Saga should be over soon.

[LoungeLizard]

Thanks for your response confirming you have no answers to the questions.

Oh did you ask me a serious question?
All those questions that you asked were already answered, by you, remember?

 

[Tomjas00]

definitely a game of bluff
the Cronulla players blinked in exchange for non-punishments
hopefully, the Essendon players won't be so quick to blink

Cronulla players are free to play in 2015 with little/no stigma attached to them

 

[tesla1962]

What is the general consensus about the penalties that the Essendon players will get? Are we talking a few matches? Half a season? a year?

It might be the same as the general consensus was about the AOD penalties teehee
But seriously, why would you rely on the HTB for sensible advice about likely penalties?

 

[Tomjas00]

Essendon thought it had a good case, and it lost, it happens
not everyone can be like Clive Palmer, MP, who boasts that he has never lost a court case
rather than paying too much money, maybe Essendon didn't pay enough?

Have a look at Palmer's record - he rarely wins, just claims that he would have done so had he appealed so, according to him, he has never lost

 

[Gigantor]

Cronulla players are free to play in 2015 with little/no stigma attached to them

true, so it might be unfair to describe it as "blinking", but rather engaging in a mutually beneficial arrangement

 

[Gigantor]

I have to agree fully with you.
This whole sage is all make believe, ASADA made all this crap up.
ASADA offered the EFC players 6 month bans, they absolutely loath rugby, they offered them 12 month bans.
The reason he denied the requests, is he knows he is beaten, and this is his last stuff you moment.
All in all ASADA are the most corrupt, incompetent agency in Oz, blowed if i know how they got the court to rule in their favor

Edit: just thought about the deals, maybe ASADA had a 6month per drug sale on,

in fairness, bobby is not making the case that it is all make believe
he is making the case that the sequence of events points to ASADA trying to make the very best out of a poor to average hand

 

[Gigantor]

Have a look at Palmer's record - he rarely wins, just claims that he would have done so had he appealed so, according to him, he has never lost

fair enough, I thought I read somewhere that refers to law suits as his hobby, etc

 

[Argy]

Okay, I'll bight.

I assume personal insults (apparently ok to be made by Essendon haters) are all you have.

If the evidence is sufficient:
Why do you think the original SCNs came with offers of 4 or 5 match bans?

They didn't.

Why were the SCNs amended, making further delay, to include evidence when there are thousands of posts on this forum declaring that evidence is not required with SCNs?

ASADA knew a legal challenge was likely to the first SCNs so it kept its powder dry.

Why will Ben not agree with the players request (consistent with the NAD Scheme) for the evidence to be submitted to the ADRVP by Thursday (ie after the SCNs have expired)?

Because the players may elect not to go to the ADRVP. They have 28 days after being placed on the Register of Findings to decide.

ASADA should not pre-empt the process; especially given the litigious nature of Hird, et al, who (I'm sure you remember) is taking legal action against ASADA for what he think was a failure of process 18 months ago.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

The reason they didn't hand it over when offering deals was because the evidence has barely changed, they bluffed and the players did not blink.

They claim it was because of Hird's court case

They have given a summary now and Hird's court case is still ongoing, ...... surprise surprise ....no new evidence.

ASADA has wasted plenty of time and money waiting for new evidence to appear, time wasters of the biggest magnitude.

The Rayney case in Perth could have done with this time and money.

No, the more likely reason they didn't hand over any evidence with SCN V1 was:

1. They are not required to &,
2. Maybe they had just the tiniest idea that EFC might take them to court and thought it may not be prudent not to do so - goodness knows EFC had threatened all and sundry previously.

Very clearly once the Court papers were lodged, then it was totally reasonable to follow the process that EFC & Hird put in place.

As part of the Court process EFC got hold of some information. The lawyers for the players are now saying that the SCN V2 summary of evidence is the same as what was discovered in the Court process. Yep, OK but Big deal.

ASADA have not wasted time - under staffed for a massive investigation - Yep wasted time - nup, that my friend is EFC et al.

When you think about it, nothing has really changed for SCN V1. Notices are still issued - players still need to respond and the process follows from there.

 

[Kwality]

The AFLPA trying to pressure ASADA is doing nothing for the interests of the players, just a PR exercise to pump up their own tyres.

 

[eldorado]

We now know to a level of comfortable satisfaction that there is insufficient evidence establishing that the 34 players used TB4.

Do we? Cool!

I guess it's all over then. Well done, Essendon, on your vindication and complete exoneration...

(I'd write more, but I want to find out out more about this latest development before I go on...)

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

What a load of tripe. We now know nothing further about the evidence than we did previously. You are basing you opinion purely on the opinions of lawyers who so far is representing the players and Essendon have shown themselves to be either incompetent, delusional or deceitful.

Wish I could like it twice.

 

[Argy]

...
As part of the Court process EFC got hold of some information. The lawyers for the players are now saying that the SCN V2 summary of evidence is the same as what was discovered in the Court process. Yep, OK but Big deal.
...

Actually, it is potentially a big deal. EFC/Hird discovered that information on the condition of privacy. The fact that EFC/Hird have leaked it to the players indicates that they might be in contempt of court.

 

[Tomjas00]

fair enough, I thought I read somewhere that refers to law suits as his hobby, etc

He's a bully that uses lawsuits as a "negotiating tactic"

Worked ok when he was taking on little guys that couldn't afford expensive representation but, unfortunately for him, many are now calling his bluff and his entities have suffered some major setbacks of late e.g. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...sused-12-million/story-fnihsrf2-1227097932805

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Actually, it is potentially a big deal. EFC/Hird discovered that information on the condition of privacy. The fact that EFC/Hird have leaked it to the players indicates that they might be in contempt of court.

Well, as I understand it some of the lawyers acting for EFC also act for some players. I am pretty sure that one of the legal eagles ( Baldur ??)here had noted that using the information legally obtained would be quite ok. Indeed it would be pretty difficult not to do so. Happy to be corrected , but that was my memory of it.

 

[good4footy]

The AFLPA trying to pressure ASADA is doing nothing for the interests of the players, just a PR exercise to pump up their own tyres.

To coin a phrase from a couple of muppets posting rubbish...'we now know'/ 'it is now apparent' that the AFLPA have seen the evidence and know the players are in trouble. Their public musings are only an attempt to to try and build a public case that ASADA delayed the process despite the players desire to move quickly. AFLPA aim is to argue a substantial backdated scenario....they are in damage control.

As i said 'we now know this' / 'it is now apparent' that this is the case.

 

[GROTTO]

It might be the same as the general consensus was about the AOD penalties teehee
But seriously, why would you rely on the HTB for sensible advice about likely penalties?

Im not after advice, just an opinion from others on here.

FWIW, I think the players will miss the 2015 season and rightfully so. It will send a very loud and clear message to all AFL players.

 

[fabulousphil]

Okay, I'll bight.

They didn't.

ASADA knew a legal challenge was likely to the first SCNs so it kept its powder dry.

Because the players may elect not to go to the ADRVP. They have 28 days after being placed on the Register of Findings to decide.

ASADA should not pre-empt the process; especially given the litigious nature of Hird, et al, who (I'm sure you remember) is taking legal action against ASADA for what he think was a failure of process 18 months ago.

Thats interesting, I actually wonder what his history is regarding litigation, outside of this saga I wonder how many other times he has stepped into court ?.

How many people/parties has he actually taken to court to sue ?.

How many times outside this saga has he actually been to court for anything ?.

Do you know, because you now claim he is litigious in nature ?.

Perhaps he will now sue you for defamation

 

[Argy]

Thats interesting, I actually wonder what his history is regarding litigation, outside of this saga I wonder how many other times he has stepped into court ?.

How many people/parties has he actually taken to court to sue ?.

How many times outside this saga has he actually been to court for anything ?.

Do you know, because you now claim he is litigious in nature ?.

Perhaps he will now sue you for defamation

Hird has shown a determination to use the courts to suppress the evidence and derail ASADA. He has attacked them over process and he is continuing to do so right now. He has publicly said he is doing this for the players. Why would ASADA want to depart from normal process when doing so could give him an opportunity to "do it for the players" again?

 

[imperial_oz]

Im not after advice, just an opinion from others on here.

FWIW, I think the players will miss the 2015 season and rightfully so. It will send a very loud and clear message to all AFL players.

Its hard to know where this will end up with some many different agendas in play.

If we follow the 'published' rules then any player that is actually convicted of an anti-doping violation will get 2 years suspension that starts from the time that player actually commences his suspension ie when the IN is issued. Suspension at that point is provisional but on conviction becomes part of the 2 years outlined in the code.

Ok from that factor in the AFL's agenda in not wanting a marquee club reduced to a suburban grade club overnight. I'm not sure that the AFL is all that concerned about the players but having Essendon's earning ability shot to bits for a few years will impact on the AFL's bottom line. The AFLPA has its agenda also and the media campaign it has started waging may have an impact also.

ASADA / WADA would have a potential agenda of wanting to attack the root cause of this problem ie the people who created the 'supplements' scheme and may be willing to agree to reduced penalties in order to get closer to knocking off the 'Mr Bigs' and that may or may not include Hird, Corcoran, Robinson, Reid, Thompson etc.

Alternatively, the players may not get any conviction at all if the evidence doesn't stand up.

To be honest, I just don't think that anybody could have an accurate idea of where this will end up because there is too much that isn't known, in spite of the cheerleaders saying 'it is now clear that.....'

So, if convicted, start with 2 years from the date of the INs and work your way down from there.

 

[GROTTO]

So, if convicted, start with 2 years from the date of the INs and work your way down from there.

Great reply thanks. When was the date of the IN?

 

[imperial_oz]

Great reply thanks. When was the date of the IN?

Not been issued yet.

Infraction Notices get issued by the AFL after the ADVRP has met and decided there has been a possible anti-doping violation. They refer the matter to the AFL General Counsel, who after reviewing the evidence, is satisfied that an anti-doping violation has possibly occurred, then the INs will be issued by the AFL at that point. We haven't got to that point yet and under the current system, if all avenues of appeal are used, we may be more than a year away from getting there.

 

[GROTTO]

if all avenues of appeal are used, we may be more than a year away from getting there.

In which by that time, one or more of the players careers may have ended/retired by then?

 

[imperial_oz]

In which by that time, one or more of the players careers may have ended/retired by then?

That is certainly a possiblity and indeed appears to be a desired outcome by some.

 

[fabulousphil]

Hird has shown a determination to use the courts to suppress the evidence and derail ASADA. He has attacked them over process and he is continuing to do so right now. He has publicly said he is doing this for the players. Why would ASADA want to depart from normal process when doing so could give him an opportunity to "do it for the players" again?

Your right, he is very determined.

Pretty sure he thought the process was flawed from day one.

I think he has been quite underestimated.

And IMO it appears to be heading to the point where he will be vindicated.