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

Remove this Banner Ad

Armchair Critic said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. There was nothing going on in breach of the rules, no breaches of duty of care being breached, nothing to discover. There is no possible way anyone could conclude or determine that anything wrong has happening.

2. There were breaches of care, clear breaches of the drug code. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate charges and the use of PIEDs.

Essendon supporters really need to pick one of those two arguments and stick with it. Either nothing was happening and therefore the AFL could not possibly detect anything and is therefore not in breach. Alternatively something was happening and the AFL's decision to act upon it is a clear example of them fulfilling their duty of care.

This whole contention that we were doing nothing wrong and it is the AFL's fault for not catching us while we did nothing wrong is just absurd.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HirdsTheWord said:
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
Click to expand...
Those facts you refer to are the issues Essendon raised in its case against ASADA. 2 courts and 4 judges threw them out. The first judge gave you the legal equivalent of FOAD and lumped you with the bill.

Now you want a fair trial in the Alan Jones appealate court.

To think this morning I thought you guys had scraped the last of the barrel. Then comes this porker.

Amazing. Terrifying. But yeah, amazing.
 
Albert Ross said:
1. There was nothing going on in breach of the rules, no breaches of duty of care being breached, nothing to discover. There is no possible way anyone could conclude or determine that anything wrong has happening.

2. There were breaches of care, clear breaches of the drug code. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate charges and the use of PIEDs.

Essendon supporters really need to pick one of those two arguments and stick with it. Either nothing was happening and therefore the AFL could not possibly detect anything and is therefore not in breach. Alternatively something was happening and the AFL's decision to act upon it is a clear example of them fulfilling their duty of care.

This whole contention that we were doing nothing wrong and it is the AFL's fault for not catching us while we did nothing wrong is just absurd.
Click to expand...

I think the ship has sailed that nothing went wrong. The moment Ziggy handed down his report it showed breaches in duty of care , the only question left is whether prohibited substances were used due to those breaches
 
Last edited:
Ilksy said:
telsa1962 - please:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-laundry-exposed.1090608/page-6#post-37503769
Click to expand...
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.
- 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
- The AFL was aware that something dodgy was happening because Harcourt admitted as much and they were sending samples to Germany for peptide testing

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
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
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
4. There wouldn't be players exposed to health risks
 
onemancyclone said:
Those facts you refer to are the issues Essendon raised in its case against ASADA. 2 courts and 4 judges threw them out. The first judge gave you the legal equivalent of FOAD and lumped you with the bill.

Now you want a fair trial in the Alan Jones appealate court.

To think this morning I thought you guys had scraped the last of the barrel. Then comes this porker.

Amazing. Terrifying. But yeah, amazing.
Click to expand...

pretty sure a quote from Andruska saying gill wanted things removed so it doesn interfer with their case.

Oh that was Essendont too ? roflfllrofl
 
Cunctipotent said:
It is difficult to have a conversation with a bleater like Jones. Repetitions. Repetitions will work. Focus on repetitions of narrow elements of a complex case involving a club adept at deception after deception. Add the Guy With The Orange Boner as mythological Aussie Adonis. Boo-hoo. Repeat. Then just a few shrill boos. You're a smart man. You're a smart man. You're a smart man. You're a smart man. You're a smart man.
Click to expand...
And when Gil starts to get back at him say that's all the time we have
 
andrewb said:
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.
- 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
- The AFL was aware that something dodgy was happening because Harcourt admitted as much and they were sending samples to Germany for peptide testing

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

That is my definition of action and follow up.
 
Oscarman said:
Sure is:

View attachment 117300

There had to be a link somewhere for Jones to be spouting the same shit.
Click to expand...

Is that because nobody of any credibility within Cricket Australia, or the current Australian team, could be bothered speaking to 2GB's great moral ambassador. Big Al's energised because he honestly believes that he, and he alone, caused the downfall of Campbell Newman. Probably thinks he's a bounty hunter looking for more scalps.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Reality rules said:
Yes, only Police can use notebooks as evidence in court. Telsa must know that with his legal grounding.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I have a single issue notebook (identical to police issue) and I use it in court... Like police, if I choose to use it, the contents have to be fully disclosed to the defence.

I think all investigators, police or not, can use this system. Though you're right if suggesting it doesn't apply to public servants and file notes
 
Proper Gander said:
Are you sure? I have a single issue notebook (identical to police issue) and I use it in court... Like police, if I choose to use it, the contents have to be fully disclosed to the defence.

I think all investigators, police or not, can use this system. Though you're right if suggesting it doesn't apply to public servants and file notes
Click to expand...
Only if it's in pursuant to a Act or Regulation.
 
Proper Gander said:
Are you sure? I have a single issue notebook (identical to police issue) and I use it in court... Like police, if I choose to use it, the contents have to be fully disclosed to the defence.

I think all investigators, police or not, can use this system. Though you're right if suggesting it doesn't apply to public servants and file notes
Click to expand...

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
 
Armchair Critic said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top