-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Essendon has now recieved the interim ASADA Investigation Report
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Do an exact phrase/term search and see how you go
I did, got Ford forums, but it was only posted this afternoon.
And it referred to the original post on BigFooty
The link you provided does not say support your assertion.
The "insufficient evidence" result has always been a distinct possibility. How do you be sure when there is not positive test? The level of proof and what fulfills it has always been a very "iffy" aspect of this.
As regards Hird's insistence that the program be legal, well that too has always been a very strong reason for believing he deserves no penalty, but so many people have ignored it, preferring to draw long bows on every tidbit of scuttlebutt that Wilson and co. could come up with.
Again, that link does not support what you are saying.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #382
Lets be clear on this, no one on this forum is likely to be privy to the report, or the information. We're drawing analogies based on assumptions that may or may not be correct. I cant speak for Whately, although I have doubts about what random folks on the phone at ASADA could tell Whately about the matter that could cause him to believe its what they were telling EVERYONE.
He said he spoke to the lead investigator did he not??
Yes, I agree. I would like it all to come out.
But I doubt that it will if no players are charged over using AOD.
ASADA will be reluctant to draw attention to what advice they gave, if indeed it was the reason EFC were confident that it was legal.
LanceRomance
Brownlow Medallist
I think some people are of the belief that the melbourne tanking punishment type is the agreed AFL punishment model.
The post everyone is talking about disregards everything and pretty much says "we will get a fine and this will go away".
The fact of the matter is no one cares about melbourne tanking but people do care about exotic drug programs - so if they have done anything wrong a fine won't wash well with the public.
Most likely, which is why the players won't be suspended.
Which is why you have to give some credibility to his source. You're right that no-one knows, but he didn't just run with it on a whim or a guess.
No, he didn't.
He just said what people at Essendon told him that the lead investigator told them.
No it won't. Not by a long shot. You're just looking at it from the wrong point of view.
It will be a time of triumph for all the long suffering Essendon supporters who have been vilified and mocked in these threads for the last 5 months.
You had better believe they will be up and about, if that is the outcome.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 41,966
- 91,645
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Why are people suddenly nervous and giving these rumoured penalties credibility?
It's basically what EFC supporters have been saying for months, and the whole time we've been told its delusional.
Is it no longer delusional?
It's basically what EFC supporters have been saying for months, and the whole time we've been told its delusional.
Is it no longer delusional?
Armstrong never tested positive, although Usada had people testify against him.
LanceRomance
Brownlow Medallist
He could have called ASADA, there were 40 odd other guys who could have called ASADA
He could have gone to the AFLPA..... 40 odd other guys could have gone to the AFLPA
He could have checked with another doctor...... 40 odd other guys could have checked with another doctor.
though, if the club made them sign confidentiality forms meaning the players thought they couldn't, if they have done something wrong, I wonder who is going to get punished the most?
As the governing body ASADA's job is to provide authoritative consistent advice. They absolutely can not just tell one person one thing and another person something else. They must be clear and consistent.
The police can't say the law is one thing to one person, the opposite to someone else and then arrest one of them for breaking it.
They 'clarified' their advice on April 22. There is no record of them clarifying or modify their stance at any other time. They can not change their advice secretly, if anything changes they must take all reasonable steps to inform everyone of a change.
They advised one thing prior to April 22 and pretty much the opposite after.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
No. He said the lead investigator told players on the day they were being interviewed that he didn't think AOD9604 should be banned. Now, that may be what the lead investigator personally thought. Or he was telling the players that to lull them into a false sense of security before their interviews. The fact that he said he didn't think it should be banned makes one believe that according to ASADA, it IS in fact banned?
Well, the club is going to get punished heavily. Massive fine.
lol.
I suspect the "ugly stuff" could be Hird's (or other coaches") use of substances for cosmetic or maybe other "socially unacceptable" purposes (think the bedroom). Not sure though. Only a guess. It would fit with Hird hiring a lawyer to suppress publication of the report. I'm not even sure I'm happy with myself speculating this way, given my condemnation throughout of all the journos and postos who make up stuff based on guesses.
The link is to the advice they were providing and explicitly supports my assertion.
