Mega Thread AFL to investigate Essendon for controversial fitness program - PART3

[Noobz0r]

I feel sorry for guys like LanceUppercut and his friends. They fought extremely hard in this thread to dispute they were the page 17 team - without PEDs AFAIK.

But as I said earlier, you'd have to be outright delusional to think it was another team from either the AFL or NRL. When you put the facts together, they all pointed to the Bombers.

Having said that, it looks like the players were tricked. Sad really, I think the senior players should've known better, but the newer ones are really getting screwed here. They dream of playing AFL, get drafted to a powerful club, of course they're not going to go against what they're told to do, especially if the leaders are doing it as well.

They thought Dank's denial actually meant something. LOL of course he's going to deny it he will go to jail if he admits it, this is a serious crime.

It could still be an NRL club on page 17.

 

[Powerade 08]

Best case scenario for the club is that Dank went rogue, and in trying to build the players up, (or in trying to repair their bodies, and save his job after the injury crisis hit), deceived everyone at the club as to the content of the substances.

Best case is he did not inject PEDs. and just the practices were dodgy.

 

[FishJohnWestReject]

I'm wodering if the press release today was an indication to the ACC and general public, that vlad and the schollar are being seen to be doing something? I haven't heard a statement from the NRL headquarters..correct me if I'm wrong....and vlad and co are jumping on the front foot. "POSSIBLE" and "MAY" are still the common denominators used by all officials....I think it's all circumstantial (just like the WCE hearings), no solid evidence, and yes I do believe Essendon or at least Steve Dank were fingered in the ACC report. Essendon didn't like what was reported and hence called the presser after engaging the AFL and ASADA, to possibly call the ACC's "bluff"...(they were planning on releasing the report in March)....to name names, press charges or STFU. Like any supporter who's club is getting thrashed ATM, I probably sound 1-eyed, but would just like peoples opinion on the timing of press releases?

 

[Flawed Genius]

Is there a chance Dank could 'turn' against his employers and name them?, if this happens it could bring the whole house of cards down, lots of shady characters follow football, it's not beyond the realms a he could be offed in the next month or so, or fall off a boat whilst on a fishing trip or run into a tree on a ski holiday.

LOL jesus Jozeph I know you're baiting but it's the AFL not the CIA

 

[strobe00]

If that helps you sleep at night.

Todays events were a clarification on endless speculation.

Agree. They were good news for every club except for Essendon really (and I guess the unnamed one with the unnamed player).

 

[Air_Chester]

So what the hell happens if (and I doubt it) Ess make the finals, knock a team out and then it gets found that they are/were guilty of PEDs? The sh*tstorm would be massive

I'd guess nothing. If they're rubbed out for taking PEDs in 2012 it is irrelevant that a team couldn't beat them in 2013 when there is no evidence of PEDs.

 

[the distributer]

I read the quote from the AFL and the use of the word "WITHOUT" strongly highlighted in regards to knowledge of what they were taking, as a premise for the AFL and Essendon to possibly argue that the players shouldn't be banned, even if they're found to have been injected with low levels of peptides. I think they're looking for a fall guy for the entire leageu, and that happens to be Essendon, and I also think that they're now on the front foot to limit even that damage.

I'd think the AFL will be doing all they can to make sure that someone takes a big fall, but that Essendon can still field a side.

Essendon have to field a team because if they don't the AFL will be in breach of the TV contract.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

To my understanding, these are the only "facts" to hand at this stage:
- Whether or not the substances ingested/injected are legal or not, the players involved appear to have believed they were legal

How is this at all a fact?

Realistically though, there have been no facts added to this debate since last Thursday.

Realistically, there have been numerous. A few according to GM are that;
16 clubs are no longer under investigation.
1 club has one player to be concerned about.
1 club has all of its playing group and implicit staff to be concerned about.

 

[bacon buster]

How is this at all a fact?
.

they are the facts as we know them. GM stated as much today.

those other facts you mention are not relevant to the Essendon case, which is all i'm talking about

 

[Mighty Chinook]

Could this be a test case though? Haven't heard of a doping case where the 'participants' legitimately did not know what was being administered.

Or a doping case where there was no ultimate victory (good medal, world title, etc.) as a result. Usually taking away that victory is the worst punishment of all.

I don't think there's precedent anywhere. That's where it'll be interesting to see if the AFL go hard out on the Bombers or whether they are lenient due to the deception displayed by Dank or whoever was administering the PEDs.

There is a heap of precedent for this type of situation. Google it. It doesn't matter if the players thought it was legal.

 

[LargeFooty]

I'd disagree with that. If a sports scientist has done their own research, and not published the findings, then there'd be stuff they'd know that a doctor wouldn't. But a doctor could definitely learn it. And I suspect that'd be in their job description.

Perhaps. But then again, would you be injecting substances into your professional athletes based on non-peer-reviewed research? I might wait for the rigorously tested, peer-reviewed academic research myself, considering the kind of cattle involved.

I take your second point though. It would be incumbent upon a team doctor to keep up with journals which present research which has been repeated and found credible. However, I have no doubt a doctor would have a greater breadth of knowledge than a "sports scientist" and could digest information outside the narrow fields a "sports scientist" usually operates within. This would include long-term ramifications both mental and physical.

The team doctors take a more (I shudder to use the word) "holistic" - gag - approach, while "sports scientists" are really only taking that into account - the science of performance in sport. Yes it's reductionist on my part, but "sports scientists" are conditioned to see the body as akin to a machine that can be "tweaked" for performance on field/pre-season.

A "sports scientist" with a medical degree? I'd like to see that!

Seriously, I would. It would be a great development.

TL-DR - "sport scientists" operate within a narrow field that may preclude an understanding/appreciation of the total well-being of the player. The soft tissue injuries indicate this. I'm all for 'em being there, but only under the supervision of the team doctor.

edit - more words in "quotes"

 

[Atavistic]

Wowee. This is a horrible story for my club, the AFL and sport in general. The only thing worse has been the mass hysteria in the media, and on this board.

To my understanding, these are the only "facts" to hand at this stage:

- Essendon are being investigated for possible PED usage
- Whether or not the substances ingested/injected are legal or not, the players involved appear to have believed they were legal
- it is unclear how many staff within the club were aware of the content of these substances

Best case scenario for the club is that Dank went rogue, and in trying to build the players up, (or in trying to repair their bodies, and save his job after the injury crisis hit), deceived everyone at the club as to the content of the substances.

That scenario seems unlikely, and even if it eventuated, I have no idea what sanctions would be levelled at the players and club.

Realistically though, there have been no facts added to this debate since last Thursday.

What the hell? BEST CASE SCENARIO is that Dank didn't give any PEDs to the players.

 

[Flawed Genius]

There are heaps of precedent for this type of situation. Google it. It doesn't matter if the players thought it was legal.

Well there you go. Care to post a few of these precedents, just for reference in future?

 

[mike14]

I'd guess nothing. If they're rubbed out for taking PEDs in 2012 it is irrelevant that a team couldn't beat them in 2013 when there is no evidence of PEDs.

If i missed on the finals because I lost to a team that shouldn't have been on the park, I'd be pissed

 

[stugots]

16 clubs are no longer under investigation.

you seriously didnt just post that

 

[Trent85]

Could this be a test case though? Haven't heard of a doping case where the 'participants' legitimately did not know what was being administered.

Or a doping case where there was no ultimate victory (good medal, world title, etc.) as a result. Usually taking away that victory is the worst punishment of all.

Doping in East Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany


Parallels are similar to Essendon’s situation.

 

[Ghostwriter]

I'm wodering if the press release today was an indication to the ACC and general public, that vlad and the schollar are being seen to be doing something? I haven't heard a statement from the NRL headquarters..correct me if I'm wrong....and vlad and co are jumping on the front foot. "POSSIBLE" and "MAY" are still the common denominators used by all officials....I think it's all circumstantial (just like the WCE hearings), no solid evidence, and yes I do believe Essendon or at least Steve Dank were fingered in the ACC report. Essendon didn't like what was reported and hence called the presser after engaging the AFL and ASADA, to possibly call the ACC's "bluff"...(they were planning on releasing the report in March)....to name names, press charges or STFU. Like any supporter who's club is getting thrashed ATM, I probably sound 1-eyed, but would just like peoples opinion on the timing of press releases?

As much as I hate Essendon on the field, this cuts me up, can only imagine what supporters must be feeling like, i'd be apoplectic if it was North, but yes the timing is interesting, Ess would have some clued up ppl and no doubt they went front foot for a reason, don't forget that Costello is a big Ess supporter and he would have contacts, so too Ch 7 are big Ess sponsors, lots of vested interest here, Dank and Robinson have targets on thier backs and rightly so, but if they 'turn states', look out below.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

So why has the weapon been stood down however Hird who is accountable for the entire football program has not

FFS Hird was in the room when the players were asked to sign waivers

 

[Richard Pryor]

Essendon have to field a team because if they don't the AFL will be in breach of the TV contract.

Couldn't they give them classic games to broadcast or something?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If essendon re found guilty, how can they be allowed to play in a comp which starts in a month (less if you count pre-season). If they start the season and then get kicked out it's going to cause chaos. How long does it take to investigate whether there was something dodgy going on?

Yep its like you are smuggling drugs through Singapore airport and you suddenly realise you wont be home in time for your little boys birthday party.
Something dodgy = Essendon's actions.
Ruining the footy season = regrettable but nothing can be done about it now.

 

[ApplecrossWC]

Quick question...

When Essendon can't field a team/competitive team next year, what happens with the fixture?

Also, who gets ANZAC day?

 

[Mighty Chinook]

Well there you go. Care to post a few of these precedents, just for reference in future?

Can't be bothered, cricket's on

 

[scottwade]

Thinking about the second club and player. Who left the Don's at the end of last year and ended up at another club?

I'd imagine the other player would be Monfries or Lonergan? Wouldn't that make sense?

This may already have been addressed, but the thread is going so bloody fast I may never catch up.

The AFL's stated, inter alia;

The AFL is aware of one case involving the possibility of WADA-prohibited PIED use by one player at one Club.

- The AFL is aware that a second case involves the possibility of WADA-prohibited PIED use by multiple players at another Club

I would suggest any player on Essendon's list last season (obviously incl Lonergan, Monfries) would be covered under the second case and that it is another individual at another club who has been identified as a possible PED user.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

they are the facts as we know them

One player has stated that he knew they were "borderline" legal. Which consequently means they were "borderline" illegal.

Your statement that the players 'believed they were legal' is fact, is false by extension - It's disputed.

Just sayin'.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

Nah. Just another lovely Sunday!

Enjoy the 19th hole Lance!

Had a bit of trouble on the 17th I imagine.