How long will the players go along with the Essendon hierachy

[Kwality]

Surprise, surprise.

Seems to me the "united front" of the players is less about camaraderie and more about sticking to a story contrived by spin doctors.

Too smart by half ... doesnt convey co operation by the players to date. No discount on performance to date?

 

[Gavstar]

Any chance that their independent lawyers might point out that this injunction is potentially damaging to their ability to seek recompense from the club and that the primary purpose is to protect the club and not the players?

 

[hearlscum]

When will the point be reached when the playing group is seen as complicit in the club sanctioned court case against ASADA and completely burn their bridge to the 6 months option?

Dangerous game they are playing, worse than double or nothing.

Maybe they might think that if they cop the two year ban then they can sue the club?

Bit speculative. Would think players want to play.

If they stick with the club they are praying for the hail mary on long odds.

Good one Einstein your on the ball

 

[Kwality]

See that's ****n bullshit the players told everything they could possibly know to Asada when they had their interviews,you then have Mcnuggets come on radio offering players to come forward so so their bans can get reduced imo that would of pissed of the players he's basicly calling them liars and they didn't tell the whole truth during their interviews.

If they gave a predetermined answer under questioning, they have put themselves right in it. Duck, weave, Essendon have failed their players at every turn, e.g a leadership group that condoned all this & they are still in place.

 

[Big Sim]

Yes that's right, but the players can't step forward and "tell the truth" and "take the 6 months" because they don't know whether they were or not. That's the point. No one is talking about the strict liability rule AFAIK

What I am saying is that if the truth is they don't know, that's the truth and ASADA has to accept that. This does not however stop ASADA from charging the players with doping as the whole focus of an intensive 16 month investigation was to find out what the players say they don't know. And they found out enough to be satisfied that SCs were warranted.

Whately surmised from what McD said on radio on Saturday that the players who had been honest had done enough to get a discount to 6 months, even if that meant they really did not know what they took. I think this could be right. Which means the conclusion that he was doing a carrot and stick with offering dialogue was incorrect. He may well have been offering resolution, that is play ball, cop your six months IF IT IS PROVED YOU UNKNOWINGLY TOOK A BANNED DRUG and get it over with, one way or another. After listening to that interview I am leaning towards this conclusion.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

What I am saying is that if the truth is they don't know, that's the truth and ASADA has to accept that. This does not however stop ASADA from charging the players with doping as the whole focus of an intensive 16 month investigation was to find out what the players say they don't know. And they found out enough to be satisfied that SCs were warranted.

Whately surmised from what McD said on radio on Saturday that the players who had been honest had done enough to get a discount to 6 months, even if that meant they really did not know what they took. I think this could be right. Which means the conclusion that he was doing a carrot and stick with offering dialogue was incorrect. He may well have been offering resolution, that is play ball, cop your six months IF IT IS PROVED YOU UNKNOWINGLY TOOK A BANNED DRUG and get it over with, one way or another. After listening to that interview I am leaning towards this conclusion.

I've said the same thing elsewhere today. ASADA seem to me to be saying to the players, just co-operate with the process. The evidence can then be tested, and either the evidence of a possible violation won't be enough to satisfy the ADVRP, or if it is, the players shouldn't be too scared of the ultimate penalties.

Of course the players also have to face the fact that McDevitt is not in a position to offer guarantees. He says what they have done already can count as co-operation, and he says that in his mind they are victims and not at fault - which makes them eligible for all the discounts he has raised. But the bodies that make decisions in the process from here may disagree.

But - unless the EFC/Albert Hird injunctions are successful - I'm not sure they really have choices.

If I was betting I would say they will stick together as a group for now, ask ASADA for an extension, and see if the injunction process looks like flying. If it does, they keep being brave and waiting for closure that may or may not ever come, and suck up the boos. If it doesn't, they respond to the show causes and go with the process - and at that point it is probably every man and his agent and his lawyer for themselves.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Littles attitude in public is not going to do the clubs chances much good eh Syd ... the club going for the high jump has to be a real chance the way things are looking, bloody well said there Syd !! All the spotlight on the 34 players when the club faces a ban in its entirety.

Don't get me wrong, asada are doing this by the numbers, if essendon want fight asada won't care or act like petulant child. Much to my disgust they can fight this to the end and still get retroactive bans. But if the players think they can play both sides ASADA will swing the axe, they can't fight and serve self bans at the sametime.

 

[Big Sim]

I've said the same thing elsewhere today. ASADA seem to me to be saying to the players, just co-operate with the process. The evidence can then be tested, and either the evidence of a possible violation won't be enough to satisfy the ADVRP, or if it is, the players shouldn't be too scared of the ultimate penalties.

Of course the players also have to face the fact that McDevitt is not in a position to offer guarantees. He says what they have done already can count as co-operation, and he says that in his mind they are victims and not at fault - which makes them eligible for all the discounts he has raised. But the bodies that make decisions in the process from here may disagree.

But - unless the EFC/Albert Hird injunctions are successful - I'm not sure they really have choices.

If I was betting I would say they will stick together as a group for now, ask ASADA for an extension, and see if the injunction process looks like flying. If it does, they keep being brave and waiting for closure that may or may not ever come, and suck up the boos. If it doesn't, they respond to the show causes and go with the process - and at that point it is probably every man and his agent and his lawyer for themselves.

great post.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Just to add - the only choice the players have is whether they want to stand themselves down and start serving whatever sentence they get. Don't know why anyone would though, especially when they look at Sandor Earl. Unless they won't be playing anyway (Watson, Gumbleton) or their club can afford to do without them and cross their fingers they will be ready to go next season (Crameri) - but in any case there's no need to jump until they know whether the injunction gets up and if so what its impact is.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Just to add - the only choice the players have is whether they want to stand themselves down and start serving whatever sentence they get. Don't know why anyone would though, especially when they look at Sandor Earl. Unless they won't be playing anyway (Watson, Gumbleton) or their club can afford to do without them and cross their fingers they will be ready to go next season (Crameri) - but in any case there's no need to jump until they know whether the injunction gets up and if so what its impact is.

This what i was talking about with my other post.
If you followed sandor earls case, you would know the reason he's so ****ed is because he tried to pull a fast one, he admitted taking some band susbstances and specfically denied taking others, triple M in Sydney had a great interview with the NRL boss before our clash with port. He basically said sandor was a **** up and asada act alot like ICAC in that they rarely ask questions they don't already know the answer to, the delay with the shark's is in his mind fairly solid that Earl will be very likely spend a long time out of the game, they basically find evidence enough to convince themselves as to what wen't on, then put the questions to you. Then find all the evidence they can to nail those they believe are lying. He's take on asada was that it was very professional, the number of players involved had'nt changed and anyone fight asada (from the nrl) with court action looked unlikely to win. He also, laid the reason there was no joint investigation was he believes the NRL should not be involved in policing it's own clubs that the process must remain independent.

overall i'd be shitting bricks if i were a shark's player under investigation, the language was trying be netural but seemed very damning.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Gonna be a big shock for the players if they've been duped into thinking they can get off these charges by challenging the process.

There's some irony there.

 

[QuietB]

Robbo on 360 tonight indicated some of the thinking at the EFC is that ASADA are bluffing. If this is actually the thinking the EFC are playing a despicable game of chicken with someone else's (their own players) livelihoods.

 

[QuietB]

Another thing I heard on 360 tonight was Little's comments from the weekend that he hopes players "don't take the soft option" - how arrogant and inappropriate is that comment

 

[QuietB]

Calm down.

Two things. First, when questioned by Whately, McDevitt said that players saying what they were thought to have said in their interviews (not sure, don't know) could count as co-operation. He did not say they need to lie or guess or add anything or shop anyone else to ASADA or the ADVRP to be eligible for that discount.

Second, all I have heard him say anywhere is that discounts on the standard two years may be available if players co-operate AND are found not to have been responsible, with follow up comments that make it sound like he's keen to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So from all I can tell, he has tried to bypass the Essendon monopoly on informing players to make sure they understand that they may well be eligible for discounts that take their bans down to six months, by doing nothing more than going along with the process. There is no overt or veiled demand that they say or do any more than that. If anyone else has seen or heard one, it would be good to know.

My thoughts on what McDevitt said was more that he wants names of those involved. ASADA want to bury Dank and everyone else who was complicit in the program. Will the players rat on Bambi?

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Another thing I heard on 360 tonight was Little's comments from the weekend that he hopes players "don't take the soft option" - how arrogant and inappropriate is that comment

Despicable and carefully considered - "soft" is a very loaded word in football, something no player wants to be called, and even Little has been around long enough to know that. He has no business bullying the players in any direction about their options.

 

[archibald23]

If there is still a chance they will get off, they'll continue to side with the bombers who are the only avenue to that outcome. If the bombers lose their case, it'll be a free for all.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

See that's ****n bullshit the players told everything they could possibly know to Asada when they had their interviews,you then have Mcnuggets come on radio offering players to come forward so so their bans can get reduced imo that would of pissed of the players he's basicly calling them liars and they didn't tell the whole truth during their interviews.

Really? I thought the show cause notices were the clear indication that asada believe the players we're at best not telling the whole truth, ASADA clearly believe the players took prohibited susbstances and as they "do not concede prohibited susbstances were administered" then from asadas point of view they must be lying.

 

[stfan]

From the WADA Code:

the athlete has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if he or she can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal how the substance entered his or her system, demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance. This means that the burden of proof is on the athlete.


I suspect that ASADA knows more than EFC and the players think they do, and believe that the players can say more than they have.

If the players can address the paragraph above to ASADA's satisfaction, then yes discounts are on the table. But the players will have to tell ALL that they know, rather than just the minimum that the EFC want them to say.

However remember too that ignorance by itself is not a defence, as athletes have ultimate responsibility for what they ingest. Saad's 18 months suspension shows that.

 

[the conch]

If that's the case then it should be the clubs coaching and admin staff that should cop bans not the players,all the players were doing was following club protocols like what every player in the league does.

I agree, but by law players have to cop bans too- although can be discounted - to stop athletes thinking they can weedle out of it by blaming their mum or something (Shane Warne).

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

Another thing I heard on 360 tonight was Little's comments from the weekend that he hopes players "don't take the soft option" - how arrogant and inappropriate is that comment

Did he really say that? Lol what a despicable little man.

 

[rand corp]

When the penny finally drops that the EFC are only trying to protect their own a$$ and not any of the players I suspect the united front will soon unravel into a free for all. Hirdy might not be the only one that ends up with a paid holiday, and then some.

 

[Big Sim]

I am more inclined to think that the players both current and ex are more likely to march lock step with EFC right up to the moment that infractions are handed down. Until then, if they can somehow winkle their way through it all, apart from a few sleepless nights there is no harm done.

We as a society don't have a great track record for supporting whistle blowers or those who report on their mates - in fact they tend to end up getting pretty ferociously burnt one way or another. Blackcat has linked the case of the track athlete who spilled the beans prior to the 2000 olympic. Didn't end well for him at all.

Given how strong the culture of loyalty (sacrificing yourself for the club etc etc) is within the football world I don't think any person would lightly go down the path of providing substantial assistance - which in ASADA world means telling them everything that you know to the finest of detail. They would probably have to walk away from all involvement in football for the rest of their lives.

Much, much safer to wait for whatever happens to happen and then join a group action against EFC if one can be mounted.

Terrific post.

 

[Big Sim]

I guess regarding the players and what they told ASADA, if they all gave the same "thymosin? Hmmmm, sounds familiar, but I could not definitely say if it was or wasn't mentioned or on anything I signed" type answer, ASADA is entitled to think that the answers were deliberately evasive due to coaching.

Because the other option is to believe that none of the 34 players took enough interest in what was being injected in to their systems for any names to stick in their memory. Interest such as "Thymosin? What's that exactly? Oh, and what does it do?" If they had, you would think it would have stuck in at least one memory.

 

[Baldur]

You've missed the point of the post though, whether it was right or wrong. The whole point was not about "strict liability" or the players responsibility to know - it was about the players not knowing, and so it's impossible for them to go to ASADA and tell them "yes I was injected with banned drugs, I'll have the 6 months". They don't know whether they were or not. If ASADA finds evidence they have taken banned drugs, yes, you are right, it's not an excuse. But how can each 34 individual player step forward and say "100% I knew what was going in" when they didn't?

They can look at the show clause. Decide if it shows they were injected with banned drugs. And then tell ASADA, "Fair Cop Guv". That is what they have to do now, look at the case ASADA sets out and decide what they should do.

 

[fairfooty]

If that's the case then it should be the clubs coaching and admin staff that should cop bans not the players,all the players were doing was following club protocols like what every player in the league does.

The Nuremberg defence - 'sorry sir I was just following orders' - didn't hold up then and it won't now. Sorry but it's made clear to every player you are responsible for everything found in your body and you have a responsibility to know. You are paid as professionals and are expected to behave as professionals. 'I didn't know' is no defence and there's not a court anywhere that will accept as such.

The players need to be very careful in accepting the advice of the Club who have a conflict of interest between their own interests and those of the players. The Clubs needs are not the same as the players. There is a very public offer on the table from ASADA for relatively minimal penalties for the players which essentially saves their careers and the Club - and it's far less than other clubs and individuals have copped for far lesser 'crimes'. ASADA would not have taken the serious step of show cause without solid evidence. And there has never been a successful legal challenge to ASADA's very broad jurisdiction to my knowledge although some have tried. The fall-out and damage to the rest of the league is appalling. It's time this ended with accountability by Essendon and the players for their actions.