Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Thanks for telling me, PyreneesPie.

Member 7167 wrote:This link is to a summary of the Essendon decision. In laymans terms it attempts to outline how the final determination was made and highlights some of the factors involved.

http://sociallitigator.com/2016/01/12/e ... gment-day/

Bump to next page, this is a great read, and I reckon if your in a heated discussion, show the other person it!

Two things (may have been mentioned, not reading 9 pages).

1. What happens to the ANZAC day match? Doesn't seem right to play against a reserves/rookie team (can spin it as courage against the odds for them I guess).

2. Essendon are in effect being punished with receiving pick 1 in this year's draft. They were never, ever going to be premiers this year so the players cop the year off and the club gets rewarded.

PyreneesPie wrote:

droversdog65 wrote:

AnthonyC wrote:I just cannot understand all this "woe is me", "it's not fair", sentiment that seems to be coming from the AFL fraternity. It's actually unbelievable.

By all means give the players support (if we take their word for it that they did not take a PED intentionally), but for goodness sake don't say they did nothing wrong. It should be more like "look you stuffed up, you idiot, you're a good guy, but you're an idiot".

How some people think that's it's ok because "they didn't do it on purpose" is just unreal.

Didn't do it on purpose excuse won't wash - according to the CASA findings they players were all asked if they took anything into their body which they knew nothing about and all point blank lied straight faced.

That is an organized and premeditated attempt to conceal the facts of their culpability.

Agree with the above two posts. Plus, signing the consent forms seems to have been a red flag that the players choose to ignore. I mean, shouldn't it have raised some alarm bells for them? Like "You want to inject me with something, offsite, but you want me to provide written consent for you to do it?? Why?" Especially when you've been drilled by the AFL and ASADA to be responsible for what goes into your bodies, why didn't any of them ask what the F(*k was going on? Nope, they just blindly did as they were told.

The answer to the last question seems to lie in the status of James Hird at the club. It seems he was treated like a cult figure/ a demi-god that no-one dare question.

this is totally my point. Why lie? Why the secrets?

The only sympathy I have is for the very junior players, who may fear losing their spot, but really, it's drummed into them. So they still need to take personal responsibility.

Your also right about the status of Hird, it's like bloody Jonestown, how they all went along with it. Except 1 player!

Wokko wrote:Two things (may have been mentioned, not reading 9 pages).

1. What happens to the ANZAC day match? Doesn't seem right to play against a reserves/rookie team (can spin it as courage against the odds for them I guess).

2. Essendon are in effect being punished with receiving pick 1 in this year's draft. They were never, ever going to be premiers this year so the players cop the year off and the club gets rewarded.

a year away from footy, copping the heat that will surely come their way, I reckon it will end a couple of careers. Just think how long it takes a player to get back after coming off a layoff for injury, and they will be doing it without ANY club support. It's always hard to get match fit, a lot harder than staying there once you are there, anyone who plays a team sport knows that. Reckon Jobe will struggle. I reckon Heppell will survive.

This needed to happen. Or the AFL was doomed.

Those with sympathy, you remember the East German athletes? Or the Chinese? What's the difference? The time to judgement? Who's fault was that? The delay for the most part were caused deliberately by Essendon. They have never had the players backs, they are out to try and save themselves. And the sooner a player realises it, the sooner we will get a version of the truth.

Oh and the AFL? Shame shame shame

stui I have sympathy for the players as well but it is evident that they realised that they were close to or had inadvertently crossed the line and as such they were part of the conspiracy to hide their activities from day one.

Also Saad did not knowingly take a banned substance but consumed it as part of a commercially available drink. THe same rules should apply to all and apart from Saad, two Collingwood players have been dealt the same sentence. In these non-Essendon cases the sentence has not been watered down as in this case player payments are being made and rookies are being elevated. The AFL have still not learnt the lesson and have not been balanced.

Member 7167 wrote:stui I have sympathy for the players as well but it is evident that they realised that they were close to or had inadvertently crossed the line and as such they were part of the conspiracy to hide their activities from day one.

Also Saad did not knowingly take a banned substance but consumed it as part of a commercially available drink. THe same rules should apply to all and apart from Saad, two Collingwood players have been dealt the same sentence. In these non-Essendon cases the sentence has not been watered down as in this case player payments are being made and rookies are being elevated. The AFL have still not learnt the lesson and have not been balanced.

I didn't realise the players were being paid while on suspension. If that's correct then that's a total double standard after what Saad, Thomas and Keefe copped.

Member 7167 wrote:stui I have sympathy for the players as well but it is evident that they realised that they were close to or had inadvertently crossed the line and as such they were part of the conspiracy to hide their activities from day one.

Also Saad did not knowingly take a banned substance but consumed it as part of a commercially available drink. THe same rules should apply to all and apart from Saad, two Collingwood players have been dealt the same sentence. In these non-Essendon cases the sentence has not been watered down as in this case player payments are being made and rookies are being elevated. The AFL have still not learnt the lesson and have not been balanced.

Players signed the Waivers. Well then Bad Luck you signed something Dodgy and now you are Coping the Punishment

Member 7167 wrote:

RudeBoy wrote:The players are the innocent victims in this sad and sorry episode. However, banning them is the correct outcome, otherwise future players will always be able to use the out clause of "we were told to take this stuff".

Hird, 'Bomber' Thomson, their club doctor and the board members at that time, should ALL be banned from ever working at a sports club.

If the AFL-Players Association had any guts, they'd be initiating damages claims against the Essendon Football Club, who, as an employer, breached their duty of care to the players, and their actions have ruined the careers of the players. I'd estimate the total damages claim could run to over 100 million dollars.

If you read the review of the decision I think you will change your opinion on how you apportion blame and responsibility. There has been a great deal of misinformation out there and there are some such as Dank and Hird who continuate to attempt to muddy the waters.

Despite the WADA findings, I still consider the players to be innocent victims of an experimental drug program run by their club. Their employers are the one's responsible for the program. What seems to be missing from the WADA judgement, is any real acknowledgement of the realities of players in a team environment. The WADA rules were designed around policing drug use by individual athletes, where the athletes are expected to make their own decisions about this sort of stuff. In a large team environment such as a football team, it is inevitably much, much more difficult for players to be expected to challenge/refuse to abide by instructions from coaches etc.

But don't get me wrong. I think the players had to be banned, to prevent it happening again. I just think, they are not the real wrong-doers in this case. Hird, 'Bomber' Thomson, and the Essendon Board bare the main responsibility for this disgraceful episode, and I hope the players sue the arse of these jerks.

RudeBoy wrote:The WADA rules were designed around policing drug use by individual athletes, where the athletes are expected to make their own decisions about this sort of stuff. In a large team environment such as a football team, it is inevitably much, much more difficult for players to be expected to challenge/refuse to abide by instructions from coaches etc.

Currently Russia says Hello, and before them the Chinese, and before them the DDR, and any number of Soviet Bloc countries.

I suspect that the reason the Essendon players are being paid is that the EFC would potentially lose any case made against them by the players for financial loss based upon the fact that the club failed in its duty of care and introduced the program. They have essentially pleased guilty to this under the Workcover proceedings. As such the club and its administrators are significantly to blame for the situation.

AFL rules should have applied and the players should not have been paid. The EFC should have then agreed to an out of court settlement once proceeding were commenced. Whist this seems a convoluted process it is the way the rules should have been applied.

Member 7167 wrote:I suspect that the reason the Essendon players are being paid is that the EFC would potentially lose any case made against them by the players for financial loss based upon the fact that the club failed in its duty of care and introduced the program. They have essentially pleased guilty to this under the Workcover proceedings. As such the club and its administrators are significantly to blame for the situation.

AFL rules should have applied and the players should not have been paid. The EFC should have then agreed to an out of court settlement once proceeding were commenced. Whist this seems a convoluted process it is the way the rules should have been applied.

yep essendon dont want to get sued, and thats also why the corrupted AFL are giving them an allowance to fit in the new recruits

All I know is ill be at both games we play them with a belly full of boos and a head full of snappy one liner zingers.

Either the players as a group decided to keep all the injections and the Thymosin to themselves or it was a directive from the footy dept to do this. In other words did Hird and co tell them to record none of the injections on any of their ASADA doping control forms and they agreed?

It seems the players decided to stick together on this strategy and therefore I am now not surprised they never broke ranks (even guys like Monfries) throughout the whole legal saga. They knew they were responsible for a cover up to meet the goal of taking a shortcut to success. There can be no plausible explanation other than this. They played their role in conspiring to cheat and claim fake glory that they would not have deserved.