Joe Daniher

Boston tiger · Mar 9, 2015

RegHickeyStand said:
re the NAB.. Essendon isn't like every other club at the minute.

OK, so JD didn't pull up sore as reported. You are saying the efc told a lie there. Clubs do that. But they were short of players and had to use top-ups. So I would have thought uninjured players were required.

Yes they told a lie. The 6 players should have played. So what now? The AFL make a rule that if you are using top up players every available player you have on your list has to play in that game.
Not sure it has anything to with Joe and INs etc.

RegHickeyStand · Mar 9, 2015

Boston tiger said:
Yes they told a lie. The 6 players should have played. So what now? The AFL make a rule that if you are using top up players every available player you have on your list has to play in that game.
Not sure it has anything to with Joe and INs etc.

Wait. It will sort itself out.

Lance Uppercut · Mar 9, 2015

RegHickeyStand said:
re the NAB.. Essendon isn't like every other club at the minute.

OK, so JD didn't pull up sore as reported. You are saying the efc told a lie there. Clubs do that. But they were short of players and had to use top-ups. So I would have thought uninjured players were required.

Hahaha please point out this lie where the club claimed Joe pulled up sore can you?

This whole meme is an amazing example of where BigFooty somehow becomes more real than reality to some people!!

Reality rules · Mar 9, 2015

Lance Uppercut said:
Hahaha please point out this lie where the club claimed Joe pulled up sore can you?

This whole meme is an amazing example of where BigFooty somehow becomes more real than reality to some people!!

Yep....nothing to see here. This shit happens every game during every season.

Ancient Tiger · Mar 9, 2015

Lance Uppercut said:
Hahaha please point out this lie where the club claimed Joe pulled up sore can you?

This whole meme is an amazing example of where BigFooty somehow becomes more real than reality to some people!!

The Chief loves it though!!!

$$$$$$$$$

Proper Gander · Mar 9, 2015

Boston tiger said:
I think Goddard has an IN. Knew he was coming to Essendon so slipped over to get on the program. Didn't play in the NAB cup. If he didn't have an IN then why didn't he play in the NAB cup. Tell me that ?

Is this how it works ?

Ps if Essendon or anybody has stated previously that he didn't have an IN don't believe them.

I know a bloke who got to use their training facility - employee for some time of the EFC social club. He'll have an IN for sure

SBYM · Mar 9, 2015

Lance Uppercut said:
this thread is now a good metaphor for the board as a whole

More of a microcosm I reckon...

...in all its repetitive glory.

Reality rules · Mar 9, 2015

Ancient Tiger said:
The Chief loves it though!!!

$$$$$$$$$

I wonder how some threads ever see the light of day TBH. But this does support the reasons why.

Cylon7 · Mar 9, 2015

Ancient Tiger said:
The AFL anti doping code covers all players playing Australian Rules Football, even minors.

Sometimes footy rules and regulations can take on a fluid quality.

Ancient Tiger · Mar 9, 2015

Cylon7 said:
Sometimes footy rules and regulations can take on a fluid quality.

We all know they are manipulated by those in power to suit their agendas.

Reality rules · Mar 9, 2015

Ancient Tiger said:
We all know they are manipulated by those in power to suit their agendas.

I suppose here is no different.

RegHickeyStand · Mar 9, 2015

Lance Uppercut said:
Hahaha please point out this lie where the club claimed Joe pulled up sore can you?

This whole meme is an amazing example of where BigFooty somehow becomes more real than reality to some people!!

Just commenting on the story out of Essendon, Lance.

No need to get hysterical. The "lie" is something another poster claimed and I went along with it for the sake of argument. Did you not follow that?

Magruder · Mar 9, 2015

Proper Gander said:
That part is easy - what follows isn't.

Scroll back to the guy on the previous page's post - I think he is called I remember Bluey or similar.

I know - I'll past it here:

So Ess/AFL/ASADA officially respond - JD does not have an IN.

Media and this board immediately jump up and down demanding to know why JD is getting favorable treatment, why don't Ess/AFL/ASADA give the same official response re other players not issued IN's, they shout.

So Ess/AFL/ASSADA issue another official statement - Joe Bloogs, Bill Bloogs, Eddie Bloogs ect ect do not have IN's.

Media and this board then go into a seventh heaven melt down, as we now officially know the name of all players with In's, before the verdict is known.

Sort of defeats the purpose of protecting the the players with IN's before the verdict is known, don't you think???.

Makes a certain amount of sense.

It doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it presupposes that all are entitled to a degree of privacy, unfortunately that means we are free to speculate.

Secondly, the fact that JD wasn't on the list on 2012 means confirming he does not have an IN does not assist Us work out who does. If all players with infractions were listed in 2012, confirming one player who was not on said list does not have an infraction can hardly help us...

Thirdly, everyone is aware that JD was at the club in a limited capacity in 2012. Everyone is aware he was underage. A simple statement that he wasn't part of the programme is probably warranted.

So why so quiet?

Until he plays the speculation will continue.

mxett · Mar 9, 2015

Magruder said:
It doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it presupposes that all are entitled to a degree of privacy, unfortunately that means we are free to speculate.

Secondly, the fact that JD wasn't on the list on 2012 means confirming he does not have an IN does not assist Us work out who does. If all players with infractions were listed in 2012, confirming one player who was not on said list does not have an infraction can hardly help us...

Thirdly, everyone is aware that JD was at the club in a limited capacity in 2012. Everyone is aware he was underage. A simple statement that he wasn't part of the programme is probably warranted.

So why so quiet?

Until he plays the speculation will continue.

why? The AFL stated he couldnt play in the game v Williamstown because he should be playing in the NAB. Why would they do that or say that if he had a provisional ban?

Reality rules · Mar 9, 2015

Magruder said:
It doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it presupposes that all are entitled to a degree of privacy, unfortunately that means we are free to speculate.

Secondly, the fact that JD wasn't on the list on 2012 means confirming he does not have an IN does not assist Us work out who does. If all players with infractions were listed in 2012, confirming one player who was not on said list does not have an infraction can hardly help us...

Thirdly, everyone is aware that JD was at the club in a limited capacity in 2012. Everyone is aware he was underage. A simple statement that he wasn't part of the programme is probably warranted.

So why so quiet?

Until he plays the speculation will continue.

When has anything in this shit fight ever made sense?

How did EFC ever get to this clematis situation in the first place?

Magruder · Mar 9, 2015

mxett said:
why? The AFL stated he couldnt play in the game v Williamstown because he should be playing in the NAB. Why would they do that or say that if he had a provisional ban?

So what's the harm the in an unequivocal statement? Bullshit arguments about betraying others confidentiality aside, particularly as we know these arguments to be deflection.

So why not make a formal statement that 17 year old kids in your charge in 2012 have not been issued with infractions?

QuietB · Mar 9, 2015

Magruder said:
It doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it presupposes that all are entitled to a degree of privacy, unfortunately that means we are free to speculate.

Secondly, the fact that JD wasn't on the list on 2012 means confirming he does not have an IN does not assist Us work out who does. If all players with infractions were listed in 2012, confirming one player who was not on said list does not have an infraction can hardly help us...

Thirdly, everyone is aware that JD was at the club in a limited capacity in 2012. Everyone is aware he was underage. A simple statement that he wasn't part of the programme is probably warranted.

So why so quiet?

Until he plays the speculation will continue.

Essendon came out and made a public statement through SEN, and yet in that statement they did nothing to quash the speculation. They would have been better off making no statement at all.

Muggs · Mar 9, 2015

QuietB said:
Essendon came out and made a public statement through SEN, and yet in that statement they did nothing to quash the speculation. They would have been better off making no statement at all.

Think its got to the stage even if he did play before a verdict is handed down there be a group of people saying his taking a chance on being found not guilty...

RegHickeyStand · Mar 9, 2015

Magruder said:
So what's the harm the in an unequivocal statement? Bullshit arguments about betraying others confidentiality aside, particularly as we know these arguments to be deflection.

So why not make a formal statement that 17 year old kids in your charge in 2012 have not been issued with infractions?

There is no harm in an unequivocal statement. JD wasn't even in the original group that the 34 came from. OTOH, the media isn't talking about it, no-one outside this forum is talking about it, so there is no air to clear.

Be funny if Joe was found to be the mastermind behind it all.

"I told you I was innocent!!" - James Hird

mxett · Mar 9, 2015

Magruder said:
So what's the harm the in an unequivocal statement? Bullshit arguments about betraying others confidentiality aside, particularly as we know these arguments to be deflection.

So why not make a formal statement that 17 year old kids in your charge in 2012 have not been issued with infractions?

Maybe because they dont care what people on BF think or say

Magruder · Mar 9, 2015

mxett said:
Maybe because they dont care what people on BF think or say

That's all cool and the gang too.

The question is why does people speculating bother you so much then?

mxett · Mar 9, 2015

Magruder said:
That's all cool and the gang too.

The question is why does people speculating bother you so much then?

because its obvious by the AFL's action that he isnt provisionally banned

onemancyclone · Mar 9, 2015

mxett said:
because its obvious by the AFL's action that he isnt provisionally banned

We're free to form our own opinions bub. :thumbsu:

davis_756 · Mar 9, 2015

mxett said:
because its obvious by the AFL's action that he isnt provisionally banned

Its as clear as mud, but you essendon supports think that stuff is normal now

mxett · Mar 9, 2015

onemancyclone said:
We're free to form our own opinions bub.

true. No law against stupidity

Log In or Create New Account

NFL Week 16 🏈 NCAA Bowls and Playoffs

Joe Daniher

Norm Smith Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Eat bling

Cancelled

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆

Owl whisperer and secret agent

Fish, chips, cup o' tea, Mary @#? Poppins. London!

Cancelled

Club Legend

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆

Cancelled

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Cancelled

Brownlow Medallist

Hall of Famer

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Club Legend

Cancelled

Brownlow Medallist

Similar threads