Bluey's Dad

Can't wait for a comment from Essendon's insurer or their lawyers.

Essendon, AFL integrity and upper management departments excepted of course.

Good news Any word on how Hogan's doing with his running with the increased weight? I read the other day he put on some during the holidays (seemed to be intentional). He was a big unit before, can't imagine him much bigger.

Good, the fact that we're getting someone to analyse strategies indicates to me that we're trying to set up a better standard of play I imagine most opposition analysts took the week off when they play us. "What's the Demon's strategy?" "Kick it to Hogan" "Thanks, take the week off" Now maybe they'll have to do some more work when up against us! (Yes I realise our best win was in Geelong without Hogan, just making some sport of it all)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-19/angry-hinkley-hopes-afl-will-relax-list-concession-rules-after-cas-verdict Interesting comments by Hinkley, they end up with one less player than Essendon. But the thing that interests me most is his comment about there not being a contingency plan already in place for CAS handing out bans. Surely event the inept and corrupt beast that is the AFL would have to have given this SOME thought? Apparently not.

Uuugghhh. I really struggle with Burgan's articles. I've gotten far far more value from the other reports in this thread.

Brilliant

Indeed. I hope Petracca doesn't stub his other toe trying to get out of one.

This is the real issue here. I had forgotten about the fappening but the parallels are undeniable. Nice find Stuie.

Yep. If I was a client of that lawyer I'd be giving them the flick after their massive blunder of misreading everything so far and find someone better.

I really wonder what chemicals are in that bucket. I guess we'll never know.

Yes

Ok, now I'm really confused. Got this from an article on the age: Hunter did not receive an infraction notice — likely because he did not sign a consent form for the relevant substance — and thus avoided the year-long suspensions, but he is no longer playing football. 34 current and ex-Essendon players received season bans for doping offences on Tuesday. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essendon-saga-parents-appalled-as-afl-dons-pursue-costs-against-hal-hunter-20160115-gm6l85.html#ixzz3xHXHhsJb So Hunter got jabbed, but didn't sign the consent form. So that gives him, what, plausible deniability regarding TB4? So ASADA didn't bother pursuing him in the first place? And the rest get nabbed because they DID sign the form, showing they knew they were getting "Thymosin" or whatever was written on there. Also how does that work around the club? Why would a guy, who presumably knows a bunch of other players signed a consent form, keep getting jabbed without having signed one? Similarly, did the players who DID sign the form, not think it strange that a guy who DIDN'T sign the form was still getting injections? My head hurts.

You can browse the normal age website in icognito mode and they paywall doesn't trigger.

I see what you're saying RPFC. I just think we have a bit of a double standard where because these guys play football, they can act unethically and keep on playing after a ban, but the same can't be said of acting unethically in other professions. I guess in this case the unethical behaviour affects only them, and not clients/patients/the public. I guess as Needly says, it is what it is, but I'll still find it hard to cheer Jake on knowing what he did.

I don't see why football shouldn't be seen like any other profession. If you violate the ethics of a lot of professions, you can't work in that profession any more. Doctors can have their medical licence revoked, lawyers can be disbarred etc. Then they go out and have to start a different career. Life bans from football only really prohibit the player from being a footballer. Nothing to stop them going out and getting any other job.

Yep. Personally I always felt the parallel between sport and war was a little thin anyway, but having Essendon play on ANZAC day after this makes it a complete mockery. I wonder what the RSL will have to say?

Whatever it takes eh?

I think CAS got it right in terms of guilt, and pretty much right in terms of what punishment they were allowed to give out. The maximum was 2 years, they got 2 years backdated. CAS has now increased their maximum to 4 years, so even they think 2 years is too light as a maximum, but with the Essendon 34 case, they were tied to the lower amount because those were the rules at the time of the infringement. Personally yes, I would prefer life bans. I have very little tolerance for drug cheats. Lets remember here that this is not a ciminal case. They aren't being sent to gaol, nor are they doing community service. If they get a life ban, it's essentially telling them that they can't work in their chosen field any more. Well, too bad, go work somewhere else. You cheated at your chosen profession and now you can't do it any more. Go re-educate yourself and go work somewhere else. People do it every day. If a doctor contravenes a medical code, or a lawyer is disbarred for unethical behaviour, they go get a different job. Why does a drug cheat get to go back to work after a year?

Yep, the EFC were fined for that and governance failures I believe. The AFL have not yet punished them for the drug program itself though. I don't think they will either, as they said that if the EFC come last they'll get the #1 pick.

Please record this so we can see the results. I assume you will be wearing a fire-proof suit?

We got fined for bringing the game into disrepute. It was the AFL's political way of punishing us but not actually saying it was tanking. If they said it was tanking they'd have to punish everyone who did it (Hawks, Eagles, Carlton). Also, this is the AFL we're talking about. They are hardly a bastion of consistency when applying fines or penalties, I don't think "you only get fined if you do something wrong" applies to them. Edit: Demitriou actually said what we did was fine. The only reason we got fined was because Adrian Anderson overstepped the mark as a response to Brock McLean's interview. Had Demitriou not been overseas as the time, we would not have been fined at all. We had the tacit approval of the man in charge at the time, and a draft system set up to incentivise precisely what we were doing. Very different to contravening the WADA code.

I actually find it pretty simple. Tanking isn't cheating. Taking performance enhancing drugs is. Also, I didn't say I wouldn't follow the club. I said I'd find it difficult I also note the complete lack of a statement from Jake. A simple "I done [censored] up, I'm sorry, I should have known better" would go a long way.

Quotes not working for some reason. Stuie: Because tanking was within the rules. Everyone could (and many did) do it, and the AFL incentivised it. Hell, teams still do it towards the end of the season to get better draft picks. It's part of a flawed draft system and until that is fixed, tanking is part of strategy of recruitment. I'm not happy we tanked, but I don't think it's cheating. It's certainly not on par with taking performance enhancing drugs. Wiseblood: Fair enough I guess. I just see an athlete's personal responsibilities as an overriding factor. The conspiracy of silence against Reid and lack of disclosure on drug testing forms to me speaks volumes. If it was on the up and up, there is no reason to not tell Reid and the drug testers.

I take cheating seriously. I don't want to support another club, I want to keep on supporting the club I have all my life. I just want the club I love to not have a drug cheat on its list. Honestly I struggle to understand how some of you guys are ok with it. Melksham noew being at the MFC doesn't mitigate what he did.