Search results for query: *

Lmao Here come the picks

Harcourt has blown the lid off the settlement deed(s). There is no doubt that he, as an agent of the AFL, breached the "non-disparagement" clause which is standard in settlement agreements. time to get our compensation

The players side. Not the club

game over

if the request was about bombers a lot on here would want bombers to plead guilty without proof funny now its other clubs? most people on bigfooty are cheering for asada more than their own clubs

This should be a massive worry for every afl club if 12 clubs were doing the exact same thing and they only punished one club. Think about what the afl have done to Essendon this year, next time it could be your club Essendon got punished because they couldn't say with absolute fact that no...

crameri is too valuable a player for the clubs prior to dogs to let slip past for free psd isn't an option for the dogs and they know it

after compo picks dogs second round will be 25 ish

Tony Sheahan ‏@TonySheahan 23m @SidebySidePies @iamtheoracle and strong likelihood Dane Swan traded. Has already been offered to 2 clubs he went on to say essendon one of the clubs offered him

scott selwood considering move back to vic pears and jetta?

asada never had the powers to get phone records it seems the the afl only had the powers and the joint investigation was illegal, any phone records are inadmissible

you will find it is illegal 1: asada afl were not allowed to do join investigation 2: asada were not allowed to release the investigation to anyone except the parties involved (afl commision not allowed to read) 3: asada are not allowed to release an interim report 4: demetriou is a witness...

first charge says essendon needs to prove they are innocent... thats not how it works, they need to prove we are guilty. the whole thing is a joke and will be thrown out

if the charges get thrown out surely the AFL ceo, second in charge, medicos, head of umpirings, the afl commision and legal team all need to stand down?

sometimes you need to lose the fight to win the war

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

people who are backing caro because she is bagging hird, hate essendon at all costs and want essendon to be punished as much as possible, no matter what any objective person could see that she has a vendetta against hird and is misreporting the whole issue. she is not a reporter she is a...

bombers lining caro up, id be worried if i was an age lawyer

the sky is black in outer space but because of the atmosphere & light it is blue from the earth yes but that doesn't explain why the sky is black pretty much sums up this place

for once and for all ASADA NEVER SAID IT IS PERMITTED DRUG ASADA SAID IT IS NOT PROHIBITED UNDER S2 they are two different answers, no one has said they said it is permitted please learn to read before posting

this is why there have been sackings, no one should have been taken off site it is also why the investigation was started because we couldn't say if our players were spiked by criminal organisations the whole investigation has never been about AOD or Thymosin, but for some reason people cant...

yes wada have classed it as s0 since 2011 but ASADA have only just changed the classification from s2 to s0 after wada advised them in april this year wada told Essendon to contact asada for advice on this drug which we did Asada stuffed up gave Essendon , AFL and ACC and anyone who asked...

im not saying it is anything im saying asada said it was not prohibited under S2 (they thought it applied under s2) if they class it as S2 it cannot be classed as s0 it is now classed as S0 after april after it was clarified by wada it doesn't matter what s2 applies to all that matters is...

they didn't call about a S0 drug, they called about AOD which asada thought was a s2 drug. they said it was not prohibited under s2 which means s0 did not apply - or so asada thought

yes it does it is the drug agencies job to give correct advice the ACC went to ASADA to asked is AOD is banned they told ACC that it is not prohibited under s2, so why would they leave out the fact it is banned in the ACC report which is investigating banned drugs? think about it for a...

you don't understand

ASADA stuffed up, which is why WADA came out in april to re-clarify

not if you asked the drug agency IS THIS DRUG PROHIBITED? they say no it is not prohibited under s2 means they classified it as s2 and it is fine , s0 does not apply as it cant be more than one section

it was classified as S2 by asada until april this year and they told AFL ACC and ess that. it only changed to S0 in april this year

you don't understand..... they did consider it s2 prior to april this year they were wrong but they did consider it s2, they told everyone it was not prohibited