Oppo Camp Non Eagles Discussion Thread

[matt_bas]

Anyone see the Crows sing the song on the oval after the win? Thought it was great, I'd love to see us do that...if we ever win at home

 

[kane249]

Arrest warrant officially issued for Cuz after he failed to turn up to court today, sigh

http://www.news.com.au/national/wes...rk-chase-charges/story-fnii5thn-1227295238668

 

[LongoDongo]

Anyone see the Crows sing the song on the oval after the win? Thought it was great, I'd love to see us do that...if we ever win at home

Coulda had their coach.....but Nisbett and Cransass know best.

 

[LongoDongo]

..we need Woosh back. Got more outa our shitass players than anyone else will. Love Simo though....but our players are soft...fragile little things

 

[LongoDongo]

Cuz now living in Columbia

 

[Abed]

..we need Woosh back. Got more outa our shitass players than anyone else will. Love Simo though....but our players are soft...fragile little things

Um, you realise Woosh got us into this mess, right?

 

[Avalor]

Arrest warrant officially issued for Cuz after he failed to turn up to court today, sigh

http://www.news.com.au/national/wes...rk-chase-charges/story-fnii5thn-1227295238668

The guy is a peanut!

 

[LongoDongo]

Um, you realise Woosh got us into this mess, right?

No he didnt. If you think that ur sadly mistaken. He did wonders with fragile players....ur about to realise just how good he was. The players he baked all jumped on Simos dong..but now Simo will turn on them too. Wonder what the weak will do now.....?....ie...Schofield...Selwood...Shuey...Wellers....Masto....

 

[LongoDongo]

The guy is a peanut!

..yep

 

[LongoDongo]

Simo seen at Wooshas bbq recently....bet they were talkin about how some wce players are mentally flacid

 

[WCEswift]

Took long enough for the ban thanks mods lol

 

[Biggie]

No he didnt. If you think that ur sadly mistaken. He did wonders with fragile players....ur about to realise just how good he was. The players he baked all jumped on Simos dong..but now Simo will turn on them too. Wonder what the weak will do now.....?....ie...Schofield...Selwood...Shuey...Wellers....Masto....

 

[Abed]

No he didnt. If you think that ur sadly mistaken. He did wonders with fragile players....ur about to realise just how good he was. The players he baked all jumped on Simos dong..but now Simo will turn on them too. Wonder what the weak will do now.....?....ie...Schofield...Selwood...Shuey...Wellers....Masto....

Other than Schofield and Shuey, hopefully they get delisted/traded?? Amirite?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[truman]

Wow, there's missing a point and then there's this post.

See A Rod and see Marion Jones for people banned from both team and individual sports without a positive test.

They got banned, rightfully, for taking illegal substances even though they didn't test positive.

The argument that players didn't intend to do anything wrong is moot. Almost everyone ever banned for failing a test claims honest mistake or inadvertent error. The issue is that players are informed clearly that any injection had to be done under the auspicious of the club doctor.

In this situation that was not the case. The fact it was done off site and repeatedly should have aroused even greater suspicion.

These players should have raised concerns. The simple fact that taking injections from those other than the club doctor and via consent forms not signed by the club doctor - a violation of clearly explained (to the players) AFL rules - is sufficient to make the players culpable of a breach of the rules. Frankly that's true even if the injections were Vitamin C. As such the players did "cheat" and should get some form of punishment.

They knowingly ignored AFL rules and allowed themselves to be injected.

Your assertion regarding team doctors at West Coast is wrong on many levels. Firstly the Essendon club doctor was not on board with this program per my above comments - so you're point is moot. Secondly, professional sports people get no out because they are sheeple. See my earlier East German and Chinese examples. They all thought they were part of cutting edge supplements programs.

It's not about being vindictive, it's not about seeking to punish innocent little lambs. They were guilty of breaking the rules of the game even without a positive test.

If you're not clear on the protocol, sees Roos comments in the video I posted earlier re Tim Watson.

Well firstly all we know is that the club doctor brought it up with management that he was concerned with what the players were taking, no where does it suggest he told the players he was concerned (failing his duty of care). He was at the club throughout the whole process, suggesting whether he liked it or not he complied with what was going on. So unless the players knew that their doctor was fundamentally against the regime (again no evidence to suggest he was, other than having private chats with coach and higher officials) what are they supposed to do? It's true he didn't sign the consent forms but the players weren't made aware of this, surely it is the responsibility of the club doctor to make it clear to the players he did not approve of the program rather than attempt to cover his own ass and have private conversations with management.

Yes almost everyone banned for using illegal substance claims honest mistake except for the people you mentioned in your post and the most famous drug cheat of our generation, Lance Armstrong.

Secondly, there is no evidence that they did take anything illegal!!! So in that case, unless they test positive they cannot be banned. Don't let the facts get in the way of a cool story. Marion Jones and A-Rod admitted to taking steroids, which is obviously a very different situation to this one. The players here do not know what they have taken, so they can't admit to anything!!!!!!!

Wow, there's manipulating facts to back up a misguided opinion and there's your post.

 

[Eagle87]

Well firstly all we know is that the club doctor brought it up with management that he was concerned with what the players were taking, no where does it suggest he told the players he was concerned (failing his duty of care). He was at the club throughout the whole process, suggesting whether he liked it or not he complied with what was going on. So unless the players knew that their doctor was fundamentally against the regime (again no evidence to suggest he was, other than having private chats with coach and higher officials) what are they supposed to do? It's true he didn't sign the consent forms but the players weren't made aware of this, surely it is the responsibility of the club doctor to make it clear to the players he did not approve of the program rather than attempt to cover his own ass and have private conversations with management.

Yes almost everyone banned for using illegal substance claims honest mistake except for the people you mentioned in your post and the most famous drug cheat of our generation, Lance Armstrong.

Secondly, there is no evidence that they did take anything illegal!!! So in that case, unless they test positive they cannot be banned. Don't let the facts get in the way of a cool story. Marion Jones and A-Rod admitted to taking steroids, which is obviously a very different situation to this one. The players here do not know what they have taken, so they can't admit to anything!!!!!!!

Wow, there's manipulating facts to back up a misguided opinion and there's your post.

LOL ...

Yes, you've read the report from the AFL, even the extracted bits published for the general public, and you've concluded the players are blameless.

Hey, if my boss tells me to be injected offsite, numerous times, not by the work doctor or with his express written consent (requirements spelled out to the players every year by the AFL) and then my boss hides/loses the records, I'm sweet, coz there's no proof of what I took. Na na na na na ...

The players are adults; they have responsibilities, blind faith is for ******s and quite frankly your defence is that they are gullible idiots. Like you it seems.

So what exactly is your point? It does seem to be that the players are like soldiers and must follow orders no matter what. Therefore they aren't guilty of wrongdoing?

 

[Eagle87]

Marion Jones is an interesting example. Even in her admission (which was legally motivated) she pointed to initial breaches of the rules being inadvertent in that she thought she was getting legal supplements and only years later did she become aware they were illegal.

This all came out of course because the supplier and the guy who at times injected the substances came out and revealed all years after the event.

It'd be like Dank coming out in 2020 and saying yep, I gave them the stuff that was banned. Just as with Jones, the defence of ignorance or I was following trusted advice wouldn't have worked.

The AFL tribunal found that Thymocin was used, it wasn't the legal type, but we can't prove who got it ... it's the paper trail that's saved the players to date.

They are, at best, idiots and, at worst, drug cheats. Quite possibly both. But not to the reasonable satisfaction of an "independent" body paid for by the AFL.

 

[truman]

Marion Jones is an interesting example. Even in her admission (which was legally motivated) she pointed to initial breaches of the rules being inadvertent in that she thought she was getting legal supplements and only years later did she become aware they were illegal.

This all came out of course because the supplier and the guy who at times injected the substances came out and revealed all years after the event.

It'd be like Dank coming out in 2020 and saying yep, I gave them the stuff that was banned. Just as with Jones, the defence of ignorance or I was following trusted advice wouldn't have worked.

The AFL tribunal found that Thymocin was used, it wasn't the legal type, but we can't prove who got it ... it's the paper trail that's saved the players to date.

They are, at best, idiots and, at worst, drug cheats. Quite possibly both. But not to the reasonable satisfaction of an "independent" body paid for by the AFL.

Why do you keep bringing up Marion Jones, that is as far removed from this case as sushi is to burgers. Firstly she started training with athletes who were strongly linked to drug cheating themselves under the same trainer. Secondly, in 2007, she admitted to lying about not using steroids before the 2000 Olympics so obviously she knew what she was taking. Again don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Her situation is completely different.

Since none of us are privy to the entire facts of this case how could anyone be gullible, considering no one actually knows exactly what the players were injected with. Even though you strongly believe the had taken an illegal substance you or ASADA/WADA don't have definite proof. For me, your argument, is that you do not believe the system is fair and you believe that the outcome was rigged from the beginning.

I do agree that players have a duty of care to themselves and they were careless, but I don't believe they were careless anymore so than 99% of people in their situation. You keep bringing up the doctor point which is fair, but can you provide any evidence that the players were made aware of the doctor's views?

I don't believe this to be the case and as such, given the limited information that I and everyone else on this board is privy to believes the right decision has been made. I think that anyone hoping the players got banned based on the information the public has been provided, is being cruel and unjust.

I am a firm believer in evidence. As I fundamentally believe in the system I am happy to leave it as innocent until proven guilty. Yes I could be wrong and this could end up being overturned and if and when it does I will admit you are right.

You believe the system has been manipulated by the AFL. There's no defeating that argument as you are not basing it on any evidence.

 

[ziad]

Well firstly all we know is that the club doctor brought it up with management that he was concerned with what the players were taking, no where does it suggest he told the players he was concerned (failing his duty of care). He was at the club throughout the whole process, suggesting whether he liked it or not he complied with what was going on. So unless the players knew that their doctor was fundamentally against the regime (again no evidence to suggest he was, other than having private chats with coach and higher officials) what are they supposed to do? It's true he didn't sign the consent forms but the players weren't made aware of this, surely it is the responsibility of the club doctor to make it clear to the players he did not approve of the program rather than attempt to cover his own ass and have private conversations with management.

Yes almost everyone banned for using illegal substance claims honest mistake except for the people you mentioned in your post and the most famous drug cheat of our generation, Lance Armstrong.

Secondly, there is no evidence that they did take anything illegal!!! So in that case, unless they test positive they cannot be banned. Don't let the facts get in the way of a cool story. Marion Jones and A-Rod admitted to taking steroids, which is obviously a very different situation to this one. The players here do not know what they have taken, so they can't admit to anything!!!!!!!

Wow, there's manipulating facts to back up a misguided opinion and there's your post.

will not admit or chose not to ask is different to don't know

 

[Eagle87]

Why do you keep bringing up Marion Jones, that is as far removed from this case as sushi is to burgers. Firstly she started training with athletes who were strongly linked to drug cheating themselves under the same trainer. Secondly, in 2007, she admitted to lying about not using steroids before the 2000 Olympics so obviously she knew what she was taking. Again don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Her situation is completely different.

Since none of us are privy to the entire facts of this case how could anyone be gullible, considering no one actually knows exactly what the players were injected with. Even though you strongly believe the had taken an illegal substance you or ASADA/WADA don't have definite proof. For me, your argument, is that you do not believe the system is fair and you believe that the outcome was rigged from the beginning.

I do agree that players have a duty of care to themselves and they were careless, but I don't believe they were careless anymore so than 99% of people in their situation. You keep bringing up the doctor point which is fair, but can you provide any evidence that the players were made aware of the doctor's views?

I don't believe this to be the case and as such, given the limited information that I and everyone else on this board is privy to believes the right decision has been made. I think that anyone hoping the players got banned based on the information the public has been provided, is being cruel and unjust.

I am a firm believer in evidence. As I fundamentally believe in the system I am happy to leave it as innocent until proven guilty. Yes I could be wrong and this could end up being overturned and if and when it does I will admit you are right.

You believe the system has been manipulated by the AFL. There's no defeating that argument as you are not basing it on any evidence.

Marion Jones in her admission in 2007 said (it's available online) that in 1999 she took a banned substance which she believed was not banned and was just a legal supplement. This was, according to her, based on information provided to her by those specialists assisting that part of her program.

Years later the truth came out. What's the difference?

As for her being tainted by association. I give you Stephen Dank. He's tainted too. Again, what's the difference?

As to Reids role, according to Reid it was conducted off-site and behind his back and he shut the scheme down as soon as he became aware of it:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...-over-injections/story-fnca0u4y-1226698058347

As for proof, the tribunal concluded that Essendon used Thymocin; they concluded it was the illegal one; they have consent forms signed by players.

The club has lost/misplaced the records or the records are insufficient.

Your argument is essentially that "without a body" you can't prove guilt.

Again I give you; the club acquired illegal substances; a bloke who ran an illegal injection program in the NRL administered drugs to players off site, behind the doctors back and the players gave consent which they weren't allowed to do without the doctor having given written consent or administering the injection.(both AFL requirements of the players)...

You don't think a reasonable person on balance of probability (and it's not a "beyond reasonable doubt test) would conclude that Essendon players have been injected with illegal substances?

I'm not claiming a conspiracy in the sense of tinfoil hats. I am saying that the AFL has substantial commercial interest in the decision. And from that perspective the AFL tribunal made a great decision for the AFL.

 

[truman]

Marion Jones in her admission in 2007 said (it's available online) that in 1999 she took a banned substance which she believed was not banned and was just a legal supplement. This was, according to her, based on information provided to her by those specialists assisting that part of her program.

Years later the truth came out. What's the difference?

As for her being tainted by association. I give you Stephen Dank. He's tainted too. Again, what's the difference?

As to Reids role, according to Reid it was conducted off-site and behind his back and he shut the scheme down as soon as he became aware of it:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...-over-injections/story-fnca0u4y-1226698058347

As for proof, the tribunal concluded that Essendon used Thymocin; they concluded it was the illegal one; they have consent forms signed by players.

The club has lost/misplaced the records or the records are insufficient.

Your argument is essentially that "without a body" you can't prove guilt.

Again I give you; the club acquired illegal substances; a bloke who ran an illegal injection program in the NRL administered drugs to players off site, behind the doctors back and the players gave consent which they weren't allowed to do without the doctor having given written consent or administering the injection.(both AFL requirements of the players)...

You don't think a reasonable person on balance of probability (and it's not a "beyond reasonable doubt test) would conclude that Essendon players have been injected with illegal substances?

I'm not claiming a conspiracy in the sense of tinfoil hats. I am saying that the AFL has substantial commercial interest in the decision. And from that perspective the AFL tribunal made a great decision for the AFL.

Firstly claiming a newspaper article is fact is highly tenuous! Secondly the article itself goes so far to state that the email suggests Bruce Reid was kept in the dark. Lets assume however this article is completely accurate, the article goes on the further suggest the coach James Hird (the article states that he stipulated that Bruce Reid be informed) was unaware that he wasn't informed. If the coach is unaware that Bruce Reid did not sign of on the program how on earth are the players supposed to know?

Again you keep coming back to Marion Jones. I don't how to stress this enough, but that is a completely different situation!! Regardless of whether she knew that what she was taking was steroids she knew enough to lie about using it. If she truly believed that what she was taking was completely above board she would not have lied about not taking it. That is the clear distinction, she was lying about using a substance, regardless of whether she knew exactly what it was, she obviously knew enough to lie about using it. Again this is way off topic but negative connotations surrounding Stephen Dank only started to surface after the Australian Crime Commission report.

I believe that individuals within the body hired by the afl elected to officiate the decision are reasonable and they have concluded not comfortably satisfied with the evidence to prosecute the players. Obviously the evidence is not as strong as you suggest and tbh none of us have any idea how strong the evidence is.

Finally you state that the tribunal concluded that Essendon players used thymocin, my understanding is that the case fell down because the tribunal couldn't find any evidence proving that Essendon players were injected with Thymocin beta 4 (the illegal substance). Could you please link me where you found your information? If you are indeed correct that the tribunal believed they were injected with thymosin beta 4 but got away on a technicality than I will concede I am wrong.

 

[kane249]

Motlop suspended by the Cats, potentially no Bartel as well, things are falling nicely into place for the Dorkers unfortunately.

 

[Keys]

Motlop suspended by the Cats, potentially no Bartel as well, things are falling nicely into place for the Dorkers unfortunately.

What did he do?

 

[kane249]

What did he do?

Out partying before the Hawks game on Monday.

 

[ep2018]

Was hoping Fremantle would lose two or three of their first four games. They could be sitting 10-1 at the halfway point of the season.

 

[Eagle87]

Firstly claiming a newspaper article is fact is highly tenuous! Secondly the article itself goes so far to state that the email suggests Bruce Reid was kept in the dark. Lets assume however this article is completely accurate, the article goes on the further suggest the coach James Hird (the article states that he stipulated that Bruce Reid be informed) was unaware that he wasn't informed. If the coach is unaware that Bruce Reid did not sign of on the program how on earth are the players supposed to know?

Again you keep coming back to Marion Jones. I don't how to stress this enough, but that is a completely different situation!! Regardless of whether she knew that what she was taking was steroids she knew enough to lie about using it. If she truly believed that what she was taking was completely above board she would not have lied about not taking it. That is the clear distinction, she was lying about using a substance, regardless of whether she knew exactly what it was, she obviously knew enough to lie about using it. Again this is way off topic but negative connotations surrounding Stephen Dank only started to surface after the Australian Crime Commission report.

I believe that individuals within the body hired by the afl elected to officiate the decision are reasonable and they have concluded not comfortably satisfied with the evidence to prosecute the players. Obviously the evidence is not as strong as you suggest and tbh none of us have any idea how strong the evidence is.

Finally you state that the tribunal concluded that Essendon players used thymocin, my understanding is that the case fell down because the tribunal couldn't find any evidence proving that Essendon players were injecting with Thymocin beta 4 (the illegal substance). Could you please link me where you found your information? If you are indeed correct that the tribunal believed they were injected with thymosin beta 4 but got away on a technicality than I will concede I am wrong.

So really you have no point other than being contradictory. The judges conclusion as released makes no sense in logic because they concluded that thymosin was used by Essendon; they conclude that it was the illegal one; then they decide that they can't on balance state that any individual player took illegal sunstances because essentially there are no records that show what they got.

The Essendon position is that they don't know what the players got.

IMO the judges applied a standard higher than that required and ultimately discounted that the breach of obligations of the players - a offence that had been also largely ignored by the media.

If you knowingly breach a condition of the drug regime and find yourself the subject of a disgraceful program in which the AFL tribunal believes illegal drugs were used, then I reckon the benefit of the doubt is lost by your willful breach...

The tribunal is many things, but internal disciplinary committees always struggle with the perception test...