Howletts wife speaks her mind:

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
mxett said:
. Disclosing substances to ASADA is optional
Click to expand...

No its not. Were you under a rock on Judgement Day? When you are asked by the testers, you have to reply and indicate everything.

Only one player listed anything and that was a vitamin shot.

This covering up by your players is the main reason why your players could not gaina "no-fault" discount.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ThirtyFive said:
Sorry, Mxett. Wrong here. It's not optional. I've witnessed enough of them in my time. They (the player) sign at the bottom of the form to say that what they've declared is true and correct. It's a binding legal document. It has to be to stand up in court. 7 days is correct, though.
Click to expand...
This is what it says:
We recommend athletes consider declaring any substances used in the last 7 dats. Not declaring use may affect results management, particularly in an application for a retrospective TUE
 
stfan said:
No its not. Were you under a rock on Judgement Day? When you are asked by the testers, you have to reply and indicate everything.

Only one player listed anything and that was a vitamin shot.

This covering up by your players is the main reason why your players could not gaina "no-fault" discount.
Click to expand...
yea it is

We recommend athletes consider declaring any substances used in the last 7 dats. Not declaring use may affect results management, particularly in an application for a retrospective TUE
 
Easy Slips Catch said:
That may be true but record keeping at EFC was slack and the players were just going along with that culture. Footballers are tribal incapable of autonomous thought.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say that of all AFL players. I've encountered many who are quite fastidious about answering this question accurately. Even to the point of bringing a diary with them.
 
images


I think the players are currently in between the 2nd and 3rd stages.
 
stfan said:
LOL.

Each player was tested 30 times. So I do not know where you get your 30 tests in total from.
Click to expand...

Is there some link to this? I initially interpreted what I heard as 18 players, 30 tests each...540 tests...

But having heard McDevitt again I think it was 30 tests made up of 18 different players...

Please correct me if I'm wrong...these figures aren't in the CAS doc, rather, they came out in the ASADA presser?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mxett said:
This is what it says:
We recommend athletes consider declaring any substances used in the last 7 dats. Not declaring use may affect results management, particularly in an application for a retrospective TUE
Click to expand...

I'll check the document tomorrow night and get back to you. I'll have one in my hand. Happy to stand corrected, but, certain the declaration signed says otherwise.
 
Who is going to provide the clearest and most objective view of matters, WADA or the wife of a player who has been suspended for breaching international doping standards? I'm sure Lance Armstrong's mum feels Lance was hard done by.
 
mxett said:
someone posted the section on the bombers board. It only covers the last 7 days, and its recommended to declare substances you are given, not compulsorary
Click to expand...

So are you saying that if you decide not declare everything you have taken - ie to hide something - because it is not compulsory, then it doesn't count? There is some obvious historical leniency with the AFL and recreational drugs but performance enhancing drugs brings in a different set of rules. The onus is on the athlete to be responsible for what goes into their body. To question any new supplement and check out it's legality. Yes as a team the players place their welfare in the hands of the club but the buck still stops with them. Like all the other professional athletes around the world that incorporate WADA's drug code.
 
ChubbMuff said:
So are you saying that if you decide not declare everything you have taken - ie to hide something - because it is not compulsory, then it doesn't count? There is some obvious historical leniency with the AFL and recreational drugs but performance enhancing drugs brings in a different set of rules. The onus is on the athlete to be responsible for what goes into their body. To question any new supplement and check out it's legality. Yes as a team the players place their welfare in the hands of the club but the buck still stops with them. Like all the other professional athletes around the world that incorporate WADA's drug code.
Click to expand...
they recommend you consider declaring which makes processes such as a TUE process easier. You dont think athletes would be thinking "what TUE"? "I dont need to declare anything because I have no TUE"
 
mxett said:
If Hal, like all the other Essendon players, was a willing participant in doping, why doesnt he know what he was given?
Click to expand...
Because he showed his willingness through acceptance of whatever was pumped into him, despite rules, lectures, guidelines and forms indicating he should know for himself.

It's not rocket science.

You're now running around straw-manning the hell out of "things will get ugly" posts as if they were the only comments on this issue.

So yes, three days later we haven't seen much from the players. Hopefully it stays that way, but odds on it won't. If that is the wrong call... so what?
 
mxett said:
they recommend you consider declaring which makes processes such as a TUE process easier. You dont think athletes would be thinking "what TUE"? "I dont need to declare anything because I have no TUE"
Click to expand...
Yet one of them went "Hmm, best declare that Vitamin B. They probably don't need to know about that other stuff that makes my ass feel like concrete when injected though"
 
Randomizor said:
Yet one of them went "Hmm, best declare that Vitamin B. They probably don't need to know about that other stuff that makes my ass feel like concrete when injected though"
Click to expand...
what does it matter? Its completely optional, recommended, they arent obliged to at all. How many AFL players would fill it out properly I wonder?
 
mxett said:
what does it matter? Its completely optional, recommended, they arent obliged to at all. How many AFL players would fill it out properly I wonder?
Click to expand...
It's quirky is all. Would have been somewhat more logical to declare nothing than one random thing. Also, why did the player with cardiac arrhythmia not tell the bloody doctor about the supplements he was taking? That is just plain stupid. That's ludicrously secretive. Why?

And if the answer is so obvious as you claim why did the players not just answer with that? Their lawyers could have given them the heads up. Instead, they clearly tried to give some murky answers which the CAS saw straight through.
 
mxett said:
what does it matter? Its completely optional, recommended, they arent obliged to at all. How many AFL players would fill it out properly I wonder?
Click to expand...
Are you still here bullshitting?

Wow.

You've flipped flopped the entire time throughout this saga, and now you're back to trying to say they're innocent and CAS got it wrong. With more posts, the more you're making a fool of yourself.
 
mxett said:
You think? The HTB have regularly claimed that once players were suspended that it would get real ugly. That the blame game would begin and the club would tear itself to pieces. Then would see the cheating corruption exposed. Still waiting
Click to expand...
Be patient, everything in good time, my son.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top