Channel 7 The Decision

[Chadwiko]

Post all the comments you like. The ASADA interim report details what substances were used and the club and now the afl have said no substances were found that warrant infractions.

Yes!!!

FFS, no it does not. You are making shit up now.

Either a fail troll attempt, or a delusional fool.

Either way, you're wrong and i'm enjoying watching yourself dig deeper.

 

[Anoncomment]

What difference will that make? Why would the afl claim no individuals would be charged if it was simply a case of naming them? They specifically said the only way that would change is if new evidence was found, not if players were named.

Who would they charge, if the report does not mention any names? That would be highly reckless of he AFL. The "new evidence" would be in the form of a final report. Seriously, you are the only person on the face of the planet who does not understand this and has been convinced by the Essendon spin.

 

[mxett]

FFS, no it does not. You are making shit up now.

Either a fail troll attempt, or a delusional fool.

Either way, you're wrong and i'm enjoying watching yourself dig deeper.

The club have stated no evidence of banned drug use was found. Section of the media, including Sheahan have stated the interim report is essentially the final report, but allows for possible new evidence after Dank is interviewed. The AFL addressed player charges because the interim report provided enough detail to comment.

You're wrong.

 

[ManWithNoName]

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Post all the comments you like. The ASADA interim report details what substances were used and the club and now the afl have said no substances were found that warrant infractions.

Yes!!!

Did the AFL really say that?

I read that they have not been given enough evidence to infract the players yet, not that there were no substances that warrant infractions. Is there any possibility in your mind that they know about the substances but are still working out who took them, or leaving that up to ASADA as part of the ongoing investigation? Knowing about the substances would go a long way to explaining the charges against 4 Essendon employees.

 

[mxett]

Who would they charge, if the report does not mention any names? That would be highly reckless of he AFL. The "new evidence" would be in the form of a final report. Seriously, you are the only person on the face of the planet who does not understand this and has been convinced by the Essendon spin.

Why would it mention names if no player took banned substances?

 

[The Dodger]

This is it isn't it. We are being told what actions are to be taken as a result of the report without it being released or even a summary of it. Further we have the media making comment on it without them having seen the report either

We know now that the players aren't going to be issued with infractions (yet) without being told the reasons why even though the AFL concedes that WADA consider AOD a banned substance. There is no mention of any other substance

Essendon and four key personnel have been charged with BTGID and conduct unbecoming without any explanation of what it is they have done to justify such a serious charge

In the end we are left to continue to speculate on what happened at Essendon and whether the decisions made are reasonable. Even the most basic of questions, did any essendon player take a banned substance remains unanswered

Not very satisfactory or transparent

"Look I needed to get Essendon out of the finals because of public opinion , but I wanted the Bomber fans to continue to go to games all season for the $$$...whats not transparent here?"

 

[Chadwiko]

The club have stated no evidence of banned drug use was found.

The same club that said they wouldn't be charged with anything?

The same club whose captain admitted he believed he used AOD 9604?

The same club who has now been charged with bringing the game into disrepute regarding an illegal substances program?

 

[mxett]

Did the AFL really say that?

I read that they have not been given enough evidence to infract the players yet, not that there were no substances that warrant infractions. Is there any possibility in your mind that they know about the substances but are still working out who took them, or leaving that up to ASADA as part of the ongoing investigation? Knowing about the substances would go a long way to explaining the charges against 4 Essendon employees.

If they knew about banned substances but were waiting on a final report naming names don't you think that would be highly irresponsible of them to comment on players avoiding infractions? Seems Jobe Watson already knows the players will avoid infractions also.

 

[The_Reaper]

The club have stated no evidence of banned drug use was found. Section of the media, including Sheahan have stated the interim report is essentially the final report, but allows for possible new evidence after Dank is interviewed. The AFL addressed player charges because the interim report provided enough detail to comment.

You're wrong.

The same Essendon football club that has being charged with bringing the game into disrepute?

Must be true then

 

[mxett]

The same club that said they wouldn't be charged with anything?

The same club whose captain admitted he believed he used AOD 9604?

The same club who has now been charged with bringing the game into disrepute regarding an illegal substances program?

Where have they said they wouldn't be charged. They've stated they believe they shouldnt be,

 

[mxett]

The same Essendon football club that has being charged with bringing the game into disrepute?

Must be true then

Bringing the game into disrepute by allowing a program that used multiple injections and failing to supervise it appropriately. Nothing to do with banned substances

 

[Anoncomment]

Why would it mention names if no player took banned substances?

Doubleplusgood? I seriously hope you're deliberately trolling in this painful, Orwellian fashion, rather than completely failing at comprehending phenomenally simple concepts.

 

[Scorpions]

If they knew about banned substances but were waiting on a final report naming names don't you think that would be highly irresponsible of them to comment on players avoiding infractions? Seems Jobe Watson already knows the players will avoid infractions also.

They said no individual violations based on the information in front of them. What else do they have to do, draw you a picture?

 

[Chadwiko]

Doubleplusgood? I seriously hope you're deliberately trolling in this painful, Orwellian fashion, rather than completely failing at comprehending phenomenally simple concepts.

Agreed. I'm going to cease feeding the troll now. The more it goes on, the more I believe it's an actual troll, and not someone this monumentally thick.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The club have stated no evidence of banned drug use was found.

That one 3 letter word says a lot. Yes, we all agree that the interim report did not say which players used drugs. Does that mean there is no evidence full stop anywhere that drugs were used, does it mean that the interim report doesn't mention it but it could still be coming, or does it mean they can not conclusively identify individuals?

Either way, it seems like a big call to extrapolate that out to the players didn't take anything. It's only potential denials and lack of paperwork from those with a vested interest in not leaving evidence lying around, that could be the difference between guilty and not guilty. It's a far cry from innocence.

Even I had given up the ghost on Carlton by this stage of their salary cap breach investigation, and that's no mean feat.

 

[mxett]

Doubleplusgood? I seriously hope you're deliberately trolling in this painful, Orwellian fashion, rather than completely failing at comprehending phenomenally simple concepts.

Simple....lol, describes this lot perfectly The people on fox footy and the ch7 panel see it clearly. No player infractions are coming.

 

[ManWithNoName]

That one 3 letter word says a lot. Yes, we all agree that the interim report did not say which players used drugs. Does that mean there is no evidence full stop anywhere that drugs were used, does it mean that the interim report doesn't mention it but it could still be coming, or does it mean they can not conclusively identify individuals?

Either way, it seems like a big call to extrapolate that out to the players didn't take anything. It's only potential denials and lack of paperwork from those with a vested interest in not leaving evidence lying around, that could be the difference between guilty and not guilty. It's a far cry from innocence.

Even I had given up the ghost on Carlton by this stage of their salary cap breach investigation, and that's no mean feat.

Jesus. Occam's Razor dude.

 

[mxett]

That one 3 letter word says a lot. Yes, we all agree that the interim report did not say which players used drugs. Does that mean there is no evidence full stop anywhere that drugs were used, does it mean that the interim report doesn't mention it but it could still be coming, or does it mean they can not conclusively identify individuals?

Either way, it seems like a big call to extrapolate that out to the players didn't take anything. It's only potential denials and lack of paperwork from those with a vested interest in not leaving evidence lying around, that could be the difference between guilty and not guilty. It's a far cry from innocence.

Even I had given up the ghost on Carlton by this stage of their salary cap breach investigation, and that's no mean feat.

As i stated, why would the afl comment on player infractions if the interim report contained no detail in that regard?

 

[mxett]

Agreed. I'm going to cease feeding the troll now. The more it goes on, the more I believe it's an actual troll, and not someone this monumentally thick.

Doesn't believe me, must be troll....oh lord!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Why would it mention names if no player took banned substances?

So you are definitely going with the argument that banned substances were on site at Essendon, consent forms were signed, dealers consulted, but when it came time to giving out injections, only legal stuff was taken? That's an incredible amount of coincidence and bad luck conspiring to paint a terrible picture for the Bombers. You must feel like you are in the Twilight Zone with what has been happening.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As i stated, why would the afl comment on player infractions if the interim report contained no detail in that regard?

Probably because everybody was waiting on those charges, and they made it clear they weren't dealing with that side of it yet.

 

[mxett]

So you are definitely going with the argument that banned substances were on site at Essendon, consent forms were signed, dealers consulted, but when it came time to giving out injections, only legal stuff was taken? That's an incredible amount of coincidence and bad luck conspiring to paint a terrible picture for the Bombers. You must feel like you are in the Twilight Zone with what has been happening.

No. The ACC investigated the happenings for a reason which we are yet to find out why. I suspect foul play by sinister individuals attempting to take advantage of the club, as eluded to in the ACC report.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Jesus. Occam's Razor dude.

I doubt it. We weren't saying the same thing at all.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

That one 3 letter word says a lot. Yes, we all agree that the interim report did not say which players used drugs. Does that mean there is no evidence full stop anywhere that drugs were used, does it mean that the interim report doesn't mention it but it could still be coming, or does it mean they can not conclusively identify individuals?

Either way, it seems like a big call to extrapolate that out to the players didn't take anything. It's only potential denials and lack of paperwork from those with a vested interest in not leaving evidence lying around, that could be the difference between guilty and not guilty. It's a far cry from innocence.

Even I had given up the ghost on Carlton by this stage of their salary cap breach investigation, and that's no mean feat.

Basically saying they are unable to conclusively say which players took what substances at the moment and left the door open for future charges to be laid if any further evidence comes to hand once the ASADA report is completed in full or at anytime after that.

They still may obtain greater evidence if they can get Dank in for an interview or unearth some more emails, text messages or taped phone calls etc.