Dees2014

Yes I thought fitzy was great today. He has always been a favourite player, but I suspect he might be going through what David Neitz went through. Go down back and play on elite forwards to become one yourself. He has many elite skills: is one of the fastest at the club over 30 meters, is a good overhead mark, and an elite kick. He has a lot going for him. Actually strangely I think with him in form down back, we will not miss Frawley at all. I think he is also now ahead of Frost Watts I thought was greatly improved today, and seems to be developing some mongrel

This is not surprising at all that the media has gone to this area. What else is the Hird propaganda machine to do? They have basically lost every contest they have confronted in this saga save the AFL tribunal (which was rigged in their's and the AFL's favour anyway). Every other contest they have been rebutted decisively, and their only way out is to bribe witnesses and run a campaign to discredit WADA, CAS and ASADA in the eyes of the public. Their problem is though WADA and ASADA have decisively won the propaganda war, and seemingly they are not letting up in the least in fact quite the opposite. WADA have been far more prescriptive since their appeal was announced than I expected, particularly their willingness to confront the very powerful forces in Australian sport about the venue, their early announcement about appointing foreign Arbitrators, and WADA's announcement about their highly experienced American prosecutor. All this makes sense but it was not expected as they were seen as likely to pay more lip service to Australian sensibilities. I am very glad they haven't been. It simple demonstrates what I have been saying all along that they see this case as far wider than the AFL, or even Australian sport. This is nothing less than a test case as to whether powerful teams sports globally are going to be required to comply to anti drug rules internationally, or are they going to be able to get away with the chaos which has characterised the NFL in the U.S., the only major football code in the world which has not signed on to the WADA code, and the one riven with drug taking and bad behaviour. This is much, much bigger than Australia.

Yes, I agree he is usually pretty astute when it comes to this subject, but in this case I think he is wrong. If you don't believe me have a look at the facts. There are about 20 Australian Arbitrators on the CAS list and no more than 6 of them are conflicted. The other 14 are more than qualified to serve. It is another question though whether any would be acceptable to Hird or Essendon, and I agree that neither WADA or CAS are likely to nominate Australian Arbitrators. The acceptability to Hird is the real issue, not their quality or qualifications.

Yes he signed himself up to DL as "SanityPrevails" two or three weeks ago, and gave me a huge serve after I posted my very long post summarising the current situation just before the WADA appeal was announced. WJ advised me he is a well known "troll" and was subsequently banished from here, but not before he made a complete dick of himself. All I can say is that the postings on Demonland have been a hell of a lot more accurate about what is happening to Essendon than anything on the myriad of Bomber sites. If they want to read what really is going on they should be looking to Demonlanders. I wouldn't hold my breath though!

Yes BB, it is quite absurd of Roy Masters to suggest there are not enough Australian qualified Arbitrators to participate in the coming case, probably in Switzerland. Of the 300 listed worldwide, there are about twenty Australian, made up of the elite of the Australian legal profession. Admittedly there are some who disqualify themselves because of past participation in the case, and some through the their current positions, but overall this amounts to no more than about half a dozen. More than enough to pick suitable Australian representatives. In my view it would be desirable to have at least one Australian Arbitrator to give it more balance and so they can't complain it is an international conspiracy, but they have to be qualified and objective. Hird's problem is that most of those remaining are affiliated with the Olympic movement and we all know what their attitude is to the Essendon saga. I think the real reason this line is being pushed now, is that Hird can't find amoungst them any one of his lackies, or fanatical Dons supporters. They are, and are seen to be, independent. He is pushing to have another added to the Arbitrator list because he is a mad Essendon supporter AND a former high court judge, never mind the fact he is too old to qualify to be an Arbitrator for CAS. Hird is just up to his old tricks to stack the cards in his favour. He can't be shot for trying I suppose, but this time he won't get away with it. It is lovely to see that pack of self interested swine struggle to be heard, and even better be virtually ignored. Their bluster and carry on will get them no where in the future. In fact, I suggest the more they try to manipulate the facts, the more rigid CAS will be. It is lovely to watch

They are. absolutely.

This has been the case for some time. This is not a recent phomenum that WADA has seen this as an extremely important case. They have all along, and doubly so when the AFL and Essendon bully boys tried to incriminate them into dropping the case. They simply do not understand the WADA/CAS mindset. The more they try the bully boy tactics, they more they are determined to ensure justice is done. That is the absurdity of the Hird campaign tactics. It has from the beginning been a waste of time and money.

The CAS rules state that each party to the dispute is required to nominate an Arbitrator from the global list of about 400 of CAS Arbitrators, of which about 40 are Australian. The third appointment, the Chairman of the tribunal, will be appointed if the two parties can agree on a candidate, but if this cannot be achieved then CAS appoints someone. In effect, both Essendon and WADA has a veto on the chairman unless CAS intervenes.I understand if Essendon were to refuse to cooperate and refuse to appoint an Arbitrator, then CAS would step in and appoint one, or even a single Arbitor appointed by them. Either way, it would not be a good look for Essendon.

Yes the interesting area in this will be once the players are found guilty, and suspended. Then watch the writs fly, specifically suing the AFL and Essendon. Do Essendon continue paying their legal fees, if so for how long. What if in the meantime Worksafe get involved as they have said they will, and they penalise and fine, for instance Hird, Reid and Thompson as I think they will, as well as key Board members. Does Essendon continue to pay legal fees as well as fines which will be very substantial. I know many on here have poured cold water on my suggestion that Essendon could go under financially as a result of this mess, but legal action and penalties could go on for years and bankruptcy might be their only way to avoid these long term penalties. I very much doubt that even Little would commit to a bottomless pit. This is not to say Essendon disappear as I am sure a liquidator would be able to sell the brand for a substantial sum. Thankfully though, it would be the end of Hird, Little, Reid, Watson, all the current board, and all those other collaborators in this sorry saga.

Agree, BB. CAS hold all the cards. It is their decision where they hold it and in a case of this importance they will hold it in the place where they get the fairest outcome. In a way, Hird and his tribe of disciples have only themselves to blame for this. Their behaviour throughout when they have tried everything to discredit ASADA, used every underhand trick in the book, manipulated their lackies in the media and academia to try to influence the outcome has come home to roost. WADA and CAS have been observing this, and would have taken notice. They realise this same bag of tricks will be pulled out against the CAS Arbitrators if the Appeal was held in Australia, which is exactly the reason why it cannot be. The Hird camp seem to think what goes on in Australia is not noticed by the rest of the world. I can assure them that this whole episode has been very closely monitored in Switzerland, and the outcomes noticed. For WADA, it has become a MUST WIN, otherwise it opens the door to every dodgy coach in team sports around the world to implement the same program of doping which Essendon and Hird have attempted to get away with. This cannot be allowed to happen...

Just because Coates would be not on the side of Essendon as I state, it does not mean he is anything other than neutral. It is not a case, as Hird and Essendon seem to think, that "if you are not for me you are against me". I have no reason to believe that Coates would be anything other than strictly neutral, but it is for this very reason that CAS and WADA will be seeking to have it heard in Switzerland. It would be impossible to have a fair hearing in Australia. Too often in this whole saga, people who should have been neutral have shown unbelievable bias towards the Hird/little camp. This won't happen with CAS - it will be strictly neutral, but to obtain this outcome it has to be held in Switzerland. BTW, I do not need you to lecture me on integrity in these issues. Sure I have good sources across a variety of disciplines, and what I write is an amalgam of what they tell me. I am well aware of the protocols in these matters: I never reveal sources, breach confidences or tell lies. And on these issues. I have been mostly spot on. You can go and take your patronising comments elsewhere thank you very much!

Coates will be involved but not on the side of Essendon. He is after all a very senior AOC and IOC official, and the Olympic movement can't stand the way there seems to be one rule for the wealthy football codes and another for all other sports when it comes to drugs in sport in Australia. My bet he is intimately involved in the move to have it heard in Switzerland, and will have considerable sway in the ultimate outcome including the nomination of the Chairman for the hearings which looks like CAS's nominee.

In my view this was always going to happen that WADA would try to take these hearings to Switzerland and indeed I predicted it on here about a couple of weeks ago. What has been a surprise, but in retrospect a logical one, is that WADA has nominated a foreign Arbitrator. This has not been the precedent with Australian cases, but it is most welcome.As I have said many times on here, WADA are seriously [censored] off with Essendon and the AFL especially as to how ASADA have been treated. I have no doubt part of McDevitt's brief to WADA in Montreal would have been if possible to get the hearing as far from the toxic atmosphere of Australia if they want to conduct a fair appeal. You just imagine the public pressure which would be exerted on Arbitrators if the hearings are held in Sydney or Mebourne? It would almost impossible, and the decision as to location would be made with this in mind. With the WADA nominee coming from Belgium, no doubt the Essendon one from Australia, it is then up to both parties to agree to a Chairman. Given their attitudes, with WADA effectively having a veto over the Chairman, this is unlikely to happen in which case CAS nominates the Chairman, in all likelihood another European. If so, two of the three Arbitrators will have no detailed knowledge of the case and therefore be able to bring totally dispassionate analysis to it, and arrange rulings in favour of compulsion of subpoenaring of witnesses and testimonies under oath, in Swiss Courts if the hearings are eventually held in Switzerland. This looks like a disaster for Hird and Essendon

Dees2014, on 14 May 2015 - 4:39 PM, said: Sorry, that was an oxymoron special. That is what comes of writing these pieces on my iPad in the tram in the city between meetings! Let me explain. In a piece I posted I suggested that the whole Essendon saga had been so incompetently handled by the AFL post the Evans resignation and the Hird coup, that the WADA action had painted them into a corner, which is reported to have caused some board members to consider removing themselves from the WADA protocols. To this Chris replied if they do that then I will send all his Dees club gear back and not support the AFL. That was what I was agreeing with. What I was saying I didn't agree with was that they should be considering this move in the first place. Sorry to all the demonlanders for the confusion and my red face. I promise to be more vigilant in the future. The amended post reads the following: "Chris, Your sentiments are laudable. Any move by the AFL in this direction by the AFL I have no doubt would disillusion many many supporters, let alone the Federal Government. It would be extremely stupid if it happened, but I think it is a measure of the desperation of the AFL they may be even considering it. The whole issue post Evans sacking and Hird's coup, has been handled appallingly by the AFL, and have continuously given in to Hird's grandstanding and propaganda., and it has come back to bite them big time. Unfortunately the competition may be hurt in the meantime, which they have largely brought on themselves. . None of this reflects well on Gillon Mclaughlan who as 2IC of the AFL had charge of this process, and now of course oversees it as CEO. I would not be surprised to see heads roll at the AFL as a result of this debacle, and Gillon should be first in line"

Chris, Your sentiments are laudable. Any move by the AFL in this direction by the AFL I have no doubt would disillusion many many supporters, let alone the Federal Government. It would be extremely stupid if it happened, but I think it is a measure of the desperation of the AFL they may be even considering it. The whole issue post Evans sacking and Hird's coup, has been handled appallingly by the AFL, and have continuously given in to Hird's grandstanding and propaganda., and it has come back to bite them big time. Unfortunately the competition may be hurt in the meantime, which they have largely brought on themselves. . None of this reflects well on Gillon McLaughlan who as 2IC of the AFL had charge of this process, and now of course oversees it as CEO. I would not be surprised to see heads roll at the AFL as a result of this debacle, and Gillon should be first in line.

Not directl bias no - but their view about burden of proof was certainly an issue. For example, as Gerard Whatekey said the other night, if CAS had have adopted the same burden of proof against Lance Armstrong as the AFL Tribunal required of ASADA, then Armstrong would never have been found guilty. If that is bias, then yes they are guilty of bias. For me, I prefer to see it as a particular interpretation of the rules, which I'm am sure the AFL were very much aware they would adopt it when they appointed them, which guaranteed the outcome they were looking for. Fortunately, it is not CAS's normal burden of proof, and won't be when the international Arbitrators take their place in the coming CAS hearing into the Essendon case. As whateley also said, "the adults have now arrived, and this is getting serious" . To which I say "here her - at last!"

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Tribunal members were corrupt as such, but it is possible to chose Tribunal members who you know agree with you to ensure the outcome you want ( have a look at the ABBOTT Government - they are expert at it!). The thing about CAS is for the first time in this whole affair it will be out of the control of the AFL which is the thing that scares them all the most. CAS will purely look at the case on the facts, and make judgements accordingly, without taking into account the wider issues of the interests of the competition as a whole (see my entry #540 on here where I canvass the implications of this at length). It is also the reason I suggest the AFL board are rumoured to be contemplating removing themselves from the WADA protocols -a catastrophe for the AFL and Australian sport in general if ever I have heard it if it happens. I'm sure wiser heads will prevail... CAS will behave as they are required to do under their charter, ie enforce the WADA code without fear or favour. And that is as it should be. In the long term I have no doubt there will be substantial benefits for the AFL and its clubs by maintaining the integrity of its competition through WADA/CAS. It is just there is a good deal of pain to go through in the meantime.

I notice on here recently that many are calling for Essendon to be suspended for 2-4 years or banned altogether. I think we should be a bit careful what we wish for. A ban on Essendon would dismantle the economics of our game, unravel media rights particular at a time when they are up for renegotiation, and of the rules that the AFL has carefully built up over the years to make the competition more equitable and frankly more interesting. I'm not sure any of us wants that to happen. It also may explain why the AFL has been so manipulative in this exercise in an effort to protect the economics of the game. But this must not, and cannot be through allowing rouge elements to get away with cheating, or defiance of drug rules as set out in the WADA code. I am definitely not making excuses or softening the need to have those responsible for this appalling situation at Essendon punished. The WADA/CAS process must take its course in accordance with the WADA code. Let's assume though as a result of the appeal to CAS, a portion (more than 3) of the players were to be banned for 2 years. This then gives grounds for Essendon as a whole to receive the same treatment. I'm not entirely certain the mechanism for doing this but I have an idea the sentences are the responsibility for the code itself through its own Tribunals, but they must satisfy CAS they are reasonable and commensurate with the crime. This may leave therefore some room for negotiation. It this were the case, what would be reasonable, but also protect the future of the AFL itself? How about something like this? A. Essendon admit their responsibility for this affair, and apologise to the broader football community for bringing the game into disrepute, and putting their players health at risk, and apologise to the broader Australian sporting public for tarnishing the good name of Australian sport; B. Hird, and his key staff get life bans, some of the Board including Little resign, and basically rebuild the club from within. The new administration would then have to undertake to put in place a governance regime reflecting the WADA code and best practice risk management; and C. Essendon continue playing in the AFL but with a revised list minus the banned players. Meantime, WorkSafe continue their investigation and have the cards fall as they may. The rest will be worked out in the courts as the legal actions from players, the Hirds, and the agents commence and conclude, no doubt costing the club tens of millions of dollars. Hopefully, by the end of all this there will be a viable AFL competition, a contrite, consierably poorer Essendon, and a wiser AFL which understands the need for modern risk management practices in itself and its clubs. And there is a firm reaffirmation of the AFL's commitment to, and championing of, the WADA codes across all Australian sport. Maybe some good could come out of all yet.

I think at times in this saga Whateley, who I think is one of the better sports commentators in the country, particularly when he is on the ABC, has been seduced by the dollars he earns at Foxtel. To keep that going he has to get on with Robbo. However, once WADA appeared, to me his body language was a classic. It was as if he was able to return to his true self, and state without fear or favour, what he knew to be true: ie Hird has been lying and cheating and at last he can call that out for what it is on high rating Foxtel. The fact that his first words about this were: "the adults have at last taken charge" I think says it all. In closing, he said "I have a real feeling about this that it changes everything" or words to that effect. So decisive were his comments that even Robbo was semi reasonable. Maybe the explanation is simple. As professional journalists they cannot afford to continue to defend the indefensible. If so, wait for the edifice, constructed by the Hird PR Machine and millions of dollars, to quickly collapse, as their tame journalists quickly try and get on the right side of history. Oh, what a wonderful sight it will be...

Samantha Lane in the Age this morning has really nailed the true essence of what has happened in the last 36 hours http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wada-appeal-a-good-outcome-for-those-who-care-about-clean-sport-20150512-ggzft8.html I think that is the best article I have read explaining dispassionately why the WADA appeal is so important and why it should be seen as a blessing not a curse. Let's hope some rusted on dons fanatics read it and take note. Robbo anyone? Now that would be asking a lot! He wouldn't understand it anyway - far too sophisticated arguments for him!

There are a number of posts here with conflicting information about the various bodies right to supoena witnesses. For what it is worth, and it is not entirely clear to me either, is they can but need the support of the local judicial system. My understanding was they are still waiting for the Abbott government to enact legislation for this, which has been in recent months the subject of savage attacks on the Government about this from Coates and Fehey in the media. It is now thought that this is likely to be completed before the CAS starts in 6 or so months time. No doubt the gun lawyers amongst us can clarify. In any case, I predict there will be a number of civil actions stemming from the players and the workcover cases, and in them they will be surely able to supenure witnesses. This could go on for years...I suggest the retired Essendon player agents are right now dusting off their legal advices...and Workcover are about to knock on that Tullarmarine door.

. Yes, look under the list of cases in the CAS website. They were minor and dismissed on technicalities, neither of which apply here

I can tell you Evans, the AFL, ASADA, and their PR and a legal advisors just about had a settlement across the line in 2013 to the satisfaction of everyone except James Hird. He, along with Doc Reid, would have had to have admit guilt and resign. Instead, he stabbed his "best friend" Evans in the back, brought in Little and went on an orgy of litigation purely to save his own neck, and buggar the welfare of the players, Evans (who subsequently had a nervous breakdown) and Essendon. For him now to say continually "it is all about the players and always has been" is staggeringly hypocritical. I think Whateley knows that and at last was calling him out on it.

Have a look at Crikey, they have posted some rippers on this subject over the last couple of years. They are very close to some of the players close to ASADA.

WADA see this as a test which they need to take to its logical conclusion for a number of reasons:a. it is in the biggest sport in Australia, which has up until recently had super power status when it comes to governance in sport. Basically they think if major powerful sports can get way with this stuff in Australia, then they can anywhere; b. in their belief the doping was so extensive, and so long term, that if they can't enforce it here they never will; c. several of their seminal principles were flagrantly broken: destroying evidence, possibly bribing witnesses; and d.trying to stop the local affiliate (ASADA) investigation through trivial and unwinnable court cases for the sole purpose of delaying the case, and then trying to use the delay as a means of discrediting their local affiliate. They are ropable about all four of these points. In my view, just one of them would have been sufficient justification in their eyes to enforce the sports laws.