• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Moved Thread How secret Bombers deal came unstuck

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slax said:
Daniher was doing some conditioning training at Essendon last year as they had committed to picking him under F-S very early and were wanting to get some extra work into him that he wouldn't of got playing school or TAC footy.
Click to expand...
why are you telling me something I already know? What relevance does that have to the post you replied to?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
it is a beat up, because the whole thing is predicated on the alleged crimes being exactly the same and needed to be treated as such.

And if it's not a beat-up, do you want to take a crack at explaining to me how we're going to lose 45 players for a year from a list of 44?
Click to expand...

Not saying its sensible, this is the NRL we are talking about remember.

They are screwed. Admissions by management and players to date are bad enough, and now reports they have photos to back it up. Great, the photo of equine only supplements helps your court case with Dank, but it makes it hard to convince ASADA that your players had no idea what they took. They are friggin morons.

As mentioned before, EFC have managed this much better, and they are stupidly hoping IMO they can latch onto any leniancy you get by arguing it would be preferential treatment to do otherwise. FWIW its a hail mary for me, and one unlikely to work.

As for the 45 players, you assume they can count in the NRL?
 
Daytripper said:
I was talking about the ACC - not ASADA.

Not one single charge.

No wonder he is suing.
I can only hope he looks at some of the slander he is copping on here as well.
Click to expand...
I'll take your posting seriously when you stop rolling out the same crap i've seen from lance armstrong fans for years.

Never tested positive!
etc etc etc
highly original :rolleyes:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lance Uppercut said:
it is a beat up, because the whole thing is predicated on the alleged crimes being exactly the same and needed to be treated as such.

And if it's not a beat-up, do you want to take a crack at explaining to me how we're going to lose 45 players for a year from a list of 44?
Click to expand...


I can understand how this small part of the article does not add up. But I can't understand how you can draw from this that the article is a beat up, or even a fabrication of the facts.

If you are correct, then Masters and his employers have opened themselves up to a whole new world of pain and poverty.

And I really don't think that he/they are that stupid.
 
whiteoak said:
I can understand how this small part of the article does not add up. But I can't understand how you can draw from this that the article is a beat up, or even a fabrication of the facts.

If you are correct, then Masters and his employers have opened themselves up to a whole new world of pain and poverty.

And I really don't think that he/they are that stupid.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's a fabrication of facts, far from it.

But it's a big lurid headline that, when you get past, doesn't say much. It's all retch and no vomit.
 
shepp said:
Watson and Heppell have spoken far too confidently to the media the last few weeks. They were obviously assured a deal was going to be worked out.
Click to expand...

What does this mean? As far as I was concerned any confidence was that they had not done anything wrong to their knowledge, no? Different kind of confiedence.
 
2one2 said:
What does this mean? As far as I was concerned any confidence was that they had not done anything wrong to their knowledge, no? Different kind of confiedence.
Click to expand...

Masters said the letter was dated 12 days prior to March 5.
Doubt the players would not have had more recent advice.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
I'm not saying it's a fabrication of facts, far from it.

But it's a big lurid headline that, when you get past, doesn't say much. It's all retch and no vomit.
Click to expand...

He's been very specific on many points though.

And I think a few in this thread are missing the issue that the "deal" was between the AFL and ASADA, not Essendon and ASADA. Even though Masters article seems to indicate otherwise. (On my third reading of the article I tend to agree with Higgs Boson that is a mish mash and poorly written), but you can still draw the general gist of it.

Read into that what you want, however the AFL have already been given clearance to impose any sanctions. That's the bit that stinks to me.

As I said in the main thread; it may HAVE been good corporate manouvering on Demetrious behalf, but it smacks of yet another attempt to dumb down any, possible, resultant charges and penalties to the lowest possible level.

This is/was potentially great for Essendon, however it, yet again, strips the code of integrity and transparency.

And, personally, I don't like that at all.
 
parksda77 said:
How can a legal rep give a client a letter that was written from his organisation to another client?
Click to expand...

Higgs Boson said:
If the other client instructs the lawyer to, and is unconcerned about waiving privilege
Click to expand...

parksda77 said:
So if they had no concerns of its content being known?
Click to expand...

Higgs Boson said:
Yes.

Although this is pure speculation. Roy's article is almost incomprehensible gibberish. I've read it three times and I still don't know what he's really trying to say.

In any event, the article just refers to "a letter". Who it is supposedly from, what it says and in what context, is simply unclear.
Click to expand...

I agree that Roys article is hard to understand.

Marshall was ASADA's counsel. The only way the paragraph about the letter makes much sense was if the letter was written by ASADA to Essendon or the AFL. If ASADA gave him the OK for him to provide it to Cronulla then he could. Unless they really were involved in some secert underhanded deal there was little reason for ASADA to object.

Anyway, regardless of the headline "Secret Bombers Deal", I doubt that ASADA viewed it as secret or a deal.

My best guess is that ASADA and Essendon/AFL had discussions and ASADA gave Essendon/AFL some advice about possable sanctions that did not tally with what Marshall was telling Cronulla. Then panties where twisted and people ran around waving their hands in the air.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Baldur said:
I agree that Roys article is hard to understand.

Marshall was ASADA's counsel. The only way the paragraph about the letter makes much sense was if the letter was written by ASADA to Essendon or the AFL. If ASADA gave him the OK for him to provide it to Cronulla then he could. Unless they really were involved in some secert underhanded deal there was little reason for ASADA to object.

Anyway, regardless of the headline "Secret Bombers Deal", I doubt that ASADA viewed it as secret or a deal.

My best guess is that ASADA and Essendon/AFL had discussions and ASADA gave Essendon/AFL some advice about possable sanctions that did not tally with what Marshall was telling Cronulla. Then panties where twisted and people ran around waving their hands in the air.
Click to expand...
I reckon you've nailed it
 
whiteoak said:
He's been very specific on many points though.

And I think a few in this thread are missing the issue that the "deal" was between the AFL and ASADA, not Essendon and ASADA. Even though Masters article seems to indicate otherwise. (On my third reading of the article I tend to agree with Higgs Boson that is a mish mash and poorly written), but you can still draw the general gist of it.

Read into that what you want, however the AFL have already been given clearance to impose any sanctions. That's the bit that stinks to me.

As I said in the main thread; it may HAVE been good corporate manouvering on Demetrious behalf, but it smacks of yet another attempt to dumb down any, possible, resultant charges and penalties to the lowest possible level.

This is/was potentially great for Essendon, however it, yet again, strips the code of integrity and transparency.

And, personally, I don't like that at all.
Click to expand...

AFL were ALWAYS going to be the ones to deliver sanctions. ASADA makes recommendations of penalties but AFL have to deliver them (as do the NRL). It is always left up to the Governing body of the sport in question. However, IF AFL decide to over rule ASADAs recommendations, ASADA have to option of appealing to WADA.
 
Admiral Afterworld said:
How long's it been since "Darkest day in sport"? Six weeks?

Are ASADA going to charge anyone at Essendon and say what drugs they took or just keep doing empty, keep-up-our-profile media interviews?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of anti-doping.
Silence doesn't imply that nothing is going to happen.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Lance Armstrong sued so many people he had more suits than a menswear shop. :cool:
Click to expand...

If he gave evidance in any of those cases he had better worry about serious jail time re perjury and perverting the course of justice. i.e. Jeffrey Archer

What a lot of people on these threads forget when they talk about suing, is that if you lie in court and are found out, it's jail.
 
TedDougChris said:
And Melbourne didn't tank..... ;)
Click to expand...
This is a good point. As a Melbourne fan I believe like most other footy followers that we tanked. I was always slightly confident that we wouldn't be punished for it. I.e. losing draft picks or points. Lets face it finding us guilty of tanking could have had far wider ramifications. Also the AFL would look silly punishing one team and not others for doing similar. The AFL got their pound of flesh and fined the club and suspended officials.
Just look out for something similar to happen to Essendon. Some fines and suspensions of officials. Remember a couple are already gone. The main issue for the AFL and Essendon is that they can't just orchestrate a deal of ASADA find something.
 
Whether Roy's article is 100% factual or not, Essendon and the AFL now know they can't negotiate any secret special deals with ASADA because the NRL media will be all over it and be screaming blue murder if their clubs get treated more harshly than an AFL club for similar offences, and rightly so.
 
jenny61_99 said:
AFL were ALWAYS going to be the ones to deliver sanctions. ASADA makes recommendations of penalties but AFL have to deliver them (as do the NRL). It is always left up to the Governing body of the sport in question. However, IF AFL decide to over rule ASADAs recommendations, ASADA have to option of appealing to WADA.
Click to expand...

Yep!

Poorly worded on my behalf. I blame reading Masters article too many times and catching the bug.;)
 
jenny61_99 said:
LMAO - "we're not innocent, so let's make a deal". WTF are you on? o_O
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Cronulla was offered. Take the fall...and you only miss 6 months.

There are more layers of guilt at Cronulla. This is what we've been saying all the long.

As soon as ASADA belted the door down at Cronulla, they were screwed.

Compare this to the actions of Essendon from the very start. We invited them for a start and now the truth is quickly emerging.

First of all the statements by Robinson and Stevens about the Essendon officials, which have since been confirmed by Crackers Keenan, who rarely gets it wrong.

We also know the players are in the clear from both the views of Asada and the AFL.

It's basically all over.
 
pazza said:
The reason why the deal doesn't exist? No case to answer.

Even the likes of Crackers Keenan in this week's Inside Football have said so.

Now for Bigfooty to realise reality.
Click to expand...


Crackers Keenan!! LOL:D

That well known, hard-hitting, fearless, investigative journalist, Crackers!

Oh my, haha.:D

At least you're not quoting Twitter sources this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top