Why isn't there a player revolt?

[Gavstar]

MQ Pretty sure the WADA code is not what this lawsuit is about.

Balance of probabilities says EFC is pretty stuffed here. AFL perhaps may be ok given they took steps to nip it in the bud.

Looking forward to people testifying under oath!

 

[Michael Quinn]

MQ Pretty sure the WADA code is not what this lawsuit is about.

Balance of probabilities says EFC is pretty stuffed here. AFL perhaps may be ok given they took steps to nip it in the bud.

Looking forward to people testifying under oath!

I realise that and agree with what you posted. (although, Not sure AFL really tried that hard to nip it in the bud. Certainly tried about as hard as we did

I got caught in a cross thread discussion that wasn't relevant to this thread.

Sorry, still getting the hang of all this.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

It's actually not that difficult to understand. I'm surprised you're labouring over it.

My opinion of our guilt is irrelevant. As is yours. Hell, even the AFL's opinion is irrelevant... (Sorta.)You are not guilty, until you are found guilty. 'Gut feel' is not evidence.

I am assuming you believe in the basic right of 'Innocent until proven guilty' in every other situation in this country, but just not this one?

Hey, if we get found to have breached the WADA code next Tuesday... Throw the book at us.

That hasn't happened yet. And it sure as fcuk hadn't happened in Feb 2013, or even August 2013.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.
"Everyone is innocent until proven guilty with evidence, but I'm going to cast aspersions on every other club in the meantime based on nothing".

 

[Michael Quinn]

Yeah, I get what you're saying.
"Everyone is innocent until proven guilty with evidence, but I'm going to cast aspersions on every other club in the meantime based on nothing".

Cast aspersions hey? Something, something glass houses.

At some stage it's going to dawn on you that we are having an 'ends justifying the means' debate.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Cast aspersions hey? Something, something glass houses.

At some stage it's going to dawn on you that we are having an 'ends justifying the means' debate.

Glass houses?

You mean like "I believe everyone else was doing it, but I think it's horrible so many peolpe have jumped to conclusions about what took place at Essendon".

That sort of glass house?

 

[Michael Quinn]

Glass houses?

You mean like "I believe everyone else was doing it, but I think it's horrible so many peolpe have jumped to conclusions about what took place at Essendon".

That sort of glass house?

Yeah... Nah. We had a good convo for a while there, now for some some reason you are trying to back me into a corner over semantics.

I cast aspersions on my own club too. Hell, I cast them on sporting organisations and individuals right around the world.

I don't automatically assume all of them are guilty. I just 'reckon.'

I'm not sure we're going to get much more out of our discussions.

 

[onemancyclone]

Yeah... Nah. We had a good convo for a while there, now for some some reason you are trying to back me into a corner over semantics.

I cast aspersions on my own club too. Hell, I cast them on sporting organisations and individuals right around the world.

I don't automatically assume all of them are guilty. I just 'reckon.'

I'm not sure we're going to get much more out of our discussions.

If James Hird automatically assumes he's innocent, I'm free to think not.

Have a nice day.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yeah... Nah. We had a good convo for a while there, now for some some reason you are trying to back me into a corner over semantics.

I cast aspersions on my own club too. Hell, I cast them on sporting organisations and individuals right around the world.

I don't automatically assume all of them are guilty. I just 'reckon.'

I'm not sure we're going to get much more out of our discussions.

I haven't meant to back you into a corner, I've just seen the example I've made above a heap of times on this board and it's a bit perplexing.

So I call people out on it.

No intent to pull you apart, just a little miffed that it can still be a thought amongst those who want their club to be treated fairly.

 

[Michael Quinn]

I haven't meant to back you into a corner, I've just seen the example I've made above a heap of times on this board and it's a bit perplexing.

So I call people out on it.

No intent to pull you apart, just a little miffed that it can still be a thought amongst those who want their club to be treated fairly.

Fair enough. I know many Essendon supporters have been quick to throw that Sam Lane article from a few years ago and say 'see, see, drug cheats,' so I'm sure that's been annoying.

I was not doing that fwiw.

 

[sauce_head]

It's entirely valid, playing at the edge of the rules is what you do in elite sport.

As I've said before, my concerns have been with risk management:

- I'm unhappy that people failed to realise that the consequences of playing at the edge of the WADA rule book and the likelihood of a breach when the rules shift so often without notice means that it is NOT a risk that you should take.

- I'm unhappy that people at the club failed to heed Doc Reid's advice, his letter to Hamilton is almost a crystal ball into the future.

- I'm unhappy that we let the person injecting our players also control the supply chain for those injections.

They are MAJOR failings by the club.

I'm not concerned with the morality of using substances in dosages that have not been through full clinical trials. This disgusts some on here but for me the players are grown adults and make their own choices in that regard. I also think the risks have been completely overblown compared to the risks that a significant proportion of players expose themselves to when they take recreational drugs and the associated risks (repeated concussions, etc) of playing AFL.

All that said, if we crossed the line, we cop our whack.

One is on the field the other is off. If you truly believe that they are the same thing then there is no hope for you.

 

[blackshadow]

thats incorrect

Wittert claimed he trialled IV AOD and considered testing it as an antidepressant because it resulted in mild euphoria

Was this Hird's good place?

Money to be made from euphoric drugs... AOD financials ka-ching ka-ching!

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

thats incorrect

Wittert claimed he trialled IV AOD and considered testing it as an antidepressant because it resulted in mild euphoria

Now, be honest. How many patients was it IV tested on and what was the dosage/frequency?

 

[mxett]

Now, be honest. How many patients was it IV tested on and what was the dosage/frequency?

how would I know? I'm in no way justifying it's use. I'm only addressing an incorrect claim

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

how would I know? I'm in no way justifying it's use. I'm only addressing an incorrect claim

You're right. It seems as though the injection testing was very short. Although based on this, all testing was pretty minimal! Pretty confronting that the guy testing it is concerned about long term effects of injecting the s**t.....



Calzada claims AOD-9604 is "very safe" based on the studies to date.

However, Wittert says it's too soon to say if the drug can be used safely in the long-term.

In short-term studies, some obese people injected with AOD-9604 experienced headache, chest tightness, palpitations and euphoric feelings, which were considered to be drug-related.

"We simply do not know what would occur with repeated injections given either intravenously or subcutaneously (under the skin)," says Wittert.

And he says evidence on oral dosing is only available from studies lasting six months.