Deemon

Your point about circumstantial evidence is a moot one, what I am trying to explain to you is that all ASADA need is circumstantial evidence. It is not a case of whether I believe it is innocent until proven guilty or vice versa, the assumption that WADA (and therefore ASADA) operate under is guilty until proven innocent. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Essendon took banned substances, Jobe's admission being one part of it, what I haven't seen is any evidence that they absolutely did not take banned substances, and the onus is on Essendon to prove that they didn't. The best they seem to be able to come up with at the moment is that they did not believe they took any banned substances, under the ASADA code this is no defence at all. The ACC report that you keep referring to was published after the supplements program at Essendon took place, so it is not possible that anyone at Essendon received incorrect information from this report. The ACC have also stated that the report is incorrect when it comes to AOD9604, though they haven't corrected it on their website. The AFL, its clubs and players are all, as signatories to the ASADA code, given direct access to ASADA for the purposes of assisting them in staying within the code. ASADA want drug free sport, they want players to abide by their code and they know that it is a long winded legal document which can be confusing. They try and make it as easy as they can for athletes to abide by the code, there is even an iPhone app which can be used to assist them. The idea that an organisation like Essendon would go looking for information from someone other than the statutory body charged with administering the code they were looking for information on is not only laughable, its irrelevant. The only body that can give advice to Australian athletes regarding the legality of substances is ASADA, this should be very clear to anyone who has signed up to the code and has an understanding of it. You have demonstrated the point I was trying to make about the naivety of the AFL community perfectly. It doesn't matter how old you are, if you want to be an AFL footballer you need to abide by the ASADA code. There are plenty of athletes much younger than your average AFL player who are able to abide by the ASADA code, there is no get out of jail free card for being a teenager. As I stated before ASADA try and make it as easy as possible to abide by the code, AFL players also have their own union they could have gone to for advice and all of them have player managers who I'm sure they have present at any other signing of a document they may do. The fact that none of the players thought that they should even check that what they were being asked to do was legal under the code demonstrates to me that they did not have a great understanding of, or appreciation for, the ASADA code, which states quite clearly that you are responsible for what goes into your body, end of story. It also demonstrates to me that Essendon didn't have much regard for the code, if they believed what they were doing was perfectly legal they should have been encouraging their players to verify it for themselves (it is possible to do this without circumventing the confidentiality of the agreement they wanted them to sign). There is a very simple reason that the defence of "the doctor told me its ok" is not acceptable under the ASADA and WADA codes and that is because it is open to manipulation. If ASADA and WADA allow that defence to be mounted and that precedence to be set then they will never have a hope of being able to prosecute a case again, any time there is a positive test or a program like the one at Essendon uncovered the defence will be "the doctor told me it was ok" and WADA will not have a leg to stand on. Because this is an ASADA matter and ASADA answer to WADA this case is much bigger than the AFL and Australia, it has global implications. Players should absolutely be seeking the advice of doctors with regards to anything they are injected with, as should everyone, but they should not be taking as gospel that the doctor is also an expert on the details of the ASADA code. I have no idea if the doctor at Essendon acted in good faith and honestly thought what was occurring was within in the code or not, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that the next guy won't be if that defence is successfully mounted. I'm not advocating that the players be made an example of, and everything is hypothetical until we see the findings from the case. But if the players are found to have breached the code they deserve to be punished and suspended, I don't care if 20 doctors told them what they were taking was legal. And that doesn't mean that the hierarchy at Essendon is not also responsible and should not also be punished, they absolutely are, but the players are not completely innocent parties in all this. They have the responsibility to ensure any substance they are taking is legal and they had the opportunity to do that. If they are found to have failed in that responsibility then they deserve to be punished.

There’s a few things that you have overlooked in your post. Firstly, WADA operates on a guilty until proven innocent presumption, which is of course the opposite of what we are used to in a normal court of law. This is because WADA knows that they are generally a few years behind the drug takers, in terms of discovering and testing the newest performance enhancing drugs, and so they often do not have a positive test as conclusive evidence. So in this case a circumstantial case like what has been reported in the media, with invoices and the like, may be enough to convict Essendon, unless they can prove that they absolutely did not take banned substances. I don’t know which way it will go (I’m certainly not claiming to be an expert) but it is wrong to assume that a circumstantial case is not enough when dealing with WADA. Secondly, what the ACC has to say on the topic is not particularly relevant in this case. The ACC is not the body that decides whether or not a drug is banned, that job is down to WADA and locally ASADA. Seeking information from the ACC about the legality of a professional athlete using AOD9604 is a bit like asking your vet how best to treat your heart attack, they might have some knowledge in the area but that doesn’t mean they are who you would go to for help. So far there has been no evidence that Essendon spoke to the ACC at all, the only evidence that has been seen in public is that Dank emailed WADA and the person he corresponded with there specifically told him to contact ASADA for clarification. It seems to be drawing a very long bow to conclude that Essendon’s information came from the ACC. The ACC report you are referring to also says that AOD is not banned under section S2 (that’s the list of prohibited substances) which is correct, the ACC has also said that the report incorrectly states AOD is not banned and needs to be amended (although they unfortunately haven’t done this). That report also came out after the Essendon players had already taken the substance, so I doubt they would have found it on google at the time. Thirdly, with regards to the performance enhancing properties of AOD9604 or otherwise, this is precisely why the section S0 exists in the WADA code. It is not a list of prohibited substances (that's S2) it is a catch all that essentially says if a drug is not approved for human use it is banned: end of. As the drug is not currently approved for human use it is unlikely that Essendon would be able to prove it is or is not performance enhancing and this becomes a moot point any way, the drug is not approved for human use so it is therefore banned, doesn’t matter whether or not it eventually proves ineffective as a performance enhancing drug. Your point about the players to me points to the naivety of the AFL community in general about these issues. I think the AFL and its clubs adopted the ASADA code without really appreciating what that actually meant. It is stated very clearly within the code that players are responsible for anything they put in their bodies, whether the doc says its ok or not. While I understand that the doctor at Essendon is well respected and credentialed, it seems to me incredibly naïve to just take his word as gospel. Even working on the presumption that the doctor acted in good faith, everyone makes mistakes and you only have to see the level of confusion in the community to realise how complicated this issue is. Not seeking a second opinion, especially considering how well resourced AFL players are with the AFLPA and their own managers, before embarking on a season of weekly injections and signing a confidentiality agreement is at best naïve and is certainly not an adequate defense under the code. The other thing that needs to be considered in all this is the precedence letting the players off (if of course they are found guilty) would set. Because the AFL signed up to the ASADA code and ASADA operates under WADA this case could have far reaching consequences for athletes the world over. ASADA, WADA and the AFL would all know that if they allow the players off because “the doctor said it was ok and I didn’t know” they will never have a hope in hell of successfully prosecuting anyone ever again. Every time there’s a positive test or a doping program uncovered the story would be that the doctor told me it was ok, and WADA would not have a leg to stand on, on the back of the precedence set here. WADA also has the power to step in if they feel that the penalty handed down to guilty parties is not strong enough, so talk of an AFL/ASADA deal is fanciful. The way I see it, and as I say I’m no expert although I have some knowledge in the area, there has definitely been breaches of the ASADA/WADA code, the question that we need answered is how severe those breaches have been. But Essendon and Essendon people are living in a powerful state of denial if they think they are not going to be hit hard in all this, the AFL, ASADA and WADA cannot allow it to go any other way.

The thing I like about Terlich is that he gets up and goes again after he makes a mistake. While a lot of his mistakes have been costly, that's what happens when you're in our backline. But he takes it on the chin and keeps going, which is I think something that has been missing for plenty of our players. Once he settles down a bit and gets some more games under the belt I have no doubt that the turnover side of his game will improve too. He also comes across to me as incredibly hungry, this is his second shot at making it in the AFL and he plays like a guy with a point to prove. I'm not saying I think he's going to be a superstar, but he has passion, drive and hunger three things our team has been lacking that we could certainly use a lot more of.

I'm in two minds about this. I don't really like it, but as others have said, what's the alternative?? To be fair Andy D said we will get a vote, but its basically going to be with a gun to our heads, elect these guys or PJ goes and so does the cash. I was in favour of the AFL taking over, as we are such a shambles, but this makes me uneasy. I didn't expect that the takeover would be extended to the board, but then they are a complete farce. Just seems we are a wholly AFL owned subsidiary now. I guess I'll take it over folding, but my real question is how do we come back from here?? Can we??

I love Jack Grimes, he's all class Thanks for sharing

I think we need to sort the board out before we can appoint the new coach. Look at it from a perspective candidate’s point of view, I think you would want the board and structure in place before you took the role on. The FD is a big enough mess without throwing the boardroom on top. Plus I am not comfortable with the current rabble of a board being allowed anywhere near this appointment. I would like to see the board situation resolved ASAP so that we can then move the rest of the club forward. Anything else is really two steps forward two steps back.

I'm no legal eagle, but why would we have to pay him out?? We would surely have a strong case against him for misconduct?? If I said something stupid in a meeting that ended up costing my employer 500k (and you're dreaming if you think that's the only thing he did) I'm pretty sure I'd be shown the door without having my contract honoured. As a matter of fact my employer has a code of conduct that spells out to me what's acceptable and not, surely the MFC have something similar. Surely?? And for the last time, his contract has not been recently extended. He signed a three year contract last year, before the #tanquiry was wound up. Schwab was once again protecting his great mate, Connolly can see which way the wind is blowing now PJ is in charge.

I’m with you Choko, I was disgusted by the way we acted yesterday. The key point seems to be that he Neeld a three year plan and he hasn’t been given the three years to see it through. I know I’m fighting an uphill battle here, but I think this is a great shame. I went and listened to Mark Neeld and Neil Craig several times over the last couple of years and I always walked away impressed by what Neeldy had to say. No one is happy with where the team is at, least of all him, but the cold hard truth of it is that it’s going to take time to turn this thing around. That’s something that the board should have been straight up with us about from the beginning, there are no quick fixes, we were starting from a very low base and it was going to be a long battle back. Already there is talk in the media about how the new coach needs to be given a five year deal and allowed to work that out. So we need to give the new guy time but somehow Mark Neeld was meant to fix it all in 18 months?? I don’t see any advantage in sacking him now, especially not when we have to pay him out anyway and we’re broke and there are some seemingly winnable games coming up. And don’t try and tell me that the players will walk. Walk where exactly, there’s only a handful of them that would be wanted at another club?? The real questions I want answered are about the board and it’s all been glossed over quite neatly by the hacks who just wanted their nice easy headline. What I want to know is: · This is meant to be an interim president, leading a board that is currently (according to their own statements) going through a comprehensive review of their current, past and future operations. How can they be making a call like this at this time?? · This decision was made on Friday at an emergency board meeting where Don McLardy stood down. So McLardy stands down as president and the rest of the board go “awesome, great time to sack the coach!!” · The board made the decision on Friday and then let Mark Neeld go away, for what he thought was his one weekend off for the year before telling him Monday morning he’s out the door. This is a dog act, I don’t care if you liked the coach or not · Instead of our esteemed leader Spargo having the guts to actually tell Neeld he’s fired he sent in Jackson to do the dirty work for him. Great leadership from the top right there · Why are we sacking him now?? Why not two weeks ago or in two weeks time?? Why now on the back of the bye?? Every day we, as Melbourne people, open the paper or turn on the radio or TV or whatever and we hear hacks going on about what a complete shambles our club is. Did we not just demonstrate yesterday how right they are about that?? The current board needs to go, they have demonstrated that comprehensively now. There is no way they should be allowed anywhere near the appointment of the new coach. Our club has become an utter laughing stock and it’s been on their watch. About the only thing I agree with Jeff Kennett on is that this cannot wait for the end of the season, it needs to happen now. The season is a write off regardless of what happens, we need a new and competent board to come in, work with Jacko and appoint the new coach. Then maybe we might actually get somewhere.

just in case anyone is still wondering why he wasn't made captain

described in Herald Scum earlier this year as a "succesfull business man": http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/former-melbourne-great-greg-wells-urges-melbourne-players-to-play-with-mongrel/story-fndv8pdq-1226613794072

Connolly's contract was signed sealed and delivered long before Jackson got there. When his suspension was reported it was stated at the time that he had two years remaining on his contact and would be back at the club for season 2014 and 2015. Connolly was protected by his great mate Schwab and knew he'd be alright as long as he was there. The piece that appeared in the Herald Sun was nothing more than Connolly trying to pump up his own tyres and remind everyone that he still has a contract with the club. Reading between the lines I would say he can see which way the wind is blowing now that Peter Jackson is in charge, I can't imagine PJ letting him anywhere near the place tbh, contract or not and I think Connolly probably knows this.

I am so angry at The Ox. There will be a cold day in hell before I hope to see Melbourne walloped by Collingwood. Way to go mate, just reinforce the stereotype that MFC supporters have raised the white flag already. How, in any way shape or form is this supposed to help the club at this point?? And to everyone, but especially the Ox, stop presuming you speak for the majority of supporters. You can speak for no one but yourself, I'm sure you speak to a lot of your fellow Dees, the same as me, but unless you have surveyed 30 000+ people you can't talk for the majority. You have your opinion, I have mine, the majority will have a say at the AGM or an EGM. Until then please stop with the "I think I speak for the majority when I say..." piffle!!

I write this as a lifelong supporter and member of the MFC. My heart beats true, I bleed red and blue etc etc etc I have always believed that our time would come, that every poor season was bringing us closer to the ultimate success and that one day the wheel would turn and it would be us on top. Needless to say, the past few years have been a very bitter pill to swallow, as I’m sure everyone on here knows. What has really ruffled my feathers this morning are the comments from David Schwarz. The Ox is someone I have always admired, I used to go around with 5 on my back. But to claim that he is hoping for us to be walloped on Monday so that the coach gets the sack leaves me speechless. For shame David. So I put this post up here, as someone who loves the Dees and who so desperately wants us to be successful again, but who would really right now just want to see some unity!! Melbourne supporters are tearing each other apart, everyone disagrees with everyone and I have never seen people so angry. While I understand that anger – and I share plenty of it – I would prefer it was directed at other supporters, not my fellow Dees!! This is our club and its bigger and more important than any individual. If you walk away now you may well find that there is nothing to come back to. Our backs are against the wall, we face the longest, hardest slog of our lives to get back anywhere near the place where we have success. Now is the time to show the AFL community that WE ARE THE DEMONS!! Let’s stop bickering (I said bickering not disagreeing) and stand together to back our club. Come hell or high water I will be there on Monday, the same way I am every week and there will be a cold day in hell before I hope that our team is “walloped by Collingwood”. The club is bigger than any individual, and I support the club. Now is the time we need to stand together!!

What I want is the fairy tale, but in the world of realism I’ll settle for the following: - The board to restructure the football department under the guidance of Peter Jackson. No ifs, not buts, just do what the man says - McLardy to stand up to the media, tell them to lay off the coach and get a real job. Publically back Neeld until at least the end of the season and give him the clear air he needs so we can see if he actually is the person for the job - On field performances to improve to the point where we are no longer losing by 60+ points - Win at least 3 more games. Looking at our draw I would say we have 5 definitely winnable games to come, I’d consider winning 3 of them acceptable, as long as we’re not blown out of the water in the others - Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes operating in the same forward line - Grimes, Frawley, Viney and TMac recover from their injuries and get back in the team - Re-sign Colin Sylvia and Jack Watts and tell James Frawley there’s no way we’ll be trading him during the off season Once the season is over with: - A credible ticket to present itself and force a spill of the board so we can get rid of them. They cannot be allowed to blunder along any more

I don’t think its laughable at all. He got a clear mandate to do a job and he’s doing it. I’m sure he wishes it was different, I’m sure he goes home after every game wishing that they had won, but he accepts that’s not where they are yet. I think that the point he is trying to get across is that he has made the decisions he has made with that mandate in mind. He’s been accused of using a scatter gun approach and not making the “right” calls on any number of things, but he has done those things with his goals and his job/mandate in mind.