Essendon continues to duck for cover

[jezzajay]

Do you have evidence that Ziggy was appointed under instruction from the AFL, Essendon claimed it was an internal investigation, do you know something your club doesn't or are you just telling lies to boost your story?

dude...he doesnt have a clue...should just quit whilst he thinks hes ahead...

 

[kfc1]

Really..... so what you are saying is that a report that the EFC claims was instigated in-house by the EFC was actually a result of instruction from the AFL.

Yes.

Are you suggesting the EFC lied about who wanted the report to go ahead and the why and how?

They certainly didn't reveal the true instructions behind it.

And I also see that even though Mr Stardust was not a qualified chemical specialist and was asked to focus on "governance", it was glaringly obvious even to him that Essendon had a 'pharmacologically experimental environment'. Not obvious apparently to any of the Muppets "running" the club at the time of the program. However obvious enough for a non qualified bloke looking at paperwork.

I don't doubt that "Mr Stardust" would have made similar conclusions at any AFL Club - he has no experience in the area and any outsider would be surprised at what goes on at one. Interesting that you rely on the conclusion of someone clearly not experienced or knowledgeable in the field. Something that is "glaringly obvious" to a layman is often completely incorrect.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

It's a moot point - ASADA are going after TB4 because it's all they have left to show out of an 18 month long investigation (and longer, given the information which has surfaced in recent days about 2012 drug testing). How do you think it would go down if ASADA call a press conference and say "sorry guys we couldn't find enough evidence of EFC players doping, it's all over"?

Seriously, what would happen if they said this? Does the world stop spinning, subjecting one side of the planet to searing endless daylight and the other to permanent night? Nope? Nothing?

All that happens is that some fans of other teams, and some in the media who are doing nicely out of all this (not looking at anyone, Chief), are let down that Essendon wasn't burned to the ground. After a couple of weeks of moping around, even they return to normal and life goes on; though they probably still sledge Essendon for being drug cheats.

There may be the odd lines of inquiry of ASADA as to what happened regarding this thing that was made public and why did it take you so long to clear them, but the simple reply would be that there were several lines of inquiry that needed to be thoroughly investigated and they didn't result in sufficient evidence to sustain a change, so move on. They don't even look like they've been incompetent if they play it right.

We keep hearing about this phantom "political pressure", but why would that be the case? What does it benefit any side of government whether ASADA makes a case against Essendon or not? Maybe the Gillard government used the initial "darkest day" press conference as a distraction or a sign of how effective they were, but that was a long time ago and a lot has changed. In fact, if you read the transcript of when McDevitt was presenting to the Senate a few weeks ago, there seemed to be pressure to drop the case, if anything. The current government would love to be able to blame a ****-up here on the Gillard government; or haven't any of you been paying attention to how the political parties play?

Obviously the tax payer has been funding this all along, but aside from a few months where additional investigators were hired on, the tax payer would be funding ASADA to the same extent anyway.

Give me one good reason - just one - as to why this would have been a disaster for ASADA, or the government, if ASADA hadn't been able to charge anybody?

This idea that ASADA's sole remit is to get the Bombers somehow, anyway they can, is purely a puerile fantasy concocted by Essendon supporters to explain why the bad men won't leave them alone. FFS, what do you think ASADA were doing before this came along?

 

[I Rock]

Yes.



They certainly didn't reveal the true instructions behind it.



I don't doubt that "Mr Stardust" would have made similar conclusions at any AFL Club - he has no experience in the area and any outsider would be surprised at what goes on at one. Interesting that you rely on the conclusion of someone clearly not experienced or knowledgeable in the field. Something that is "glaringly obvious" to a layman is often completely incorrect.

So Essendon lied again, not reveal true instructions just flat out lies by your suggestions. And you claim Mr Stardust would have found the same at any club......and yet only one club has 34 SC notices issued to past and present players as a result of a club sanctioned "supplement" program.

 

[kfc1]

Do you have evidence that Ziggy was appointed under instruction from the AFL, Essendon claimed it was an internal investigation, do you know something your club doesn't or are you just telling lies to boost your story?

Stronger evidence than ASADA have that we took TB4

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Don't think it matters, but you'd be safe to assume the AFL advised it as Evans was still at the club. Either way probably would have happened, but should have stayed in house.

 

[kfc1]

So you're admitting that AOD9604 is performance enhancing

No.

, the club definitely used it without any approval

no.

and EFC are drug cheats?

No.

If you are adamant ASADA should issue SCN's for AOD9604, you must be disappointed the EFC are using the courts and PR spuds to hinder ASADA from doing their job of keeping the sport clean.[/QUOTE]

No. Comprehension isn't your strong point. Love the user name tho.

 

[lones37]

No.



no.



No.

If you are adamant ASADA should issue SCN's for AOD9604, you must be disappointed the EFC are using the courts and PR spuds to hinder ASADA from doing their job of keeping the sport clean.

No. Comprehension isn't your strong point. Love the user name tho.[/QUOTE]

Why were they using AOD then?

 

[Rivanwarder]

No.



no.



No.

If you are adamant ASADA should issue SCN's for AOD9604, you must be disappointed the EFC are using the courts and PR spuds to hinder ASADA from doing their job of keeping the sport clean.

No. Comprehension isn't your strong point. Love the user name tho.[/QUOTE]

Pack it up boys, Kentucky Fried Chicken has the answers.

No case to follow here.

/s

 

[Albert Ross]

Cant see whats in it for Crameri and Monfries to take this all the way to the courts. Waiting with baited breath for one or both of them to fall on their swords and negotiate a lesser penalty. If that happens, watch the house of cards collapse!!

This concept of negotiated penalties and deals needs to stop. ASADA recommend a penalty, not implement it. The AFL Tribunal applies a penalty. The player, ASASA or WADA can then appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal. Then there is another possible appeal to the CAS. You have too many independent bodies to do a 'deal'. Any handshake deal is worthless with WADA liable to appeal to CAS and make a deal pointless.

 

[kfc1]

Seriously, what would happen if they said this? Does the world stop spinning, subjecting one side of the planet to searing endless daylight and the other to permanent night? Nope? Nothing?

All that happens is that some fans of other teams, and some in the media who are doing nicely out of all this (not looking at anyone, Chief), are let down that Essendon wasn't burned to the ground. After a couple of weeks of moping around, even they return to normal and life goes on; though they probably still sledge Essendon for being drug cheats.

There may be the odd lines of inquiry of ASADA as to what happened regarding this thing that was made public and why did it take you so long to clear them, but the simple reply would be that there were several lines of inquiry that needed to be thoroughly investigated and they didn't result in sufficient evidence to sustain a change, so move on. They don't even look like they've been incompetent if they play it right.

We keep hearing about this phantom "political pressure", but why would that be the case? What does it benefit any side of government whether ASADA makes a case against Essendon or not? Maybe the Gillard government used the initial "darkest day" press conference as a distraction or a sign of how effective they were, but that was a long time ago and a lot has changed. In fact, if you read the transcript of when McDevitt was presenting to the Senate a few weeks ago, there seemed to be pressure to drop the case, if anything. The current government would love to be able to blame a ****-up here on the Gillard government; or haven't any of you been paying attention to how the political parties play?

Obviously the tax payer has been funding this all along, but aside from a few months where additional investigators were hired on, the tax payer would be funding ASADA to the same extent anyway.

Give me one good reason - just one - as to why this would have been a disaster for ASADA, or the government, if ASADA hadn't been able to charge anybody?

This idea that ASADA's sole remit is to get the Bombers somehow, anyway they can, is purely a puerile fantasy concocted by Essendon supporters to explain why the bad men won't leave them alone. FFS, what do you think ASADA were doing before this came along?

Some valid points, thank you for a pretty good quality response.

ASADA's main role is as a watchdog or policeman, if they go from 'Blackest day in sport' to 'nothing to see here' they look mighty ridiculous and will lose the respect of the very sports they have to keep in check. In addition, as a Government agency they have to fight for funding and spending a metric buttload of cash investigating Essendon to result in 'nothing to see here' would not go down well with political superiors, particularly given the intense media coverage. Senate budget hearings, in my experience, are generally only attended by politicians who want to criticise the operations of whichever department they are interviewing, hence the appearance of political pressure to drop the case.

 

[kfc1]

Why were they using AOD then?

The same reason athletes take protein shakes, ice baths, painkilling injections and 'magic blue powder'.

 

[kfc1]

So Essendon lied again, not reveal true instructions just flat out lies by your suggestions. And you claim Mr Stardust would have found the same at any club......and yet only one club has 34 SC notices issued to past and present players as a result of a club sanctioned "supplement" program.

How many governance reviews was Mr Stardust instruction to do by the AFL?

 

[kfc1]

Someone at ASADA screwed on AOD, so they aren't pressing the case, fact is it was banned at the time by WADA and your club was using it via injection as your Captain admitted, so you did use a prohibited substance, but owing to a possible error by ASADA you wont be charged for it.

Your club was trying to get an unfair advantage by it's substance use, ie attempting to cheat
To cheat.
1.
act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.

We cheated by using a substance even ASADA thought wasn't prohibited? That's some seriously hardcore cheating there. It's Lance Armstrong-esque.

 

[Dave]

Vast majority of the cases that lead to bans are based on nothing but circumstantial evidence as the people involved are always ahead of the game and most of these substances have a short life span and are difficult to detect.

What factual information (ie not anecdotal) do you base that on?

There are currently 87 athletes listed on ASADA's website's "Current Sanctions" table.

Of these, 68 (78%) are for either "Presence" or "Presence and use" violations.

Of those 68, there is publicly available (ie "googleable"l) information of 38 of them.
Every single one of those cases involved an AAF.
Of the other 30, the only references to them I could find regarding penalties was on the ASADA table of sanctions.

So, unless the media have been very selective about it, it looks like most of their cases (ie the "vast majority") are in fact based on AAF's, ie based on solid non-circumstantial evidence.

 

[Rivanwarder]

We cheated by using a substance even ASADA thought wasn't prohibited? That's some seriously hardcore cheating there. It's Lance Armstrong-esque.

Show cause notices for TB4 would indicate you cheated by using a prohibited substance.

Everything else is trivial.

The misinformation and avoidance campaign propagated by you Essendon brainwashed diehards has gone from hilarious to downright sad.

 

[DERIBERATE]

TB4, admission on national television.

 

[go_nodders]

Some valid points, thank you for a pretty good quality response.

ASADA's main role is as a watchdog or policeman, if they go from 'Blackest day in sport' to 'nothing to see here' they look mighty ridiculous and will lose the respect of the very sports they have to keep in check. In addition, as a Government agency they have to fight for funding and spending a metric buttload of cash investigating Essendon to result in 'nothing to see here' would not go down well with political superiors, particularly given the intense media coverage. Senate budget hearings, in my experience, are generally only attended by politicians who want to criticise the operations of whichever department they are interviewing, hence the appearance of political pressure to drop the case.

Are you trying to say that by ASADA not finding Essendon or Cronulla having a case to answer the government would cut their funding as a vindictive measure for embarrassing them?
Wouldn't this make it easier for teams like Essendon or Cronulla to cheat which would embarrass them further?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This concept of negotiated penalties and deals needs to stop. ASADA recommend a penalty, not implement it. The AFL Tribunal applies a penalty. The player, ASASA or WADA can then appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal. Then there is another possible appeal to the CAS. You have too many independent bodies to do a 'deal'. Any handshake deal is worthless with WADA liable to appeal to CAS and make a deal pointless.

I retract the word negotiated.If they decide to "plead guilty": as it were they may well avoid a two year ban. If I were Footscray I'd be leaning on my player to do whats best for himself and the Western Bulldogs and not whats best for the Essendon football club.

What has to stop is the trade union mentality.

 

[I Rock]

How many governance reviews was Mr Stardust instruction to do by the AFL?

None.

 

[Mutt]

Stronger evidence than ASADA have that we took TB4

You don't know what evidence ASADA has that your players took TB-4. If you say that you do then you are clearly lying.

 

[kfc1]

You have me wondering.
Why would someone (who as you say, no knowledge) say this then?
Was he guessing?
Does he just hate the EFC?
Was he paid to say it?
Did he just make it up?
Why?

It was most likely his honest observation, as a layman. If you like conspiracy theories then it is also possible that he was instructed as to what to find, as ALF was controlling the narrative. Nonetheless, a layman's perception and reality are often not one and the same.

 

[kfc1]

None.

Hence why he did not find pharma etc. environments in 17 other clubs.

 

[Tiger2709]

Stronger evidence than ASADA have that we took TB4

Well were waiting

Do they randomly choose people on the EFC board to come to the HTB and spout rubbish or did you decide to do it all by yourself?

 

[kfc1]

Show cause notices for TB4 would indicate you cheated by using a prohibited substance.

This is a discussion about AOD, not TB4. Learn to read.