Old Man Hirdy Tags In

Remove this Banner Ad

FFC_RoyBoys said:
Well, that has set the bar at pretty much ground level.

Considering that PED use provides a very substantial boost to performance, are you not troubled at all by the logical disconnect of "clean (not yet found guilty)" athletes being able to perform at the same or higher levels of performance with those who have been proven guilty? Crappy analogy but kind of like a naturally aspirated car competing against a turbo.
Click to expand...
I am troubled - but only from the individual players' perspective; and then how this flows down into the league I support. I gave up on the AFL long ago.

I was being a bit cheeky, in saying we should be celebrating, as I think that there is still a good chance that a reasonable number of "confirmations" may trickle through in the coming years, where there will likely be more than those from just within the tested ranks of the "EFC 34".

It's why I think the AFL tried desperately to manufacture a quick scape-goating and sweeping it securely under House carpets. The EFC management team at the time were lazy and/or stupid, others wouldn't have been.

The use of these substances (and combinations there of) were very widespread, just Dank alone, had spread the gospel across a number of codes and clubs.

So yeah, party and celebrate now while everyone is still largely clean. Worry about the hangover when it hits. :beercheers:
 
Slartibartfast said:
Why are the players not appealing their guilt, only the use of the rules???
Since the players have accepted their guilt so should a everyone else.
Click to expand...

Don't be too sure on that. Not really an option at present. Chip mentioned a few times now he expects then to try a Claudia, but that may change considering her recent lost.
 
TheBrightSide said:
I actually joined BF to vent about the competance of Essendon's legal team.
They lost a case that had no solid evidence. A grade 6 debating team could have won this argument.
No real proof? Not guilty. Simple.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I don't think you're up to speed with how the anti-doping code wirks, and why it was designed that way.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lavender Bushranger said:
With all due respect, I don't think you're up to speed with how the anti-doping code wirks, and why it was designed that way.
Click to expand...

This is probably a fair call, considering how bemused I am by the findings.

Then again my main grievance is how the CAS panel interpreted the evidence that was presented before them (according to summary on their website)
 
TheBrightSide said:
I actually joined BF to vent about the competance of Essendon's legal team.
They lost a case that had no solid evidence. A grade 6 debating team could have won this argument.
No real proof? Not guilty. Simple.
Click to expand...
sports doping is much more muddy than just "no proof - carry on"
all indicators point to Essendon cheating

simply throwing the records away means bugger all when the tests prove it
its about discrediting the tests
 
Muggs said:
I think ASADA basically ignored S0 for a bit and forgot it exists and gave advice based on S2, as per the ACC report. ACC report says AOD9064 not banned by S2. While not incorrect it is incomplete.
Click to expand...
If one believes the testimony of some, ASADA provided incomplete (=misleading) info on AOD status, thus the lack of pursuit of admitted injectors with brownlows.
 
TheBrightSide said:
This is probably a fair call, considering how bemused I am by the findings.

Then again my main grievance is how the CAS panel interpreted the evidence that was presented before them (according to summary on their website)
Click to expand...
And you know all the evidence that was presented to them? :rolleyes:
 
jenny61_99 said:
And you know all the evidence that was presented to them? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, I was there hiding in the corner.

You would think the 48 page CAS summary would include all the most relevent evidence.
Would they leave out all the juicy damning information?
Actually, they must have, because it didn't contain much, so I stand corrected. :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheBrightSide said:
I wonder how many people decided Essendon were guilty through the one sided, highly publicised trial by media?
I've read people here admit to it, and much of it turned out to be nonsense.
When Jobe admitted to taking AOD, it was confirmed he was a cheat and was widely boo'd.
Turns out it wasn't a banned substance, and had no bearing on the case.

As for the CAS final report. Wada lead the case with this gem: Essendon must have taken TB4, as Dank had a history of using it.
Now that is what I call flimsy.
I don't care how highly respected the members of the CAS panel were. Judge Judy would have laughed at that.
Click to expand...

I'm actually the opposite, I always thought, assumed they were innocent. It wasn't until I read the facts in the CAS report that I changed my mind and now believe they're guilty.
 
Last edited:
WADA and the AFL are protecting the brand. DELIBERATELY

JOHN FAHEY

SUSSAN LEY

WADA HAS DOUBLE STANDARDS
 
Truthfully, it's utter gibberish. Old man protecting his son.

WHY DID THEY CHASE JOBE AND NOT VLADIMIR? HUH, HUH?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
682
Satan
Satan

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top