What happens if I ring up an MP and ask about a law they have voted on, and they tell me "no worries go for it that's not illegal, but check with the police". The cop says "that is not prohibited under that section, no". You call a judge who, on the sly, says he'd never put anyone away on a charge under that section of the law. You ask your own lawyer, she gives the opinion that it is not illegal.
You're still done for if you then go and do something that is actually illegal under the Act! You are expected to operate under the law as laid down, not under other verbal advice. (
Lance Uppercut check with your legal friends.)
The rules are the rules. A phone conversation does not change the rules.
Every drug a club gives to players should have a compliance check that includes EVERY section of the code. In writing. Not a "she'll be right mate" phone call!
This is an organisation with about $65 million in revenue. Yet they are expecting us to accept they should not be held to account when they have less oversight than a regional school lawn bowls comp.
The Essendon Football Club ran a "pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club".
How can anyone defend this?
The common answer is that anyone would defend their club in this case. Rubbish. Most people would be (and are) appalled when their club acts so dishonestly or poorly.
This is a cult of James Hird and nothing more. There will be a huge number of Essendon supporters in massive shock when reality finally hits home.
I feel that I have repeated this a few times so I'll leave it for a week or two.