- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,966
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
it's not quality evidence, you can repeat it another time, it's not quality evidence
The Pharmacist who assisted Dank to talk to ASADA?
- Thread starter Satan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
it's not quality evidence, you can repeat it another time, it's not quality evidence
neutralguy
Club Legend
- Aug 2, 2013
- 1,306
- 1,764
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Are there no rules on this forum about altering peoples posts when you quote them like there are on other forums?
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
Didn't the AFL drop most charges?
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,483
- AFL Club
- Carlton
"Drop" is a bit imprecise.
I believe the most accurate description is that it was agreed in negotiation that in return for EFC accepting a nuclear penalty for governance that the drug related charges would be not considered or perhaps withdrawn in the disrepute finding.
Some may read more into it, but it's a moot point. The charges were most certainly not disproven, refuted or discredited. Not one word. There is no get out of jail free card on the ASADA investigation, which is what matters in the final analysis.
IMO that was a grave strategic error by Essendon. The short term gain was to not be seen to have been found guilty of the drug related aspects at that time. But lets be realistic. We all know what the penalty was for, and it wasn't for having a few lines missing from the org chart. In the longer term, that has potential to come back and bite the arse that insisted on it.
Were these charges even defended? According to Bomber Thompson he disagreed with the vast majority of it
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,483
- AFL Club
- Carlton
So what point are you trying to make here? The earth shattering news that a person accused of wrongdoing says he didn't do it?
Hardly unusual in life, and even more common in the field of drugs in sport.
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
yet he agreed to his punishment, funny that
No, I'm suggesting the fact this was settled wasnt an admission of guilt, nor does it mean they didnt have a reasonable defense against charges
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yes it is , that is the point of a deal, you are pleading guilty to a lesser charge. That's EXACTLY what it is.
Are you suggesting settling means youre guilty?
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Rubbish. Companies that settle arent admitting guilty, they're mitigating further damage
Wrong, it means the defence could be more damaging than the settlement terms
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Rubbish, you have no idea. If you accepting punishment you are accepting guilt. Bomber Thompson is not a company the last time I checked
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,966
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
- Banned
- #67
Essendon and the afl settled on far lesser charges than the original charges sheet. Looks like they were all rubbish since the AFL settled.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
No, they agreed NOT to address the doping charges due to the fact it would/could influence the ongoing ASADA enquiry. Therefore, the language was altered to only address the governance issues to which Essendon accepted full guilt (hence the penalties). The doping charges - should there be any - will be addressed at a later time.
Bianconerri
Team Captain
Charges like ! Mrs James been turfed for a year, for exactly what ? looking pretty and younger and injecting Essenjection
Art Corvelay
Super Chief_
- Oct 4, 2004
- 13,686
- 26,804
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Victory, Pats, Celtics, Ricciardo
Really? That's what you think? You don't think the AFL didn't really want to address the doping charges because they didn't want to preempt ASADA's investigation concluding?
I was answering a post suggesting the fact Essendon settled proves they are guilty of all charges. Well that works both ways
Stupid logic. Turn it around to see why...
Looks like they were all true because EFC settled.
Lol, thanks for making my point
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,483
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Its simpler than that.
The AFL and the other 17 Clubs wanted Essendon out of finals. Not really a big deal if that's for drug use, poor governance or being seen in public with bad hair. It's not an emotionally based process.
Achieving the goal of having a finals series without accused drug cheats playing in it, without (officially) making it for drugs was a no lose for the AFL. It decomplicates the situation going forward.
