Certified Legendary Thread 34 Essendon* Players suspended for doping violations - No opposition fans. Check OP for thread rules

[SBYM]

hahahahahahahahaaaa!!!

A man in his 40s with an angry note from his dad...

How embarrassment.

 

[teknodeejay]

It's not WADA related but anyone hear Floggard having a sook on radio about having a sook on the field?

Floggard at his best.

 

[Love the Drake]

If you want a great laugh to take your mind off our own troubles, have a read of this cracker from Hird's father:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...tands-by-his-son/story-fni5f6kv-1227357710843

JAMES Hird’s father has labelled the World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeal of the Essendon drugs case a “direct attack on Australian sport and our system of government’’.

Comedy gold!!!!

And who was the writer...none other than Mark toss bag Robinson. His head is so far up Sir James' backside that he doesn't know whether it's night or day. Absolute unprofessional, bias flog.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's not WADA related but anyone hear Floggard having a sook on radio about having a sook on the field?

Floggard at his best.

Yes, called someone a weak campaigner, then complained he was set up by Channel 7 because they didn't cut it out of the telecast. Setting you up would be baiting you into saying it you goose Goddard. What they did or rather didn't do, is go out of their way to protect you.

Time is a wonderful thing but with every passing day, I am pleased we never ended up getting this character.

 

[AlecDuncan]

JAMES Hird’s father has labelled the World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeal of the Essendon drugs case a “direct attack on Australian sport and our system of government’’.

James IS Australia!

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Yes, called someone a weak campaigner, then complained he was set up by Channel 7 because they didn't cut it out of the telecast. Setting you up would be baiting you into saying it you goose Goddard. What they did or rather didn't do, is go out of their way to protect you.

Time is a wonderful thing but with every passing day, I am pleased we never ended up getting this character.

Who will play Goddard in the movie about Essendon?

 

[LanceRomance]

Who will play Goddard in the movie about Essendon?

Joe Pesci

 

[Lace_Out]

Kanye Pest

 

[MC_Doggy_Frog18]

Who will play Goddard in the movie about Essendon?

Adam sandler in a comedy.

 

[__Bobcat__]

Fergal Sharky

 

[mediumsizered]

If you want a great laugh to take your mind off our own troubles, have a read of this cracker from Hird's father:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...tands-by-his-son/story-fni5f6kv-1227357710843

JAMES Hird’s father has labelled the World Anti-Doping Agency’s appeal of the Essendon drugs case a “direct attack on Australian sport and our system of government’’.

Comedy gold!!!!

I read this article this morning & my immediate thought was, how dare the anti-doping authority want the case heard by a truly independent body. They should be thankful the AFL even convened an anti-doping tribunal.

 

[Funk]

Carlton should be tested for performance unenhancing drugs.

They had to be on Valium last night!

 

[SurreyBlue]

They had to be on Valium last night!

Actually Have it on good authority we took sleeping tablets by mistake.

 

[choo]

Case to be HIRD in Switzerland.
Here's how I think it will go.

Imagine the hearing
Ordered in china️
Delivered to drug dealer️
Compounded by chemist️
Delivered to mad scientist️
Arrived at football club ️
Players are injected using regimen consistent with TB4 ️
Football club pays invoice️

Ok we're ready to deliver our verdict.
️️

Timing is everything; Let's go eat chocolates

 

[ODNBlue]

The players didnt know. Dank thought it was TB4. However, to apply the strict liability rule against the PLAYERS individually, you still need to prove they were actually administered TB4. As opposed to what might have been TB4 but could also have been holy water for all anyone knows.

This is the problem in the absence of a positive drug test. Ive seen a lot of people try to compare this to Armstrong but its completely different. Lance was done for knowing and deliberate use of a banned substance. Here ASADA are effectively trying to ping the players for inadvertently using a banned substance. Hence the need to establish what the substance was

From what I understand this is incorrect. Armstrong was found guilty based on the belief of his teammates that the were all doping with EPO. None of them knew categorically that they were taking EPO; it could have been another substance. Similarly, the evidence in this case suggests that it is reasonable to believe that Charters sourced TB4 from China, Alvari compounded it to Dank's specifications, and Dank administered it to the players.

Fact is that if the Armstrong case had been held to the same standard as the * case, Armstrong would have walked.

 

[Stamos]

Case to be HIRD in Switzerland.

Not confirmed yet, but hopefully.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

"It is understood WADA has requested the case be held outside Australia in part because some of the panel hearing the case will be international arbitrators. It has also been interpreted as a provocative move by WADA to seek to move the matters as far as possible from the AFL environment."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ase-heard-in-switzerland-20150519-gh5ath.html

 

[thylacine60]

Yes, called someone a weak campaigner, then complained he was set up by Channel 7 because they didn't cut it out of the telecast. Setting you up would be baiting you into saying it you goose Goddard. What they did or rather didn't do, is go out of their way to protect you.

Time is a wonderful thing but with every passing day, I am pleased we never ended up getting this character.

Backed down from his comments now he's found out there ain't no delay. Floggard.

 

[KnobHead]

From what I understand this is incorrect. Armstrong was found guilty based on the belief of his teammates that the were all doping with EPO. None of them knew categorically that they were taking EPO; it could have been another substance. Similarly, the evidence in this case suggests that it is reasonable to believe that Charters sourced TB4 from China, Alvari compounded it to Dank's specifications, and Dank administered it to the players.

Fact is that if the Armstrong case had been held to the same standard as the * case, Armstrong would have walked.

no, it was a bit deeper than that - for example, Tyler Hamilton saw Armstrong having a blood transfusion on the team bus (Hamilton was having it also). as for EPO, Armstrong's team went to great lengths to get it delivered (motorman), all the team were on it & Armstrong actively encouraged his teammates to take it - if they didn't, Armstrong got them off the team. there was never any doubt it was EPO.

Armstrong intended and did use EPO

it ain't as clear cut in the EFC case, & no one is suggesting the EFC players intended to cheat . problem for EFC is that it appears banned substances made their way to windy hill, & no one is sure what they took, then again the flip side is no one can actually categorically prove what they took, unfortunately it's quite grey

there is one similarity but - in both Armstrong & EFC there are no positive tests

 

[Big Sim]

The players didnt know. Dank thought it was TB4. However, to apply the strict liability rule against the PLAYERS individually, you still need to prove they were actually administered TB4. As opposed to what might have been TB4 but could also have been holy water for all anyone knows.

This is the problem in the absence of a positive drug test. Ive seen a lot of people try to compare this to Armstrong but its completely different. Lance was done for knowing and deliberate use of a banned substance. Here ASADA are effectively trying to ping the players for inadvertently using a banned substance. Hence the need to establish what the substance was

This is the AFL party line. I don't buy it, nor do WADA.

 

[Big Sim]

"It is understood WADA has requested the case be held outside Australia in part because some of the panel hearing the case will be international arbitrators. It has also been interpreted as a provocative move by WADA to seek to move the matters as far as possible from the AFL environment."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ase-heard-in-switzerland-20150519-gh5ath.html

There is a very amusing thread on this topic unfurling on the HTB. Recommended.

 

[sosos]

there is one similarity but - in both Armstrong & EFC there are no positive tests

More than one similarity.....add arrogance to the list.

 

[SBYM]

Fergal Sharky

Don't be racist.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Fergal Sharky

Hmm, he does like to point the finger at other people for stealing.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

From what I understand this is incorrect. Armstrong was found guilty based on the belief of his teammates that the were all doping with EPO. None of them knew categorically that they were taking EPO; it could have been another substance. Similarly, the evidence in this case suggests that it is reasonable to believe that Charters sourced TB4 from China, Alvari compounded it to Dank's specifications, and Dank administered it to the players.

Fact is that if the Armstrong case had been held to the same standard as the * case, Armstrong would have walked.

Youre missing the key distinction.

The evidence was that Armstrong himself was knowingly doping. And, as someone said, the evidence was much stronher.

Here, its been accepted that the players weren't KNOWINGLY engaging in doping. Once you get to that point, you need to establish they actually took a prohibited substance if you are to hold them accountable under a strict liability type argument.

Again, Im not saying that can't be established. Im just saying its a bit harder than most on here would like to think.