Dees2014

I have never said that Essendon should be chucked out of the competition. In fact I have specifically argued against that. What I have said it is possible if more than two players are suspended at the one time that Essendon could be suspended for a period, but even then I have cautioned against that as my last post reiterated. For that to happen it would need to go back to the AFL tribunal as the governing of the sport in the first instance, and then if WADA disagrees then it can always appeal again to CAS. If you don't believe me on this I suggest you look at section 11.2 of the WADA code where it deals specifically with suspension of teams as a result of two or more of their members being suspended. The provisions are very clear. But then again you never have been concerned with detail as you clearly do not read my posts and absorb what I say! As far as Mcdevitt offering deals, of course he offers deals. What I have said though after ASADA was taken to court by Hird and Essendon then the deals previously on offer to the Evans regime were off the table. The settlement agreed by ASADA, Evans, the AFL and the crisis management head put into Essendon by the AFL (and now the permanent head at AFL House) Elizabeth Lukin would have seen this issue settled in 2013, but it also required for Hird to fall on his sword and admit his role in this whole sordid affair. Instead, being the loyal Essendon lieutenant he is, he rolled Evans (supposedly his best mate), he installed Little, and they proceeded to go on this orgy of litigation designed to satisfy the Hird's sociopathic personalities. This inevitably got ASADA and then WADA offside, and so we ended up where we are today. It could have so easily been avoided. Sadly the current Essendon regime prefers confrontation and litigation, rather tha consensus and justice. I suppose you reap what you sow. They have no-one but themselves to blame.

The AFL is not the NFL where they have dozens of teams of first grade standard, and a wealthy population of nearly 400 million. We have 5% of that. You just need to see the massive investment needed to set up the Suns and Giants to understand how big a task it would be. The biggest hit would be in Melbourne though where Essendon is in the top 4 clubs in terms of supporter base, much of it in the Western Suburbs where Soccer is getting stronger everyday. The game simply cannot afford to disillusion that many people. I am not saying don't punish them - I think everyone responsible should be chucked out of the game for life and fined heavily, and all the players given at least 2 year suspension in line with the WADA code. This would ensure ESSENDON does at least 2 years purgatory, probably a lot longer. The eliminate them completely though I think would be counter productive for the game and a club like ours

Lance , if you come back can you at least quote others accurately. Your whole premise is to distort and lie just like your God James Hird does. The WADA rules are very clear (they are not CAS rules by the way - it is a WADA code they are upholding) that if two Essendon players are rubbed out then the whole team can be rubbed out. I for one do not want to see this as I know what effect it would have on the AFL competition, but it is WADA's duty to uphold the drugs code in sport and frankly under Swiss Law you are cooked. It is all your own doing, a direct result of the hero worship and blind adherence to a flawed and cheating individual in James Hird. As much as I do not want to see the AFL competition harmed - there is a greater justice here, to keep world team sports clean, and free of drug cheats. I have no doubt WADA sees it the same way, and if the AFL needs to take a hit for this principal to be maintained, then so be it.

Fair questions IT. Let me deal with them one at a time:1. CAS operates under European law. Hird's PR machine likes to put about that the rules are the same but they are not. European law is about coming to a just consaclusion and it is up to the accused to prove his innocence, not the presumption of innocence as in the advertorial British system. The AFL Tribunal acted under a very high bar which was much more akin to a presumption of innocence. Might I remind you Armstrong would havee never been convicted under such a standard of proof. I might add this was a set up from the beginning, with the AFL carefully selecting the panel who would preside over such a ridiculous burden of proof. 2. I don't know whether players were offered a deal. What info I do know is that after Hird and Little instigated their coup to oust Evans in 2013, and especially with the arrival of Mcdevitt at ASADA, there were no longer any deals available to them. Cronulla was passed through by WADA very reluctantly because they saw the main game as being Essendon - much more long term, much heavier involvement of the coach and medical staff, and much more cynical in a deliberate program to enhance performance via illegal drug taking. WADA has always regarded Essendon as a test case which if allowed to pass will open the flood gates for wealthy teams sports around the world to cheat via drugs. 3. Influencing witnesses. There were a number of instances around the time of the AFL Tribunal where key witnesses were prepared to testify, but after visits by some of Hird's "friends" decided not to testify. Make of this what you will, but at the very least it is very suspicious. The CAS rules are very different and the powers of the court are very different as well. I believe Dank has already agreed to testify and his recent bluster in the media is a softening up process. Take this scenario. Dank has already been issued with an infraction notice, and WADA has referred his penalties handed down by the AFL Tribunal to CAS. If Dank loses here, it will be a catastrophe for him, but without special consideration that is exactly what will happen. In such circumstance, why wouldn't he negotiate a deal in return for lighter sentences., otherwise he faces exclusion and possible criminal prosecution. The same scenario faces his "partners in crime" his chemists, his drug importers, all possible receivers of infraction notices from WADA after the hearings about the players, as are Dank's associates and Hird himself. You draw your own conclusions. I know what mine are!

OD, sorry to disillusion your relentless negativity, but my understanding is that quite the opposite is happening. For starters, WADA believe they have more than enough evidence from existing sources to convict the players and Essendon know that it will be heard under Swiss law where the burden of proof is quite different. Further they are working on getting additional evidence not heard in Australia in return for lighter sentences. This was not available in the AFL Tribunal hearings because the potential witnesses all believed everyone would get off owing to the stacked tribunal, and that tribunal was setting such an impossibly high burden of proof that it would not even have convicted Lance Armstrong. No one is going to do deals under those circumstances. Now the tribunal is in a quite different much stronger position, and these key witnesses who were bribed/intimidated to shut up in Australia, can issue additional penalties to them through WADA that thge AFL Tribunal could not and would not do. It is a quite different scenario. This time they are scared of their legal position, whereas in Australia they were scared of hurting their local reputations in the industry in which they were making a living, and the intimidatory tactics of the Defence. The risks they run now by not cooperating are far higher than their previous positions. Finally, I seem to remember OD that prior to the announcement of the WADA Appeal you continuously posted the same sort of negative stuff that everyone was going to get off (I think "wet tram ticket" was one of your favorite phrases) when I and others were insisting that the AFL Tribunal was just the first phrase, and eventually WADA would bring them to account. Well they have and they will, and the burden of proof will not only be set very much lower, but there will be substantial fresh evidence available to CAS which was not available to the AFL tribunal. They will not get off.

Chris, I understand your point, but it will be the same for all clubs. Perhaps under equalisation in this process they might give some accelerated preference for the more lowly clubs as well. Essendon will be lowly for some time if the players are rubbed out as i think they will be. What we don't want though is for Essendon to be given preferencial draft picks, then in two years time their players come back and they rise straight to the top on the back off preferential picks AND returning rubbed out players. Now that would be unfair. I think the fairer outcome would be they they be required to build a team off the second rung players like the ones they employed pre-season, get the draft picks they would normally be entitled to, and then rebuild upon their players return. In other words, two years at the bottom of the ladder, when they would get top ten players in any case. That is of course if CAS does not enforce the "two players rubbed out and you are out rule", which they might do. That means a 17 team competition for two years. Now that REALLY hurts the competition and the AFL, and through them all the clubs, which is what i think the AFL fears most. From CAS's point of view, I rather suspect they might view that as a just outcome.

I think it is intriguing that now we have achieved our objective of getting an even-handed assessment and judgement about the goings on with the Essendon drugs program, that there are some on here still don't like it. Their fears appear to be that somehow we (the Demons) will be disadvantaged and that the AFL will turn around and give them (Essendon) lots of money and draft picks to our disadvantage. Well can I say I for one have no wish to destroy Essendon as a Club. They are integral to the health of the AFL competition and indeed the code in general. What I am vitally interested in though is that the regime and the people who perpetrated their drug taking for competitive advantage then sought to cover it it up via manipulation and lying, are utterly and completely destroyed. They have to be totally sidelined and every one of them be excluded from any further participation in sport whether it be here or in any other country around the world. That may also include a good portion of their players receiving sentences of 2-4 years. That more than anything will send the message around the world that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated in team sports, and that if anyone tries they will be hunted down and destroyed with single minded ruthfulness. And this is where we are at, and I for one can only say "hooray" Essendon in these circumstances may attract subsidies from the AFL to help them get back on their feet, but it will be from a very low base. Under these conditions, if we cannot compete with them then we also have no business being in the competition. We should not seek to benefit from their weakness, but rather learn from it and use it to make us stronger. Essendon as a club are not the enemy here. The people who perpetrated these deeds are, and have to be banished from sport completely to allow Essendon to rebuild, and to reassure the rest of us that these practices and these people will never be allowed to re-emerge in the future.

Good post, but i really think it misses the fundamental point here. It no longer matters what the Australian public, the AFL, the Federal government, James Hird, Gillon Mclauchlan, mark robinson, rupert murdoch think anymore. it is no longer in their power to influence. It is with CAS, far away in Switzerland, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Let's enjoy the ride, and watch at last this disgraceful episode come to an end in a just and balanced way.

Dank is starting to become about as delusional as Hird http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sports-scientist-stephen-dank-dismissive-of-wada-appeal-20150602-ghf9vn.html I am hearing that WADA are lining up some additional new witnesses for their European hearing, I wonder if they have "landed'' Dank. If so, it would put "the cat among the pigeons" , particularly if it was on some sort of ''plea bargaining'' basis. Now I know Dank is hardly the most reliable witness, but if he was confronted in the witness box under oath by a counsel as skilled as WADA's American prosecutor, it would be truly revealing. I understand "plea bargaining" may also be going on with the players, their lawyers and their agents, particularly ex players. I think there are a lot more twists in this story yet, and they look like being nearly all bad news for Hird and Essendon.

Which I think will be the next development, particularly from the past players in the 34 and the players at other clubs. My understanding is that many of the players are currently getting legal advice (usually through surrogates to avoid Hird finding out), and once the outcome looks inevitable, presumably the writs will start flying as they desperately position themselves for advantage. Before that though, I suspect WADA will be doing a good deal of plea bargaining to persuade at least some players and maybe certain drug "scientists" to testify against Hird and Dank in return for lighter sentences. Once that happens, the flood will make the Damb Busters look tame! We must remember in this, the CAS hearing is not just a re-examination of existing evidence, it is in effect a new "trial" where new evidence is acceptable. I have no doubt WADA will take advantage of this as the parties manoeuvre to avoid the worst consequences of what is increasingly looking inevitable. My hot tip? Hird will be fired and sue the AFL, The Age and Caroline Wilson, Gerard Whateley, David Evans, Essendon, McDevitt, Coates, Little, Patrick Smith, - and that's just the start. And you know what? He will lose the lot. The gift that keeps on giving to the Legal profession.

No we haven't, but what we have achieved is to have it taken out of the hands of the powerful vested interests who seek to influence an outcome to their own advantage. I, for one, am comfortable with that. If at the end of the day CAS decide there is no case, then there is no case. I don't for a moment believe that will be the situation, but at least that will be a considered and fair outcome.

There is no doubt that the Hird campaign shifts their emphasis according to the current events, but I must say their PR options are narrowing rapidly. If all they can hang their hat on is asking for handouts from the AFL at the end of this, then good luck to them. They will have gone from one of the four powerhouses of the AFL to one of the minnows, purely on the back of the arrogance and sociopathic behaviour of their favourite son. If that is the outcome, then I think that is an equitable conclusion. Nothing more need be said....

I agree Hird's spin doctors have conducted a subtle and very expensive campaign. That is why I admire McDevitt, ASADA and WADA so much. With the exception of the outcome of the AFL Tribunal hearing (which was rigged from the beginning), McDevitt has beaten Essendon, Hird and if comes to that, the AFL, at every turn. They have done a magnificent job, and we should all be shouting their praises from the rooftops. Australian football and through it to us fans, owes a huge debt of gratitude to these guys, and we should never forget it. The forces for good for once have triumphed! And we should be eternally grateful.

Yes the pollies and crooked businessmen call it "plausible deniability". That about sums it up.The fact is though someone with authority to spend considerable sums of money dreamt up and/or authorized this appalling program. If it was the board, then they and the management will go. if it was just management, then they still both should go because they should have known, and could emerge as case of dereliction of duties as directors, and liable for prosecution under the companies act.

Perhaps for a bit of light relief, found this on Big Footy! A classic!! I had an Essendon supporter in my house the other day and fcuk me are they slow. I trolled on several occasions "Would you like a cup of Tea Before you go?" Nothing "I gave the kids a little pep talk about the tides in the interest of trigonometry." Nothing "we have several rugs in the house we have A-rugs B-rugs C-rugs, But all the D-rugs are in Essendon" Nothing "Your team are a bunch of f*cking drug cheats and you should feel bad" What?

CAS is the final call. The Swiss courts will only accept appeals on procedural grounds including whether it is the jurisdiction of the Court, but these almost never succeed.

Well if the Club hierarchy and Board were complicit in the doping program Hird set up, then WorkCover will certainly get them and they will all go to jail. The act is quite explicit on this. That is a deliberate setting up and running of an unsafe workplace over an extended period of time. Personally, I think Hird hid it from the Board, but I have no doubt the executive group knew including Reid. They all should be banned for life by WADA, and this will almost certainly follow the CAS hearings, particularly if they find the players guilty as I think they will. There is nothing to stop ASADA issuing infraction notices to the hierarchy post these CAS hearings, and if the players are found guilty that is a logical extension.

Anything is possible. In my case, all I have ever wanted is a fair and balanced investigation into this saga. I think evidence is there that there were at least unusual practices going on (wide ranging injection program off site over a considerable period of time, importation of illegal materials which circumstantial evidence seems to be connected to the EFC, disappearance of record keeping which would be expected to be kept and in 99% of cases, involvement of people with criminal records related to pedalling and importation of illegal drugs, etc etc etc). Athletes around the world have received lengthy bans with a lot less evidence than this under the WADA code. All I ask is that this evidence is considered by experts in this field in a totally unbiased manner, in an atmosphere of impartiality. It has not been up to date. It will be by CAS outside the hysterical atmosphere which is created by Hird, Essendon, and AFL aided and abetted by the Australian Press whenever it is considered in Australia. Fortunately for those of us concerned about fairness, it looks as though it will now be moved to Europe.where it will be considered in an unbiased, well balanced manner. Under these circumstances, I will be more than happy to accept the Umpires' decision. Will those who created this mess? Somehow I doubt it.

Oh I think sit is quite simple. Queens Birthday is coming up next week and Eddie maybe is getting a little bit worried about a match he probably pencilled in as a certainty. It certainly won't be, particularly if we win today. Obviously trying to take Roosy's eye off the ball. Fat chance!!!

lance is just behaving like the troll he is. It is really not worth arguing with him. He will never be convinced, and no matter what is said he will dream up some other excuse for Essendon's and Hird's unconscionable behaviour. We have got what we want ie an unbiased, independent professional tribunal who will examine all the facts dispassionately and draw appropriate conclusion. That is all we could ever ask. I, for one, will unreservedly accept whatever the verdict happens to be. I wonder if Lance will. Somehow I doubt it. He is best ignored...

Yes, i have been hearing from several sources that the bombers players in the 34 (past and present) have been consulting lawyers about possible legal action against the club and the AFL, but they have been using others as their intermediaries as they fear they would be ostracized by the club if it found out. I must say this makes sense. It would only be sensible to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. In fact, it would be amazing if they were not doing it, particularly the past players who basically have nothing to lose. The dam is about to break for Hird.

Oh really? I would have thought most of my posts are reasoned and extensive, often to the frustration of others on here. I have never been accused of being superficial. Maybe that is your problem. I have challenged you in the past the take down my arguments point by point and you have not been able to. Why? Because your position is indefensible and you know it. And also I notice that a number of your fellow bomber supporters on big footy know it as well, questioning your continuous assertion over a number of months that "that bloke on Demonland knows nothing", and then when the WADA appeal came out, you all of a sudden went very quiet. Some of your fellow supporters didn't. They thought maybe the narrative on Demonland had a point.I look forward to your detailed rebuttal of what we have been asserting, rather than your usual narrative of character assassination.

I think Fitzy is almost Garland like in spite of his size. He is very quick, and will out mark all medium forwards. It has to be a real strength, especially what looks like being dry conditions in a mild climate. fitzy has to play IMHO.

I agree with WJ. Anyone who knows anything about trolling knows how destructive it can be to a forum, and Uppercut has a reputation of being reasonable initially then totally destructive as his namesake "SanityPrevails" was. Believe me, we don't need it. If you don't agree, I suggest you read what he has said about DL and DLers on BF. It has been extremely abusive and irrational -.typical trolling behaviour. Having said that, I agree it is useful to get rational debate from opposition supporters as we do have on DL from time to time. It adds a useful perspective to what can be biased debate on here, but I don't think that is what we are dealing with here.

What a quality guy ND is. His speech to the boys last week was absolutely inspiring, with passion, and a great love for the MFC. WE should never forget that he had a finals record second to only Norm Smith himself in terms of its consistency in the modern era, All the best Neale, and let's hope that medical breakthrough is just around the corner...