Essendon/AFL in secret talks [The Age, 21/8]

[TheGreatBarryB]

No. It shows you have no understanding!
Dank told friends of mine he was injecting GHRP 2 and 6 into Essendon players 18 months ago. At the time he told my friends that these peptides were legal. I have emails from back then to prove this. So why don't you go away and bury your head in the sand. You are ignorant so I cant hold you accountable for your actions.
You are blinded by your love of the club too!
That doesn't mean that they are not guilty because they are. If you were in my position, you would also think the same as I do!

You've got to be farking kidding me??

 

[Essendonia]

I reckon there's plenty of proof, we haven't seen it yet.

Why not proceed then? Theoretically, why would the AFL cut a deal to let the allegedly cheating team off with less than what such alleged cheating penalties are warranted? If they could prosecute fully, why cut a deal or take a backwards step?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You've got to be farking kidding me??

No I'm not. It's the truth. 100% true.

 

[mike ockerts]

Why not proceed then? Theoretically, why would the AFL cut a deal to let the allegedly cheating team off with less than what such alleged cheating penalties are warranted? If they could prosecute fully, why cut a deal or take a backwards step?

Ah yes this little snag, that would be when our good friends from ASADA get involved my good man.

 

[Boba Fetta]

SEN Radio "James Hird arrived with his wife via a back entrance"

Probably could have been worded better

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

You missed the point. If Essendon don't know what was taken because their defence is that Dank went rogue, then how can they possibly allay the fears of parents?

EFC thought players were given substances X, Y and Z.
ASADA in their player interviews said we belive you may haeve been given A, B & C. EFC think "i don't think so". ASADA/AFL say " think you may have although we have no concrete evidence"

 

[royals1922]

Why not proceed then? Theoretically, why would the AFL cut a deal to let the allegedly cheating team off with less than what such alleged cheating penalties are warranted? If they could prosecute fully, why cut a deal or take a backwards step?

The answer to that is self evident to all but Essendon supporters. An effort to resolve an issue in the interests of the game inhouse with the imposition of appropriate penalties by the AFL is seen as a sign of weakness or backing down by Essendon supporters.

 

[Magruder]

Why not proceed then? Theoretically, why would the AFL cut a deal to let the allegedly cheating team off with less than what such alleged cheating penalties are warranted? If they could prosecute fully, why cut a deal or take a backwards step?

It's an interim report. I believe they have plenty on you but there are some more rocks to look under in the meantime.

 

[Laphroaig]

Why not proceed then? Theoretically, why would the AFL cut a deal to let the allegedly cheating team off with less than what such alleged cheating penalties are warranted? If they could prosecute fully, why cut a deal or take a backwards step?

Because the penalties for PED offences are yet to come. You can look forward to your full prosecution then. And it's going to hurt.

 

[royals1922]

EFC thought players were given substances X, Y and Z.
ASADA in their player interviews said we belive you may haeve been given A, B & C. EFC think "i don't think so". ASADA/AFL say " think you may have although we have no concrete evidence"

So what you are saying is because of Essendon mismanagement, players may have been given drugs A, B and C or X, Y and Z or A, B and X but know one will ever know what was given to the players because no records were ever kept even though it was an EFC program. For EFC's sake, please do not offer you assistance to EFC.

 

[ziad]

Because the penalties for PED offences are yet to come. You can look forward to your full prosecution then. And it's going to hurt.

and at a time of ASAD's chosing. Feb, July, August 14?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Ah yes this little snag, that would be when our good friends from ASADA get involved my good man.

they've been involved for nearly 7 months and have come up with heck all my good man

 

[BusterBob]

Times are changing and wedlock is not all it is cracked up to be. Don't judge.

Wasn't judging marital status or not, but which parents count as having a legitimate voice in all of this.

 

[Laphroaig]

The club gave a run down of the substances given to their sons.

You were there, were you? You know if the Club told the truth, or fed the parents more of the same bullshit they've fed the world?

 

[jenny61_99]

You missed the point. If Essendon don't know what was taken because their defence is that Dank went rogue, then how can they possibly allay the fears of parents?

BINGO! We have a winner!

 

[Jamurp]

No doubt the results of the meeting will be delayed until Channel 7s 6pm news.

 

[kiwicrow]

Bec

Why not proceed then? Theoretically, why would the AFL cut a deal to let the allegedly cheating team off with less than what such alleged cheating penalties are warranted? If they could prosecute fully, why cut a deal or take a backwards step?

Because Essendon don't own Essendon, the AFL owns Essendon, and as crazy as it sounds there's still a little value left in the Essendon brand that the AFL is trying to revive.

The ignorance of the bulk of Essendon supporters absolutely astounds me.

 

[mike ockerts]

they've been involved for nearly 7 months and have come up with heck all my good man

Haha ok mate keep holding onto that hope

 

[Essendonia]

The answer to that is self evident to all but Essendon supporters. An effort to resolve an issue in the interests of the game inhouse with the imposition of appropriate penalties by the AFL is seen as a sign of weakness or backing down by Essendon supporters.

But EFC compromise is concession/admission of guilt? Can't have it both ways.

It's an interim report. I believe they have plenty on you but there are some more rocks to look under in the meantime.

It is an interim report, that includes everything/anything obtained to date. If there was more that they have presently, it would be included in the interim report.

Because the penalties for PED offences are yet to come. You can look forward to your full prosecution then. And it's going to hurt.

There is no certainty (or implication) that there will be PED charges, or that even if there are charges, that such charges might be successful. Your statements are both premature and unfounded.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't think we're going to get any interesting news today. Probably that the meeting went all day, and that it will continue tomorrow, with hopefully an announcement then.

I don't understand how it can all be done in one day, so much to discuss/debate.

 

[KAYNE]

No doubt the results of the meeting will be delayed until Channel 7s 6pm news.

Or AD to announce on Talking Footy tonight!

 

[Essendonia]

Bec

Because Essendon don't own Essendon, the AFL owns Essendon, and as crazy as it sounds there's still a little value left in the Essendon brand that the AFL is trying to revive.

The ignorance of the bulk of Essendon supporters absolutely astounds me.

Essendon is a football club granted an AFL licence to participate in the AFL. EFC and AFL are not mutually-dependent, though each ideally requires the other.

You seem to indicate that you have made assessments of tens of thousands of Essendon supporters, though I do not believe that you have.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

oh yeah sure it is. Sorry got to go, fair godmother is knocking at the door.

So you think he doesn't have emails from his friends saying that Dank told them he was injecting players 18 months ago? The email would be hearsay and proof of nothing, but it would certainly help for his own beliefs. Is it inconceivable that he has friends that know Dank? Let's not forget that Dank seems to be fairly loose about things when he thought the substances were above board. In fact, he almost seemed to be promoting certain drugs and his own services.

If someone emailed me 18 months ago, I'd think 'I trust my friend that they heard that, but who is Dank, and it's probably rumour and supposition'. Come Feb this year though, I'd be going 'O M ****ing G!!' and harken back to that email.

 

[Laphroaig]

Laphroaig said: ↑

Because the penalties for PED offences are yet to come. You can look forward to your full prosecution then. And it's going to hurt.​

There is no certainty (or implication) that there will be PED charges, or that even if there are charges, that such charges might be successful. Your statements are both premature and unfounded.

And your statements are devoid of merit and based only on blind optimism.

There is enough in the supporting documentation to the disrepute charges alone to be close to a slam dunk for infractions against the majority of the playing list.

If you are clinging to the diminishing possibility that individual players connection to individual substances may be difficult to identify, forget it. Down that road lays an even worse outcome.

 

[Barkly St End]

so what was the reason for using lube-all-plus, a product specifically for dogs and horses ??

Everytime I see references to lube-all-plus, I'm wondering whether the commentators are getting mixed up with what the Mayor at City Hall has in his cupboard to mete out punishment.