the numbers of who says what are far less important than the processes of scientific verification/falsification involved (and how these are carried out and evaluated by scientists, not the rabble that thinks it knows what it's talking about because it read some web page or other).