Bombertalk

Says McDivott:

"ASADA is as keen as anyone to finalise these matters, but it will not risk the proper consideration of these serious matters for the sake of speed."

If there was any doubt that he is enjoying his time in the Sun and is seeking a big, selfish kill, then that statement says all.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/sup ... 1atoc.html

You see, it wasn't that long ago when the stupid c*** was accusing the club of "delaying tactics".

Flip wrote:Says McDivott:

"ASADA is as keen as anyone to finalise these matters, but it will not risk the proper consideration of these serious matters for the sake of speed."

If there was any doubt that he is enjoying his time in the Sun and is seeking a big, selfish kill, then that statement says all.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/sup ... 1atoc.html

It has nothing to do with him enjoying his time in the sun.

ASADA genuinely thought that the players would rush to seek deals similar to the Cronulla players, they have severely overestimated their own hand and are now trying to work out how to save themselves.

boncer34 wrote:

Flip wrote:Says McDivott:

"ASADA is as keen as anyone to finalise these matters, but it will not risk the proper consideration of these serious matters for the sake of speed."

If there was any doubt that he is enjoying his time in the Sun and is seeking a big, selfish kill, then that statement says all.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl/sup ... 1atoc.html

It has nothing to do with him enjoying his time in the sun.

ASADA genuinely thought that the players would rush to seek deals similar to the Cronulla players, they have severely overestimated their own hand and are now trying to work out how to save themselves.

Clearly.

From an interview : 24/08/2014 regarding the first issuing of SCN's
Reporter: Gerard Whateley @ McDivett

GW: You have previously issued show-cause notices to Essendon players. Did the Cronulla letters contain more information of the specifics of the case against them than what you did with Essendon?

BM: I think that probably is correct. Probably the attachments to the documentation given to Essendon was not as comprehensive as that given to the Cronulla players and following the issuance of the documentation to the Essendon players I actually sought advice from the Australian Government Solicitor on this at to the level of documentation that we should make available at that point. Don't forget there's a series of steps here and every player is entitled to view all the evidence, it's at what point they get to see it all. The advice I got back from the Australian Gvt Solicitor was that they were of the feeling at the point of show cause notice we should give more evidence so that is what we've done in this case.



You honestly thought we were going to turn over like some of the Cronulla players did didn't you, you inadequate little inchdick. Go fuckyourself
McDivett you are nothing more than a pumped up public servant.

The only reason Cronulla players took a deal was because ASADA got the NRL to threaten them with being stood down while the matter was heard, and it is apparent that ASADA would have done everything in the power to delay the process for as long as possible.

I assume ASADA has tried to get the AFL to make the same threat to the Essendon player's but because it is not in the League's (and thus their own) financial interests, the AFL has told them to get stuffed. Without that leverage against the players to take a deal, ASADA are now trying to figure out what the f*** they should do next, because they obviously don't want the matter proceeding to a tribunal because they will be laughed at.

No doubt they are trying to figure out another way to leverage the players into taking a deal.

ASADA has no benefit in seeing this closed quickly. They are enjoying playing this out in the press while petitioning for even more powers and funding. While the pendulum of public opinion has swung slightly in our favour, they still still have media and the majority of the people who buy that crap on their side.

Sismis wrote:ASADA has no benefit in seeing this closed quickly. They are enjoying playing this out in the press while petitioning for even more powers and funding. While the pendulum of public opinion has swung slightly in our favour, they still still have media and the majority of the people who buy that crap on their side.

Stiff shit.

Not responding to the SCN's is the best decision made. It is now entirely up to the pieces of shit to follow process. Let's see how they handle it. Can't hide anymore. It is put up or shut up time.

Fantastic.

Let them drag it out. Cronulla got discounts on penalties for delays caused by ASADA.

We would get the same.

boncer34 wrote:Let them drag it out. Cronulla got discounts on penalties for delays caused by ASADA.

We would get the same.

The entire delay is never factored in. If they go with that option some suspension time still has to apply.

BenDoolan wrote:

Sismis wrote:ASADA has no benefit in seeing this closed quickly. They are enjoying playing this out in the press while petitioning for even more powers and funding. While the pendulum of public opinion has swung slightly in our favour, they still still have media and the majority of the people who buy that crap on their side.

Stiff shit.

Not responding to the SCN's is the best decision made. It is now entirely up to the pieces of shit to follow process. Let's see how they handle it. Can't hide anymore. It is put up or shut up time.

Fantastic.

I disagree, As ASADA have said, even though the players have advised they are not going to respond, they are still going to wait until the response period has elapsed before going to the ADVRP. The ADVRP is still going to have to convene, all we seem to have done is deny ourselves the opportunity to present a response.

Based on Mc f***wit's comments they are not going to speed anything up on their end.

Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

Didn't we do that? Like Jobe's testimony they conveniently ignored it to suit their case.

tonysoprano wrote:

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

Didn't we do that? Like Jobe's testimony they conveniently ignored it to suit their case.

They have no interest in anything other than "proving" their case.

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

We don't have to prove we took a permitted substance. They have to prove we took a prohibited substance. Therefore not responding requires them to prove that.

BenDoolan wrote:

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

We don't have to prove we took a permitted substance. They have to prove we took a prohibited substance. Therefore not responding requires them to prove that.

THIS.

BenDoolan wrote:

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

We don't have to prove we took a permitted substance. They have to prove we took a prohibited substance. Therefore not responding requires them to prove that.

That isn't accurate. At this point, We have to "show cause" as to why we should not be entered on the register of findings.

Sismis wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

We don't have to prove we took a permitted substance. They have to prove we took a prohibited substance. Therefore not responding requires them to prove that.

That isn't accurate. At this point, We have to "show cause" as to why we should not be entered on the register of findings.

And we can chose not to respond, have the AFL decide if they wish to issue infraction notices, then ASADA must provide the evidence to show that we utilized banned substances.

Gimps wrote:

Sismis wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:

Sismis wrote:

little_ripper wrote:Surely you can't respond to something if you believe it's a false assertion. They are asking for an explanation for something the player's claim they did.not do. Take tb4

Well the club claims...assumes the players feel the same.

Of course you can, you state that the players took Thyomodulin and provide the evidence that they did.

We don't have to prove we took a permitted substance. They have to prove we took a prohibited substance. Therefore not responding requires them to prove that.

That isn't accurate. At this point, We have to "show cause" as to why we should not be entered on the register of findings.

And we can chose not to respond, have the AFL decide if they wish to issue infraction notices, then ASADA must provide the evidence to show that we utilized banned substances.

That is what we have done, I believe we have missed an opportunity to stop it getting to Dillon's tribunal.