No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[DonsRule]

End of the day, I'd support the players 100% in what they choose to do. If they choose to deal, they have my full support, I think it means the end of Hird though, I think he was involved enough to have to go, even if he wasn't guilty persay. I just think all senior staff would have to walk. If the players preference is for Hird to walk, he IMO has no other chose there either.

I definitely thin we have to avoid any more court action on all of this. Answer the SCN and move on with what comes of them.

The only way I would support an appeal to court (even then it is tentative), is if it has full player support.

 

[carnthedons]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

So little is known about who did what.

If it's a governance failing, then everyone from Dank upwards in an org chart is gone.

I'm increasingly inclined to believe that while James wanted the players to be bigger, stronger, faster etc, the control and management of the individuals was not up to him. The media bloodlust is all that has meant he needs to be gone.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

End of the day, I'd support the players 100% in what they choose to do. If they choose to deal, they have my full support

I can't support that.

If they deal, they're either drug cheats, or people who lack the moral fibre to stand up for themselves.

 

[Harlequin]

Bloody expensive "free hit"...

As it turned out it was a very expensive hit however there has been commentary on here around insurance covering this to some extent.
I have found the hardest part of Friday's verdict has been around the evidence itself.
The evidence presented from Andruska et al has highlighted the corruption employed by the AFL and Asada in the handling of our case. Andruska came out as incompetent, the notation 'guilty until proven guilty' speaks for itself.
The finding against us has now taken the pressure off the AFL and Asada in light of their poor and perhaps corrupt handling and focuses on us as ******* up by going down. And as to the average Joe they have forgotten the short comings found in the Asada and afl case.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

So little is known about who did what.

If it's a governance failing, then everyone from Dank upwards in an org chart is gone.

I'm increasingly inclined to believe that while James wanted the players to be bigger, stronger, faster etc, the control and management of the individuals was not up to him. The media bloodlust is all that has meant he needs to be gone.

And funnily enough every single person up the org chart from Dank to the Chairman is gone.

 

[2one2]

Sorry mate, I didn't mean for that to come off as sounding arrogant or anything. Apologies if it did. Much respect to you and all fellow posters.
For me, I'm done on this subject. I've simply had enough. For me to gain any further enjoyment from watching football I need my club to be free of this.
That's just not happening. I'm not listening to the media (they can go get fkd). I'm not listening to the nay sayers on here.
I'm just saying all in all, I'm done on this. All the best.

I understand - I can't actually talk about football with anyone anymore, least of all people who I meet for the first time who ask me who I barrack for - the conversation goes downhill from that point.

It is really tough being a supporter at the moment, but if we stick fat and call these deals what they are - a limp dick end-justifies-means bluff - then we will not only be able to enjoy the footy again, but we can talk about it too.

If you haven't already, have a look at the press that came after the sharks players took deals. It certainly wasn't "over" for them. Ben McDevitt in fact said that "now it is proven" they cheated, Rebecca Wilson went full *en idiot on SEN - the players were villains. The length of the penalty was challenged by all and sundry.

Ben McDenis prefaced all of his interviews after SCNs were released with "I love sport but I hate cheats".
If anything tells you that this olive branch 3 months is a bogus means of simply getting the scalp for ASADA themselves so they can "just finish this" it's that statement. Otherwise, why not get those 2 year bans for the putrid cheats, Ben?

 

[Whispering_Jack]

As it turned out it was a very expensive hit however there has been commentary on here around insurance covering this to some extent.
I have found the hardest part of Friday's verdict has been around the evidence itself.
The evidence presented from Andruska et al has highlighted the corruption employed by the AFL and Asada in the handling of our case. Andruska came out as incompetent, the notation 'guilty until proven guilty' speaks for itself.
The finding against us has now taken the pressure off the AFL and Asada in light of their poor and perhaps corrupt handling and focuses on us as ******* up by going down. And as to the average Joe they have forgotten the short comings found in the Asada and afl case.

Yeah, I think we got a lot of very nice information out of the court case and for a while there the tide was turning against ASADA and the AFL, so that was good. I was just pointing out that the term "free hit" is a bit off. It was worth persuing because it could have short circuited the whole thing.

 

[carnthedons]

And funnily enough every single person up the org chart from Dank to the Chairman is gone.

Yeah that was what I meant, poorly phrased it though.

 

[westking]

Bloody expensive "free hit"...

Money is money, there is always time to catch up. In fact the club has been strong financially and will recover. There is also the arguement, its better to be in a little debt then having bid sums off surplus cash.
Anyway, there are more important things at stake here, and if those people with knowledge think its best to appeal then we appeal. We want the truth on this one, unfortunatley we are left alone trying to find that.

 

[DonsRule]

I can't support that.

If they deal, they're either drug cheats, or people who lack the moral fibre to stand up for themselves.

I respect that, but they are the ones dealing with all of this not us.

 

[2one2]

It will reduce a lot. You're naive if you don't think it will.

Hird was the architect of this program from the start. I'm not saying he was the architect of anything illegal, but it's indisputable he was the architect of the supplements program. He is the key figure in all this. If he's no longer there the pressure drops significantly.

FWIW I think Little should be under a hell of a lot more pressure than he appears to be too.

James "Peptype" Hird: Supplement Architect

 

[ManWithNoName]

I can't support that.

If they deal, they're either drug cheats, or people who lack the moral fibre to stand up for themselves.

Really easy to say from the outside.

 

[2one2]

So little is known about who did what.

If it's a governance failing, then everyone from Dank upwards in an org chart is gone.

I'm increasingly inclined to believe that while James wanted the players to be bigger, stronger, faster etc, the control and management of the individuals was not up to him. The media bloodlust is all that has meant he needs to be gone.

But don't forget the texts where Hird says "sounds good m8" to
Steven Dank. Architect

 

[Stopher]

Believing that is just naive.

Do you honestly think that so-called journos who are able to write 1-2 articles a week (if not more) at 30 minutes' work a pop (no research, no quotes, just grandstanding) will suddenly stop and go back to doing hard work? No, of course not. They'll go after Little, they'll go after Watson, they'll go after Thompson.

Yep. These people don't see themselves as reporters of the game, but as part of the game itself. The purple flog signing a ******* football sums up the AFL media in one picture. To them, more clicks means more exposure, more awards, more VALIDATION. That is what they want more than anything.

And that is the critical element. Should Hird be sacked / resign in a feeble attempt to remove the circus from EFC, it will blow up in the club's face, as his removal would only stand to validate these campaigners that they were right all along. What possible motivation would they have to stop?? As BTG just said, it'd be onto the next figurehead of the club.

When you see smaller-minded, hate-filled simpletons genuinely wanting to see Essendon kicked out of the league, and these same simpletons are the ones fuelling the club's assassination by clicking on these s**t articles, filling talkback with their drivel....in short, when there is still blood to be squeezed out of this, why would pricks like Wilson, Barrett and co simply dust their hands off and say 'Yep, I think that'll do.'??

It's a disgusting power game to these people and to them this scandal is, to quote Rufus Buckley, 'the one we've been waiting for.'

 

[westking]

ust want to re-emphasise just how bad an idea this appeal would be.

If, by some stroke of unimaginable luck, we got a sympathetic full bench of the Federal Court (which would be the next stage for an appeal) there is no way that ASADA would not appeal that decision to the High Court.

ASADA would almost certainly be granted special leave by the High Court on the grounds that a ruling against this investigation would undermine its ability to exercise its functions under the legislation casting doubt on its capacity to ever establish circumstantial cases against drug cheats which clearly requires the use of the contractual powers sports governing bodies have to compel cooperation.

You're then looking at years for the matter to be resolved. I would not have thought delaying the outcome for that period of time would suit anyone.

Thanks for the explanation. I admit I have a very limited understanding how it could play out. Im just coming from the angle that it seems the club has been bullied into a corner and to accept blame for something that did not occur. I do not trust the AFL nor ASADA. Answering the SC notices, to me feels like we will be down on our knees waiting for the inevitiable.

 

[letstayunited]

Yes but then if an appeal fails will the players know where they stand by rd 1 next year?

Unsure, but even if they don't appeal I'm not sure they'll know by round 1. Problem with appealing is the public pressure and pressure from other clubs/AFL. Shouldn't be about that though.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I respect that, but they are the ones dealing with all of this not us.

That's fine, it's their choice, but choices have consequences.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

They way i read it now is there are 2 options.

1. Bend over and accept deals.
2. Take the SCN's on and battle for 2 years.

If we take the SCN's on then the ADRVP have pretty much no choice but too push it forward and say lets test this evidence in a proper tribunal. If its got to this stage then we need to fully examine it. We will rely on ASADA's judgement here.

Then ASADA need to assemble cases against each individual and prove that each player took TB4 to a comfortable satisfaction or whatever that s**t is. This process will take minimum 3 months for even the first player to get in front of the tribunal. This will happen all through next year. It will probably go into 2016 also.

If players honestly believe they didn't do anything wrong and accept deals then I will have not trust every in this playing group. If they are quitters at this stage then they'll be quitters on the football field.

I'm prepared for a long fight.

 

[cymarak]

They way i read it now is there are 2 options.

1. Bend over and accept deals.
2. Take the SCN's on and battle for possibly up to as long as 2 years.

EFA.

There are a whole lot of scenarios where we take then SCNs on and it doesn't last 2 years, most notably if the ADRVP decides there's not enough solid evidence to proceed.

Presumably the evidence against most / all of the players is very similar, if not exactly the same - so if it got to the AFL tribunal stage, the first case would be critical. If the first case resulted in ASADA losing, why would any of the other cases go any differently ? So if ASADA lost the first case, it might decide to withdraw / discontinue action for the other cases.

EDIT: not sure what powers - if any - ASADA and / or the AFL has to withdraw a case once infraction notices have been issued, but the cases could become fait accomplis - i.e. just a rubber stamp for a decision everyone expects.

 

[carnthedons]

They way i read it now is there are 2 options.

1. Bend over and accept deals.
2. Take the SCN's on and battle for 2 years.

If we take the SCN's on then the ADRVP have pretty much no choice but too push it forward and say lets test this evidence in a proper tribunal. If its got to this stage then we need to fully examine it. We will rely on ASADA's judgement here.

Then ASADA need to assemble cases against each individual and prove that each player took TB4 to a comfortable satisfaction or whatever that s**t is. This process will take minimum 3 months for even the first player to get in front of the tribunal. This will happen all through next year. It will probably go into 2016 also.

If players honestly believe they didn't do anything wrong and accept deals then I will have not trust every in this playing group. If they are quitters at this stage then they'll be quitters on the football field.

I'm prepared for a long fight.

If I'm a player and I get the choice of labelling myself a drug cheat permanently, I'm picking the other option pretty much no matter what it is.

 

[DonsRule]

That's fine, it's their choice, but choices have consequences.

Oh, I undertand that. And I feel because of the Sharks caes where they are largely labled drug cheats. But I think very few of us know what it is rally like to be living like tat atm.

 

[BrunoV]

It will reduce a lot. You're naive if you don't think it will.

Hird was the architect of this program from the start. I'm not saying he was the architect of anything illegal, but it's indisputable he was the architect of the supplements program. He is the key figure in all this. If he's no longer there the pressure drops significantly.

FWIW I think Little should be under a hell of a lot more pressure than he appears to be too.

Sorry but that's just contradictory rubbish that the public at large has been managed to believe.

Whether or not Hird's architecture somehow contributed to the breach of duty owed to the players is the whole point. You then need to determine whether there was a breach by Hird that caused damage to the players because it may be that it did not materially contribute to anything and that any penalty beyond his 1 year suspension would be "cracking a peanut with a sledgehammer". Why do you think he is pushing, to what I'll admit is the point of stupidity if he does appeal Middleton J's decision, so hard to clear his name?

The real world is so much more complicated than the "where there's smoke there's fire" lowest common denominator garbage that I hear so often. You can't just generalise because it is the specific circumstances of each case that are more important than anything else.


Hird has been set up as the fall guy from day one because the EFC and the AFL were not thorough enough and believed they could deal their way out of this, which they can't. It has not even been confirmed that the deals offered to Cronulla players will not be challenged by WADA.

Any suggestion that the removal of Hird would in anyway have lessened the the penalties we have received or that it could influence the outcome as far as ASADA is concerned is ******* dishonest.

As long as the EFC stakeholders, being the players, members, fans and sponsors, are all satisfied EFC should be doing much more to stand by its coach and any of its people for that matter.

Hird should never go unless he has proven to have failed his players. He's our ******* coach and we choose whether he stays or goes, not the AFL and not the media at the behest of the AFL.

If we buckle to the pressure I don't think I'll ever look at the club the same way again.

 

[lenny2013]

They way i read it now is there are 2 options.

1. Bend over and accept deals.
2. Take the SCN's on and battle for 2 years.

If we take the SCN's on then the ADRVP have pretty much no choice but too push it forward and say lets test this evidence in a proper tribunal. If its got to this stage then we need to fully examine it. We will rely on ASADA's judgement here.

Then ASADA need to assemble cases against each individual and prove that each player took TB4 to a comfortable satisfaction or whatever that s**t is. This process will take minimum 3 months for even the first player to get in front of the tribunal. This will happen all through next year. It will probably go into 2016 also.

If players honestly believe they didn't do anything wrong and accept deals then I will have not trust every in this playing group. If they are quitters at this stage then they'll be quitters on the football field.

I'm prepared for a long fight.

Who determines the result of our response to the scn's, I thought ASADA?

When answering scn's are we innocent until proven guilty or guilty until we prove yourself innocent?

I know when dealing with the ATO your guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Sorry but that's just contradictory rubbish that the public at large has been managed to believe.

Whether or not Hird's architecture somehow contributed to the breach of duty owed to the players that is where the case against him starts and finishes. You then need to determine whether there was a breach by Hird that caused damage to the players. Why do you think he is pushing, to what I'll admit is the point of stupidity if he does appeal Middleton J's decision, so hard to clear his name?

The real world is so much more complicated than the "where there's smoke there's fire" lowest common denominator garbage that I hear so often.


Hird has been set up as the fall guy from day one because the EFC and the AFL were not thorough enough and believed they could deal their way out of this, which they can't. It has not even been confirmed that the deals offered to Cronulla players will not be challenged by WADA.

Any suggestion that the removal of Hird would in anyway have lessened the the penalties we have received or that it could influence the outcome as far as ASADA is concerned is ******* dishonest.

As long as the EFC stakeholders, being the players, members, fans and sponsors, are all satisfied EFC should be doing much more to stand by its coach and any of its people for that matter.

Hird should never go unless he has proven to have failed his players. He's our ******* coach and we choose whether he stays or goes, not the AFL and not the media at the behest of the AFL.

If we buckle to the pressure I don't think I'll ever look at the club the same way again.

Where did I say anything about the penalties? That's not what I was talking about.

 

[boncer34]

Because (barring a successful appeal, as I mentioned), the court case was our shot at killing ASADA's case at the SCN stage, and we lost.

No it wasn't.

You do know what the case was about yeah?