For Caroline Wilson, this time it's very personal

Remove this Banner Ad

Bunk Moreland

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Psycho Footy Nut Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts
Sep 22, 2011
41,961
91,637
AFL Club
Essendon
A good read which many won't be able to get through due to it challenging their "beliefs".

The thing about it isn't the attacks on Wilson at all, though it's framed through that, but the highlighting of several commonly accepted "truths" that are really anything but.

Briefly while we’re on Harcourt; are we genuinely expected to believe that he didn’t think he was being filmed or it wouldn’t be seen even though a professional filming company used 3 cameras to film him and people could register to watch the web cast?
Click to expand...


  • Wilson writes that the “players’ defence is largely based upon the fact that they were misled“
That is deliberately misleading, and for someone who knows better, a blatant lie. The players defence is, has been from the beginning of this saga and remains, largely based upon the fact that they believe they haven’t taken any banned substances; but IF they have it was through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...


"the club still cannot tell the players what they were given“.

This is arguably the most popular current ‘shot’ those in attack mode take at Essendon.
The truth of course is that Essendon believe they can and have told the players exactly what they have taken, while detailing the benefits and risks involved with each substance to the players via internal and external medical experts. Details that captain Jobe Watson stated on Chanel 7′s Saturday Night Football coverage last week the players are comfortable with.
Click to expand...

http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/
 
The players defence is, has been from the beginning of this saga and remains, largely based upon the fact that they believe they haven’t taken any banned substances; but IF they have it was through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...
So they're saying they were misled?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Wilson writes that the “players’ defence is largely based upon the fact that they were misled“

That is deliberately misleading, and for someone who knows better, a blatant lie. The players defence is, has been from the beginning of this saga and remains, largely based upon the fact that they believe they haven’t taken any banned substances; but IF they have it was through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

If they have taken banned substances, it was because they were told everything was OK, i.e. misled.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
A good read which many won't be able to get through due to it challenging their "beliefs".

The thing about it isn't the attacks on Wilson at all, though it's framed through that, but the highlighting of several commonly accepted "truths" that are really anything but.


http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/
Click to expand...

Interesting website . They have a Soccer section and haven't posted anything 3 weeks. Cycling sections haven't posted anything in 4 weeks. Guess there is not much happening in either sports at the moment.

Very diligent to be all over the Essendon saga though. Surprised no one is prepared to put their name to that propaganda.
 
So can anyone tell me who the writer of the cheapseats is? Had a quick look at the blog - no "about" page. Got to say that I find it VERY hard to take seriously anything which is written by someone who is not prepared to put his real name to it.

To some degree the same holds true here as well, but, with a bit of posting history it is pretty easy to ascertain who are genuine (Bunk, LU, Iggy, Malfice, Baldur, Blackcat, evo et al) and the flogs (hello to Bobby Charlton and others) and judge their views accordingly.

Anonymous blogs meh - couldn't care less
 
Bunk Moreland said:
A good read which many won't be able to get through due to it challenging their "beliefs".

The thing about it isn't the attacks on Wilson at all, though it's framed through that, but the highlighting of several commonly accepted "truths" that are really anything but.









http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/
Click to expand...


Hey Bunky, have the denizens of the Essendon BF Board got around to asking which one of them is TheCheapSeats yet?.... lol
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
If they have taken banned substances, it was because they were told everything was OK, i.e. misled.
Click to expand...

The issue is the constant claims wih the defence is entirely or "largely" based on them being misled.

The basic tennent of the players defence has always been that they know what they took and none of it was illegal.

That's the primary point yet is always ignored, because it wouldn't result in the "Armageddon" so many crave.

The players being misled is in response claims from ASADA and others that they may have been given substances other than their described. Of course that's their response to that, but it's hardly the critical factor of their defence.
 
A lot of people seem to struggle with this one:

  • Wilson writes that the “players’ defence is largely based upon the fact that they were misled“
That is deliberately misleading, and for someone who knows better, a blatant lie. The players defence is, has been from the beginning of this saga and remains, largely based upon the fact that they believe they haven’t taken any banned substances; but IF they have it was through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

Program was legit and if there was some banned substances it was done without permission from players and club. Unless ASADA can show without doubt that Dank did get some naughty stuff and put it into a needle that can be shown to be given to a specific player then no doping "conviction" will be reached.

Based on what has been leaked to the public and given to players ASADA clearly can't do that.

Of course there is the possibility that ASADA is keeping their powder dry on some game changing evidence. Even then players and club officials who were not directly responsible to manage Dank have a legitimate defence.
 
FFC_RoyBoys said:
So can anyone tell me who the writer of the cheapseats is? Had a quick look at the blog - no "about" page. Got to say that I find it VERY hard to take seriously anything which is written by someone who is not prepared to put his real name to it.

To some degree the same holds true here as well, but, with a bit of posting history it is pretty easy to ascertain who are genuine (Bunk, LU, Iggy, Malfice, Baldur, Blackcat, evo et al) and the flogs (hello to Bobby Charlton and others) and judge their views accordingly.

Anonymous blogs meh - couldn't care less
Click to expand...
Could it be these guys ??
http://www.theroar.com.au/the-cheap-seats-podcast/
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

1990crow said:
The players defense IS that they think they have been misled. AND the club CAN'T tell the players what they were given otherwise this would already be over..
Click to expand...

Incorrect, and incorrect.

This was started, and continues, because of intelligence gathered by the ACC.

Whether there's irrefutable evidence linking EFC players as a result of that intelligence remains to be seen.

Yes they received injections. Yes they were told what they were. Yes they were all WADA compliant.

Were they something other than what was detailed? If so, of course the response has to be they were misled. What else can you say in that situation?

But the primary defence is simple: we know what we had, and it was legal.
 
fishardansin said:
A lot of people seem to struggle with this one:



Program was legit and if there was some banned substances it was done without permission from players and club. Unless ASADA can show without doubt that Dank did get some naughty stuff and put it into a needle that can be shown to be given to a specific player then no doping "conviction" will be reached.

Based on what has been leaked to the public and given to players ASADA clearly can't do that.

Of course there is the possibility that ASADA is keeping their powder dry on some game changing evidence. Even then players and club officials who were not directly responsible to manage Dank have a legitimate defence.
Click to expand...


Good ol Danky just gave everyone at EFC another warning yesterday not to point the finger at him for decieving EFC with what he gave them......or else

1 in All in Fish
 
LSRU said:
Then why the **** did Essendon "self report"?
Click to expand...

It was the AFLs and EFCs strategy to get on the front foot with something that was coming anyway.

In hindsight, it was perhaps misguided. But when you have the league boss and the federal govt across the table, perhaps you may be compelled to do as they say.

Evans had a day to sniff around. Could he say with 110% accuracy that he knew what was in every single syringe over the past 12 months, to the point where he could be confident enough to tell head office to forget it, it's all ok? Of course he couldn't. Nobody could at any club, including the 10+ clubs who had medium to high volume supplement programs with no single point of accountability.

Our problem? We had Dank. Thus we had the ACC. They didn't.
 
Last edited:
Because I was slightly interested, I did a little bit of digging and discovered that the author is a sporting tragic Essendon fan according to his twitter profile. Nothing wrong with that at all, BUT, if you want to be taken seriously one should declare your allegiances up front. Sort of like Martin Hardie using his twitter handle to sock puppet comments supporting his previously stated views on a matter. Not to be taken seriously
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Incorrect, and incorrect.

This was started, and continues, because of intelligence gathered by the ACC.

Whether there's irrefutable evidence linking EFC players as a result of that intelligence remains to be seen.

Yes they received injections. Yes they were told what they were. Yes they were all WADA compliant.

Were they something other than what was detailed? If so, of course the response has to be they were misled. What else can you say in that situation?

But the primary defence is simple: we know what we had, and it was legal.
Click to expand...
Bull.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
A good read which many won't be able to get through due to it challenging their "beliefs".
Click to expand...
Bunk Moreland said:
Incorrect, and incorrect.

This was started, and continues, because of intelligence gathered by the ACC.

Whether there's irrefutable evidence linking EFC players as a result of that intelligence remains to be seen.

Yes they received injections. Yes they were told what they were. Yes they were all WADA compliant.

Were they something other than what was detailed? If so, of course the response has to be they were misled. What else can you say in that situation?

But the primary defence is simple: we know what we had, and it was legal.
Click to expand...

The problem is Thymosin beta 4.

Its on the consent forms as Thymosin, and if ASADA has enough evidence to be satisfied it was Thymosin Beta 4, then thats it. Case closed.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

For Caroline Wilson, this time it's very personal

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top