Geelong, stokes & chapman

[karmafree]

Why no word on Stokes? Are we cowered because of Lovett? What about Chapman?
Cheats is what I say and here is why.
Cocaine is a substance that for a limited time will allow you to train harder, longer, quicker and intuitively. Of course in time you become a drug addict and useless and its effects become negative not positive, but for the short time you are at your peak as a footballer it gives you hugh advantages, and because you are operating at a higher performance level you are improving the performance of your teammates who are trying to keep up with you, even if you don't play in the actual game, eg Stokes on GF day, still you are adding the extra 1% that will close out a game such as the GF last year.

I'II give you the classic example, "the vomiter" and the Eagles. Cousins was able to perform at an amazing level because he was so fuelled on drugs. He dragged all his teammates along by them trying to keep up with him, by trying to emulate him. Cousins was the catalyst that got the Eagles over the line, not Judd. Judd is a brilliant footballer. Cousins was, how did they refer to him, "the spiritual leader" of the group. By his cheating he got his teammates the extra1% that got them the flag. Remember I am not talking about the individual here, but rather the individuals effect on his teammates both in the game and on the track.

Stokes helped Geelong to a cheated premiership. No doubt at all.

The other thing I am amazed at is the lack of comment on Chapmans cheating. Those blood injections or whatever they were into his legs ( now banned) enabled him to profit while all others were practically falling over in the brutal GF, I am talking both teams here. It gave him the extra"legs" if you will excuse the pun that also got the Cats over the line in the GF.

So no bitter grapes here from me, just acknowledgement that Geelong cheated the Saints out of a flag and I want redemption this year.

 

[SwampCreature]

So no bitter grapes here from me,

I'm sorry, but as soon as I read this line, not only did my head explode from the irony, but so did my computer, my screen, my fridge, my house, the internet itself, the planet and even the whole universe, which collapsed in on itself into one mighty irony-fuelled blck hole, sucking up everything in existance.

 

[TheStinger]

Well this will end well.

I prefer to concentrate on the Saints and the rest can please themselves if they want to cheat or whatever. No skin off my nose.

 

[karmafree]

what can I say I'm still hurt from the loss. Maybe I'm flapping in the wind but old and bitter is my current status, Stokes and Chapman do not ease the burden of a lifetime of no flags, to see one slip by, by such a tiny amount and to find out later the blood doping etc.........

 

[Stokes-Selwood-Prismall]

I'm sorry, but as soon as I read this line, not only did my head explode from the irony, but so did my computer, my screen, my fridge, my house, the internet itself, the planet and even the whole universe, which collapsed in on itself into one mighty irony-fuelled blck hole, sucking up everything in existance.

Post of the year.
So IF stokes had taken cocaine, (still unproven) everyone would have tried to emulate his performance on the training track? This despite him not training in the weeks leading up to the GF AND being the 23rd best player in the side.... No one would try emulate Ablett or Bartel?
How has chapman cheated when the injections weren't illegal at the time of the game?
That would be like me accusing the hawthorn team of cheating by rushing all those behinds in 2008. It pisses me off, but it wasnt illegal at the time, so more power to them.
If you want to talk about trying to bend the rules of the game in order to profit, both sides were guilty of that on the day. The shameless free kick staging from your small forwards and Hawkins' acting knowing full well he hit the post were prime examples.
get over it, wear your scarf all summer and hope that this year you guys dont falter again.
bitter

 

[karmafree]

Winners get to write the history. So essentially I am ham strung here. Drugs and blood doping are a hugh difference to mistakes and staging. Why are laws brought in? To stop the cheats, to close the loopholes, this is evolution of society, this is why Chapman is a cheat, and going from one of my favourite Cats players to least liked. Wern't suspicions raised when he kicked 5 goals with a strained hamstring? To quote a great "Wire" song, I said to my mate, "there's something not quite right here".
Stokes, is charged within hours with a solid trail of evidence, phone taps etc. Our tragedy, Lovett is still not charged. What does that say?
You may say I stretch the truth in regards to the cumulative effects of performance enhancing drugs and how it effects those around them, unknowingly, in a team environment. But if you had taken them you would know. I am not denying Ablett, Bartel, Selwood as the pre-eminent role models in the Cat set up, but it is the bottom half dozen that are not in that class , that look to their peers, "if he can do it, so can I" type of reaction, that gets the edge from someone like Stokes.
So yeah your flag is tainted as much as the Eagles. I'II get over it at the first bounce of the season, as I usually do, until then I'II stay bitter and to quote Swap man or what ever he calls himself i'll stay in my "irony fuelled black hole, sucking up everything in existance" And loving it in my self styled sense of bitter angry righteousness.

 

[Red Gum]

Stop being an idiot.

People read this sh1t and they think that you represent the view of Saints fans.
You don't represent my views.

Congratulations to The Cats for 09. It's over now. It is the past.

Go SAINTS 2010!

 

[karmafree]

What are the boards for? Views, or just everthing is honky dory. The only reason why I posted it was because we don't get enough posts, look at the other boards. When was your last one? Is this not a topical point now? Yeah great the cats won no doubt a fantastic team and we all wanted them to beat Port and the Hawks, but I'm pissed off with the after the fact imformation, especially Chapman in relation to the Saints

 

[Stokes-Selwood-Prismall]

What are the boards for? Views, or just everthing is honky dory. The only reason why I posted it was because we don't get enough posts, look at the other boards. When was your last one? Is this not a topical point now? Yeah great the cats won no doubt a fantastic team and we all wanted them to beat Port and the Hawks, but I'm pissed off with the after the fact imformation, especially Chapman in relation to the Saints

Do you think, in light of this, that St Kilda should be awarded last year's premiership?

 

[karmafree]

Of course not you f****wit!

 

[bzparkes]

I'II give you the classic example, "the vomiter" and the Eagles. Cousins was able to perform at an amazing level because he was so fuelled on drugs. He dragged all his teammates along by them trying to keep up with him, by trying to emulate him. Cousins was the catalyst that got the Eagles over the line, not Judd. Judd is a brilliant footballer. Cousins was, how did they refer to him, "the spiritual leader" of the group. By his cheating he got his teammates the extra1% that got them the flag. Remember I am not talking about the individual here, but rather the individuals effect on his teammates both in the game and on the track.

That's a pretty long bow you're drawing there, besides, this was all covered back in '07.

 

[StFly]

Do you think, in light of this, that St Kilda should be awarded last year's premiership?

If a medical procedure is banned from the AFL, I do not understand the correlation made with regards to a rule being rewritten / added in terms of rushed behinds. One gives an individual an unfair advantage on the playing field, the other impacts immediate scoring potential.

If time was had over again you would assume Chapman would not have lasted as long as he did and that his contribution would have amounted to a Pendlebury effort. (no slight to the man, just not lasting on a bung leg during finals last year)

All that being said, games have been altered after their completion for far less than a now outlawed procedure, that it was a GF upon which the procedure was highlighted and expunged only raises the stakes from 4 premiership points to a cup. So that is a rather stupid question to pose to a Saints fan that in the light of Chapman using questionable practices that are now outlawed if we'd like the premiership with the subsequent dismissing or lessening of his contribution to "guy with 1 leg" as opposed to "guy with 1 leg surviving on injections." as the answer will always be yes we would like it.

But it's not going to happen.

In any event I am happy for the Geelong Football club to have the ire of the media currently, so good luck with that.

 

[karmafree]

Good to see the guilt ridden ones start coming out of the cupboard. You know I, and for REDGUM I REPEAT I am right. Its a terrible thing to live with guilt, unburden yourselves Cats and Eagle fans ( I don't expect the Carlton fans too). You will feel better , its anonymous, you don't have to tell mum, or your wife, the weight will be lifted and once unburdened, the doubts will go away and you will be able to live with yourself and your cheating ways, safe and free in the knowledge, that I HAVE SEEN THE TRUTH AND I HAVE ACCEPTED IT AND I SAY SORRY, to the Swannies and Sainters

 

[Stoney]

Stop being an idiot.

People read this sh1t and they think that you represent the view of Saints fans.
You don't represent my views.

Congratulations to The Cats for 09. It's over now. It is the past.

Go SAINTS 2010!

Don't stress Red Gum, I think you will find that Geelong supporters have the upmost respect for St.Kilda and their supporters. At the end of the day, it's just unfortunate that every team has a small group of fans who are complete w@nkers - in this case karmafree.

All the best saint boys, we'll see you back there this September! Go Cats!!!

 

[karmafree]

Its about to stop raining so I will be off to the 23 degree water for a swim in tropical Queensland, but keep your crap condescending advise to yourself Stoney. Redgum can say what he wants on our board and to me as well. You can piss off. I like the cats I lived at Deans Marsh for 5 years and saw plenty of cats games. But I hate political correctness especially on a day when I should be on the beach. And your and redgums views stink of it.

 

[AFaiL]

Hush, little one. We'll be right in 2010, forget 2009.

The drug addict dealer cheats at sleepy hollow will get what's coming.

Let's not forget Daddy Ableet being a druggie himself.

It's in the culture of the club.

Didn't win them the flag in 2009.

But it will cost them 2010.

 

[Stoney]

Dude grow up, "our board", my board, your board, who gives a crap? Bigfooty is a public forum as so long as I don't come on here paying out st.kilda uneccessarily I have every right to post.

You are carrying on like a tool, no one at Geelong broke any rules to win the 2009 GF. Cocaine (even now) isn't - and won't ever be- a performance enhancing drug so your entire argument has absolutely no substance. Going around a labelling Geelong cheats when clearly no one had cheated makes you look like a pathetic loser.

 

[karmafree]

Hush, little one. We'll be right in 2010, forget 2009.

The drug addict dealer cheats at sleepy hollow will get what's coming.

Let's not forget Daddy Ableet being a druggie himself.

It's in the culture of the club.

Didn't win them the flag in 2009.

But it will cost them 2010.

Just bored. And wanting to see what I could catch.It won't stop raining and the handicapper has explicitly told me I won't be watching the replay on OneHD tonight while we are on holidays,. I should grow up, but I just can't. By the way StFly if I'm in legal trouble anytime can I call on your services, you little legal eagle

 

[Red Gum]

... But I hate political correctness especially on a day when I should be on the beach. And your and redgums views stink of it.

You seem to have confused 'political correctness' with rational thought.

I'll explain:

Cocaine is not a performance enhancing drug. Matthew Stokes was not capable of being an AFL player as a result of drug use.
The WADA code might finish Stokes' career (if he is found guilty of trafficking), but it would do so on the basis that he was dealing drugs (it is the trafficking charge that attracts the penalty). No one has accused Stokes of taking drugs. No one has suggested he was taking drugs last year. He has been charged with possession (because he bought 1g of Cocaine) and he has been charged with trafficking (because he said he bought it to give to a friend). If he can convince a judge or jury that he didn't mean to profit from the trade then he could conceivably be found not guilty of trafficking. All of these issues are irrelevant to your original post because there you state, suggest or imply that Stokes is a cheat. That he "...helped Geelong to a cheated Premiership. No doubt at all."
Your understanding of cocaine's effects and the nature of drug use seem childish at worst and ill-informed at best.

You also raise Chapman and seem to be suggesting that the rules recently changed should be applied retrospectively and that if this were done Chapman too would have been cheating.
I am currently wearing a black T-shirt. If tomorrow the parliament passes a law against black T-shirts and I continued to wear them I would be breaking the law, but if I never wore one again they couldn't arrest me for wearing one the day before the law was changed.
I'll provide an example closer to the Chapman situation. I broke my thumb playing footy. In order to get it fixed and play again I had pins inserted surgically. They have since been removed. If, for the 2010 season, my local league passes a rule that anyone breaking their thumb cannot use surgical pins to correct the injury. Am I cheating if I play, having had this procedure in the past before it was against the rules? Was I cheating when I played last year?
Retrospectivity seems clearly to be a flawed principle to apply to rule changes.

I don't want to get into a flamewar with a fellow Saint, and you're entitled to your opinion no matter how opposed it is to my own, but please think about it first. See if your opinion makes sense, even to yourself. If it does, post it. If not, probably best kept to yourself til you figure out something that makes more sense.

BigFooty is a place for opinion and discussion, but it's not a competition. If another board (Collingwood or Bay 13 for instance) has a million crap posts and the Saints board has a thousand good ones we are not 'losing' anything. It makes no sense to say 'we' don't get enough posts on 'our' board.

Hopefully we can agree that 2009 hurt and we can both look forward to seeing the Saints go one further in 2010. There's no need to tarnish an amazing year in which we fell milimeters short by throwing tantrums and accusations.

 

[StFly]

By the way StFly if I'm in legal trouble anytime can I call on your services, you little legal eagle

I charge by the nanosecond and by using muh noggin with a viking helmet, otherwise yeah sure maybe probably not.

I'll provide an example closer to the Chapman situation. I broke my thumb playing footy. In order to get it fixed and play again I had pins inserted surgically. They have since been removed. If, for the 2010 season, my local league passes a rule that anyone breaking their thumb cannot use surgical pins to correct the injury. Am I cheating if I play, having had this procedure in the past before it was against the rules? Was I cheating when I played last year?

If your hand was broken round #1 and the rule was introduced after round #2's completion you would thereby not be allowed to play from rounds #3 to 22+ finals if the pins remained. Should you do so you yourself would be reported and sent to the tribunal and the club would be brought into disrepute due to their processes.

The query becames the cut off of the 2009 season as an entirety.

The rules were amended for the 2010 season, however they were amended in 2009. The rules were also amended because of one instance, thus taking in the above scenario and outcome as you so put it, the side during round #2 could place a grievance with the governing body that the ruling should be retroactive due to the unfair advantage gained by the timing of the ruling and the governing body would be well within their rights to go "that bloke kicked 14 of his sides 17 goals and they won by 2.. gee we're being a bit of a bastard here, lets dock them 2 points and call it a stalemate and "our bad!"." you'd have whinging on both sides but due to the timing and the specifics of the claim, it'd probably end up being the fair response.

The difference with this as opposed to round #14 is that it has the integrity of the competition in being a GF. Switch the activation around in that this was revealed at the end of round 14 and in the dying moments Chappy snapped a goal which extended them to 14 wins on the trott and we lost. The AFL then came out and said "that practice is now banned."

You'd treat it differently and state that it was a bit harsh and entirely bullshit if the result stood uncontested. Yet this is what happened.

We do forget that there was a goal in it at the siren, Chappy kicked more than 1 goal and so should 1 disposal be altered, the grubber kick after the siren that went through would have been kept out and we would have gone to extra time. The AFL then would have been entirely within their right since they used the AFL grand final to say "the game was effetively won because of the contribution of a guy on a procedure that is now outlawed, let's do extra time." but instead the integrity of the competition took precedence.

In effect the timing on when this was revealed made the case for the outcome and which side could harbour a grudge, and in any event the cup would then be tarnished either as charity to us, or to Geelong with karmas insinuation of a now outlawed practice which let Geelong have their match winner.

 

[Red Gum]

ah... hopefully you don't charge too much for that legal advice

If I had an operation (or Chappy underwent a procedure) and that operation (procedure) allowed me to play, and at the time was entirely within the rules of the game then I am no cheat.

If the rules later change you cannot retrospectively call me a cheat. I would only be a cheat if I then kept using the banned operation (procedure) not if I contuned to enjoy the effects of it.

 

[StFly]

ah... hopefully you don't charge too much for that legal advice

If I had an operation (or Chappy underwent a procedure) and that operation (procedure) allowed me to play, and at the time was entirely within the rules of the game then I am no cheat.

If the rules later change you cannot retrospectively call me a cheat. I would only be a cheat if I then kept using the banned operation (procedure) not if I contuned to enjoy the effects of it.

A stone so that my viking horns are constantly sharp, my payment other than that is to draw out the proceedings for as long as possible to add to my epic beard.

Ah but if you use a procedure or undertake an operation and the governing body says "you know what you just did? yeah that, that's now illegal." as you walk out of the clinic you are a cheat but you're also "well thank christ I beat that deadline by mere seconds!"

The AFL highlghted the process used in the grand final and said "that's now illegal" this inherently brings the game itself into disrepute as it is such an important game of the year why not go a day earlier instead of later?

Since it was later, chappy could still be construed a cheat int he moral definition of the word while not being a cheat in the definition of the laws at the time.

And I hope that the jury will see that the prosecutor has a baby face and is not a viking lawyer, thank you.

 

[Red Gum]

he would be morally cheating if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, or if he felt that it was an unfair way to gain advantage.

Only he knows if that is the case.

 

[Stoney]

A stone so that my viking horns are constantly sharp, my payment other than that is to draw out the proceedings for as long as possible to add to my epic beard.

Ah but if you use a procedure or undertake an operation and the governing body says "you know what you just did? yeah that, that's now illegal." as you walk out of the clinic you are a cheat but you're also "well thank christ I beat that deadline by mere seconds!"

The AFL highlghted the process used in the grand final and said "that's now illegal" this inherently brings the game itself into disrepute as it is such an important game of the year why not go a day earlier instead of later?

Since it was later, chappy could still be construed a cheat int he moral definition of the word while not being a cheat in the definition of the laws at the time.

And I hope that the jury will see that the prosecutor has a baby face and is not a viking lawyer, thank you.

So we've established he didn't cheat? Thank god it took you 3 extensive posts to say what everyone in the football world who had a positive IQ already knew.

 

[StFly]

So we've established he didn't cheat? Thank god it took you 3 extensive posts to say what everyone in the football world who had a positive IQ already knew.

So we've established that i was having a little fun and you should piss back off to your hovel?

Cheerio then.

I mean I could make a quirk about you have to "follow the white line road" back, but then, that would be in poor taste with your interrupting of my fun or thinking vikings were serious. And you know, I'm just that nice of a guy.

he would be morally cheating if he knew that what he was doing was wrong, or if he felt that it was an unfair way to gain advantage.

Only he knows if that is the case.

Well considering he's come out and "predicted the future" before I would say he knew ahead ahead of time it'd be outlawed and did it anyway, because he's an evil evil person. Wouldn't you?