ASADA issues show-cause notices to Essendon players

[LostDoggy]

Here is a very interesting counter-argument to the CAS decision. It borrows heavily from a piece written by my Bomber-fanatic uncle Darren Moore, and references him at the end of it. I'm not sure whether I agree that an injustice has been done but it does make for interesting reading.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/01/17...erdict-part-1/

[westdog54]

I can only assume there's more to come, because that was hardly a stinging critique.

[Twodogs]

I can only assume there's more to come, because that was hardly a stinging critique.

It's not even the first chip. This is a long way from over.

[merantau]

Hird has more wriggles in hom than a can of worms. Report in today's Age: - Says it was not right for him to accept " full responsibility" , stressing that he did so at the initial media conference only under active advice of public relations consultant Liz Lukin.
"I don't think the senior coach should be responsible for the management of those [medical ] people at all. My level of knowledge of medicine, of the medical department is tiny. I am not a doctor."
But he is an expert in forged documents it seems.
"One of the things I wish I had done better was, Stephen Dank had approved AOD-9604, the supplement everyone thought was the big issue. He went and got the WADA documentation and showed it to Bruce Reid and he approved it and ticked it off." Hird said.
"Dank waved a bit of paper under my nose at training one day and said:"I have got the approval '

"I wish I had got that document, looked at it, checked it's authenticity, because there is a suggestion that the document wasn't authentic, or wasn't what we thought it was, that would set off a number of RED alarm bells (my emphasis. I guess the red alarm bells are more alarming than the GREEN ones) and we would have said, 'That's not what we are doing.'"
Talk about muddying the waters. This guy's writing the manual.

[bornadog]

Hird has more wriggles in hom than a can of worms. Report in today's Age: - Says it was not right for him to accept " full responsibility" , stressing that he did so at the initial media conference only under active advice of public relations consultant Liz Lukin.
"I don't think the senior coach should be responsible for the management of those [medical ] people at all. My level of knowledge of medicine, of the medical department is tiny. I am not a doctor."
But he is an expert in forged documents it seems.
"One of the things I wish I had done better was, Stephen Dank had approved AOD-9604, the supplement everyone thought was the big issue. He went and got the WADA documentation and showed it to Bruce Reid and he approved it and ticked it off." Hird said.
"Dank waved a bit of paper under my nose at training one day and said:"I have got the approval '

"I wish I had got that document, looked at it, checked it's authenticity, because there is a suggestion that the document wasn't authentic, or wasn't what we thought it was, that would set off a number of RED alarm bells (my emphasis. I guess the red alarm bells are more alarming than the GREEN ones) and we would have said, 'That's not what we are doing.'"
Talk about muddying the waters. This guy's writing the manual.

On thing I do agree with Hird, the whole saga is not solely his responsibility. The whole of the Footy Department, the CEO and The Board must take responsibility for this. Everyone is blaming each other very conveniently and even blaming the players.

The whole of the EFC is a bloody joke and the AFL should have been tougher with the penalties way back in February 2013. Personally, I think the club should have been banned from fielding a team for two years and the whole saga would have been over now.

[Ghost Dog]

Here is a very interesting counter-argument to the CAS decision. It borrows heavily from a piece written by my Bomber-fanatic uncle Darren Moore, and references him at the end of it. I'm not sure whether I agree that an injustice has been done but it does make for interesting reading.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/01/17...erdict-part-1/

Really one-eyed article.

He writes
These are the exact words contained in the DCF: “We recommend athletes consider declaring any substance used in the last seven days.” WADA and the CAS have painted this as some shocking omission of something which is mandatory, when quite clearly it is not.

That's for sports drinks and the like. The EFC had an off-site injection program, 4000 needles in a season has been quoted. Clearly this is not what the wording intends to address.

"Problem two – Only 16 players were tested, which is less than half of the 34 charged."
Don't need to take drugs to be suspicious of taking them in sport, (Armstrong ) and then banned. How else can we police and keep sport clean?


I like this comment on Roar.

“If he truly has the courage of his convictions, then it’s absolutely impossible to understand how he hasn’t spent every night of the past three years camped on Dank’s front lawn demanding answers.”

You have to wonder what Dank has on Hird……..

[LostDoggy]

Really one-eyed article.

He writes
These are the exact words contained in the DCF: “We recommend athletes consider declaring any substance used in the last seven days.” WADA and the CAS have painted this as some shocking omission of something which is mandatory, when quite clearly it is not.

That's for sports drinks and the like. The EFC had an off-site injection program, 4000 needles in a season has been quoted. Clearly this is not what the wording intends to address.

"Problem two – Only 16 players were tested, which is less than half of the 34 charged."
Don't need to take drugs to be suspicious of taking them in sport, (Armstrong ) and then banned. How else can we police and keep sport clean?

My fault for being lazy on my iPhone and not being more verbose when I posted the link…

I'm not saying I agree with it at all. Not one iota. I did mention that my uncle is a one-eyed Bomber. I merely find it interesting to see what the "other side" are now hanging their hats on: First it was all totally legal and above board, and they were being stitched up by the AFL/ASADA, now it's all a bit confusing as to exactly what happened and they are being stitched up by WADA/CAS.

I'm looking forward to a Supreme Court appeal so that the Supreme Court judges can also stitch up Essendon for their own nefarious agenda.

Legally, I have spoken to my partner (a criminal barrister) about the whole "strands in a cable" argument and the burden of proof. She tells me that the "strands" analogy is used quite often in criminal court to prove circumstantial cases. Essendon and their fans are now making out like the whole idea was a construct of the CAS/WADA to send them up the river because they knew they were innocent but needed to make a statement about drugs to the rest of the world. When in fact it was ASADA trying to prove a circumstantial case using "links in a chain" who made the mistake.

Anyway, again, I find it interesting. It's one thing to just say, "Oh yeah, bloody Essendon fans are all delusional moronic arsehats", but the fact is many of them are quite intelligent, very adept at critical thinking, and are still arriving at these conclusions. Psychologists and anthropologists could have a field day with this stuff for the next 10 years.

[Ghost Dog]

My fault for being lazy on my iPhone and not being more verbose when I posted the link…

I'm not saying I agree with it at all. Not one iota. I did mention that my uncle is a one-eyed Bomber. I merely find it interesting to see what the "other side" are now hanging their hats on: First it was all totally legal and above board, and they were being stitched up by the AFL/ASADA, now it's all a bit confusing as to exactly what happened and they are being stitched up by WADA/CAS.

I'm looking forward to a Supreme Court appeal so that the Supreme Court judges can also stitch up Essendon for their own nefarious agenda.

Legally, I have spoken to my partner (a criminal barrister) about the whole "strands in a cable" argument and the burden of proof. She tells me that the "strands" analogy is used quite often in criminal court to prove circumstantial cases. Essendon and their fans are now making out like the whole idea was a construct of the CAS/WADA to send them up the river because they knew they were innocent but needed to make a statement about drugs to the rest of the world. When in fact it was ASADA trying to prove a circumstantial case using "links in a chain" who made the mistake.

Anyway, again, I find it interesting. It's one thing to just say, "Oh yeah, bloody Essendon fans are all delusional moronic arsehats", but the fact is many of them are quite intelligent, very adept at critical thinking, and are still arriving at these conclusions. Psychologists and anthropologists could have a field day with this stuff for the next 10 years.

No thanks for posting BAS, I enjoyed reading it for the same reason. Wasn't having a go at you. The only Essendon fans still defending their cause are the ones who haven't read the judgement carefully, and rely on' But no illegal substances were found!' argument. Clearly fans and reactionary.

[LostDoggy]

The Australian reported today that 10 players are preparing legal actions against Essendon, splitting into 3 camps as following:

Holding Redlich - Watson, Bellchambers, Stanton, Monfries, McVeigh, Browne.
Slater Gordon - Crameri, Prismall, Lonergan.
Tony Nolan QC - Lovett-Murray.

More to follow. Fair to say all involved have played last game at EFC.

[LostDoggy]

The Australian reported today that 10 players are preparing legal actions against Essendon, splitting into 3 camps as following:

Holding Redlich - Watson, Bellchambers, Stanton, Monfries, McVeigh, Browne.
Slater Gordon - Crameri, Prismall, Lonergan.
Tony Nolan QC - Lovett-Murray.

More to follow. Fair to say all involved have played last game at EFC.

redders70 LOVED this post

[bulldogtragic]

The Australian reported today that 10 players are preparing legal actions against Essendon, splitting into 3 camps as following:

Holding Redlich - Watson, Bellchambers, Stanton, Monfries, McVeigh, Browne.
Slater Gordon - Crameri, Prismall, Lonergan.
Tony Nolan QC - Lovett-Murray.

More to follow. Fair to say all involved have played last game at EFC.

What are the other 24 dragging their heels for? As much as I love this bringing that scum club to their knees, you just know the AFL will cut them a big juicy cheque to make sure they survive. Any therefore, a percentage of everything we do as a consumer watching footy, buying things at the footy etc. gets filtered back to reward them where a smaller club would've been relocated to anywhere else in Australia by now. That aside, I hope the other 24 pull their fingers out.

[jeemak]

What are the other 24 dragging their heels for? As much as I love this bringing that scum club to their knees, you just know the AFL will cut them a big juicy cheque to make sure they survive. Any therefore, a percentage of everything we do as a consumer watching footy, buying things at the footy etc. gets filtered back to reward them where a smaller club would've been relocated to anywhere else in Australia by now. That aside, I hope the other 24 pull their fingers out.

The next most disgusting thing is the clubs that bemoan the "socialism" that is pervading the modern AFL club culture as they see it (Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton etc.) will be the first to support the propping up of the EFC as Blockbuster fixtures against them contribute so much to their bottom lines.

[KT31]

The next most disgusting thing is the clubs that bemoan the "socialism" that is pervading the modern AFL club culture as they see it (Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Carlton etc.) will be the first to support the propping up of the EFC as Blockbuster fixtures against them contribute so much to their bottom lines.

Essendon should be stripped of all Blockbuster games, won't happen but should happen.
If the the AFL had any nous () they would play a young and exciting Bulldogs team instead.

[Bulldog4life]

Essendon should be stripped of all Blockbuster games, won't happen but should happen.
If the the AFL had any nous () they would play a young and exciting Bulldogs team instead.

Agree. They should suffer like we have suffered for years. No blockbuster games at all.

[LostDoggy]

Couldn't agree anymore with you KT31.
Essendon VFL Developement side at best against Pies and Tigers.
More like AssBusters then BlockBusters.
But we can't take away their given right to still play in these games as that would like we(AFL) have stripped them of all their dignity
The powers that be that run this great game of ours are all a bunch of AssClowns!!