Essendon were crap the year before it supposedly started
They were crap the year after it supposedly ended
Coincidence?
Can we now stop calling it the "Supplements saga"?
- Thread starter Reg Grundy35
- Start date
- Tagged users None
They were crap the year after it supposedly ended
Coincidence?
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #127
Actually we made the finals the year before it started and the year after it ended, but not the year it happened. Check before you type.
- Jul 27, 2013
- 2,180
- 3,221
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #128
Just because you are crap at cheating doesn't mean you aren't cheating
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
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:
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.
True. Imagine if we were actually any good that year.
- Oct 10, 2009
- 10,747
- 12,049
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- The Exers
Or
Convicted, illegal, performance enhancing drugs regime
- Jul 10, 2012
- 3,155
- 1,932
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #133
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.
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.
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:
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.
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...
feels good don't itWow, I liked one of your posts!
Impending matter/antimatter reaction in 3... 2...
you can still support the club, but know the bullshit 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.
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.
- Jul 27, 2013
- 2,180
- 3,221
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Thread starter
- #140
Refreshing from a bombers fan. I hear this line all the time despite the evidence you've quoted.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #141
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.
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
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
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
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #143
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.
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.
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
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.
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
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #149
So all of those people were completely conned by just one newcomer to the club? Sounds legit.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
IMO it happened because they put too much trust in Dank who knew less about the WADA code than he thought. That is at least feasible, not 100 people deciding PEDs were a risk worth taking
