-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Essendon continues to duck for cover
- Thread starter FootyGeek
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I was never privy to that sealed section.
(-for my mate,of course.)Stupid faces
I don't want that bloody smily one
- Feb 19, 2011
- 3,704
- 5,028
- AFL Club
- Geelong
No not performing enhancing at all, that's why there's so many emails about it....
Duckworth
Peptide Awareness
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
10k Posts
Veteran
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2019 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
I think you'll find that Dank called to clarify the next day that he did in fact mean to say 'pencil sharpener' his description of the product in question was ambiguous.
IIRC that figure is close to 96%, SC = IN, but the percentages don't bother me. Even if the joint investigation is ruled invalid, I truly hope the EFC (et al) follow due process, and reply to the SC notices in a timely manner. I would not be satisfied with a moral victory based on law, I would prefer exoneration on the basis of no banned substances were used (notwithstanding AOD 9604, but that's another story).
As for false bravado, personally, I am too ****** lazy to try and flog a dead horse. If I really felt the EFC were on a hiding to nothing, I couldn't be bothered devoting the effort to try and counter alternate viewpoints, to the ones I hold. I subscribe to the belief that it is better for ten guilty men be found innocent, than one innocent man be hanged.
Based on this thread, and many similar - I read the same posters, both pro and anti the EFC, and I draw the same conclusions. At this stage (SC) the onus is on the players and the EFC to prove their innocence, or the cases will progress to the ADRVB. But then the onus of greater probability of a doping violation occuring is borne by the evidence ASADA takes to the panel. I take solace in the tweets of the ex-CEO of ASADA, prior to Andruska, that this is not as easy as ordering at Macca's. https://twitter.com/ringsau. This bloke appears balanced and knowledgable, and certainly "in the loop". I trust his opinion far beyond the "baying for blood" banshees, that dominate our MSM press.
As an obvious NESB poster, may I enlighten you to a few standard protocols before responding. In Straya, we use punctuation, and avoid bravado, innuendo, and degading tautology.
Par. 1: How can you possibly know what my knowledge base is on this topic?
Par. 2: Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? It is a hell of a long way from crossing this bridge, isn't it? And who are we?
Par. 3: I reiterate, I have no need to "man-up". I am not in any position of concern to anyone of interest.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,405
- 35,588
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Drugs bad m'kay
Wouldn't have thought so, surely he deserves to go down with the rest of the Essendon players here.
Dank is not part of the current Court action by the EFC & Hird. The only reason the players (sort of but not officially) got roped in is because the Court Action is to suppress the evidence and investigation gathered on them. Dank's SC situation is on it's own living in limbo (at least in terms of what has been reported).
I think it is curious that EFC and the judge didn't want Dank joined. In reality he is in a similar situation to the players - a SC notice has been issued and if he is found guilty it would be as damning for EFC as the players being found guilty. Perhaps he was not interviewed in the same "joint" way by AFL/ASADA.
Maybe. But EFC could have included him just as easily as they included the players.
Percel
Victorian’s love a good potato scallop
Danks was well in train before the "self reporting"
Dank was not interviewed or a specific part of the process of the joint investigation, not sure he has the need to be.
More to the point, I don't trust what Dank would say either way, would say, IMO, what ever is in how own personal best interest.
