Bombers 1. accused of asking Mick Gatto to help fix doping mess and 2. covering up Medicare fraud
- Thread starter Muggs
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Seems perfectly reasonable when you put it that way.
You know, the concept of a "consent" form in this scenario makes no real sense. If I was the recipient I would expect to be seeing the provider signing a declaration form that fully disclosed the drug I was to be receiving, dosage regimen and everything else I needed to be compliant to the AFL drug code I'd had drummed into me, and I'd expect to see a signed statement that it was checked and was approved under the code.
A consent form is something the opposite of what they claim it is - it effectively says that the recipient agrees to being dosed with whatever the form says they would be getting. It would be kind of OK, if it was specific, and listed the full and proper names of the drugs, dosage and so-on, and if it was countersigned.
Of course, there were also the prescriptions. Copies of these would be readily obtainable, so really, all is good. They'd have to be individualised - I'm not a doctor, but I don't think you can get a script for "all the boys" can you? The loophole was prescriptions and a compounding pharmacist I think.
you only have to declare substances taken in the previous week or two........
And they failed to give truthful answers
they all thought its was compliant, including Dank
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 82,882
- 136,566
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Now this is misleading.
Whether they thought they were 'compliant' or not they still did not declare them. Its like going for a drug test you state all the medication you are taking. Its then sampled for those you don't declare ( as well as those you have scripts for)
given you only have to declare substances within the week or so of the test, the program lasted only part of the season, and only 30 players or so were tested, it's quite possible only a small number of players were in a position to declare anything anyway.
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 82,882
- 136,566
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Well that must make the players feel so much better then
So they all knew what they were given then?
I'm sure if the players had a legit excuse CAS would have been satisfied, yet CAS weren't were they?
It's weasel words designed to let the believers in the benign, but bumbling bombers sleep well and allows them to snipe away at the evil ASADA/WADA/CAS troika.
Where is the leadership?
Rather than looking to minimise harm to the club, they should be looking to clear their name. And this is why this issue continues to mean something to the "frothers"....because the way that they seem to be trying to clear their name is by the use of these weasel words.
It's ultimately a dishonest track the club travels and it will therefore continue to appear in the papers for decades to come.
Where is the leadership?
Rather than looking to minimise harm to the club, they should be looking to clear their name. And this is why this issue continues to mean something to the "frothers"....because the way that they seem to be trying to clear their name is by the use of these weasel words.
It's ultimately a dishonest track the club travels and it will therefore continue to appear in the papers for decades to come.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 33,026
- 51,150
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Oops
- Jun 28, 2013
- 33,026
- 51,150
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I'm amazed there aren't some law firms as sponsors on the players' jumpers. Been a great support to the club and the players. Could be a good way of avoiding legal fees too.
they were informed by consent what they were supposed to be given
So what is 'thymosin'?
you really need to ask that question after 4 years?
So they didn't know what they were taking was legal?
I mean how can you, if you don't even ask what it is?
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 82,882
- 136,566
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Have read this a few times and what clearly comes across is a minimizing.
From such a big program,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for part of the season
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>30 players were tested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>few needed to declare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>within a week or so of taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everything hunky dory
NoAFLinmycomp
Club Legend
- Oct 21, 2014
- 1,579
- 2,190
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Central District
Mxett, I thought that you would have given up on that approach by now. I happily read all your responses, but this one always gets the same reaction, everytime - a foam spittle!!
They needed to ask for the name of the supplement/ drugs/ chemicals.
That is all they needed from the club.
And THEY, that is all of them, INDIVIDUALLY, put those in to the online checker.
That is it.
That is all that they had to do.
Not one of them did it, or the confirmed enquiry #(s) would have poped up at some point - used by the defence to show that they self-managed their appointed responsibility.
FFS, under-age gymnasts can do this.
The player leadership group would also have known this. That they did not do it themselves, nor direct their junior plauers to do, speaks volumes - and has never been fully investigated. If only the Players' defence team had seperated to individual defence at the CAS appeal, when they had the chance.
Opportunity lost.
GreyCrow
Make me an Admin!
- Mar 21, 2016
- 82,882
- 136,566
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
And the AFLPA sat back and did nothing. ( that we know of)
So i go back to my original statement.
Not one player has done a thing about it.
I think you were right with your 1st reply.
They knew what they were given.
What would you like them to do about it?
What i would like them to do is irrelevant, it's what they have done, and that is nada.
c
And what do you think they could do about it?
