Remove this Banner Ad

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!! said:
Also their is still that second club who has a player that could of been using PED's.
so to all the others clubs i wouldn't be jumping for joy just yet and pinging all of these on just Essendon.
Click to expand...

Yep that club better watch out! The whole club's in trouble because of that one guy!

Does that make you feel better?
 
Kaiser Powser said:
Yet some Peptides are legal to take, even as players.
Unless we know what, if anything, was taken, this particular subject is pretty pointless.
Click to expand...

This was another question the interviewer failed to clarify. She asked how many peptides were given to players - but specified "Without naming them" - WTF?. Dank's response:

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Without naming them, how many were used?
STEVE DANK: Um, well, look, to be honest, the peptides themselves is a fairly broad term. Even within the protein powders themselves, there could've been anywhere from maybe three to four different peptides that were part of the ingredients. I mean, by definition a peptide is anything that strings more than two amino acids together, so, certainly a lot of these formulations would've had various amount of peptides within their formulation. But again, all very, very legal and certainly all within the constraints of WADA.
Why didn't she want them named? I'm sure everyone is keen to know what it was he actually gave the players.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

jenny61_99 said:
This was another question the interviewer failed to clarify. She asked how many peptides were given to players - but specified "Without naming them" - WTF?. Dank's response:

CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Without naming them, how many were used?
STEVE DANK: Um, well, look, to be honest, the peptides themselves is a fairly broad term. Even within the protein powders themselves, there could've been anywhere from maybe three to four different peptides that were part of the ingredients. I mean, by definition a peptide is anything that strings more than two amino acids together, so, certainly a lot of these formulations would've had various amount of peptides within their formulation. But again, all very, very legal and certainly all within the constraints of WADA.
Why didn't she want them named? I'm sure everyone is keen to know what it was he actually gave the players.
Click to expand...

There were obviously some 'no go zones' set prior to the interview. That must have been one of them.
 
TheBrownDog said:
Prove what? That Essendon cheated or that we want to see you punished for it?

Correct bolding ftw.
Click to expand...
Nah, the "Essendon punished for cheating" part I'd like an explanation to. Have we been proven to have cheated yet? Have I missed out on ASADA coming out and finding our players have taken banned substances?
 
TerryWallet said:
Ok ok...I respect those that employed Dr Dank and let him loose.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify something - Dank is NOT a Dr. He apparently has a masters degree and has yet to submit his PhD thesis. No guarantee it will be conferred either.
 
BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!! said:
in a way yes.
Click to expand...

You mean in a pathetic way. Just because your club is knee deep in shit it makes you feel better that there's possibly another club in trouble? LOL.

If you had any common sense you would realise that the other player is the only one that would get in trouble. The club would sack him and that would be that, there won't be talk of half the side being banned like your mob. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Tazmania said:
Re the last sentence. Would suck big time but is completely irrelevant. If asada said, ok no worries chaps you didn't know then you could assume that excuse would start to be used by everyone rather quickly with all sorts of shenanigans going on. That's why ignorance is no excuse.
Click to expand...

It is also why Clubs provide their own liquid for their own players.
 
Tanks_Alot said:
You mean in a pathetic way. Just because your club is knee deep in shit it makes you feel better that there's possibly another club in trouble? LOL.

If you had any common sense you would realise that the other player is the only one that would get in trouble. The club would sack him and that would be that, there won't be talk of half the side being banned like your mob. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

guilt by association
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Kaiser Powser said:
There were obviously some 'no go zones' set prior to the interview. That must have been one of them.
Click to expand...

Why is that? If you are genuinely trying to clear your name, don't you come clean about everything? The more I re-read the transcript, many more questions are raised.
 
Tanks_Alot said:
Yes to both questions, which is why I said sides were different. But all you could come up with is some bull shit about only this player and that player added here and there, like as if that's the only thing that changes.

Face it, you've got no answer, now tuck your tail between your legs and move on.
Click to expand...
Well for what it's worth, if it really is about players improving, your club's win/loss ratio hasn't shown it. You won the exact same amount of games in 2012 as you did in 2010, so perhaps this 'ZOMG our players have turned into superstars!' isn't quite what you've made it out to be. And of course, there's the bit about players at every club improving each and every year, which kind of makes the point moot. Personnel changes is the key factor in a team changing, players improving is an expected outcome, the fact that you ignore it indicates to me that you're the one without answers.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Great pic.
Should be in the "caption this" thread.

151729-press-conference.jpg


Wheeew! That ACC report smells like arse!
 
I haven't been following this story much and after 181 ages in the third thread I don't have any patience to read through it.

I'm going to assume that like most big media scandals nobody really knows anything yet. And we're still in the stage of 90% hearsay and rumour. Sound about right?

Anybody willing to fill in the blanks for me I'll take a look
 
MarkCatsFan said:
I haven't been following this story much and after 181 ages in the third thread I don't have any patience to read through it.

I'm going to assume that like most big media scandals nobody really knows anything yet. And we're still in the stage of 90% hearsay and rumour. Sound about right?

Anybody willing to fill in the blanks for me I'll take a look
Click to expand...
Basically Essendon are screwed and the AFL are sounding out a possible merger with the Tassie Mariners
 
BomberWatson said:
Well for what it's worth, if it really is about players improving, your club's win/loss ratio hasn't shown it. You won the exact same amount of games in 2012 as you did in 2010, so perhaps this 'ZOMG our players have turned into superstars!' isn't quite what you've made it out to be. And of course, there's the bit about players at every club improving each and every year, which kind of makes the point moot. Personnel changes is the key factor in a team changing, players improving is an expected outcome, the fact that you ignore it indicates to me that you're the one without answers.
Click to expand...

How does it become moot? If players get better, then you're dealing with a better side aren't you? Improvement isn't exactly the same across all clubs. You're full of shit mate.

Our 2011 season was night and day compared to 2010. We didn't have any major personnel changes in that time.

2012 was due to a massive amount of injuries, we didn't have that problem in 2010. You also have to consider we played different teams with different personnel and level of play. For example, West Coast were shit in 2010, yet in 2011 they made the prelim. Who was the major addition to their side, Jack Darling?

Run along now.
 
MarkCatsFan said:
I haven't been following this story much and after 181 ages in the third thread I don't have any patience to read through it.

I'm going to assume that like most big media scandals nobody really knows anything yet. And we're still in the stage of 90% hearsay and rumour. Sound about right?

Anybody willing to fill in the blanks for me I'll take a look
Click to expand...

ACC release report about a possible rumor that some people in Australia who may be involved in sport may or may not be taking some substance which may in certain circumstances be banned by WADA for use in some sporting endeavors. These substances though are almost impossible to detect in any available test and as there have never been any professional sportsman test positive ever in this country the substance is believed to be rife within many sports due to it's undetectability. There is prima facie evidence that it's popularity as an illegal performance enhancer has grown exponentially due to the web search stats the ACC have obtained which show web searches on the substance have increased. By this reckoning almost everyone is on it now after this week.
Essendon having been linked by association with a bloke who was interviewed in relation to allegations against an NRL club decide they should nip rumors in the bud and open their doors to the drug testers and the ACC, having stated they are confident they have nothing to hide.

Therefore Essendon are drug cheats and the club should be wound up without the need for any costly investigation or the chance of any embarrassing confirmation of their non-drug abuse.
 
Tanks_Alot said:
How does it become moot? If players get better, then you're dealing with a better side aren't you? Improvement isn't exactly the same across all clubs. You're full of shit mate.

Our 2011 season was night and day compared to 2010. We didn't have any major personnel changes in that time.

2012 was due to a massive amount of injuries, we didn't have that problem in 2010. You also have to consider we played different teams with different personnel and level of play. For example, West Coast were shit in 2010, yet in 2011 they made the prelim. Who was the major addition to their side, Jack Darling?

Run along now.
Click to expand...
How am I full of shit? Because I've proven that the same playing group at Carlton has struggled against Essendon in the past? That night and day 2011 season didn't stop you from drawing against a side down 2 players did it? Again, funny how you didn't address that point and decided to put up a photo as if that somehow answered the question. But you know, I guess we can't admit that, because if that were the case, we might have to accept that the win last year wasn't about the drugs, and that you know, it might have been because Essendon has performed well against Carlton in the past *shock horror*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
1K
Satan
Satan
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Aussie in exile
A

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top