No Oppo Supporters ASAGA - The Final Chapter - Appeal Dismissed (Page 12) - The End

Remove this Banner Ad

baz_machine said:
Maybe Hanners?
Click to expand...
Didn't know he had a knee thing but would you describe him as 'one of the AFL's biggest stars'? Some might. Not sure I would.
 
Beerfish said:
Didn't know he had a knee thing but would you describe him as 'one of the AFL's biggest stars'? Some might. Not sure I would.
Click to expand...
They can be known for hyperbole. However he wasn't fit for round 1.
 
Definitely Nic Nat then.

You wonder if the club's arent just opening themselves up to get sued down the road for these pain masking things.

Didn't Michael Tuck basically say he could hardly walk post football?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So Gil was asked for comment...

D7vTHNG.gif
 
Judging from what they said on 360, watch this space. I trust Gerard Whateley because he's such a nerd and even he seemed a bit confused about it. Why haven't the AFL come out and supported it? That grab from Paul Rennie was pretty damning.
 
SydneyBomber said:
Oh, and when do we get to start screaming "Cancer cancer cancer, unborn babies?!?!?!" at people?
[/get****edcaro]
Click to expand...
I'd probably wait until we can confirm none of our players are involved.
 
Speaking of needles, Fev on the Footy Show last night saying he had problems with his groins, was getting 8 injections per game for pain relief, on crutches for three days afterwards, barely trained until the next game. But it's okay in local footy to play without pain relief because he doesn't have to run in local footy :p
 
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...-lovett-murray-innocence-20180424-p4zbg4.html

A newly released document underscores the inability of drug authorities to prove that Nathan Lovett-Murray took a banned substance in 2012, according to his manager.

A doping control form dated May 5, 2012, signed by former Bomber Lovett-Murray and seen by The Age, indicates that Lovett-Murray only took legal painkilling drug brufen and no banned substance.

The document, which has an Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority letterhead, is believed to have been filled out in the hours after the Bombers beat the Brisbane Lions by 67 points at Etihad Stadium, a match in which Lovett-Murray had 23 disposals.

Lovett-Murray’s agent Peter Jess claims he received the document from ASADA, which he argues is proof his client never took the banned substance thymosin beta-4, which was at the heart of the supplements saga that led to 34 former and current Bombers being suspended in 2016.

In a statement to The Age, Jess claims that “as indicated, the only supplement shown on the doping control form is an approved substance administered between August 2011 and September 2012".

“Therefore, one had to ask the question as to how ASADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport panel deduced that Nathan Lovett-Murray has taken any banned substance or colluded with his fellow players in not filling out the doping control form correctly," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bunk Moreland said:
Back in court tomorrow. AFL has applied to have a limited trial in Jackson Taylor’s case that won’t reveal as much. If it’s knocked back then it’ll be all guns blazing - trial will proceed and Vlad, Fitzpatrick, Gil and others will be in the box.
Click to expand...
The horse has bolted and Jackson Taylor is trying to build his profile. I'd be surprised if anyone of any note at the club is backing this.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Beerfish said:
Yeah I'm sure that'd be illuminating.

357b5b94b77149fdc642f0ac9db00cf3
Click to expand...
Her silhouette with that haircut would look like a penis.

I can't not see that anymore.
 
DERO said:
The horse has bolted and Jackson Taylor is trying to build his profile. I'd be surprised if anyone of any note at the club is backing this.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t really have anything to do with the club. It’s interesting from a consumer law point of view. The AFL never even hid the fact the whole process revolved around booting Essendon from the finals, yet continued to present the games as premiership matches. I wonder how the law would see that.
 
Zach Package said:
Who’s bringing the case?

I can sort of see the rationale but I struggle to see what anyone would actually get out of a win here
Click to expand...
Thats why I have minimal interest. Don't think their is any winner here other than the lawyers, from what I have seen all that it would prove if successful is the AFL acted unlawfully
 
DonsRule said:
Thats why I have minimal interest. Don't think their is any winner here other than the lawyers, from what I have seen all that it would prove if successful is the AFL acted unlawfully
Click to expand...
that would have a few implications
AD & Fitzpatrick's legacy would have that hanging over it.
And one would imagine a finding of unlawful conduct would mean Gil has to step down.

Other than, very little in this for EFC or the players one way or another
 
Bunk Moreland said:
It doesn’t really have anything to do with the club. It’s interesting from a consumer law point of view. The AFL never even hid the fact the whole process revolved around booting Essendon from the finals, yet continued to present the games as premiership matches. I wonder how the law would see that.
Click to expand...

If they sold tickets, and as alleged finals packages, when they knew the outcome would preclude that then it would be fraud of some sort.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

No Oppo Supporters ASAGA - The Final Chapter - Appeal Dismissed (Page 12) - The End

Similar threads

eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
414
Views
44K
FlyingV
FlyingV

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top