Just curious, Mr F, why shouldn't the onus equally have been on Essendon to prove the legal status of what they were injecting their players with?
If ASADA had enough evidence to know that *something* was being administered to the players, why shouldn't the club have been made to prove what they were doing was above board.
I get that if ASADA don't have the evidence, they can't make the case.
What I don't get is why Essendon, who did know - or who SHOULD know - what was injected, didn't have to prove anything?
(Note, I ask all this genuinely; not trying to poke any bears or stir any hornet's nests..)
Donations will also be accepted to discourage me from seeking TV work. Bank account details on request...
The 'Canes have a handy draw after the bye, too Sam.
Tahs, Reds, Crusaders, Sharks, Chiefs - and only the Reds away. Being able to host the highly-fancied teams at home could prove to be a godsend..