Dees2014

I would think that this would be something like the setting of the time and place for the preliminary hearings. The case is going ahead, and there will be no findings for at least another six months, but more likely into next year.

This article is a total and deliberate distortion of the truth. The truth is that the AFL and ASADA had been working with the Evans led Essendon on this issue and had come to a settlement which would have satisfied everyone including ASADA, but it would have required Hird to resign and to admit his part in, and his responsibility for this scandal. Being the loyal EFC lietenant that he is, instead of taking responsibility, he had his supposed best mate Evans fired, exited the AFL's main crisis management advisor Liz Lukin (and supposedly the brains behind the settlement - now the AFL PR Chief), installed Little as his hatchet man, and then went on an orgy of litigation which ensured ASADA/WADA would go after him and Essendon with the full force of their powers. This could have all been over in 2013, and it wasn't for the simple reason Hird refused to take responsibility for his own actions. That is the truth. What was in the HS today is a complete fabrication of the HIRD PR team. The gall of Hird in this is truly breathless.

Agree BB. He will be gone just as soon as the CAS findings are released, without a payout. There should also be a clean out of the board, management and executive. That is the only way for the EFC to get a fresh start. It will be an awfully long rebuild though as they go through endless courts cases trying to clear themselves of Hird's legacy.

You are such a card Lance. You fein such knowledge, but you actually have such little insight. You carry on about "comfortable satisfaction" as though it were an end in itself, but as WJ has pointed out on this forum it is nuanced and open to interpretation. The AFL Tribunal chose to interpret it in a very prescriptive and restricted way, for their own ends to try to save the bacon of the AFL and Essendon. It didn't work and WADA rightly called them out on it. CAS will interpret it very differently, and will be much more interested in getting to the truth, and, very importantly, will have the benefit most likely of having the Australian Courts supenoring witnesses on their behalf and requiring then to testify under oath, witnesses who by the way were happy to testify until they were visited by Hird's heavies and then "mysteriously" lost interest in doing any such thing. I know it is a lot to ask of someone with such rose coloured glasses as far as Hird is concerned, but don't you think this is just a tiny bit odd and just a little crooked?

I am reflecting what people on the AOC tell me. They universally think how Essendon have been treated is outrageously lenient, and so do the few olympic athletes i know. It is no accident CAS has moved the hearing to Europe, away from the insidious influences of the Australian media and politics. Yes, just as the former judges on the AFL Tribunal did.

Lance, as usual you obviously have not been following the debate during the three years it has been going on, and clearly have not been reading Chip Le Grand over that period. If i had to nominate the three leading lights of the Hird propaganda machine, they would be Le Grand, Tracy Holmes and Robbo. Go back and read them, I dare you to. But then again, you might have the insensitivity of Tony Abbot and believe that human beings do not contribute to climate change, coal is good for humanity, and the earth is flat!

Sue, i think it would be an extremely unusual employment contract if there was not some clause relating to breaking the law while employed, and this is usually passed onto one contract to the next if it has indeed been renewed. I agree CAS may well take to some time into 2016 - I suspect CAS will find it a much more complex case than the one the AFL Tribunal examined, particularly when the start forced testimony from witnesses who refused to testify at the AFL Tribunal. After all, several of these have close criminal connections, and you don't know what might be revealed, think Costigan Royal Commission into Painters & Dockers, Fitzgerald Royal Commission into Queensland Inc.I suspect there is a web of intrigue in the AFL and many of its clubs which may well come out, at least some of it.

I think the worst offender by far in our current line up in giving up possession is Toumpas. It is very frustrating because he gets the ball well, but all the time seems to give it up by hand and foot. He also lacks pace for the position he plays. I think he needs to go back to the twos to get his confidence back. For me, this week is: OUT: Toumpas. Bail. Spencer. M Jones IN. Grimes. Fitzpatrick JKH. Newton

I would be very surprised if they moved on Hird before the CAS verdict is in for several reasons. First, depending on the decision, the task at Essendon becomes a very different one. Two, if CAS finds the players guilty, and ASADA follows it up, as I think they will do with issuance of infraction notices against Hird, the other coaches, and the Administration, then Hird has not fulfilled his contract and almost certainly could be sacked without compensation. Three, in their current position it is highly likely they would find it very difficult to attract quality coaching candidates until the position becomes clearer, and more than anything now, they need an experienced coach of high integrity. Now that would be a change for Essendon!

mmmmmm think it was very slippery. To be fair, both sides missed sitter chest marks.

So slow and constantly turns the ball over by hand and foot. Good at getting the ball, but sadly sadly lacks disposal skills. Can't see him in our top 24 once we get the injured players back. Newton also had a good one at Casey so he would be an obvious replacement in any case

That is also why hird is trying to avoid CAS arbitrators who are olympics affiliated. The olympic athletes cannot believe how much major football codes have got away with when it comes to drugs in sport, and they are gunning for them. As far as they are concerned, Essendon are the worst of the worst, so you would expect IOC affilated arbitrators to come down on the side of the olympic movement.IMHO that is why Essendon went for Spigelman - he is an eminent jurist, and will at least approach this with an open mind. This is about all they could expect when their attempt to plant their own Essendon supporting former high court judge did not fly. JS will at least provide a balanced view, unlike the AFL Tribunal.

i agree "let the players decide", although there are others who think that is immensely unfair on them. There are afterall expectations, even in this appalling situation. Maybe the best direction is to play the game but make it totally dedicated to the memory of phil walsh. After all there must be a large portion of the geelong team and coaching staff who are hurting very much as well since he was also a very faithful servant of the cattery in the past.. From all we know about walsh, he was an AFL tragic - you couldn't imagine he would not want for the game to go on. what more fitting tribute there could be for two clubs who loved him and respected him, to have a no holds barred ding dong AFL match, and shake hands afterwards and then go on to have a wake in his honor. Vale Phil Walsh

Totally agree. It would also take away the market for criminal gangs if it were supplied through legitimate means and fully regulated and supervised by the medical profession. Criminals love the current arrangement: it commands a premium price because of its illicit nature; it is not taxed - it is estimated government's globally miss out on over a billion dollars in tax revenue annually assuming tax was at the rate of tobacco; and the 50% of our prisoners who are incarcerated because of their drug activities would not be in prison. As the AFL keep on a saying it is a medical issue, not a legal one. One of their more enlightened viewpoints. Pity our politicians don't yet see it in that light.

Yes it is interesting isnt it. We tend to beat mid range teams (GCS,Dogs, Tigers) struggle with top teams (Freo,Hawks, Woods, Swans) and inexplicably lose to "inferior" teams (St kilda, GWS - although they have improved a lot since we met them)). The only top 8 teams we have beaten in the last two seasons has been Geelong ( dont count Richmond) and they are on a downward path and maybe will miss the 8 this year.Consistency is our major challenge. If we played like we did against Geelong of the remain games it should come out: WC: narrow loss Ess: win Bris: win St. kilda: win (we owe them) Coll narrow loss, possible win) North breakthough win WB win Carlton win Freo loss, but they will have cemented top spot by then, and Lyon may play his kids GWS too close to call, let's call it a win that makes it ten games won, and probably about tenth. A good platform to make the eight in 2016

Lance I suggest you read WJ's post after yours. You might learn something, although I somehow doubt it

Lance, I find it interesting that from all the thousands of words I have written on this subject over the last 18 months or so on here, you continuously make the assertion I have always been wrong, but the only specific point you repeat is that I asserted that CAS would judge the WADA appeal under a balance of probabilities rather than comfortable satisfaction. Surely after all the bile you have directed at me both on here and Hawthorn and Essendon BF you can show a greater crime than that. The answer is of course that you can't, and you wouldn't understand the subtleties of the differences between a Swiss convened CAS, and an Australian convened AFL Tribunal. The AFL Tribunal had on it lawyers who came from an adversorial criminal and corporate law background and therefore follow the British legal practice of innocence until proven guilty. And that is the way the case was conducted even though it was nominally under a comfortable satisfaction criteria. Lance Armstrong was also judged supposedly under comfortable satisfaction criteria but in a European sport environment, and as Gerard Whately rightly pointed out during his chat with Hird after the WADA appeal was announced, that if the criteria applied by the AFL tribunal was applied to the Armstrong case, Armstrong would have got off. But at CAS the criteria will not be applied like that. It will be applied as it was with Armstrong where the court will be much more oriented to getting to the truth which is the way in European Courts. I lived in Switzerland for four years of my professional life and observed them up close. They are not adversarial like Australian Criminal Courts. Much more like our civil courts where a different interpretation will be placed on comfortable satisfaction, BUT and it is a bit BUT, they will seek and get from Australian courts the ability to compel witnesses to testify under oath, which puts a totally different slant on proceedings. I think our fellow poster "Chris" nailed this today when he said in his very insightful post when talking about the Dank appeal: "I wonder if the following has dawned on him. He will be suing people for defamation, for them to have defamed him they must have told an untruth about him in the public domain, for these people to defend themselves they only need to show that they are telling the truth. In this defence they may well roll out all the evidence as presented to the AFL tribunal and then it will be up to the judges to make a ruling as to whether he is guilty or not of those charges, as that will determine if people have been telling the truth or not. Now the funny part, this will mean people can be subpoenaed to appear and give testimony under oath, and this testimony will be judged on the lower burden of proof used in civil matters, which is balance of probabilities. This action may well bring the entire EFC charade crashing down around them, and leave Dank with egg on his face in the process". I can't think of a better way to show how silly your assertions have been about this matter.

Lance is all over BF Essendon site and several others. I was informed privately by email that I was taking a caning on BF Hawthorn site from LU after a poster on there reposted a number of my entries from DL about Essendon. Fortunately, there was much support on there for the Demonland point of view, so LU got as much grief from Hawks supporters as he gets from here. It was soon after this episode when he decided obviously to go on full frontal attack and joined demonland, but was initially in disguise on here for a while as "SanityPrevails" before I seem to remember he got banned, and so converted to his usual name of LU.He can't help himself - he is an attack-dog troll (if that's not an oxymoron). Fits very well into the BF Essendon site, where he is completely at home with a clutch of like-minded warped "personalities"!

Lance, you've got it at last. Well done! I'm so glad you have now seen the light. I look forward now to nuanced, fair, and well reasoned posts from you in the future.It is true that people can reform and have their minds changed by rational arguments even for a trol like you.....amazing!

I think the hypocracy of the AFL in this matter has been unbelievable. Clearly, they have been looking around for a scapegoat and have found their man in Dank - someone close enough to the industry to make the scapegoating credible, but not of the industry. Dank after all was just carrying out Hird's orders. That does not excuse him, but it most certainly does not excuse either Hird, Reid, Thompson and the others so intimately involved in this sordid scheme and its subsequent coverup. I agree with WJ though it might be this very blame game which might cause Dank to break the cone of silence surrounding the key players in this episode. Further, this hearing is likely to be given the power by the Australian courts to compell witnesses to appear and to testify under oath. It is one thing to pronounce things to journalist writing spurious books about a subject, it it quite another to lie under oath, for that you can end up in jail. Even Hird's unprincipled thugs dont have that power. Besides, going rogue might be the only way some of them can save their skins, at least partially, particularly Dank. Fortunately there is no need for outrage because we all know for certain what is ahead in the next six months ie a fair hearing in front of highly credentialed judges who will have the necessary powers and resources to get to the bottom of this whole sorry mess. And there is absolutely nothing that the AFL, Hird, Little, Essendon or anyone else involved can do about it. And that is all that we could possibly ask...

wishing and hoping and wishing and......

Not sure about ASADA rights in these circumstances, but WORKSAFE definitely can turn up at the door and inspect and seize whatever they want to enforce the law. there are and were ways and ways. no doubt this will be examined in minute detail at CAS.

the point id make is that i have no doubt this decision was not made in isolation. it would have followed extensive medical tests, and the decision would have been made on the balance of probabilities he would be able to make a successful comeback. This was not just a generous gesture - more likely a hard nosed football decision in the best interests of Jack AND the club. if it comes off, it would rank with Bernie's recruitment as one of our best list management decisions in the last 10 years.

everyone i know who have seen both of them play, puts Petracca slightly ahead of Brayshaw. you just think of it for a moment - next year we will have both Gus and Petracca, and hopefully a fit and firing Trengove, and a matured and intimidating hogan and Gawn - it is looking very exciting

vandenberg and ANB weren't too bad and got them for very little. O McD shows great promise like his brother. Likewise Vince was a steal the year before. We are not doing too badly, but you win some and lose some I suppose. However we will need another clean out at the end of the year. On my list (but I'm not sure of their contractual status) would be Riley, Terlich, Michie, Mckenzie, Hunt. Also tradable for the right price: Howe, Fitz, Toumpas, Trengove, Kent, Pederson. I know many would disagree with this list but that is the nature of trading - you need to give something to get something.