The Essendon saga won't end anytime soon

Joe, thanks for putting matters in a broader perspective. My memory is that the previous government gave the AFL inducements to be subject to ASADA. The other sports you mention I think are very unlike our native football governed by the AFL with its large spectator following. Essendon have effectively been threatened with the loss of two seasons due to the slow progress of ASADA in concluding this process with the threat of further future penalties. This matter really needed to be concluded before the 2014 season began for ASADA to be relevant and I think the AFL should opt out of the ASADA/WADA jurisdiction in the future. I believe a good part of the enormous pressure placed on ASADA is linked to the fact that it is an unsuitable body to be overseeing the AFL on these matters.

Aussie Rules Dip Stick AFL

Maybe the players are not at all that innocent? ASADA evidence could be in regards to whats been said by certain players in the player interview, maybe some players know more than whats been published. Even Danks may have been interviewed ASADA are good at keeping things tight lipped. Re A.Walkers affidavit where it states a lot of NON AFL personel have been interviewed, ASADA removed a lot of information that they withheld from the AFL that was purely for ASADA anti doping investigation and also a lot Of ACC report removed. An approx 455 page report shrunk down to an approx 195 page interim report thats not including all the extra investigation reports after the interim report. ASADA will not and should not stop with this investigation, they are very confident in there process and EFC know this. The reason Paul Little is doing all the rounds is trying to justify the reasons for the court case all i hear is Blah Blah Blah contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth.Re A.Walkers report he was at the meeting as the EFC board of. Director with the afl and ASADA and David Evans so he has been there from day one know exactly whats going on and trying his hardest to drag this out long as he can.

NEWSFLASH!!!! Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction my friend!! And the THEN Governments of the USA, England AND Australia were ALL guilty of Crimes against Humanity for the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children directly resulting from that insane AND highly illegal war and the on-going humanitarian disaster that continues to this very day!! And ALL the DOING of the "coalition of the willing' The Americans thought they were intimidating both Russia and China with their "Shock and Awe" tactics in Iraq with many idiotic Pommies AND Australians (mainly Victorian Rules fans, I'll bet) thinking it was a wonderful show and cheering them on from the sidelines! Well it didn't work then AND it won't work now either, with NOT just Russia and China but also their BRICS partners (Brazil, India and South Africa) together with future BRIC's members such as Indonesia, Argentina, Iran and YES even Germany, who will become the first of many European nation's to break ranks with the "Septic Tanks" AND dump the US Dollar as the World's reserve currency. Virtually every other nation will join up with them, except the USA, England and Australia - who will be excluded as pariah states and left to rot on their own as together this NEW World Order "pulls the rug out" from under the US permanently and sends their economy into a terminal tailspin which WILL leave America's lackey's England and us (AND of course Victorian Rules) horribly exposed and without their protectors. The HUGE indebted nations - ie. the USA, England AND Australia who have lived off the goodwill AND charity of overseas credit for decades - are the ones that will suffer the worst with their economies shattered and in ruins! Victorian Rules fans should understand that it is NO small coincidence that the USA has all of a sudden "discovered a new found love affair" with Football. The reason is quite simple..............as their own influence rapidly diminishes around the World, they have belatedly realised that Football's international influence is too powerful to resist and they are desperately trying to retain a modicum of relevance in the New World Order by "jumping on Football's bandwagon!" Whichever way you cut it - It's ALL bad news for Victorian Rules! This rapidly approaching NEW World order is going to be a very different place to what Victorian Rules fans thought it was going to be!

Aransen - You can believe what you like about whether infraction notices will be issues. But Australian sport as a whole wants the show cause notices to be issued if the available evidence (not as sterilised by the court) reasonably supports them. Anything less brings into question the integrity of Australia's implementation of the WADA code and that has serious negative implications for our international athletes in cycling, athletics, swimming etc. If Justice Middleton finds ASADA's powers are limited I am sure pressure will mount to enable ASADA to compel witnesses to give evidence and do way with the right not to answer where it might incriminate (ie the right to silence). This is the only truly effective way, along with testing, to give effect to the WADA code - a fact recognised by Attorney General Brandis when the Bill was going through the Senate except that he understood ASADA could make use of the compelling powers of bodies such as the AFL hence why ASADA Act went through as it did. This is not such a big deal because WADA code breaches are not criminal offences and the right to silence is usually only associated with criminal not civil matters. In a nut shell there is a much bigger picture here for Australia than just Essendon. Perhaps the real issue here is whether the AFL should opt out of the WADA/ASADA scheme and run its own scheme instead. I understand the AFL doesn't want to see Essendon unable to field a team. Equally, I think it would be grossly unfair if most of the affected Essendon players are penalised by a period of disqualification. This unfairness stems in particular from the player employment arrangements and the nature and culture of AFL clubs. In my view the Essendon club and its responsible officials (including contractors) should be responsible for what has been done to the Essendon players and penalised accordingly - to some extent that has already happened. However, I doubt this sort of solution can be contemplated under the WADA/ASADA scheme.

Andy, Essendon has record membership for 2014 and I am a member. Essendon supporters have largely kept their own council on what has transpired at the club over the supplements saga, but there have been supporters of other clubs as well as trolls more than happy to give gratuitous advice to the EFC. No doubt there is a variety of views on Hird's future at the club, while Essendon's season is continuing I think many Essendon supporters don't want to add yet another distraction by contributing to the running commentary. I am confident that the EFC will come to a correct decision on how to go forward in 2015 but I will admit that decisions do need to be made and I certainly see some short term damage at the club. I don't expect to see any infraction notices handed out to players and I understand that will cause disappointment to the many people only too happy to offer their own opinions on this matter.

Graham, so many people have left Essendon as a result of this that nobody can possibly call them winners. If Hird has his way then Thompson and Little will both go, and a number of board members have also indicated they cannot work with Hird. The objective people among us who aren't driven by Essendon emotion can see this.

Absolutely agree with Jack........ an embarrassment for the game!! Hird WAS involved. Early days there was a transcript of an interview with Hird quoted as commenting (words to the effect) that the Bombers were being left behind (presumably, compared to other teams football departments). That has not been refuted? I stand correction but I also think similar comment was directed towards the Club's medico when he expressed his lack of support? Compelling commentary about the Bombers in that they fail to accept accountability!! What about the parents of current and aspiring players?? Don't they deserve better? Bombers management questionable IMO in that if everyone had apologised and built bridges, most of this would have been forgotten. What has it done to the present generation of Bombers?? I detest what the management has done........but gee, I do admire the players and wish the best outcome for them.

So I guess based on that you think Lance Armstrong should not have been found guilty?

Totally agree.

Graham i understand what you are saying but as the saying goes ignorance is no excuse, Any PROFESSIONAL Sporting person should be aware of the all sporting laws just as us as people in society we must be aware of laws or even updated laws changes As a player you would be aware of the consequences if found in breach of any of the Anti Doping Laws no matter how fair or or not that law is. The player must obey the law that he or she has agreed to with both organisations. Now being that this drug experiment was put forward to the player it should have been at this point as professional athlete the player should have acted to seek advice outside of the club whether it is legit or not, or legal it does not matter if they were getting advise internally that is was all above board. Knowing that anti doping law states that the athlete/player takes full responsibility. The problem with AFL is that every football club even though they are professional organisation a very amateurish attitude is brought into the club via players, support staff etc.. And this is where the ignorance comes into play. Its like getting pulled over talking on a hands free mobile phone and receive a fine, everyone knows that you can speak on the mobile handsfree,and you thought it was ok to talk hands free, but you weren't aware that you can receive a fine because the phone was not cradled. With ASADAS law regarding that you can be sanctioned for suspicion, the player would/or should be aware of this no matter how ridiculous it is, it is there and written in the laws.

Graham - I have read your comments with interest but I do have a bit of understanding of this process so let me clarify a couple of points for you. ASADA still need to prove their case to "Comfortable Satisfaction" In this case the difference between this and "Beyond Reasonable Doubt:" is not likely to be a lot different. As I understand it , the "Comfortable Satisfaction" burden was mainly brought in to get around sports people who tested positive to banned substances, using a raft of excuses to create reasonable doubt. With "Comfortable Satisfaction" the burden shifted to the accused to prove the evidence wrong. In this case there are no positive tests, so ASADA has presumably relied on the circumstantial evidence it has gathered. But that evidence still needs to be good. And it is entirely possible that the players could clear their names or at least create enough doubt that saves the players from suspension. I don't follow the logic of your claim that "ASADA have to get a result from this". Obviously the fact that they have issued show cause notices suggests they think they have found enough evidence, but I don't see why they would be a laughing stock if the players do somehow manage to clear their names. For all its shortcomings sport needs ASADA (or something equivalent) and this case has highlighted the need for everyone (players,coaches, support staff) to be vigilant about what drugs/supplements are used and keeping accurate and transparent records. What the court case has highlighted is the need for ASADA and the AFL to pay closer attention to proper process and transparency. And in the long term that should also be a good outcome for future investigations. On the other hand this situation is unprecedented and that needs to be factored in a little when assessing the efficiency, efficacy and veracity of the investigation.

Gene Have you ever heard about criminal cases where the police and the prosecution withheld evidence (ie did not present it in court, and therefore had no obligation to disclose it to the defence), which could have either cleared the accused or raised sufficient doubt that it would have damaged their case. These cases are, admittedly rare (or at least the ones we find out about are rare). Essendon are claiming that because of collusion between the AFL and ASADA, the famous "interim report" was modified to enable the AFL to present a stronger case. They claim, and the evidence submitted seems to support this, that the report was modified at the request of the AFL, and that evidence which would have supported Essendon's case was deliberately omitted in order to strengthen the AFL's case and justify the investigation. Whether or not this exonerates or mitigates Essendon's responsibilities is problematical, but it throws doubt on the process that enabled their conviction, and in a court of law that would possibly lead to a retrial. Honestly Gene, would you be happy to tried under those circumstances? Surely, for us to have any faith in a system, we need to believe that the investigation, the presentation of evidence, and the results which ensue are all pristine, without flaws. If not we may as well go back to the middle ages.

They trusted them so much and thought everything was perfectly legit then why did they take the extraordinary step of requesting the club provide waivers? Something obvious stunk for the players to band together and request make a request like that. The whole 'youth' excuse is a bunch of BS and you know it. Is Dustin Fletcher a kid? Job Watson? Winderlich? Stanton? They aren't all 18 yr old wet behind the ears kids.

Graham, you're living inside an igloo. Invoices prove EFC purchased large quantities of Thomosyn Beta 4, an illegal drug and enough to administer a program of injections to the whole EFC squad. Do you think Danks injected them all in the club mascot? You can live in denial all you want. This strong circumstantial evidence, coupled with player interviews which confirmed which players received injections, is why ASADA quite rightly are entitled to ask of players, "prove your innocence". Whether or not the judge determines that collaboration between the AFL and ASADA renders the evidence gathered through this approach as inadmissable, doesn't change that the evidence exists. It's not "tainted", as you claim. It's just evidence that EFC and Hird want to be deemed inadmissable, because it compounds the evidence against the players. You suggest if they had any real evidence they would issue infraction notices. This just reveals your ignorance in the ASADA process (which is understandable). First they issue Show Cause Notices, then if the players can't show cause, ASADA lists them on the Register of Findings, whereupon the AFL is compelled to issue Infraction Notices and suspensions. They must have poor information on the North Pole.

Actually, Show Cause Notices are several steps before infraction notices. And Show Cause Notices are not issued where a positive test has been returned. Infraction notices are not necessarily the result of a Show Cause, however it is unlikely that the ADRVP would fail to put an athlete on the register of findings after ASADA had requested it.

Why would you have concerns when people you trust tell you everything is okay? I don't know how old you are Gene, but I know that now I question everybody's motives. When I was young I trusted everyone. I once heard someone say that when a boy turns 15 the fairies come in the night and take away his brain, and they don't give it back until he's thirty.

I have no problem with ASADA being able to sanction athletes who return a positive blood or urine sample, at least where it was an intentional breach of the rules. I do however find it offensive that they can sanction an athlete who is within reasonable doubt, is unaware that he has ingested a prohibited substance. I find absolutely abhorrent that an organization has the power to ruin someone's life based on a suspicion that they have done something and without the burden of proving an offence was committed. Imagine if that was the case under common law. ASADA's review of the case would have revolved around... "is there a chance we can get this up." I think that the clue lies in their statement when the notices were issued, where they stated that players could receive substantially reduced bans if they cooperated. That smacked of desperation, and was a clear sign that they had doubts that they could get the job done without further evidence. Let's face it, ASADA have to get a result from this, or they are going to be a laughing stock. They are desperate to salvage something from this disaster. We all know that they were once more than willing to absolve the players entirely. The darkest day in Australian sport is going to hang on these players whether or not they deserve it

Graham I am also no lawyer, I agree regarding to your reference to criminal case providing evidence ,yes they do once a person has been charged. Show cause notices are not a guilty findings it is like a questioning process to validate the evidence ASADA have gathered ( remembering the 34 players are suspects) also an opportunity for the player to dismiss the claims against them, there are certain claims in the "show cause notices" that the Player are aware of, it's similar to a questioning process to a criminal prior to been charged. If the players can justify these claims then there would no infraction notice issued to that player. I also agree in the rest of the process you described in your post I was just trying to clarify how the system works to the best of my knowledge, thus the comparison to the criminal example.

Dominic I have no legal training, so I can not state categorically that I am correct, however, I believe that in a criminal law case the prosecution is obliged to provide or "disclose" evidence to the accused in order for the accused to prepare an adequate defense. And Dominic, the accused MAY provide evidence for his defence, but it is the obligation of the prosecution to PROVE his guilt. And Dominic, under our legal system, there is no obligation on the accused to offer any evidence which may incriminate him In ASADA's case (an investigation, rather than a positive test), they notify a player of allegations of a breach and advise them that the matter is being placed before the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and offer them the opportunity to make a submission to the panel prior to the panel considering the accusation. The "SHOW CAUSE" notice. There is no hearing for the accused. ASADA then submit their evidence to the ADRVP for their consideration as to whether the players details should be entered onto The Register of Findings. Now, personally, I find it more than a little repugnant that when asked to "show cause", a player doesn't seem to have access to the details of the complaint as it would seem extremely difficult to defend yourself unless you knew exactly what you were being accused of. In any case, I'm certain that the only way that the ADRVP would not place the player on the Register, is if they could, in their submission, prove incontrovertibly that they could not have possibly committed the offence. Once a player is placed on the Register of Findings he will receive an infraction notice, at which point he is able to challenge the result.