Mega Thread AFL to investigate Essendon for controversial fitness program - PART3

[Deleted member 98541]

Today's naming names would be a disservice to the ACCC's ploy to get players to "come forward".

If you were on PED's, and you didn't play for Essendon, would you volunteer yourself now, thinking there's only 1 other player in the league they know of?

 

[boncer34]

Careful what you ask for Boncer

I have never once denied that Timmy. What I'm still waiting for is someone to point out where Gil said Essendon were the team in the report.

He said that the AFL was aware of a club being investigated for wide spread doping. He was then asked if that was Essendon. He said yes.

Well duh. We asked for the investigation.

What he didn't say and what nobody has yet offered any proof that he did say was, "Essendon are the team in the report."

 

[Buzz/Sticks/bryce]

Lance, Pazza, fish- seriously dudes this is the time for defence and appearance. Its not done yet, come on boys..

 

[Glacier]

Glad youre having so much fun!

Enjoy!

Why do you think he is having fun?
Seems to me he/she is just making some pertinent points...

 

[mike14]

Sad part is those peptides doesn't seem to work for Essendon when they are playing the Melbourne Demons

try the whole 2nd half of the season

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

If they are cleared it means there has been no wrong doing, why would it not be tenable?

Would you like me to get started...

 

[boncer34]

I think you've won this semantic argument. I can admit when I'm beaten.

If I'm wrong you'll be the first person I apologise to.

 

[Ant_]

Sad part is those peptides doesn't seem to work for Essendon when they are playing the Melbourne Demons

Tanking beats Danking?

 

[mike14]

Would you like me to get started...

Please do. If the investigation comes up with no wrong doing (and that's the hypothetical I ran with in my opening post) then why would Hird's job be untenable? Go nuts...

 

[SpiritOfCarlton]

This line of argument from boncer34 is the most pathetic case of semantics that I have ever seen.

No need to be anti-semantic.

 

[whiteoak]

If I'm wrong you'll be the first person I apologise to.

Is your middle name Pedant?

 

[Richard Pryor]

I have never once denied that Timmy. What I'm still waiting for is someone to point out where Gil said Essendon were the team in the report.

He said that the AFL was aware of a club being investigated for wide spread doping. He was then asked if that was Essendon. He said yes.

Well duh. We asked for the investigation.

What he didn't say and what nobody has yet offered any proof that he did say was, "Essendon are the team in the report."

I may be wrong, but didn't the report say that only one 'club' was being investigated as opposed to players? Although if it's only a group of players at Essendon being investigated they may not count.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I have never once denied that Timmy. What I'm still waiting for is someone to point out where Gil said Essendon were the team in the report.

He said that the AFL was aware of a club being investigated for wide spread doping. He was then asked if that was Essendon. He said yes.

Well duh. We asked for the investigation.

What he didn't say and what nobody has yet offered any proof that he did say was, "Essendon are the team in the report."

Here you go...

Australian Crime Commission report only identified two specific cases where WADA prohibited performance enhancing drugs may have been used in the AFL.

The first being a single player from a single club.

The second being multiple players from a single club.

​

​

Asked then if Essendon was the club McLachlan had referred to when mentioning "multiple players", the deputy chief said "yeah"​

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Twenty pages in a few hours after a press conference that indicated nothing that was not already not known.

It indicated that 16 clubs are in the clear. We didn't know that before.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have never once denied that Timmy. What I'm still waiting for is someone to point out where Gil said Essendon were the team in the report.

Ok well nobody else is bothering with that connection so I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. It makes little difference at this stage to the deepness of Essendons shitness.

Needless to say Essendon is the only AFL club that its likely to be. And the most recent employer of Dank.

 

[TerryWallet]

Dont know why you would want to do that, thats their space.

I haven't.

 

[Travisty]

I have never once denied that Timmy. What I'm still waiting for is someone to point out where Gil said Essendon were the team in the report.

He said that the AFL was aware of a club being investigated for wide spread doping. He was then asked if that was Essendon. He said yes.

Well duh. We asked for the investigation.

What he didn't say and what nobody has yet offered any proof that he did say was, "Essendon are the team in the report."

The AFL know which clubs/players (as it turns out, one club and one player from another club) have been under investigation over the last 12 months by the ACC and ASADA. FACT.

The AFL (via Gillon M) today confirmed that Essendon is the club that is under investigation for 'multiple' instances of potential breach of WADA regs, as reference in the report. FACT.

Please stop.

 

[boncer34]

Here you go...



The first being a single player from a single club.

The second being multiple players from a single club.

​

And of course he said that the multiple club second case he was refering to came from the report yeah?

 

[Percel]

Really? I challenge you to show me where I have not been fair, reasonable and even sympathetic to your club.

Read the whole thing (3 threads), whiteoak has been solid and fair

 

[BuffDog]

Haha "Those who are caught Danking deserve a Spanking!"

 

[Air_Chester]

In regards to Essendon and all the jokes about fielding a reserves team, does anyone here legitimately think there is no middle ground and they're just going to wipe out an entire list of players for a couple of years?

Be realistic, they can only ban players they can prove have taken PEDs and that to begin with is sketchy. The fact is that we have no idea of the evidence that lead to the ACC report or whether it can be even be acted upon. My personal belief at this point is that the evidence will be strong in regards to officials and more importantly criminal charges against certain individuals (Doctor, if that IS his real name), but I'm not sure whether that evidence will also be beyond reasonable doubt when it comes to who took the PEDs and when, especially if they were unaware what they were being administered.

ASADA clearly weren't on the ball throughout this whole thing and, as much as it absolutely pains me to admit it, Caroline Wilson actually had a good point. What the hell were these people doing if they only acted when the case was taken to them?

While the case against certain officials may be sound, nothing I've read thus far makes it sound like the players themselves will have anything more than a circumstantial case to answer. It just doesn't sound like they have enough or they'd have come down like a hammer already.

It is a stink that will no doubt linger for a long time over Essendon and a sad one at that, but I don't think much will come of it in terms of player suspensions, and what does come will probably be, at best, a small selection of players and certainly not the whole list.

 

[boncer34]

The AFL know which clubs/players (as it turns out, one club and one player from another club) have been under investigation over the last 12 months by the ACC and ASADA. FACT.

The AFL (via Gillon M) today confirmed that Essendon is the club that is under investigation for 'multiple' instances of potential breach of WADA regs, as reference in the report. FACT.

Please stop.

The AFL know who is under investigation.

They know of two cases. A player (who we'll assume comes from the report since nobody has come forward) and Essendon who came forward of their own accord.

Once again. Where did Gil say Essendon are the team in the report?

Yes he said their under investigation for wide spread breaches. No arguments here.

But where did he say that ASADA revealed to the AFL Essendon were the team in the report?

 

[mxett]

yep a lot of essendon cry babies on this thread have proven to be gutless cowards, willing to smear any other club they can and ignore the facts so far..

Yeah how dare Essendon fans get upset about the possibility of no team for 2 years!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

In regards to Essendon and all the jokes about fielding a reserves team, does anyone here legitimately think there is no middle ground and they're just going to wipe out an entire list of players for a couple of years?.

Thats ASADAs call.

 

[Rocky_Star_Pro]

The AFL know which clubs/players (as it turns out, one club and one player from another club) have been under investigation over the last 12 months by the ACC and ASADA. FACT.

The AFL (via Gillon M) today confirmed that Essendon is the club that is under investigation for 'multiple' instances of potential breach of WADA regs, as reference in the report. FACT.

Please stop.

Didn't everybody already know this??