Can we now stop calling it the "Supplements saga"?

(Log in to remove this ad.)

blackcat

De Preston School of Industry
Dec 29, 2003
25,758
12,500
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
No, they were cheats in 2012. In 2013, 2014, 2015, they played fairly, as they will most likely for the rest of their career. In my mind they were far more victims of poor judgement and unfortunate circumstances than cheats anyway. Do you think the bulldogs consider Crameri a cheat? Or Port consider Monfries and Ryder cheats? Or the Saints consider Carlisle a cheat?
well, yes, they prolly do consider them cheats.

but, like the euphemism on the CIA, "the CIA are bastards, but they are our bastards".

expediency101 and cognitive dissonance. We will tolerate whatever egregious s**t we can pull, but when you start to pull this egregious s**t we will cry to the rafters for the justice and use a foghorn to call you cheatz.

thats just how it worx
 
Last edited:

Max Headroom

Club Legend
Dec 19, 2014
1,184
1,937
Off with the fairies
AFL Club
Essendon
well, yes, they prolly do consider them cheats.

but, like the euphemism on the CIA, "the CIA are bastards, but they are our bastards".

expediency101 and cognitive dissonance. We will tolerate whatever egregious s**t we can pull, but when you start to pull this egregious s**t we will cry to the rafters for the justice and use a foghorn to call you cheatz.

thats just how it worx
I love the word egregious, and was surprised to hear on the radio this week from a linguistics professor that the original meaning was "to stand out from the herd", and was mainly used in the context of being remarkably good - the current definition probably comes from ironic use of the word.
 

frenchfri12

Premiership Player
Suspended
Jul 10, 2012
3,156
1,891
AFL Club
Essendon
Whole thread's meaningless, as we have NOT been found, as you keep saying, guilty of performance enhancing drugs.

We were found to not be able to prove that we were not guilty of performance enhancing drugs. Massive difference. In any other court, for any other crime in the world, its an acquittal. That's why the AFL won't do anything, because we haven't done anything.
 

blackcat

De Preston School of Industry
Dec 29, 2003
25,758
12,500
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Well the problem with that is its been scientifically proven that the supplments didn't enhance preformance. So you can't call it that.
scientifically proven my arse.

these peptides are what makes Usain Bolt run 9.5, and Tony Doherty's professional bodybuilders, now only need to render 15% of their bodyweight before a competition when they previously had to drop about 30% of their gross weight.
 
Last edited:

blackcat

De Preston School of Industry
Dec 29, 2003
25,758
12,500
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
True. Imagine if we were actually any good that year.
still needed to have the cattle
ceteris paribus
when everyother team and individual of note, is also pursuing their own PED regime, it is pretty much zero sum.

so I dont think it is cheating, however, the socially engineered way of common australians believe you definitely were cheating.
 

Lance Uppercut

Eat bling
Jan 7, 2005
60,190
62,132
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Whole thread's meaningless, as we have NOT been found, as you keep saying, guilty of performance enhancing drugs.

We were found to not be able to prove that we were not guilty of performance enhancing drugs. Massive difference. In any other court, for any other crime in the world, its an acquittal. That's why the AFL won't do anything, because we haven't done anything.
well that's just not true. There's no point even running that crap.

They were found guilty of a violation of 11.2 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code. 11.2 is "Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method".

So you may not like how the verdict was reached, but you do yourself no favours running completely specious and fallacious lines like that one. It's plain wrong
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Jul 21, 2001
32,277
23,604
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
well that's just not true. There's no point even running that crap.

They were found guilty of a violation of 11.2 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code. 11.2 is "Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method".

So you may not like how the verdict was reached, but you do yourself no favours running completely specious and fallacious lines like that one. It's plain wrong
Wow, I liked one of your posts!

Impending matter/antimatter reaction in 3... 2... ;)
 

blackcat

De Preston School of Industry
Dec 29, 2003
25,758
12,500
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
you can still support the club, but know the bulls**t and engage in the truth. like Lance U^.

no one really wants to know how the sausage is made.

You can only go thru one pro cycling narrative in your life, to have your eyelids peeled back.
 

Reg Grundy35

Club Legend
Jul 27, 2013
1,117
1,603
AFL Club
Collingwood
well that's just not true. There's no point even running that crap.

They were found guilty of a violation of 11.2 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code. 11.2 is "Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method".

So you may not like how the verdict was reached, but you do yourself no favours running completely specious and fallacious lines like that one. It's plain wrong
Refreshing from a bombers fan. I hear this line all the time despite the evidence you've quoted.
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
77,306
47,177
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
yes there were, however they dont prove the players willingly cheated
None of the alternatives play out authentically.

They failed to check what the drugs were. They failed to inform the club medical officer in writing. Most damning, the players failed to list the drugs in ASADA tests.

All old ground. You wouldn't be convinced even if the players made individual video confessions and posted them on YouTube. It's all a conspiracy.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,950
9,446
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
They failed to check what the drugs were.
they were given assurances in writing from trusted staff at the club. Silly in hindsight but even you could concede this is not beyond reason
They failed to inform the club medical officer in writing
because Reid and sports science didnt see eye to eye. Again, silly in hindsight, but not surprising given Reid thought little of sports science. In fact according to NLM Reid was present during his injections and told NLM he thought it was a waste of time. However, he never mentioned anything about banned by WADA
the players failed to list the drugs in ASADA tests.
without knowing who was tested, when they were tested, and what they were on at the time its pretty hard to say its conclusive. Not all players at Essendon were on Thymosin. Some apparently were only on vitamin injections. Some players werent on anything. Not all players were on the regime for the entire season, so were they tested when not on it? Also, in previous years it wasnt compulsorary to inform WADA, it was recommended. Maybe players hadnt appreciated the change in policy. DO we really know how many players in the AFL regularly declare anything. Also, apparently the players didnt decalre anything. Seems odd if you were trying to hide thymosin that you also wouldnt declare clearly compliant substances. Doesnt add up
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
77,306
47,177
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
All old ground covered in other threads: IMO there are too many instances of not checking, not informing and so on.

Sure you can reason away each individual thing as an understandable oversight or possibly not significant, but when you put everything together the chance that it was just a series of totally innocent mistakes is minuscule.

Therefore, guilty and banned for using performance enhancing drugs. Drug cheats.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,950
9,446
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Sure you can reason away each individual thing as an understandable oversight or possibly not significant, but when you put everything together the chance that it was just a series of totally innocent mistakes is minuscule.
far less minuscule than the chance of:
- an entire club deciding that cheating with something as borderline as TB4 was a good idea
- not a single player, ex-player, disgruntled player, disgruntled staff, disgruntled relative or friend of player or staff spilling the beans on the entire regime.

They are way way less likely
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,950
9,446
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Charged and found guilty by the highest authority in world sport. Even without people shooting themselves in the foot by "spilling the beans". The beans were all over the place already.

Guilty of using banned performance enhancing drugs.
I have no issue with the finding. I have an issue with the assumption the players did this deliberately. The lack of ANY whistle blower from the hundreds of players, staff, their friends and relatives some 4 years later suggests it wasnt deliberate. in fact the only person who came close to blowing the whistle was Reimers, and he confirmed what little the players actually did know.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
23,950
9,446
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Lack of any whistle-blower = nobody knew nothin!

Sure.
none out of hundreds who would have some contact with the players. That's increadibly unlikely, especially 4 years on. Add to that the notion 40 odd professional players all decided using PEDS was worth the risk. BS. A few at most maybe, but not an entire team plus staff
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
77,306
47,177
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
none out of hundreds who would have some contact with the players. That's increadibly unlikely, especially 4 years on. Add to that the notion 40 odd professional players all decided using PEDS was worth the risk. BS. A few at most maybe, but not an entire team plus staff
So all of those people were completely conned by just one newcomer to the club? Sounds legit.



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Top Bottom