CAS decision Tuesday AM. Countdown on.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
There would be a kind of odd symmetry to the whole thing if the players are found guilty, but escape a mega-whack coz Doc gets them off.
 
compact72 said:
I'm interested that if they are found guilty, will some get more time then others?

Be interesting, to see who was more involved than others (if that was the case)
Click to expand...

Same here, I am wondering if there could be a leadership/junior player divide. That the junior players, relied on the advice of the senior players putting them less at fault.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Muggs said:
They also agreed all substances were to approved by the doctor. As TB4 was not on the consent form and not approved by Reid that's the no fault. Agreeing to the injections is not agreeing to TB4

Considering some of the previous cases CAS has given no significant fault for, such as the advice of a sales clerk saying not banned (and nothing else) or you med school brother saying its safe is enough to get 6 months discount. Signing a consent form saying one thing and being injected with a different substance, part of the consent form saying no banned substance and you still get injected with another banned substance IMO are more substantial grounds.
Click to expand...

The Thymosin was not agreed to by Reid either but they still agreed to take the substance without his approval . I get the point that it doesn't say TB4 so it may reduce fault but the players proved they were willing to take substances not agreed to by Reid so I fail to see how REID helps a No Sig Fault claim
 
Muggs said:
They also agreed all substances were to approved by the doctor. As TB4 was not on the consent form and not approved by Reid that's the no fault. Agreeing to the injections is not agreeing to TB4

Considering some of the previous cases CAS has given no significant fault for, such as the advice of a sales clerk saying not banned (and nothing else) or you med school brother saying its safe is enough to get 6 months discount. Signing a consent form saying one thing and being injected with a different substance, part of the consent form saying no banned substance and you still get injected with another banned substance IMO are more substantial grounds.
Click to expand...
And if the doc says he didn't approve the substances and players never once mentioned to him they were still getting injections?
 
Armchair Critic said:
The Thymosin was not agreed to by Reid either but they still agreed to take the substance without his approval . I get the point that it doesn't say TB4 so it may reduce fault but the players proved they were willing to take substances not agreed to by Reid so I fail to see how REID helps a No Sig Fault claim
Click to expand...

Players were told all substances will have doc approval, he just needs to explain he did not give approval. Adding to the Dank did what he wanted, not what he was told argument.

Edit* CAS previously has also used doctors advice as strong grounds for mitigating circumstances so can see the panel calling him in just to see what advice he did or did not give as the senior club doctor.
 
Armchair Critic said:
The Thymosin was not agreed to by Reid either but they still agreed to take the substance without his approval . I get the point that it doesn't say TB4 so it may reduce fault but the players proved they were willing to take substances not agreed to by Reid so I fail to see how REID helps a No Sig Fault claim
Click to expand...
Reidy is a good bloke and a member of the essendon hall of fame, surely that will help
 
Muggs said:
Players were told all substances will have doc approval, he just needs to explain he did not give approval. Adding to the Dank did what he wanted, not what he was told argument.
Click to expand...

Bit hard to argue that when others were at the meeting including the head coach
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Muggs said:
Players were told all substances will have doc approval, he just needs to explain he did not give approval. Adding to the Dank did what he wanted, not what he was told argument.

Edit* CAS previously has also used doctors advice as strong grounds for mitigating circumstances so can see the panel calling him in just to see what advice he did or did not give as the senior club doctor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the players also went on it for some time, without mentioning or doing anything to stop it. It's not like it happened once and that was it. They were continually jabbed, they were getting injuries, hard concrete up the ass, but never done anything to find out why.

There is so much we don't know, so its really hard to say what happened, because none of us have any idea
 
mxett said:
dont care what the result is, I just want it to finally end so we can enjoy football again
Click to expand...

There will be a decision on Tuesday , but either way , that won't be the end of this .
Only the truth will allow the efc to set about rebuilding the club afresh for the future ... and we all know that can't/won't ever happen ...
 
Armchair Critic said:
Bit hard to argue that when others were at the meeting including the head coach
Click to expand...

It's what Dank did after the meeting that is in question. The players were not injected at the meeting.

If the players got injected with something different to what they told at the meeting there is your no significant fault.
 
compact72 said:
Yeah, but the players also went on it for some time, without mentioning or doing anything to stop it. It's not like it happened once and that was it. They were continually jabbed, they were getting injuries, hard concrete up the ass, but never done anything to find out why.

There is so much we don't know, so its really hard to say what happened, because none of us have any idea
Click to expand...

not denying there aren't questions and the players don't bare some fault, not like they qualify for no significant fault. Just expect if players are found guilty they won't be getting the full two years. Expect 12-18months headline. I keep changing my mind exactly how much.
 
Muggs said:
not denying there aren't questions and the players don't bare some fault, not like they qualify for no significant fault. Just expect if players are found guilty they won't be getting the full two years. Expect 12-18months headline. I keep changing my mind exactly how much.
Click to expand...
Yeah who knows. 12 would be nice, but I think if anything it would be 6. Then again, who knows?

If they are found guilty, I don't think any would get 2 years.
 
Red Bull said:
There will be a decision on Tuesday , but either way , that won't be the end of this .
Only the truth will allow the efc to set about rebuilding the club afresh for the future ... and we all know that can't/won't ever happen ...
Click to expand...
It's my gut feel that some will get pinged, and the rest won't. The ones that texted each other about "thymo" and the ones that told ASADA flat out that they had "thymosin" injections will get done.
The rest won't.
And then the games will really begin!
 
MaddAdam said:
No, I want the Bombers wounded and flailing and copping floggings week in week out.

I suspect I'll get my wish this year irrespective of the CAS decision.
Click to expand...

U r a weirdo
 
compact72 said:
Yeah who knows. 12 would be nice, but I think if anything it would be 6. Then again, who knows?

If they are found guilty, I don't think any would get 2 years.
Click to expand...

The most games I can see the players missing (if guilty) is the first 4 rounds, this is 18months backdated to the infraction date. Even this much I be surprised.

Even if guilty considering CAS track record on backdating when applying no significant fault I don't actually expect them to miss anymore games.

Headline penalty different story.
 
Muggs said:
It's what Dank did after the meeting that is in question. The players were not injected at the meeting.

If the players got injected with something different to what they told at the meeting there is your no significant fault.
Click to expand...


Regarding the bolded, No shit sherlock

I am not arguing that they may not get no significant fault discount, I am saying I can't see how Reid can help them in their argument as the players on numerous occasions took substances he had not approved and one particular player even completely disregarded Reids advice to receive injections
 
Armchair Critic said:
Regarding the bolded, No shit sherlock

I am not arguing that they may not get no significant fault discount, I am saying I can't see how Reid can help them in their argument as the players on numerous occasions took substances he had not approved and one particular player even completely disregarded Reids advice to receive injections
Click to expand...

Ok cool see we going to have to disagree on this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top