Autopsy Essendon v Hawthorn

Remove this Banner Ad

I agree, Essendon play a disgusting brand of football with their low scoring, high possession borefests.

It is based around not losing rather than trying to win.

Sometimes they get lucky and don't lose.
Isn't being a good coach/team mean you can counter this even assuming it's even slightly true?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Quality ergo good post


Your one liners are quite the comedy act.

And you're really convincing us that Essendon* didn't dose up on PED's!


Here's something for you: change your name to L* U* - it will make more sense.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Has there seriously been talk of Hird bring a master coach all of a sudden after the win? Thought I heard this somewhere today. If so, who said it and where? Would love to read for a laugh.

Garry Lyon is calling him a genius on Footy Classified right now.
 
The WADA code doesn't say that at all, or anything like it. Not even close. Why would you make something like that up?
Here is the source: Taken from;
A question of proof: might an ASADA appeal have legs?

"As you are no doubt aware, the S0 category of the WADA Prohibited List includes all substances which do not have approval for therapeutic use. The notion of identity, or provenance, of a substance is inextricably bound to its approval for therapeutic use. Put simply, no drug approval agency would approve any unidentified, or inadequately identified, substance for therapeutic use.

Further, the identity, or provenance, of a substance (including all its constituents) must be known and/or traceable throughout the supply chain. No reasonable person would assert that a substance is approved for therapeutic use if its identity is lost, the make-up of its components becomes uncertain, or its provenance can no longer be determined.

I believe this would mean that any inadequately identified substance automatically becomes an S0 substance and is therefore prohibited for use by athletes.

If my interpretation is correct then any substance for which the supply chain is “broken” must be classified as S0. This would mean that any athlete who admits to injecting a substance but cannot establish its provenance would have committed an offence under the WADA code.

Ironically, the “dog ate my homework” defence becomes an admission of guilt. " By Natalie Hickey, April 3, 2015
 
That's going to happen when you blindly bomb it in there not really aiming and you push numbers down there to cover their extra numbers, which leave your D50 open and vulnerable.

This is what Sydney used to do to us ...very very frustrating when seeing it happen again, thought we would be smarter than that. Will get worried if our intent is obviously lacking again before the bye...anyway

I really really hope this loss doesn't end up with us playing an interstate final.
 
The WADA code doesn't say that at all, or anything like it. Not even close. Why would you make something like that up?
So the WADA code does say that, why would you deny it, why would you pretend it didn't exist. Oh of course that is your entire defense. Of course we are innocent because they couldn't prove it just like OJ simpson and lance Armstrong and Essendon*. Go back to the lab where you came from FLOG.
 
So the WADA code does say that, why would you deny it, why would you pretend it didn't exist. Oh of course that is your entire defense. Of course we are innocent because they couldn't prove it just like OJ simpson and lance Armstrong and Essendon*. Go back to the lab where you came from FLOG.


Well I'm convinced.
A couple of one line posts by L* U* and all the cheating scum are innocent.

Most of the Essendon players ran out the game so well on Sunday.
I wonder what vitamins they took to keep up their stamina?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Essendon v Hawthorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top