Joe Daniher

[yaco55]

Keep defending your wonderful club. You're doing an amazing job of it.

Someone answered your question - JD was banned from playing in the match simulation against Williamstown, because it was ONLY for players serving a provisional suspension - of course you then deflect !

 

[yaco55]

Haven't read up on all of today's comments as yet, but it does seem pretty clear now that Joe doesn't have an IN.

I'm taking the HUNs word for it, and I feel a little dirty.

Still, I can't fathom how people could genuinely not query anything and everything involving Essendon after the last 2 years, so if speculation upsets you perhaps a small review of the timeline and the backflips might be in order.

I will tell you why - No-one has adequately explained how a Non-Listed AFL player could be charged with PED use ? Take this logic,and ask whether - ASADA have interviewed the four young AIS Scholarship holders who spent time at the club in 2012 ?

 

[yaco55]

So why do you come here and why defend your club?

Yes we know you don't care about other clubs, such as St Kilda by playing a second string team while keeping your best players on some non competitive match simulation.

Hatred is a result of the way your club acts showing no regard for its players or other clubs or the competition, just do what suits you.

Maybe its not a matter of supporters defending their club - Maybe its a case of deliberately riling you !

 

[yaco55]

So its come down to this - EFC should issue a press release stating that JD has no IN - Just to satisfy 50 people on the HTB - Way to go.

 

[yaco55]

I hope he plays next week so it can diffuse this thread.

Nah - Posted a few days ago that I would chuckle if he again missed next week - Why deny enjoyment to the 50 people in the WHOLE world who believe that JD has an IN.

 

[yaco55]

But they didn't force him to play in morwell. Why wasn't he named to play there if he has no in?

I'd guess they wanted to play the best 22 in the match stimulation. Seems a reasonable guess.

 

[yaco55]

Which other clubs organize to play their best players in a non competitive non practice match against a vfl side? Which other club was banned from doing so by the AFL? Which club was caught raiding players from other leagues without obtaining permission? Which club has 34 players facing doping charges? Shall I go on?

Unfortunately 17 players are provisionally suspended - Which is a chunk of the best 22.

 

[the conch]

they have the right to rest key players for whatever reason they want, just like any other AFL side. Claiming it is disrespectful is hilarious

The AFL had to intervene yet again with the difficult child club. The kid at kinda who has socialisation issues and who can't play by the rules.... who has no friends.

 

[the conch]

their creepy & kooky
mysterious & spooky !

Danks office at Syringe Hill

 

[the conch]

Someone answered your question - JD was banned from playing in the match simulation against Williamstown, because it was ONLY for players serving a provisional suspension - of course you then deflect !

No... The ban was only for players that were non listed in 2012 as JD was.... but he was there... inside the tent.
So by AFL edict he'd have to play against Saints and in NAB , but if he had an IN then Bombers would not be able to play him but would have to make excuses to hide his identity and a further level of outrage, consternation and disgust with the club and sycofans .... excuses like general soreness. Seems sus to me... JD not playing and the paranoi about protecting identity.
Let's see if he plays in the NAB. And we should know by the end of March with the suspensions coming for cheating.

 

[the conch]

Nah - Posted a few days ago that I would chuckle if he again missed next week - Why deny enjoyment to the 50 people in the WHOLE world who believe that JD has an IN.

I reckon whole footy media may be sus on JD but can't publish on speculation- which it is at this stage.

 

[The_Wookie]

they have the right to rest key players for whatever reason they want, just like any other AFL side. Claiming it is disrespectful is hilarious

They DONT have the right to rest players from a senior match to play in a "match simulation". Sure they can, if they are resting. And it is absolutely disrespectful, but what else is new...

Essendon also wanted six players who were not at the club in 2012 – Brendon Goddard, Adam Cooney, James Gwilt, Joe Daniher, Zach Merrett and Patrick Ambrose – to be part of Friday’s session.

But the AFL, mindful of St Kilda and the fans at Morwell, said if those six players were not playing on Saturday then they also should not be part of the special hitout.

“We would have thought if Brendon Goddard was to play any competitive football, then that would be in Morwell,” AFL operations manager Mark Evans told the league’s website.

 

[mxett]

They DONT have the right to rest players from a senior match to play in a "match simulation". Sure they can, if they are resting. And it is absolutely disrespectful, but what else is new...

No problem, they just rested him period

 

[Proper Gander]

They DONT have the right to rest players from a senior match to play in a "match simulation". Sure they can, if they are resting. And it is absolutely disrespectful, but what else is new...

So far though, the only known factor is that JD is resting for whatever reason ... Muscle soreness, bad mood, headlice etc.

Once he's had a good hose down, I expect him to emerge from his tent or whatever and slope over to the NAB.

What was he doing in the tent at Willy anyway? Sausage Sizzle?

 

[The_Wookie]

No problem, they just rested him period

then thats fine. No issues here or with the AFL. The issue was he was scheduled to play in the simulation, instead of taking his place at Morwell when he is clearly not under provisional suspension.

 

[LoungeLizard]

So its come down to this - EFC should issue a press release stating that JD has no IN - Just to satisfy 50 people on the HTB - Way to go.

You think just 50 people on this site are the only ones that think he could have an IN -way to go.
I would bet there are even some EFC fans that have some doubt

 

[BlueWorld]

I will tell you why - No-one has adequately explained how a Non-Listed AFL player could be charged with PED use ? Take this logic,and ask whether - ASADA have interviewed the four young AIS Scholarship holders who spent time at the club in 2012 ?

That doesn't exclude the possibility he used PED's now does it.

 

[I Remember Bluey]

It's not proof of anything. Why not respond officially, make a statement that unequivocally rules out JD?

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???.

 

[LoungeLizard]

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???.

well until then people will just have to have doubts then i suppose.

 

[Taylor]

I will tell you why - No-one has adequately explained how a Non-Listed AFL player could be charged with PED use ? Take this logic,and ask whether - ASADA have interviewed the four young AIS Scholarship holders who spent time at the club in 2012 ?

Amateur athletes are subject to drug testing and the bans that follow.

 

[rose jam]

If they gave PEDs or in fact any stomach injections to JD they'll be completely f****** from the public outrage. If he had an IN the club is screwed.

 

[Proper Gander]

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???.

Much as I hate to agree with a (possibly mad) Bomber fanatic - this is spot on and I don't know why various people on this board don't see it. In fact, the thread about JD is pretty looney and I'm surprised it made it this long.

Of course EFC et al aren't going to make a statement about Joe - exactly what is described above would happen. The protecting identity thing has to be one in, all in. The concept of protecting identities was supported by the Tribunal as well by refusing an open hearing.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

this thread is now a good metaphor for the board as a whole

 

[Armchair Critic]

Much as I hate to agree with a (possibly mad) Bomber fanatic - this is spot on and I don't know why various people on this board don't see it. In fact, the thread about JD is pretty looney and I'm surprised it made it this long.

Of course EFC et al aren't going to make a statement about Joe - exactly what is described above would happen. The protecting identity thing has to be one in, all in. The concept of protecting identities was supported by the Tribunal as well by refusing an open hearing.

One in, all in. 4 players broke ranks on that already

 

[Armchair Critic]

this thread is now a good metaphor for the board as a whole

You know you are part of this board right