Certified Legendary Thread 34 Essendon* Players suspended for doping violations - No opposition fans. Check OP for thread rules

[King of Ruin]

EFA

It's cute you think I have an actual post tally.

We all know, it's all s**t!

 

[__Bobcat__]

He's sleepin'

Not for LONG!!!!!!!

 

[Big Sim]

Its almost seen as a fait accompli that the players will get the two years reduced down to 12 months (and then backdated) due to the 'no significant fault or negligence defence'.

I'm not so sure. The case law is mixed on the subject, and different cases have gone different ways, but it seems to me to contain one constant; the standard is much higher when it comes to inadvertent doping linked to performance enhancement instead of inadvertent doping due to medical stuff ups.

My gut is telling me ASADA will appeal a 12 month sentence. They would probably leave 18 months or more alone.

You are right Malifice. I like many others foresee the 12 month reduction for no significant fault and 6 months for significant assistance only courtesy of an AFL fix, and as fixing things has been the modus operandi of the AFL forever and a day I can't see how it has changed. Vlad has gone but his protege is in and until he proves otherwise he has just taken the baton and kept running Vlad's race.

ASADA will appeal such a result, however. They simply have to.

 

[hoddo22]

Its almost seen as a fait accompli that the players will get the two years reduced down to 12 months (and then backdated) due to the 'no significant fault or negligence defence'.

I'm not so sure. The case law is mixed on the subject, and different cases have gone different ways, but it seems to me to contain one constant; the standard is much higher when it comes to inadvertent doping linked to performance enhancement instead of inadvertent doping due to medical stuff ups.

My gut is telling me ASADA will appeal a 12 month sentence. They would probably leave 18 months or more alone.

Andruska statement after the interim report was handed down went something like this -" the evidence so far suggests that the defence of no fault, no negligence is unlikely to be established by any player"

No substantial assistance either due to supporting court action. It's either not guilty or two years.

 

[Malifice]

Andruska statement after the interim report was handed down went something like this -" the evidence so far suggests that the defence of no fault, no negligence is unlikely to be established by any player"

No substantial assistance either due to supporting court action. It's either not guilty or two years.

To be fair she was referring to the 'no fault' defence which is different to the 'no significant fault' defence.

No chance of the players relying on no fault. And in my view I'm not persuaded they can comfortably rely on the no significant fault defence either (although it's not totally clear cut).

I'm leaning towards an 18 month ban personally.

 

[Malifice]

You are right Malifice. I like many others foresee the 12 month reduction for no significant fault and 6 months for significant assistance only courtesy of an AFL fix, and as fixing things has been the modus operandi of the AFL forever and a day I can't see how it has changed. Vlad has gone but his protege is in and until he proves otherwise he has just taken the baton and kept running Vlad's race.

ASADA will appeal such a result, however. They simply have to.

The AFL doping rules only allow the AFL to apply the 'substantial assistance' reduction if WADA agree first. Which WADA won't.

And while I share your cynicism, the anti doping tribunal contains members independent of the AFL. Plus ASADA can appeal to the CAS. It's not like the melbourne 'not tanking' thing or any other wraps on the knuckles the AFL has been involved in. This is out of the AFLs hands now.

If anything the AFL would benefit from smashing Essendon at this point. There is a balance between protecting revenue (bailouts, match day attendances and new TV deal) as a result of looking after essendon, as opposed to protecting revenue by upholding the integrity of the competition as a whole.

I actually get the feeling McLachlan won't be that bothered if they get the full 2 years, as long as the AFL as a competition comes out looking clean and this s**t doesn't happen again.

 

[Sector 7G]

The AFL doping rules only allow the AFL to apply the 'substantial assistance' reduction if WADA agree first. Which WADA won't.

And while I share your cynicism, the anti doping tribunal contains members independent of the AFL. Plus ASADA can appeal to the CAS. It's not like the melbourne 'not tanking' thing or any other wraps on the knuckles the AFL has been involved in. This is out of the AFLs hands now.

If anything the AFL would benefit from smashing Essendon at this point. There is a balance between protecting revenue (bailouts, match day attendances and new TV deal) as a result of looking after essendon, as opposed to protecting revenue by upholding the integrity of the competition as a whole.

I actually get the feeling McLachlan won't be that bothered if they get the full 2 years, as long as the AFL as a competition comes out looking clean and this s**t doesn't happen again.

It will be interesting to see how they go arguing their co-operation was substantial assistance when it was a contractual requirement and they had no choice.

 

[ESKIE]

They signed the consent forms

 

[Funk]

I have noted elsewhere on these boards it appears EFC are getting top up players for the "long haul" not just 3 inconsequential pre-season games.

i.e. they are recruiting mature players - not a bunch of kids.

I suspect they know they have big problems - and are doing their best to prepare for it.

FWIW - I hope they cop a real smacking - 2 years sounds nice!!!

 

[SBYM]

Yeah and how do your Essendon supporter friends feel?

I'm above such childish smut and innuendo...

 

[SBYM]

Not for LONG!!!!!!!

Please don't wake him...the GIMP is scary.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Mods, any chance of letting us know who is the Deleted Post Champion of the Carlton board?

Starchamber

 

[King of Ruin]

You think?

 

[The Flying Doormat]

Before your time

 

[Blue Ratts]

Before your time

Before his time

 

[The Flying Doormat]

I think he ran his own black ops programme

 

[Big Sim]

The AFL doping rules only allow the AFL to apply the 'substantial assistance' reduction if WADA agree first. Which WADA won't.

And while I share your cynicism, the anti doping tribunal contains members independent of the AFL. Plus ASADA can appeal to the CAS. It's not like the melbourne 'not tanking' thing or any other wraps on the knuckles the AFL has been involved in. This is out of the AFLs hands now.

If anything the AFL would benefit from smashing Essendon at this point. There is a balance between protecting revenue (bailouts, match day attendances and new TV deal) as a result of looking after essendon, as opposed to protecting revenue by upholding the integrity of the competition as a whole.

I actually get the feeling McLachlan won't be that bothered if they get the full 2 years, as long as the AFL as a competition comes out looking clean and this s**t doesn't happen again.

Thanks for the intelligent and informed response, much appreciated. Your reasoning is sound and my head agrees with everything you say.

Amazing how ingrained the cynicism about the AFL is in so many of us thanks to shameless fiddling and fixing of everything to do with the sport under AD. I guess this is Gil's opportunity to put his stamp on his regime and draw a line between an accountable future and an unaccountable past. It certainly would make a statement if the tribunal outcome goes by the letter of the law.

As a matter of interest, do you think Hird could survive a players' guilty verdict?

 

[Dramoth]

It's clearly me.

Ask Aphrodite .

numbers has you beat... by a shitload!

 

[Dramoth]

The AFL doping rules only allow the AFL to apply the 'substantial assistance' reduction if WADA agree first. Which WADA won't.

And while I share your cynicism, the anti doping tribunal contains members independent of the AFL. Plus ASADA can appeal to the CAS. It's not like the melbourne 'not tanking' thing or any other wraps on the knuckles the AFL has been involved in. This is out of the AFLs hands now.

If anything the AFL would benefit from smashing Essendon at this point. There is a balance between protecting revenue (bailouts, match day attendances and new TV deal) as a result of looking after essendon, as opposed to protecting revenue by upholding the integrity of the competition as a whole.

I actually get the feeling McLachlan won't be that bothered if they get the full 2 years, as long as the AFL as a competition comes out looking clean and this s**t doesn't happen again.

This is the bit that actually counts now... Gil McLachlan is in charge of cleaning up after the years of hubris left behind by Fat Vlad and his ego. However, he is going to have the TV stations and the sponsors breathing down his neck to protect their revenues and to maintain an 18 team competition. Smashing Essendon* with the ban hammer could conceivably send them broke.

Having to pay players for 2 years, the fines incoming from WorkCover Vic and the lawsuits from the Essendon* sponsors plus having to pay out Tird... isnt going to leave them with much money to operate with and the rest of the clubs arent going to look kindly on the AFL tipping money into the big black hole that will be Essendon* just to keep them alive.

Essendon* are going to be a bigger basketcase than Carlton were for the first 5 years after we got smashed by Evans and Jackson.

Now... where is that ******* popcorn

 

[Malifice]

As a matter of interest, do you think Hird could survive a players' guilty verdict?

Surely the EFC has to move on him. Surely?

 

[Thrawn]

He'll get his shiny new SC notice anyway after the players are dealt with.

 

[SBYM]

As a matter of interest, do you think Hird could survive a players' guilty verdict?

Without doubt he could...

The Bummers' track record since 2/2013 when it comes to accountability/responsibility is a dog's breakfast...

Why would they start making sense now?

Surely they have to, I agree, but surely you wouldn't give a bloke a one-year contract extension as an emotional far-q to the league either...

 

[Stamos]

Surely the EFC has to move on him. Surely?

While Hird is the biggest disgrace to football that there has ever been, and should be given a life ban, it would be somewhat funny to see him coach for 2 years minus 18 banned players.

 

[King of Ruin]

numbers has you beat... by a shitload!

Numbers deletes his own, doesn't count.

 

[Lace_Out]

This is the bit that actually counts now... Gil McLachlan is in charge of cleaning up after the years of hubris left behind by Fat Vlad and his ego. However, he is going to have the TV stations and the sponsors breathing down his neck to protect their revenues and to maintain an 18 team competition. Smashing Essendon* with the ban hammer could conceivably send them broke.

Having to pay players for 2 years, the fines incoming from WorkCover Vic and the lawsuits from the Essendon* sponsors plus having to pay out Tird... isnt going to leave them with much money to operate with and the rest of the clubs arent going to look kindly on the AFL tipping money into the big black hole that will be Essendon* just to keep them alive.

Essendon* are going to be a bigger basketcase than Carlton were for the first 5 years after we got smashed by Evans and Jackson.

Now... where is that ******* popcorn

Problem is they will probably get to keep their 1st & 2nd rd picks after being s**t, unlike us. We copped the worst, they won't do that again.