Remove this Banner Ad

News EFC asks AFL and ASADA for probe into own training regime part II

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would Dank bring the coaches into it about them taking drugs?
To be super negative on this.. could be "I gave/supplied drugs to a certain coach what he did with them is up to him" but if any player tests positive I never administered nothing illegal to that player. That would be worse case senario if everything goes absolutely pear shape.
Gut feelin is Dank may have been a bit dodgy in the past but not stupid enough to admimister dodgy drugs to a whole side for the sake of not much.
Lets all get a slap on the wrist and lift our game and bring on the season.
 
Re these invoices for large amounts of money for supplements ect that had concerned the club, I'm just wondering out loud if it is/was possible/plausible that Danks may have been purchasing a lot for his own clinics and adding them to the Ess tab.

yes yes yes, been wondering this. Gotta be more though or else ACC have a lot to answer for.
 
To be super negative on this.. could be "I gave/supplied drugs to a certain coach what he did with them is up to him" but if any player tests positive I never administered nothing illegal to that player. That would be worse case senario if everything goes absolutely pear shape.
Gut feelin is Dank may have been a bit dodgy in the past but not stupid enough to admimister dodgy drugs to a whole side for the sake of not much.
Lets all get a slap on the wrist and lift our game and bring on the season.

Can anyone be that stupid?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Why would Dank bring the coaches into it about them taking drugs?

Maybe to explain invoices. Coach A wants a little hashamunata so I order a tad more and keep it for my business...allegedly.
 
Read the last line:
any Prohibited Method of any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Outof-Competition in connection with a Player or training, unless the Offici

If they didn't use it with the players then they have no case to answer.
What about this?

3.2 Any Player, Club, Officer, Official or other Person to whom this Code applies who
commits an Anti Doping Rule Violation or otherwise breaches the provisions of this
Code is liable to the sanctions provided by the Code.

3.3 A Club will be deemed to have breached this Code should any of its Officers or
Officials breach this Code and may be sanctioned in addition to the Officers or
Officials concerned.
 
orly.jpg


You are new, so I will that slip through to the keeper. I guess you haven't worked out how people are on here just yet. Of course they wont turn up despite giving them an open invitation to tomorrow or even Thursday at Pies training. But i will speak, speak how I feel no matter who is there.

i said they better watch out if they are there, I never said what Id do if they were. Something will be done.

Might be new here, but not new to the Internet. Everyone talks shit behind a keyboard. "They better be careful rah rah rah"
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Read the last line:
any Prohibited Method of any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Outof-Competition in connection with a Player or training, unless the Offici

If they didn't use it with the players then they have no case to answer.

I read that as "in connection with a player or training" going with prohibited. Eg. if the substance is prohibited in connection with a player or training. Eg. anything on the WADA list. Hopefully for the Dons, if Dank's story was true, the vain coaches were having the stuff injected off-site and were never in possession.
 
I read that as "in connection with a player or training" going with prohibited. Eg. if the substance is prohibited in connection with a player or training. Eg. anything on the WADA list. Hopefully for the Dons, if Dank's story was true, the vain coaches were having the stuff injected off-site and were never in possession.
Quite possible, the wording seems pretty poor to me and comes across as ambiguous.
 
I read that as "in connection with a player or training" going with prohibited. Eg. if the substance is prohibited in connection with a player or training. Eg. anything on the WADA list. Hopefully for the Dons, if Dank's story was true, the vain coaches were having the stuff injected off-site and were never in possession.
Who said anything about the coaches having injections? Certain protein powder and muscle recovery substances have elements that arent allowed under WADA.
 
I read that as "in connection with a player or training" going with prohibited. Eg. if the substance is prohibited in connection with a player or training. Eg. anything on the WADA list. Hopefully for the Dons, if Dank's story was true, the vain coaches were having the stuff injected off-site and were never in possession.
AFL says it abides by ASADA if you go to ASADA website you can enter the type of sport and what relationship you have in the club and type of suppliment/drug and it will tell you if its ok or not GBHR-1.2.4.5.6. is not OK for suppoort staff or coaches If you know exactly what it was they allegedly had, put it in the search engine
 
Who said anything about the coaches having injections? Certain protein powder and muscle recovery substances have elements that arent allowed under WADA.

If they weren't injections, they were almost certainly in possession - therefore hopefully for you guys they were injections - if true.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Might be new here, but not new to the Internet. Everyone talks shit behind a keyboard. "They better be careful rah rah rah"
He didn't say he was gonna call his cousins or his FOB mates to bash em, I think he just meant he'd give them an earful. I know I would
 
In other news, Manly just got cleared by ASADA.
Was just confirmation that they haven't tested positive for PEDs wasn't it? Eg nothing about clearance for illicit drugs? Though regardless can that be taken as a bad sign no one else (including us) has been cleared, or a positive sign things might move quicker than first thought?
 
Was just confirmation that they haven't tested positive for PEDs wasn't it? Eg nothing about clearance for illicit drugs? Though regardless can that be taken as a bad sign no one else (including us) has been cleared, or a positive sign things might move quicker than first thought?
Well cleared by ASADA, I thought, is a good thing. Hopefully the whole investigation moves along quicker then we first speculated
 
Well cleared by ASADA, I thought, is a good thing. Hopefully the whole investigation moves along quicker then we first speculated
How did they get through the system so quickly, we told them to investigate us a week ago
I cant work it out, the rules were--. ASADA contacts AFL and says Club has a drug problem and tell the club. Afl tells the club and says "if you go public you will reduce your penalties". The club announces we have been advised that asada has Identified Looses respect innuendo etc. ASADA come in and say all clear. WTF???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top