Search results for query: *

And you reckon he didn't? Giving them to an investigator is a different story.

Eagles Supporter? Based on your first two posts I'd guess so.

I thought that stuff was banned now? As for the rest, I'll be surprised if it ends up being shown that the players were actually administered a banned substance like GHRP6.

Naming and shaming a player shouldn't be done until he's been proven to be doing something wrong. A club that is under investigation is a different story... there are more people there to absorb all the media flack. But one bloke under investigation would get absolutely smashed. They should...

That's true. But that means that the players can't dob themselves in. They've never tested positive to a drug test from any stuff they were given, so ASADA could only hit them with a ban if they have proof the players were given a banned substance, or via an administration method that isn't...

Over-reaction. If Richmond have a player that is nailed for taking PEDs, then that player will cop it. Don't know that Richmond all copped a flogging when Justin Charles was caught. If Essendon are proven to have been taking PEDs (even unknowingly) then that by itself will create an almighty...

I suspect that Lance would be pretty happy if there was nothing proven wrong WADA-wise, and the AFL gave them a whack with a disrepute charge as ASADA didn't have anything to prosecute for. Much more attractive than the alternative.

Which is a big part of the reason why he didn't allow non-PED users in the team.

Agree. They were good news for every club except for Essendon really (and I guess the unnamed one with the unnamed player).

HTB is all about the recreationals. Pretty sure he'd be anti PEDs.

That's seven months away. I'm pretty sure there'll be some results before then.

I'd disagree with that. If a sports scientist has done their own research, and not published the findings, then there'd be stuff they'd know that a doctor wouldn't. But a doctor could definitely learn it. And I suspect that'd be in their job description.

Could be a while. Will depend entirely what Dank and co. have done, and what they say about it. I reckon ASADA will have a sh*t of a time trying to prove anything, and Dank wouldn't be forthcoming even if he had administered dodgy substances, which he still mightn't have. He'd be stupid to do...

Good point. Maybe they'll try to keep that under wraps as long as they can. (EDIT: i.e. not tell anyone that someone has come forward, for as long as they can). Odds are though, that unless the guy was a maniac and a heap of people new... anyone that was on them would be better off just...

If it was us, I could understand the pedantry. There's still a chance that they're not. Essendon haven't been explicitly named as the club on p. 17. Caro reckoned her source said they weren't. Based on the number of NRL clubs involved there's still a chance that the p. 17 club is an NFL club...

Well, they did say one player. Maybe a few blokes might think they're that one player. But yeah, it does take a bit of the bite away. And I'm glad it has, because it reduces the amount of speculative sh*t being thrown around. Very happy with it. ACC has had enough time to gather evidence...

Spelling travesty like you would the clothing brand is almost as bad. ;)

Exactly what I was thinking. You've send the absolutely flogging that Essendon are copping at the moment, and all of the theorising/doomsday type articles being written about them. Why a club would want to drop themselves into the middle of that, and stay there for all the time it takes to...

Am I the only one that thinks this article wasn't written very professionally? Didn't notice a journalist's name against this one. I wonder why.

Reckon you're right. If the Cousins drama was enough to cast a pall on the whole AFL, leading to him being nailed for bringing the game into disrepute, then it's hard to believe that the Dons will cop any less as a club. My bet is that the players will come away from this without any worries...