To summarise
First line defence:
Essendon denies that anyone took AOD, despite the consent forms they had players sign. Even Watson didn?t admit to taking the stuff, he merely said he believed he may have.
Second line defence:
Essendon have claimed that there was a note from ASADA that said AOD wasn?t banned, while simultaneously denying they took it. Unfortunately no-one can find a copy nor remember what it actually said or who it was from.
Note:
The whole AOD thing is also somewhat of a red herring anyway, Essendon have seized upon it because they really don?t want to debate the legality of some of the other substances they were invoiced for and which are absolutely forbidden.
Third Line Defence:
It was rogue elements, we didn?t realise what they were doing, and as soon as we suspected something was up we ?self-reported? . . . leaving aside the timing of the self report, this was the players best hope of escaping serious penalty. 6 months seems to be the standard penalty for unknowing ingestion.
Obfuscation masquerading as Defences:
Uncertainty about exactly which classification AOD was banned under, classic nit picking. It was banned. This defence was assisted by Fat Andy when he and Evans were working out a soft landing for the Bombers, a soft landing Hird may have jeopardised.
The "ACC said it wasn?t banned defence". Actually the ACC statement to that fact was on page 14 of their report on drugs in sport. And appears to be an abridgement of the full AUD964 statement on page 39. If it wasn?t the ACC it?d be called a typo. In any case for the purposes of banning athletes, The ACC?s opinion is irrelevant (Gerard Whately?s is even more so).
There is no evidence that AOD is performance enhancing, leaving aside the question ?In that case why were you taking it?? Of course the statement is irrelevant because it was banned.
In response to revelations about the meeting in 2011 where Clothier warned Hird not to use peptides wasn?t an official one on one ?Don?t use Peptides Warning? meeting so it doesn?t count.
Then whole Fat Andy told us we were in trouble before we ?self reported? argument is also irrelevant. If it were true then yes Fat Andy would be in trouble, however when Hird leaked this not only did he pick a fight with Fat Andy he also punctured the Essendon players ?self-report? defence.
The AFLPA?s ?Information not available to players? defence will not help the players, if amateur Olympic athletes can and do the research why can?t professional football players get off their X-boxes and do the same research?
Catch 22
Even if there proves to be insufficient evidence of drug cheating, and without positive tests or admissions this is a distinct possibility, the AFL can always crack Essendon?s egg with their ?Bringing the Game into Disrepute? hammer, should they so wish.
History
While Bomber fans are proud of having won the most premierships. Essendon also hold the record for the number of times they having been penalised (with the loss of draft picks) for breaching the salary cap. Should anyone be surprised they tried cheating this way too?
Final Observations:
Much as I find it distasteful, I suspect that Evans and Fat Andy had been negotiating a soft landing for the players. Whether the brinkmanship of James Hird, Essendon?s "Dear Leader" and ?Great Successor? jeopardises this is less certain, but it?d be ironic if it forces the AFL to draw a clear line in the sand on this issue, rather than producing another ambiguous ?negotiated settlement? like the Demon Tankathon.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by R-1
Bookmarks