Diamond_Jim

Interesting article Bombers have just posted a one off loss for 2016 of just under $10M. They attribute $4.5M to legal fees and compensation. (Sounds light.... perhaps the insurers have footed a rather large bill.) https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/16/essendon-post-98m-loss-in-wake-of-cas-ruling-over-players-doping-bans

Of all the players.... he is the most culpable........ he was the Captain of the Club.......... he was THE leader

I think you have hit the nail on the head. None of the above admitted wrongdoing and other than "resigning" none have been punished and if anything they were financially rewarded Anyway you should feel free to move on but for me it continues to be one of footballs darkest moments

But isn't that the problem Saty... people just want to forget it and move on but you can't do that until the perpetrators have admitted guilt If you want a fantastic example of the required process look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu at the end of the apartheid era. (And just to make it clear there is no comparison between drug taking in sport and the crimes of the apartheid era but there is a lot in the process of admission of wrongdoing, forgiveness and moving on )

Sainthood faster than Mother Theresa perhaps ........... he deserves no less !!

For anyone who is fluent in German here is the link to website of the Swiss Federal Court. I had a quick look at the English section but so far no luck. My understanding from the AFL site was that the judgement was in German and had been embargoed until the players were informed. That time has obviously passed. http://www.bvger.ch/recht/00551/index.html?lang=en On a lighter side... I found the Swiss court link via an article (below) on a Swiss news site..... Has a heading .... "Not a G'Day" and features a picture of a Melbourne player being tackled by an Essendon player http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/not-a-g-day_swiss-court-rejects-appeal-by-banned-australian-rules-players/42508834

Those quotes relate to the AFL tribunal which found them not guilty. Bit like the argument that because the CAS decision was 2-1 that more judges (counting the AFL tribunal members) found them to be innocent.... (flawed logic)

Main reason is that the AFL tribunal applied the burden of proof argument in a completely different way to CAS (chain vs string) To extend that statement: AFL tribunal looked for proof that what the players were given was Drug X CAS said Danks ordered it.... Drug X was in the fridge..... players were given drugs.... reasonable to assume it included Drug X (Simplistic but the AFL Tribunal looked for direct evidence whereas CAS was happy to rely on circumstantial evidence)

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

I think the Court of Appeal decision is required reading for every fan who is interested in this subject. It is not that long and as far as legal judgements go it is in relatively plain English. The Court deals with each argument and then dismisses it with unequivocal logic. (They even look at the youth argument.)

ah... you are getting it... that was the question they were asked...... are you taking any supplements..... and they answered.............. NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Actually they left the section blank) Here's the link to the form .... you will find the relevant question in the large white box under Section 3 headed "Information for Analysis" https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_doping_control_form_v6.pdf Then have a read of the Appeal Court's judgment at paragraphs 161 and 162 http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf Sorry Saty but the evidence against them was damning

From the AFL site: "Those still hopeful Watson will retain his medal point to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal verdict in March 2015 that cleared the players. The AFL Commission must decide if it sides with the rules governing world sport it has signed up for, or if there are extenuating circumstances for Watson and he proves to be an exception." They are kidding aren't they !!!!

Dank's defence would have been informed consent on the part of either or the club and the players. No way would they sue him as he would have said who knew what and when. The importation and use of the various drugs was in no way illegal as I understand it. The taking of the drugs violated the contractual provisions of the WADA code. The only way that it would come out to the benefit of the club is if he was contracted to provided drug A (allowed) and he administered drug B (banned). The absence of records makes a mockery of this argument. On the issue of blame the players have done their time and should be allowed back. No need for them to be treated as heroes. What is badly missing is contrition and acceptance of responsibility by EFC, the Coach, the relevant staff and yes.... the players. Each had fault and each bears responsibility albeit in differing ways and to differing degrees. Looking forward to reading the judgment when available.

Hi just found this part of the Board. Most of my favourites have been mentioned but I will add two more: Ballers..... season 2 just finished. Made by the team who made Entourage but is based against the background of NFL. Season 2 was not as strong as season 1 in my view. There are some good blogs out of the US where they compare it with the real world of the NFL. Like Entourage it has cameos from real NFL players. Halt and Catch Fire... Season 3 now showing... about the early world of computers. Was originally compared to Mad Men but did not rate anywhere near as well. Great show for binge watching. And yes..... Man in the High Castle and the Night Manager are compulsive viewing along with the Politician's Husband and the Honourable Woman Looking forward to following your recommendations.... (don't forget the foreign dramas.. The Spiral is a great series.... top rated French crime drama now in fifth season.)

Hard to argue with the only one that I see a glimmer of hope for is Dunn but only if you can put a fast player near him to take the ball and get it moving when Dunn gets the ball His VFL play reminds me of a dinosaur but he does get the ball.

Jake has served his penalty and as a player he should be welcomed to the MFC. He should not be "venerated" as I am afraid will happen to those of the 34 who return to Essendon next year. Instead he should be treated as any other player pursuing a sport at an elite level. If there be anger and indignation (which is not inappropriate) it should be firmly directed at the Essendon Football Club and the AFL. It is obvious that neither of these organisations appreciate the damage that has occurred to the game not only by the drug taking itself but by the way that fact has been handled by the EFC and the AFL. If one needs evidence of the damage that an issue like this can cause you need only look at the recent Olympics. People who were once avid followers of this sports fest either turned off or watched it with suspicion. Welcome Jake. I hope you have a successful career at the MFC.

Thanks Redleg.... much appreciated for a workplace sustained injury "half your salary for the next 2-3 years " is not a whiz bang pay out. I appreciate AFL is not your normal workplace but it just seems light. It does have the benefit that a player who is contracted would not easily accept an allegation by the club that they have a career ending injury and thus minimises the chance of rorting.

Could someone please expand on the salary cap rules if you pay out a players contract on the basis of career ending injuries. You will recall that Lamumba was placed on the long term injury list with only 2 or 3 rounds to go. This required special approval from the AFL under the rules. It was presumably done for a purpose and I don't think it was the usual purpose of allowing a rookie upgrade.