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

[theflea]

It's scattered repeatedly over the last 500 pages!

pm mate. all ive heard is whats in the media.

 

[Buzz/Sticks/bryce]

Should Mark McVeigh and Taylor Walker apologise to Reimers?

Dale Lewis all over again.

Well.. I thought these Bomber boys had a bit more substance.. let's face it, they've given us plenty of grief over the decades..

 

[ziad]

TBH, I can't remember, but I reckon that it was on Clare's interview on Offsiders this morning.

polies tell porkies by profession, this lightweight Clare is a goose of the highest order

 

[Boxhead_31]

Because the player in question hasn't come forward. I presume there is no other way for the AFL to know.

Essendon however came forward so there is a perfectly logical reason.

BTW can you please provide the quote from Gil. Ta love.

Apart from the evidence gathered by the ACC you mean?

 

[Frank Grimes]

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

There's nothing wrong with reading other clubs boards. Just be careful about posting.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Any evidence other then your word its been out there for years and years?

You want evidence of a rumour? That doesn't really makes sense.

 

[Richard Pryor]

ASADA will say tough t***ies to the players. Unless the player/players name names and help with convictions.

Harsh but necessary.

Regardless of whether they knew or not, if they took performance enhancers, they have an unfair advantage on the rest of the competition.

 

[TerryWallet]

Because the player in question hasn't come forward. I presume there is no other way for the AFL to know.

Essendon however came forward so there is a perfectly logical reason.

BTW can you please provide the quote from Gil. Ta love.

Boncer, do you not comprehend that Essendon only came forward when they hird what was in the Report.

 

[boncer34]

Apart from the evidence gathered by the ACC you mean?

Been able to find where Gil said the Essendon case came from the report yet?
Or the release from the ACC or ASADA naming Essendon?

 

[theflea]

So it is safe to presume that the incident regarding the single player is the one from the report, but the one involving Essendon is NOT from the report.. Why?

Answer to your question: Yes.

Yes. Where did the light bulb event start from to get the dons to have a presser?

 

[Travisty]

Because the player in question hasn't come forward. I presume there is no other way for the AFL to know.

Essendon however came forward so there is a perfectly logical reason.

BTW can you please provide the quote from Gil. Ta love.

You presume incorrectly. From ACC report (which, again, I suggest you read):

"Legal provisions prevent the ACC from publicly disclosing detailed information about the
nature of the matters contained in this report. This includes the disclosure of information
specifically referencing players, clubs and any information that could identify other
individuals involved. Particular sporting bodies have received classified briefings on
matters relevant to them."

The AFL know who the clubs/players are in the report! This is a cold hard fact as seen written in black writing above. They know who the single player is, the know who the club is. Today, they TOLD US the club is Essendon when the question was asked.

 

[boncer34]

Boncer, do you not comprehend that Essendon only came forward when they hird what was in the Report.

Got some evidence of your assumption Terry?

 

[whiteoak]

polies tell porkies by profession, this lightweight Clare is a goose of the highest order

Did you watch the interview?

 

[The_Ru]

Lols if the single player at another club was Goddard

You're doing my material.

 

[strobe00]

Is your middle name Pedant?

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. Dank has worked with a number of them.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Any evidence other then your word its been out there for years and years?

What does it matter? If your trying to prove someone is lying when even they're saying that what they're saying is probably horseshit and they don't endorse it, then your clutching at straws.

 

[boncer34]

You presume incorrectly. From ACC report (which, again, I suggest you read):

"Legal provisions prevent the ACC from publicly disclosing detailed information about the
nature of the matters contained in this report. This includes the disclosure of information
specifically referencing players, clubs and any information that could identify other
individuals involved. Particular sporting bodies have received classified briefings on
matters relevant to them."

The AFL know who the clubs/players are in the report! This is a cold hard fact as seen written in black writing above. They know who the single player is, the know who the club is. Today, they TOLD US the club is Essendon when the question was asked.

You spent a lot of time on that waffle. Answering my question would've been quicker.

 

[I Remember Bluey]

I've alway thought the page 17 team to be an NRL club but it doesn't appear that way now, interesting time ahead.

Another perspective that is just as plausible

Maybe we have/are being investigated because of the page 17 report not because we are the page 17 report.

Eg; A NRL club whom Danks previously worked for, could still be page 17 and then he worked for Ess for a period of time so they have/are investigating us because of this.

 

[mike14]

At present Hird is the leader of a club that has;
- Allowed its sport science staff to administer substances that he cannot verify are legal.
- Allowed its sport science staff to administer substances that were so controversial it's leadership group requested 'consent forms'.
- Allowed its sport science staff to be lead by an unregistered 'sports scientist' that was turned away from the GCFC. This has culminated in the worst injury run at the club if not in its history, then certainly in its last 15 odd years.
- Has members of its staff under investigation for criminal activity.

All this culminates in considerable stress on players who are (unwittingly) the subject of criminal and doping investigations.

Is that trust repairable? We shall see.

And if they are found guilty he (and many others) will go. If the stuff is legal and Hird was told it was legal what's the issue? If the players asked for a waiver stating stuff was legal, and it's legal, what's the problem. It's a bit of an issue that the unregistered sports scientist was given a roll, but if everything is above board I can't see it being the end of Hird's coaching career. Criminal investigations shouldn't lead to loss of job unless guilt comes from it.

Of your points I'll give you one, and some heads should roll for it. If the others turned out to be true, then I'd agree with you

 

[ziad]

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. It's up to them to run with what they've got and try to squeeze as much as they can out of whoever they have right now... rather than let the sport be tarnished further in the hope that more guilty folks will own up.

you would hate to be the third one to come forward

 

[Trent85]

To state that they knew of two instances. One which we can presume safely came from the report. One involving Essendon which as far as we know commenced Thursday.

Answer this question: Did Gil say today Essendon are the team in the report?

To answer your question definitively he never actually said "YES Essendon are the team in the ACC report."
But what he said gave enough credence at least for me to believe that it is Essendon in the report.

‘‘The AFL is aware that a second case involves the possibility of WADA-prohibited performance-enhancing drug use by multiple players at one club,’’ he said In this case, it’s possible that players were administered the WADA-prohibited substances without their knowledge or consent.’’ As McLachlan addressed the media at AFL House on Sunday, he confirmed the club with multiple breaches was Essendon. ‘‘Given that the Essendon Football Club has come forward to the AFL and ASADA and proactively advised us of concerns they have, it’s reasonable to [say]... that the AFL is aware of potential multiple breaches at that club,’’ he said.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-one-other-club-under-investigation-afl-20130210-2e69b.html#ixzz2KTGbYSgU

 

[ziad]

Another perspective that is just as plausible

Maybe we have/are being investigated because of the page 17 report not because we are the page 17 report.

Eg; A NRL club whom Danks previously worked for, could still be page 17 and then he worked for Ess for a period of time so they have/are investigating us because of this.

highly likely but it appears (govt incompetence aside) that the Danks is a loose cannon and you were fat to late finding out

 

[grizzlym]

I did report it. He's claiming there was wide spread rumors surrounding Hird and drugs. He's full of shit.
But hey if you're happy with blatant lies take up bandwith on the the main board who am I to disagree?

And the post has been dealt with. But that wasn't the point pf my post: my point is that we're really clear on no comments on mods or moderation. Address their post on its merits, not who made it. If it warrants reporting, do that. If it warrants a barrage of criticism, do that. But don't have a public discourse on a mod posting it.

 

[Mighty Chinook]

Got some evidence of your assumption Terry?

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[boncer34]

You want evidence of a rumour? That doesn't really makes sense.

I'm asking for evidence that the rumour wasn't started by yourself on Thursday.