amazing interview, Jones v gill, afl and asadas dirty laundry queried

[Reality rules]

You have to be given permission to use your notebook by the magistrate after requesting it. Some are right royal campaigners and don't let you

And if it conforms to the brief of evidence under the Evidence Act, disclosure and the list goes on.

 

[2DMB]

You sir, are a good representation of the htb. Who cares if they manipulate evidence? Who cares if they actually did anything wrong? Stone them all, the dirty drug cheats!

And you are a great representation of EFC supporters

THEY DID DO WRONG! they injected healthy athletes with boundary pushing peptides that had no benefit to the players performance at all

and that's the best case scenario for your club, that's what you/they want the public to believe!

That's what you/they are claiming constitutes innocent

 

[Armchair Critic]

I know. Usually they have been okay - it gives the defence an opportunity to have a crack Anyhoo, so I never feel it is a great advantage

I find it is a great advantage , if you are quoting straight from your notebook/statement you can't add or miss a word that the defense will grill you about for 30 minutes

 

[gavaniacono]

You sir, are a good representation of the htb. Who cares if they manipulate evidence? Who cares if they actually did anything wrong? Stone them all, the dirty drug cheats!

I for one care much that essendon are probably guilty of all those things you have graciously listed, and more.

 

[Lissy]

haha at you you mugs having a crack at Jones.

At all times he was referencing FACT from interviews and documents by the AFL.

Oh the interview doesnt agree with your motives/opinions? Lets slander it.

rofl

Sadly for the radio station Essendon supporters are a minority for his b******t

 

[Armchair Critic]

And if it conforms to the brief of evidence under the Evidence Act, disclosure and the list goes on.

Of course but a Law Enforcement's notebook entry/statement is always accepted/added to a brief of evidence

 

[Albert Ross]

I'll give you the response you don't want to hear:

- the AFL anti-doping policy sets out procedures that the AFL is supposed to follow at the commencement of each season regarding the documentation of substances.

This statement presumes that the players ever fall out of Dr supervision. With preseasons what they are now, a couple of 2 week breaks, this is probably not true.

- ASADA's case is that Dank injected the players with a banned substance (Thymosin Beta 4) without the players' knowledge.
- Bruce Reid went to the AFL in pre-season 2012 and told them that there was unauthorised injections (tribulus) happening at Essendon and there was no follow up

We know their was follow-up because the drug was determined to be allowed.

- The AFL was aware that something dodgy was happening because Harcourt admitted as much and they were sending samples to Germany for peptide testing

The AFL didn't follow-up by following-up? The didn't investigate what Essendon were doing - by investigating what Essendon were doing?

If the AFL had have followed their own procedures it is highly likely that:

1. There would have been no sports science 'arms race' as Demetriou regularly called it prior to Essendon being put under the microscope

Nonsense. There will always be arms races in sports. That is what sport is; higher, faster, stronger.

2. There wouldn't have been governance failures at Essendon, nor at the other 12 clubs that answered the survey in a fashion that would suggest they had similar failures

The AFL can only hold your hand so much, and if you are deliberately setting out to break the rules and keep things 'black ops' your deliberate attempts to avoid detection rather mitigate the AFL's culpability.

3. Dank's practices could potentially have been exposed and remedied at Gold Coast or in his role providing consulting services to Robinson at Geelong, way before he caused problems at Essendon and before he was starting to consult with Melbourne players

There is no evidence he did anything wrong at Geelong, and there is evidence that he was sacked at the Gold Coast for breaching protocols. If Essendon failed to check his references then that is their fault, not the AFL.

4. There wouldn't be players exposed to health risks

Rubbish. This defence is the single worse part of the whole saga in my mind. Yes we did something wrong but it is not our fault because no one caught us. You wouldn't accept it from a 10yo.

 

[Reality rules]

Of course but a Law Enforcement's notebook entry/statement is always accepted/added to a brief of evidence

Yes and the conditions attached is something people are not aware of.

 

[Tiger Snake]

Where does this lost the records business come from? Essendon has provided the schedule to asada, problem is asada don't like the fact it has no prohibited substances on it

Essendon has been claiming that they have no records..
that's where its come from

 

[Albert Ross]

Of course but a Law Enforcement's notebook entry/statement is always accepted/added to a brief of evidence

There is also a world of difference between a notebook that you are using because you intend to present evidence in the future versus the notes you might jot down in a meeting in your diary.

 

[Reality rules]

There is also a world of difference between a notebook that you are using because you intend to present evidence in the future versus the notes you might jot down in a meeting in your diary.

That is the point lost on some here. You don't want to see my doodle pad.

 

[Lissy]

No but AJ as I understand it uses public toilets for business and personal meetings, it has been well documented in the past. Given his public history, hence my assumption this also includes research

Just cover the seat with toilet paper. AJ already gets enough b******t on everyone.

 

[Reality rules]

I find it is a great advantage , if you are quoting straight from your notebook/statement you can't add or miss a word that the defense will grill you about for 30 minutes

In context yes, not to be used for a opinion piece though or relied on as one. LOL that would be misleading

 

[Cylon7]

My posting of this interview was not an endorsement of Jones, it was purely the fact that someone had the guts to ask questions of gill that no one else has dared to. If your clubs were in the same position, wouldn't you want to be judged on all available information? Not doctored testimony?

It is only fair that everything is aired, including all details of the AOD business.

 

[peppy la pew]

probably the worst part of this whole episode is being perceived as being on the same "side" as Jones, Newman, Cornes et al. Ugh.

I was wondering if you would post in this thread

What a mister meaner

Of all the people to bat for you, Alan ****ing Jones

 

[Albert Ross]

I think the duty of care aspect being directed towards the AFL is a farce . They warned Hird, Corcoran and Hamilton about peptides at a specially convened meeting at AFL house, they target tested players when they heard rumours and also investigated Dr Reids claims regarding Tribulis.

WTF else were they suppose to do.

The duty of care 'scandal' is the most ludicrous thing.

In order to meet their duty of care to player health they implemented a drug code. When it was breached they enforced it. The act of enforcing the drug code is observing their duty of care. They banned the behaviour, policed it, and sort to punish anyone engaging in it.

The breach of duty of care would be to fail to ban the drugs, fail to test for them, and fail to act when their use was brought to the AFL's attention.

The AFL stand accused of failing their players based on the very act they should be doing to protect them!

Suggesting that this case has legs before a court seems maddeningly dumb to me.

 

[Boxhead_31]

When it comes to AFL / ASADA investigations.... "I dont recall" is a perfectly acceptable response. But for the players... be open and honest tell everything you know and agree to things you might not even know and you will be looked after in the end!!!

Why didn't the lawyers who were sitting right next to the players tell them to say that very thing? That is who your question should be directed towards

 

[Proper Gander]

I find it is a great advantage , if you are quoting straight from your notebook/statement you can't add or miss a word that the defense will grill you about for 30 minutes

The board may not agree, but this is a nice time out as far as I am concerned from bothering to post about Alan Jones and whatever his recently arrived at position is.

Thanks for that

 

[Lissy]

So, who paid Jones for his comments in this case? He's certainly not one who can talk about integrity.

Hird promised a him a special interview in the future IMO

 

[Albert Ross]

That is the point lost on some here. You don't want to see my doodle pad.

I have a series of work-related nonsense on one side and my supercoach workings on the other. If I am asked to give testimony in court there might be a long discussion of my bench strategy

 

[Proper Gander]

Alan jones is the anus of 2GB

Could you expand?

 

[onemancyclone]

The duty of care 'scandal' is the most ludicrous thing.

In order to meet their duty of care to player health they implemented a drug code. When it was breached they enforced it. The act of enforcing the drug code is observing their duty of care. They banned the behaviour, policed it, and sort to punish anyone engaging in it.

The breach of duty of care would be to fail to ban the drugs, fail to test for them, and fail to act when their use was brought to the AFL's attention.

The AFL stand accused of failing their players based on the very act they should be doing to protect them!

Suggesting that this case has legs before a court seems maddeningly dumb to me.

Gil tried explaining this in the interview, and suddenly you've got Jones using the tried and true shockjock technique:

In order to meet their duty of careyes to player healthahem they implemented a drugmm code. Whenyes it was breached theyso what you're saying enforced it. The act of enforcing theyepahem drug code is observing their dutyso of care. They banned theyep behaviour, policed itsowhatyou'resaying, and sort to punishyepahem anyone engaging in it.yes I absolutely agree you're a communist

 

[imperial_oz]

Could you expand?

If he expanded, would that make Jones the goatse of 2GB?

 

[peppy la pew]

Standard defence of

1. Blame the prosecution, when that fails
2. Blame the court, when that fails
3. Blame the law.

The 3 B's, otherwise known as the Dank defence

 

[Armchair Critic]

I have a series of work-related nonsense on one side and my supercoach workings on the other. If I am asked to give testimony in court there might be a long discussion of my bench strategy

I have been caught out big time, I was at a job and left my notebook in the car, wrote it on a scrap piece of paper and transferred it to my notebook when I got back to the car.

Unfortunately for me the defense picked up I had used scrap paper at first instance on CCTV and requested it be tendered as they are official notes. Even more unfortunate was my partner had drawn a picture of 2 wombats screwing on that piece of paper. Bastard