Remove this Banner Ad

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter grizzlym
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Woodie99 said:
The whole thing about players signing a waiver is something I don't understand. Could someone please explain what has happened here & why hasn't this been discussed much.
Click to expand...


These waivers/consent forms really place the heat right on the heads of the people who guaranteed them. Reportedly, James Hird and Bruce Reid.

They apparently guaranteed that everything was kosher and above board, but then let Dank run around unsupervised.

Now to Reid's credit, he is only part time at the Club and things were done behind his back. Reid also eventually raised the Red Flag internally.

Hird on the other hand, was full time at the Club and had constant supervision of his players.

Those waivers/consents are bad news for Hird particularly, and Reid's future employment at EFC.

They guaranteed the players, yet never had control over their Club employed Sports Scientist.
 
TerryWallet said:
These waivers/consent forms really place the heat right on the heads of the people who guaranteed them. Reportedly, James Hird and Bruce Reid.

They apparently guaranteed that everything was kosher and above board, but then let Dank run around unsupervised.

Now to Reid's credit, he is only part time at the Club and things were done behind his back. Reid also eventually raised the Red Flag internally.

Hird on the other hand, was full time at the Club and had constant supervision of his players.

Those waivers/consents are bad news for Hird particularly, and Reid's future employment at EFC.

They guaranteed the players, yet never had control over their Club employed Sports Scientist.
Click to expand...
or, and I grant you this is way out there, maybe the club put together legal documents because they were an accurate representation of what was going on?!!

keanuwhatif.gif
 
TerryWallet said:
These waivers/consent forms really place the heat right on the heads of the people who guaranteed them. Reportedly, James Hird and Bruce Reid.

They apparently guaranteed that everything was kosher and above board, but then let Dank run around unsupervised.

Now to Reid's credit, he is only part time at the Club and things were done behind his back. Reid also eventually raised the Red Flag internally.

Hird on the other hand, was full time at the Club and had constant supervision of his players.

Those waivers/consents are bad news for Hird particularly, and Reid's future employment at EFC.

They guaranteed the players, yet never had control over their Club employed Sports Scientist.
Click to expand...

Understand that, but if the players were after assurances about what they were taking, why did the players sign it? Shouldn't the club have signed it, saying that this x y & z is what were are asking you to take? If the players signed, it tells me that they were fully aware of what they were taking, which could come & bit them in the arse.

I agree that it would be very bad for the coaches & admin if they have be taking something not approved or using a banned method.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Defacto said:
listening to a podcast.

apparently ziggy is an essendon supporter and friends with the essendon president. how the **** is that an independent review????
Click to expand...


Exactly ! The short answer is its not. Basically a PR exercise
 
These latest developments don't look for the Bombers. Interested in thoughts of vaguely normal Bomber fans like LanceUppercut and Doss

If the Sharks roll over and cop a "reduced whack" then the Bombers are in trouble.

We are well outside the realms of natural justice here and into plea bargaining so that the "system" can be be seen to be "doing" something.

It is almost Wiresque.

If the Sharks squib and accept the 6 month bans, they will be coming for you guys next, if only to roll the whole matter up asap and "move on".

In that case do you cop it, or go out on a limb against the entire assembled juggernaut of government, the ACC and supra national bodies, who really won't like being publicly challenged like this?
 
DawOfPromotion said:
Shame all your war bonds couldn't buy off the old codgers at the bowls club. North - still based at our traditional home ground.

ON TOPIC -

These latest developments don't look for the Bombers. Interested in thoughts of vaguely normal Bomber fans like LanceUppercut and Doss

If the Sharks roll over and cop a "reduced whack" then they are in trouble.

We are well outside the realms of natural justice here and into plea bargaining so that the "system" can be be seen to be "doing" something.

It is almost Wiresque.

If the Sharks squib and accept the 6 month bans, they will be coming for you guys next, if only to roll the whole matter up asap and "move on".

In that case do you cop it, or go out on a limb against the entire assembled juggernaut of government, the ACC and supra national bodies, who really won't like being publicly challenged like this?
Click to expand...

Assuming of course they did anything wrong.

The hypothesis that Dank administered peptides at Cronulla, reviewed the legal requirements at the start of the year and then adjusted his program to exclude these is perfectly valid.

As much as I'd like to see infinite pain and embarrassment heaped on the EFC this is my most likely result given the limited info we have. Net result: EFC to be fleeced of $1M for bringing the game into disrepute.
 
DawOfPromotion said:
Shame all your war bonds couldn't buy off the old codgers at the bowls club. North - still based at our traditional home ground.

ON TOPIC -

These latest developments don't look for the Bombers. Interested in thoughts of vaguely normal Bomber fans like LanceUppercut and Doss

If the Sharks roll over and cop a "reduced whack" then the Bombers are in trouble.

We are well outside the realms of natural justice here and into plea bargaining so that the "system" can be be seen to be "doing" something.

It is almost Wiresque.

If the Sharks squib and accept the 6 month bans, they will be coming for you guys next, if only to roll the whole matter up asap and "move on".

In that case do you cop it, or go out on a limb against the entire assembled juggernaut of government, the ACC and supra national bodies, who really won't like being publicly challenged like this?
Click to expand...
firstly, I don't know who you tagged, cos it ain't me!

It all depends doesn't it. On if they've actually done something wrong. Whilst that seems to be a given around here, I'll wait and see. If they have done something wrong, it's a conundrum as I see it. Because if the players know they took something dodgy, then I can't see how they escape with anything less than 2 years. The whole point of the extraordinary circumstances is if they didn't know. So if they try and "plea bargain", presumably that in itself skewers the whole thing, rendering the exercise pointless.

But the central fact is that the "waivers" or whatever the **** we're now calling them were requested and produced on the basis of the substances being administered being legit. And if they were signed off at higher levels, which they were, I'm absolutely inclined to believe they are.

So it's a moot question essentially. Either we're innocent (but still guilty of practices that will see the AFL drop the finezhammer - that is a given for mine); the players are ok because they didn't know, but then the club is ****ed from a financial penalty perspective and, more far seriously in my opinion, legal action commences between players and club; or the players were aware, in which case coming forward surely can't help and the whole thing is a cluster**** of the highest order.

If they are innocent of administering banned substances then they take on everyone. And they win.
 
Woodie99 said:
Just like the Sharks players being told it wasn't banned by WADA.
Click to expand...
Atleast the Essendon players have something signed saying it is approved, should be alot better than a verbal agreement.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

BomberFan355 said:
Atleast the Essendon players have something signed saying it is approved, should be alot better than a verbal agreement.
Click to expand...
Great - all clubs should start a doping regime and just get the players to sign a form saying it is Vitamin C. Wow that is so easy to get away with - suprised no one has thought of that. Maybe the Vitamin C forms were the cutting edge practices they have been talking about. Signed forms are good.
 
The Goon said:
Assuming of course they did anything wrong.

The hypothesis that Dank administered peptides at Cronulla, reviewed the legal requirements at the start of the year and then adjusted his program to exclude these is perfectly valid.

As much as I'd like to see infinite pain and embarrassment heaped on the EFC this is my most likely result given the limited info we have. Net result: EFC to be fleeced of $1M for bringing the game into disrepute.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is very possible, but at risk of sounding like my good mate Teffy (who I agree with by and large) we are into "war on drugs" mentality here.

Governments and especially up and coming quangos that want to mark out some turf like ASADA do weird things in times like this.
 
mufassa said:
Genius - shame Lance Armstrong did not sign a form. He would still be a 7 time tour winner.
Click to expand...

Problem with Lance was that quite of number of people (teammates) testified against him. i.e witnesses who said he deliberately doped, transfusions etc.
 
BomberFan355 said:
Atleast the Essendon players have something signed saying it is approved, should be alot better than a verbal agreement.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's good at least!
 
DawOfPromotion said:
These latest developments don't look for the Bombers. Interested in thoughts of vaguely normal Bomber fans like LanceUppercut and Doss

If the Sharks roll over and cop a "reduced whack" then the Bombers are in trouble.

We are well outside the realms of natural justice here and into plea bargaining so that the "system" can be be seen to be "doing" something.

It is almost Wiresque.

If the Sharks squib and accept the 6 month bans, they will be coming for you guys next, if only to roll the whole matter up asap and "move on".

In that case do you cop it, or go out on a limb against the entire assembled juggernaut of government, the ACC and supra national bodies, who really won't like being publicly challenged like this?
Click to expand...


I say f#ck 'em prove were guilty, if the club believes it's innocent i would rather a 2 yr ban than to roll over because the pressure got to much.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Woodie99 said:
True, but it also says they knew what they were taking.
Click to expand...

No it says they were assured that what they were taking was approved by WADA. Every ingredient they were told they were taking was listed.

The only doubt is were they given what they were told they were given...
 
yodellinhank said:
Yep. Except Dank has already said that Essendon players haven't and Reimers wouldn't have a clue and would be absolutely ripped apart in cross examination.
Click to expand...
Lance said he didn't for 12 years. Dank could roll on Essendon - he is not the most honest up standing person. As for Riemers if he is not getting coached on what to say you never know what will come out if his mouth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom