Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

[hirdylloydy1]

Because it is fair to assume that drinking a recovery drink after training is fairly normal.
It's not fair to assume that being given a cocktail of needles off-site is normal.

Judd is a moron for not knowing what is in it, but it is almost understandable that he would not question it.
It is not understandable that Essendon players would not question being jabbed with needles.

Now do I really need to go into the difference between taking needles into the blood stream and ingesting a drink? and why anything being pumped into via a needle is suspicious?

but everyone says all afl players should check EVERYTHING that goes into their body, even if its from their club doc, does no one remember the outcry? oh, the children, think of the children

 

[MichelPlatini]

Looks like Harcourt couldn't see the disguised camera.

 

[hirdylloydy1]

Mc Devitt quote 13/6/2014
"........It may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received, through injection or ingestion or otherwise, the prohibited substance.
"But the reality for me is that under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offence......."


I expect a show cause to chris judd and carltons entire list mr mcdevitt. or does this not count now, this guys an absoloute fool

 

[JakeandFatman]

They did question it

So let me get this right. This is basically yours and the Essendon players defense.

You go to a pimp and ask for a prostitute. Out comes a girl that looks no more than 9 years old. You're more than a little suspicious that she is not of legal age to have sex with. You ask the pimp to sign a letter saying "This girl I am giving you to have sex with is legal and 18 years old."

The police do a bust of a child paedophile ring and you are implicated. You produce a letter saying "But I WAS suspicious and I checked and the pimp told me she was 18. I believe I did everything I could to abide by the law!"

Yeah. Think about how stupid your defense is. Getting the person committing the crime to confirm the crime is above board. ROFL

Now read this part of the anti-doping code your players signed and agreed to when they become an AFL player that states they must contact WADA/ASADA for confirmation of legality of drugs... NOT the club.

You still have no understanding of how much shit your club and it's players are in do you

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Mc Devitt quote 13/6/2014
"........It may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received, through injection or ingestion or otherwise, the prohibited substance.
"But the reality for me is that under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offence......."


I expect a show cause to chris judd and carltons entire list mr mcdevitt. or does this not count now, this guys an absoloute fool

So McDevitt claims to be enforcing the code and that ignorance is irrelevant.

Can he please tell us where in the code it says that prosecution is excused if an athlete is ignorant of the fact that what he has received is prohibited, as per his excusing the admitted and consented use of AOD, a prohibited substance according to WADA.

 

[Thrawn]

Look at all the drooling idiots attempt to sling mud at Harcourt. What confidentially clauses did he break?

 

[JakeandFatman]

Mc Devitt quote 13/6/2014
"........It may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received, through injection or ingestion or otherwise, the prohibited substance.
"But the reality for me is that under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offence......."


I expect a show cause to chris judd and carltons entire list mr mcdevitt. or does this not count now, this guys an absoloute fool

hahahahaha more clever Essendon editing of a quote. Here is the entire quote in it's proper context. I'll highlight the bits that shit down Essendon's throat.

BEN MCDEVITT: I am satisfied that a potential violation, or a possible violation, of our anti-doping code has occurred. And in this case those violations now will be notified through the show-cause notice to the player and will then go to an independent panel, the Anti-Doping Review Panel, which will then have an independent assessment of the material that I put before it plus any material that an individual athlete chooses to submit to the panel and that panel will then make a decision.

So in effect, the show-cause notice itself is just the first stage in what can become quite a protracted process.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And this is for the use of performance enhancing drugs?

BEN MCDEVITT: That's correct. In this case each of the allegations being levelled against the 34 current and former AFL players are in relation to a single charge - use of a prohibited substance.

Use of a substance does not mean presence, it doesn't mean that it's actually been detected in the body, in the urine or the blood sample, as a presence violation would normally be detected. This is around use of that particular prohibited substance.

Now the reality is that it may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received through injection or ingestion or otherwise the prohibited substance, but the reality for me under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offense.

Oh dear. So you see Essendon are being turned over and ****ed dry not because they didn't know what they were drinking in the football tea room. It is because ASADA found evidence that Essendon have been using banned drugs.

And once again it shows that it does not matter if there is a positive test or not. If ASADA can prove it was likely those drugs could have been used then Essendon are Goooooorn.

Now. If ASADA find evidence that Chris Judd's milkshake was being made by a rogue sports scientist that was bulk ordering banned drugs from China and that there are invoices laying around Carlton's office for banned WADA drugs and that these banned WADA drugs are put into milkshakes with the same quantity as what Juddy was drinking then maybe, just maybe ASADA will investigate Carlton!

Honestly and I say this with the utmost sincerity hirdylloydy1. You are quite possibility the most stupid person I have ever engaged with, and that is saying something.

 

[JakeandFatman]

Look at all the drooling idiots attempt to sling mud at Harcourt. What confidentially clauses did he break?

Well apparently he showed 3 Essendon photos of players which was a breach of player confidentiality even though one of the players shown could not possibly have been given a Show Cause Notice

I reckon it's hilarious. They are no longer trying to prove that they are innocent. All of the supporters energy is trying to discredit the people with the evidence so that they can avoid punishment on a technicality.

Should have seen them on twitter last night. They were all hassling the video production company that made and uploaded the Harcourt video demanding to know who asked them to take it down. The company was basically all but telling them to piss off They are putting on a brave face but they know they are guilty of drug taking and are now trying to save the club from disaster

 

[Sleuth1]

Mc Devitt quote 13/6/2014
"........It may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received, through injection or ingestion or otherwise, the prohibited substance.
"But the reality for me is that under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offence......."


I expect a show cause to chris judd and carltons entire list mr mcdevitt. or does this not count now, this guys an absoloute fool

I guess being in denial about your club and what they have done helps you cope with the shocking things that occurred. But denial in the long term will cause irreparable damage to the AFL and effectively your club will not exist if it seeks to win this at any cost to the game. Your club has become the most hated and reviled club in the land, it is getting to the point where we want you kicked out as you won't stick to any rules that don't suit you.

 

[Sleuth1]

Well apparently he showed 3 Essendon photos of players which was a breach of player confidentiality even though one of the players shown could not possibly have been given a Show Cause Notice

I reckon it's hilarious. They are no longer trying to prove that they are innocent. All of the supporters energy is trying to discredit the people with the evidence so that they can avoid punishment on a technicality.

Should have seen them on twitter last night. They were all hassling the video production company that made and uploaded the Harcourt video demanding to know who asked them to take it down. The company was basically all but telling them to piss off They are putting on a brave face but they know they are guilty of drug taking and are now trying to save the club from disaster

Exactly: smear, discredit, offend 'whatever it takes' anybody dare hold them to account. A classic defense of the guilty and entitled. They don't give a toss for decent people like Harcourt. Dr Thompson can take over at AFL House. He is an expert at mental health, oncology, pharmacology etc. Or else, he, Danks and Hirdy could set up a clinic in Toorak, another Ageless Clinic for Narcissists. Hirdy could give them the magic touch, Hanks do the assessment and hocus pocus, Thompson the presentation, Charters could make a comeback and do the supplies, Robbo the publicity and Watson introduce its benefits on Channel 7. Just for impartiality Luke Darcy could do a review of its efficacy.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

hahahahaha more clever Essendon editing of a quote. Here is the entire quote in it's proper context. I'll highlight the bits that shit down Essendon's throat.

BEN MCDEVITT: I am satisfied that a potential violation, or a possible violation, of our anti-doping code has occurred. And in this case those violations now will be notified through the show-cause notice to the player and will then go to an independent panel, the Anti-Doping Review Panel, which will then have an independent assessment of the material that I put before it plus any material that an individual athlete chooses to submit to the panel and that panel will then make a decision.

Very interesting quote by McDevitt. So he is saying that the SC violations "will" go to the ADRVP regardless of the responses to the show causes.
This seems to be fully in accordance with the NAD scheme.
According to the NAD scheme, no further action is required by the ASADA CEO after the issue of SCs.

4.09 Finding--consideration by the ADRVP
(1) This clause applies if:

(a) a participant has received notification under clause 4.06 or 4.07A (that's a show cause notice); and

(b) the response period for the notification has ended.

(2) The ADRVP must, as soon as practicable, consider any submissions made by the participant and decide whether or not to make an entry on the Register.

(3) If the ADRVP decides not to make an entry on the Register, the ADRVP must notify:

(a) the participant; and

(b) any other party that has been notified of the adverse analytical finding or possible non-presence anti-doping rule violation.

4.10 Entry of finding on Register

As soon as practicable after deciding to make an entry on the Register, the ADRVP must enter the following information on the Register:

(a) the name of the participant;

bla-bla-bla

So, with no further input or action by the ASADA CEO, the ADRVP must as soon as practical decide whether to enter a finding on the register as soon as the response period for the SC has elapsed. The decision must be made by the ADRVP. The ASADA CEO is out of the game at end of the response period.

Now probably 14 weeks since Dank's response period ended. Why have the ADRVP not acted and either put him on the register or advised him that they are not putting him on the register.

According to the NAD scheme, after the SC response period is over the ball clearly gets put in the ADRVP court (pun?).

 

[JakeandFatman]

Very interesting quote by McDevitt. So he is saying that the SC violations "will" go to the ADRVP regardless of the responses to the show causes.
This seems to be fully in accordance with the NAD scheme.
According to the NAD scheme, no further action is required by the ASADA CEO after the issue of SCs.

So, with no further input or action by the ASADA CEO, the ADRVP must as soon as practical decide whether to enter a finding on the register as soon as the response period for the SD has elapsed. The decision must be made by the ADRVP. The ASADA CEO is out of the game at end of the response period.

Now probably 14 weeks since Dank's response period ended. Why have the ADRVP not acted and either put him on the register or advised him that they are not putting him on the register.

According to the NAD scheme, after the SC response period is over the ball clearly gets put in the ADRVP court (pun?).

Was there a point this post? And is your point "ADRVP have been very slow"?

 

[ziad]

Well apparently he showed 3 Essendon photos of players which was a breach of player confidentiality even though one of the players shown could not possibly have been given a Show Cause Notice

I reckon it's hilarious. They are no longer trying to prove that they are innocent. All of the supporters energy is trying to discredit the people with the evidence so that they can avoid punishment on a technicality.

Should have seen them on twitter last night. They were all hassling the video production company that made and uploaded the Harcourt video demanding to know who asked them to take it down. The company was basically all but telling them to piss off They are putting on a brave face but they know they are guilty of drug taking and are now trying to save the club from disaster

doesn't the AFL own all images

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Look at all the drooling idiots attempt to sling mud at Harcourt. What confidentially clauses did he break?

Besides the photos he showed, he breached the AFL anti-doping code simply by commenting on the pending case as an AFL official.

The code states: “The AFL or ASADA, or any officials of either, will not publicly comment on the specific facts of a pending case (as opposed to general description of process and science) except in response to public comments attributed to the player, other person or representative

“The identity of any player or other person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation may only be publicly disclosed by the AFL or ASADA in accordance with this code.”

 

[tesla1962]

So let me get this right. This is basically yours and the Essendon players defense.

You go to a pimp and ask for a prostitute. Out comes a girl that looks no more than 9 years old. You're more than a little suspicious that she is not of legal age to have sex with. You ask the pimp to sign a letter saying "This girl I am giving you to have sex with is legal and 18 years old."

The police do a bust of a child paedophile ring and you are implicated. You produce a letter saying "But I WAS suspicious and I checked and the pimp told me she was 18. I believe I did everything I could to abide by the law!"

Yeah. Think about how stupid your defense is. Getting the person committing the crime to confirm the crime is above board. ROFL

Now read this part of the anti-doping code your players signed and agreed to when they become an AFL player that states they must contact WADA/ASADA for confirmation of legality of drugs... NOT the club.

You still have no understanding of how much shit your club and it's players are in do you

Defence against what exactly?

You going to post all the evidence that shows guilt or is it just what you think.

 

[hirdylloydy1]

hahahahaha more clever Essendon editing of a quote. Here is the entire quote in it's proper context. I'll highlight the bits that shit down Essendon's throat.



Oh dear. So you see Essendon are being turned over and ****** dry not because they didn't know what they were drinking in the football tea room. It is because ASADA found evidence that Essendon have been using banned drugs.

And once again it shows that it does not matter if there is a positive test or not. If ASADA can prove it was likely those drugs could have been used then Essendon are Goooooorn.

Now. If ASADA find evidence that Chris Judd's milkshake was being made by a rogue sports scientist that was bulk ordering banned drugs from China and that there are invoices laying around Carlton's office for banned WADA drugs and that these banned WADA drugs are put into milkshakes with the same quantity as what Juddy was drinking then maybe, just maybe ASADA will investigate Carlton!

Honestly and I say this with the utmost sincerity hirdylloydy1. You are quite possibility the most stupid person I have ever engaged with, and that is saying something.

Oh no , jakeandfatman teh interwebz warrior thinks im stupid, oh noes.

Get over your obsession with my club , you are a vitriolic, irrelevant poster who cannot have a normal debate. Go to your own clubs board and post there, or do they even not listen to you there?

 

[Dave]

What do you mean hasn't been able to prove Essendon's guilt? Do you not understand how it works?

Do you?

 

[BlueWorld]

Very interesting quote by McDevitt. So he is saying that the SC violations "will" go to the ADRVP regardless of the responses to the show causes.
This seems to be fully in accordance with the NAD scheme.
According to the NAD scheme, no further action is required by the ASADA CEO after the issue of SCs.

So, with no further input or action by the ASADA CEO, the ADRVP must as soon as practical decide whether to enter a finding on the register as soon as the response period for the SC has elapsed. The decision must be made by the ADRVP. The ASADA CEO is out of the game at end of the response period.

Now probably 14 weeks since Dank's response period ended. Why have the ADRVP not acted and either put him on the register or advised him that they are not putting him on the register.

According to the NAD scheme, after the SC response period is over the ball clearly gets put in the ADRVP court (pun?).

Not sure what your point is.

Dank was last appealing to the AAT but has since withdrawn that so expect further action very soon.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

They did question it

Yet none of them asked the AFLPA or their Managers, maybe they were just 'crocodile' questions

 

[AscotBomber]

Honestly and I say this with the utmost sincerity hirdylloydy1. You are quite possibility the most stupid person I have ever engaged with, and that is saying something.

Hi Jake, when mocking someone for being stupid, it's best not to have simple spelling mistakes...

 

[JakeandFatman]

Hi Jake, when mocking someone for being stupid, it's best not to have simple spelling mistakes...

Hi,

You may need to go and speak to your English teacher in primary school, to ask them to describe the difference between a spelling mistake and an auto-complete error on the phone.

I'll help you out though. An example of a spelling mistake is "rediculous" instead of "ridiculous".

"possibility" on the other hand is spelt correctly, but obviously was not meant to have been auto-corrected from "possibly".

I hope this helps.

 

[bad setanta]

Mc Devitt quote 13/6/2014
"........It may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received, through injection or ingestion or otherwise, the prohibited substance.
"But the reality for me is that under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offence......."


I expect a show cause to chris judd and carltons entire list mr mcdevitt. or does this not count now, this guys an absoloute fool

No you are fool you just proved it

 

[The_Reaper]

Mc Devitt quote 13/6/2014
"........It may well be the case that an athlete doesn't know that they have actually received, through injection or ingestion or otherwise, the prohibited substance.
"But the reality for me is that under the code is that this is a strict and absolute offence......."


I expect a show cause to chris judd and carltons entire list mr mcdevitt. or does this not count now, this guys an absoloute fool

So Judd doesn't know off by heart.
He talks to Carlton who fortunately do know what he received and he gives a copy of those records to ASADA

 

[QuietB]

They did question it

And someone cut out their club doctor. The program was deliberately designed to keep the players in the dark. Who encouraged that to happen? Who allowed it to happen?

 

[tesla1962]

And someone cut out their club doctor. The program was deliberately designed to keep the players in the dark. Who encouraged that to happen? Who allowed it to happen?

We were talking about the players - why do you find it so hard to stay on topic?

c o n c e n t r a t e