No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[Pevers-Legend]

The way the club is blowing money away, I hope the club doesn't have the same view of pissing away High Mark members.

I'd love some quotes too of me threatening to withold my membership.

Got any facts that they are blowing money or is it just relying on Fakefacts for info?

How about we wait and see how much we have spent?

 

[cymarak]

Given some time has passed since the verdict (and temps a a little cooler here), thought I'd drop in to give my 5c on some of the recent events:

1) Appeal or not to appeal
Personally I wouldn't. You always have to ask "whats in it for me?", and I don't see much in this for the club, and even less for the players. An appeal is going to just delay everything a further 12 months at least, and is unlikely to succeed (apparently). Even if it does, ASADA will just re-interview and we continue rolling along.

I would only appeal if the strategy is to drag out the process as long as possible (to push the ultimate verdict to a point when as many players have retired as possible), but I don't think this is needed now given ASADA is playing lets make a deal.

I can't argue with any of this logic.

2) The reported offer
If todays report is right (no admission of guilt, 6 month bans, miss a handful of games), I'd seriously consider taking it. I know some reports have said the the players lawyers think the case is very circumstantial (based upon reviewing the 100 pages Little received in the Fed case), but given the lower standard for guilt in this tribunal, its a big gamble to fight. This offer (if legit) won't label the players as drug cheats, and gives them a suspension equivalent to Tyrone belting Cox. Given the potential for a 2 year ban, its a very low cost option.

This offer won't label the players as drug cheats ? They'll be pleading guilty to having taken PEDs, and it won't just be the complete nufties calling them cheats anymore, now you'll have more reasonable people also able to say 'well, they admitted taking PEDs - they're cheats'.

Put another way, you can't just take a deal and magically reduce the sentence that way - there is a cost, and that cost is that you throw away your right to effectively claim innocence.

- Just IMO, but if players take the plea, all board members should resign (once replacements are available). They had a duty to protect the club and put management in place to do this. By having players banned for PED use, losing the 2013 season, losing players, and opening the club up to potential legal action from players, they have clearly failed (be it neglect or incompetence, it doesn't matter)

If players are banned because they took a deal to expedite the matter, that reflects poorly on the overall process and how it's been dragged out. The board can't control whether players cave and opt for a deal, so the board should only be judged on what it did or did not do, not by using players accepting a deal as a proxy for assessing their culpability.

Put another way, IMO, you shouldn't decide whether someone should or shouldn't quit their job based on whether someone else has 'had enough' of the ASADA investigation and wants it over.

I genuinely appreciate the ties these guys have in the club and with the supporter base, but this isn't just a bottoming out scenario - it was a catastrophic failure of management.

That's still unproven for mine, given the AFL's hand in the Ziggy report, the AFL's interference in the ASADA interim report, the AFL's general manipulation of ASADA, the completely lack of investigation into the other 11 clubs with supplement programs (did those clubs have a catastrophic failure of management as well ? How does Essendon compare with those clubs ? How would we know ?) and the overall lack of transparency to date.

The outcomes have been 'catastrophic', yes, but that's largely as a result of the AFL, AFL Media, communications specialists, ASADA, etc. fanning the flames - whether the outcomes deserved to be catastrophic is another matter entirely.[/QUOTE]

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Officially they won't label the players as cheats.

Joe Public doesn't come under "officially" and the players will be seen as cheats.

Then we have the question of whether WADA will sweep in, challenge it, and increase the bans.

Officially Melbounre didn't tank.

Mud sticks.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I expect not, no.

But if we're going to spend more money on legal longshots, I'd like the the lawyers to have some skin in the game, put their money where their mouth is, back up their optimistic assessments of the chance of success, etc. If they're not prepared to do that, maybe they don't really think we have much chance of winning ?

My original post was really being facetious, as there's no chance of those 2 conditions both being met.

Given Middleton's findings I'd be staggered if any lawyer recommended appeal.

He basically said your argument was wrong... and even it it wasn't strictly wrong - which it was - id use my discretion to rule against you anyway.

If the club appeals now they're either ridiculously desperate to delay thing, or they have the worlds biggest rabbit under their hat.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

How very easy to say of you when you sit on the fence with nothing invested in it. How noble

And how does the club train over the pre-season?

happily conceded I'm talking from the cheap seats. But it comes down to the math. Outside clearing the players 100%, this is the best that they will get. So it comes down to what chance is there of the players beating the ASADA case against them. Now they are seeing most of the info against them, they can make an informed decision. My point is, unless they are very confident of beating the charge after seeing the evidence, its a good deal

Its not about being fair or unfair, its about minimize the damage to the players, their careers, and their legacy

 

[Pevers-Legend]

You assume the only resolutions brought to an EGM will be support for Hird and Little?

Well a the moment, the rival ticket consists of Vlad's brother and Bev Knight.

I couldn't think of any reason not to vote for them.......

 

[Pevers-Legend]

happily conceded I'm talking from the cheap seats. But it comes down to the math. Outside clearing the players 100%, this is the best that they will get. So it comes down to what chance is there of the players beating the ASADA case against them. Now they are seeing most of the info against them, they can make an informed decision. My point is, unless they are very confident of beating the charge after seeing the evidence, its a good deal

Its not about being fair or unfair, its about minimize the damage to the players, their careers, and their legacy

By admitting guilt to charges involving drug use. Not sure I understand.

And 2015 is ruined if we accept guilty plea's and lose several months of training.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Officially they won't label the players as cheats.

Joe Public doesn't come under "officially" and the players will be seen as cheats.

Then we have the question of whether WADA will sweep in, challenge it, and increase the bans.

the mud is going to stick even if they are cleared

On WADA coming in over the top, I'm still holding my breathe for them to do that with Cronulla. FWIW I personally think they have would have been fully updated throughout this process by ASADA. I doubt any sanction is being made without an unofficial nod of approval

 

[Ned_Flanders]

By admitting guilt to charges involving drug use. Not sure I understand.

And 2015 is ruined if we accept guilty plea's and lose several months of training.

so whats the alternative? roll the dice and risk losing 2015 (distractions of trial), 2016 and 2017 (two year player bans), and opening the club up to a huge lawsuit from the players?

 

[Pevers-Legend]

so whats the alternative? roll the dice and risk losing 2015 (distractions of trial), 2016 and 2017 (two year player bans), and opening the club up to a huge lawsuit from the players?

I say let the players decide and they have said NO DEAL!

Roll the dice? With the evidence provided, yeah I would roll the dice on circumstantial evidence at best.

But hey Zaka who never got an injection should accept being a drug cheat.

Oh and if you think this playing group is not used to playing with distractions......

 

[cymarak]

Can someone run through what the best-case scenario would be, timing-wise, if EFC and the players decided not to appeal, and tried to get to tribunal stage ASAP ?

I would have guessed that in this scenario, the SCNs would be reissued in October, responded to in October, the ADRVP would convene in November and infraction notices would be issued in November / December. The first tribunal could then occur sometime in January / February ?

 

[Doss]

The very unfortunate reality is, if you assume an appeal wouldn't succeed and that the players would find it difficult to get 100% cleared, then it becomes a question of what is the smallest evil- what is the most palatable but still bitter pill for the players to swallow.

There is an enormous stigma associated with taking a deal, in that, even if the official wording doesn't say it, they are more or less conceding in the eyes of many to cheating. And if they genuinely believe they didn't, well, that's not a nice prospect.

But, I'd say the prospect of a two year suspension is worse.

So it comes to back to, essentially, how likely are the players to get 100% cleared? If it's likely, why appeal? Bring on the SCNs and beat them.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

This offer won't label the players as drug cheats ? They'll be pleading guilty to having taken PEDs, and it won't just be the complete nufties calling them cheats anymore, now you'll have more reasonable people also able to say 'well, they admitted taking PEDs - they're cheats'.

Put another way, you can't just take a deal and magically reduce the sentence that way - there is a cost, and that cost is that you throw away your right to effectively claim innocence.

If players are banned because they took a deal to expedite the matter, that reflects poorly on the overall process and how it's been dragged out. The board can't control whether players cave and opt for a deal, so the board should only be judged on what it did or did not do, not by using players accepting a deal as a proxy for assessing their culpability.

Put another way, IMO, you shouldn't decide whether someone should or shouldn't quit their job based on whether someone else has 'had enough' of the ASADA investigation and wants it over.

That's still unproven for mine, given the AFL's hand in the Ziggy report, the AFL's interference in the ASADA interim report, the AFL's general manipulation of ASADA, the completely lack of investigation into the other 11 clubs with supplement programs (did those clubs have a catastrophic failure of management as well ? How does Essendon compare with those clubs ? How would we know ?) and the overall lack of transparency to date.

The outcomes have been 'catastrophic', yes, but that's largely as a result of the AFL, AFL Media, communications specialists, ASADA, etc. fanning the flames - whether the outcomes deserved to be catastrophic is another matter entirely.

On the plea issue, it genuinely surprised me - but thats what is being reported. Im assuming its the equivalent to a no contest plea.


The reason for me suggesting the board should be stood down if players miss games over this is not because of the sanction, but the structures that they had in place. They established the structures at the club which allowed a supplements program to be run with minimal supervision, minimal due diligence, and shocking leadership (Dank). whatever sanction results, is ultimately derived from that original failure in management.


I've been pushing the transparent independent investigation and trial more than most, but my reason for stating a catastrophic failure of management occurred is not based upon the Ziggy or ASADA investigation, but facts the club has openly conceded. A program where one man effectively approved and disapproved supplements, the doctor was ignored, the man responsible for the program also managed procurement, administration occurred off site and outside club controls, and the record keeping is at best poor. This was basic compliance and due diligence, and the club had virtually no systems in place, putting their trust far too completely in a small number of individuals.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

The very unfortunate reality is, if you assume an appeal wouldn't succeed and that the players would find it difficult to get 100% cleared, then it becomes a question of what is the smallest evil- what is the most palatable but still bitter pill for the players to swallow.

There is an enormous stigma associated with taking a deal, in that, even if the official wording doesn't say it, they are more or less conceding in the eyes of many to cheating. And if they genuinely believe they didn't, well, that's not a nice prospect.

But, I'd say the prospect of a two year suspension is worse.

So it comes to back to, essentially, how likely are the players to get 100% cleared? If it's likely, why appeal? Bring on the SCNs and beat them.

Doss you do realise they have to prove that the needle went in the arm?? That drugs were in our system.

Not maybe, not we think, but we can prove it. They have no positive tests, no proof of any illegal substance on the record, but they do have several players stating they took the good version and a picture of the god version on our premises.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

On the plea issue, it genuinely surprised me - but thats what is being reported. Im assuming its the equivalent to a no contest plea.


The reason for me suggesting the board should be stood down if players miss games over this is not because of the sanction, but the structures that they had in place. They established the structures at the club which allowed a supplements program to be run with minimal supervision, minimal due diligence, and shocking leadership (Dank). whatever sanction results, is ultimately derived from that original failure in management.


I've been pushing the transparent independent investigation and trial more than most, but my reason for stating a catastrophic failure of management occurred is not based upon the Ziggy or ASADA investigation, but facts the club has openly conceded. A program where one man effectively approved and disapproved supplements, the doctor was ignored, the man responsible for the program also managed procurement, administration occurred off site and outside club controls, and the record keeping is at best poor. This was basic compliance and due diligence, and the club had virtually no systems in place, putting their trust far too completely in a small number of individuals.

And is that any different to the other 11 clubs? Should they not also be investigated and have their boards sacked (oh won't someone think of the players)? Or do we need to wrap this up in a neat bundle?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I say let the players decide and they have said NO DEAL!

Roll the dice? With the evidence provided, yeah I would roll the dice on circumstantial evidence at best.

But hey Zaka who never got an injection should accept being a drug cheat.

Oh and if you think this playing group is not used to playing with distractions......

No argument its up to the players, which is why im happy they now get to see the case against them (so they can make an informed decision

Remember though their case will not be decided upon reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is much lower in these tribunals, and circumstantial evidence is often used to convict

 

[westking]

No argument its up to the players, which is why im happy they now get to see the case against them (so they can make an informed decision

My belief is the players still only get to see part of the so called evidence, so no, an informed decision cannot be made. But anyway carry on, truth is not really important anymore is it?

 

[The Prosecutor]

Got any facts that they are blowing money or is it just relying on Fakefacts for info?

How about we wait and see how much we have spent?

Seriously?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

And is that any different to the other 11 clubs? Should they not also be investigated and have their boards sacked (oh won't someone think of the players)? Or do we need to wrap this up in a neat bundle?

Again, I'm already on record on this exact point, I have said since day one the first thing the AFL should have done is a full independent audit of all clubs. I have said I dont believe EFC was alone in having a "cutting edge" supplement program, that nearly all clubs had virtually no controls, and players are also likely to be independently sourcing.

 

[Dave]

I wonder if the campaigners have spoken to Paul Little yet.

I thought they weren't allowed to comment on ongoing cases?

 

[DapperDon]

How very easy to say of you when you sit on the fence with nothing invested in it. How noble

And how does the club train over the pre-season?

A small problem in the scheme of things.

It is a good deal from the looks of it, but ultimately it's the players decision to make. Whatever they choose I'll stand by.

 

[Pweter]

the mud is going to stick even if they are cleared

On WADA coming in over the top, I'm still holding my breathe for them to do that with Cronulla. FWIW I personally think they have would have been fully updated throughout this process by ASADA. I doubt any sanction is being made without an unofficial nod of approval

I don't want an unofficial nod. I want a legally binding agreement between WADA and ASADA that the sanctions will not be challenged by WADA.

If that isn't forthcoming then as far as I'm concerned the deal is off the table.

 

[westking]

Remember though their case will not be decided upon reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is much lower in these tribunals, and circumstantial evidence is often used to convict

If the club feels anything like I do, I do not trust the AFL, ASADA, the media or anyone associated and involved in making any decision regarding the EFC's fate. From where we sit, the whole system is corrupt. Can you blame me for thinking this? There will be no independant tribunal hearing. There is no way there will be an independant ruling/punishment given. No way!!! If there is prove it! I bet you cant.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't want an unofficial nod. I want a legally binding agreement between WADA and ASADA that the sanctions will not be challenged by WADA.

If that isn't forthcoming then as far as I'm concerned the deal is off the table.

you wont get that though. regulators always want the scope to change a decision if new info comes to light (I used to deal with this kind of handcuff all the time with the ACCC)

 

[scottmclaren]

comforting to know the NFL CEO lies and bullies just as much as the AFL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/s...immons-for-tirade-on-roger-goodell-.html?_r=0