• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

Remove this Banner Ad

telsa1962 said:
This is a more balanced view - but most of you in here will now have to add the AFLPA and Pendergast to your growing list of 'delusionals'

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-03/no-passive-acceptance
Click to expand...

Oh goody, maybe jobe can organise a sit in, given they strenuously objected to the injections, is the AFLPA starting the the players were comatose and tied down line when the Evil Dank injected them?

And people think the AFL isn't on Essendons side , give me break.
 
SunshineTiger said:
Oh goody, maybe jobe can organise a sit in, given they strenuously objected to the injections, is the AFLPA starting the the players were comatose and tied down line when the Evil Dank injected them?

And people think the AFL isn't on Essendons side , give me break.
Click to expand...
Maybe there were all asleep with reimers in the meeting bar Zacarhais:)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

replicant said:
You know AOD is a modified fragment of growth hormone don't you? So by confirming AOD, they have confirmed a form of HGH use, they just don't seem to be able to prosecute it.

So the rumours that ASADA heard that Esendon were using HGH were 100% spot on. They just got the exact substance wrong, becuase they assumed no-one would be so bloody stupid and unethical they would inject substances not finished clinical trials and not approved for human use into an entire playing list of athletes.

Enter Essendon... ethics optional.
Click to expand...

And the doage levels the Essendon players were getting were a lot higher than what was used in the clinical trials. So two things that could/can be concluded:

1. By upping the dosage by so much he got closer to the oringal HGH
2. By upping the dosage the trial result that concluded it was safe is invalid. And that is a fact by the way as increasing the dose would require a new trial under FDA requirements.

Yet still the cultists 'believe'.
 
telsa1962 said:
This is a more balanced view - but most of you in here will now have to add the AFLPA and Pendergast to your growing list of 'delusionals'

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-03/no-passive-acceptance
Click to expand...
Balanced ... Please. He is representing the players, how can he be balanced. If he was balanced he would be saying 'we are working at putting together a health process in place as the players health is paramount BUT it is taking a while to do this which isn't ideal.

Just because you like a comment doesn't make it balanced. Anyone that has a role to play whether it being representing players, ASADA, Essendon or the AFL , have a job to do and being balanced is not a priority.

It seems it is not a priority for you either.
 
Last edited:
Jam123 said:
Cannot or is difficult? From what I know, a regular drug test wouldn't detect TB4, but the laboratory in Cologne is one of only a few that is able to detect peptides.
Click to expand...

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

A positive test requires that the substance is detectable. And still in the subject's system. And not covered by a masking agent.

Most of the current drugs of choice have either no test available or have very short detectable lives in the athlete's system. And the advisors to cheats are becoming extraordinarily advanced in both dosage below the detection threshold and in the use of other substances which "hide" the banned substances.
 
Jam123 said:
It would be interesting to see the evidence. I'm assuming that the evidence of use must be stronger than the negative tests that came back after testing for illegal peptides in a laboratory that is able to detect peptides. Of course I know they are able to charge someone with doping without positive tests, but this seems pretty strong to me.
Click to expand...

Do you know which peptides it has tests for? All of them? Most? Some? Only those approved for human use?
 
telsa1962 said:
This is a more balanced view - but most of you in here will now have to add the AFLPA and Pendergast to your growing list of 'delusionals'

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-03/no-passive-acceptance
Click to expand...

Sorry the AFLPA, has to argue the case of the players, and the start point of that will always be they trusted the club.
Can you answer these question?
Why did the players accept injections without the club doctor being present?
Why did the players sign waivers without the club doctor being present?
Why did the players accept being taken offsite to what wasn't a medical centre or doctors rooms to be injected without the club doctor being present?
Why didn't any of the players contact any of their managers?
Why didn't any of the players contact the AFLPA?
Two players Fletcher and Zaharakis refuse injections, why didn't any other player?
When the senior playing group asked the club to ensue the safety of injection why didn't they insist on the opinion of the club doctor?
Why did none of these thing happen when the players are all educated about the use and dangers of PEDs?
There were red flags every where from the above points to their own improved recovery to the amount of injections involved.

Passive acceptance would be the lighter side of their behaviour; wilful ignorance is far closer to the mark. They understood their responsibility and the consequences of getting this wrong, they made no effort to safeguard in any meaningful sense their own health and the integrity of their performance. If their livelihood, their income, their reputation, their dreams were so important to them, as they now claim, why did they do nothing to safeguard them?

If Essendon FC and the players invested even one tenth of the energy, money and thought into running a club properly, investing in the highest quality training and people as they are in getting out of the mess they're in they'd be deserved premiers.
 
Last edited:
Chameleon75 said:
well you have me convinced, absolutely no chance that an advocate would present their clients in the best possible light. Un heard of, truly ground breaking.
Click to expand...
How about commentating on what he said rather than his position
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

telsa1962 said:
How about commentating on what he said rather than his position
Click to expand...

If you're a person who doesn't factor in the identity and motive of the speaker in assessing the value of their words, well.....

I'd like to offer you an opportunity associated with the recovery of substantial funds I have in a Nigerian bank.
 
telsa1962 said:
This is a more balanced view - but most of you in here will now have to add the AFLPA and Pendergast to your growing list of 'delusionals'

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-03/no-passive-acceptance
Click to expand...

This is not a helpful argument that the AFLPA are making.

To draw an analogy, it would be like your tax accountant coming to you with some "cutting edge" tax minimisation scheme that he has devised that would undoubtedly make your financials stronger, giving you greater financial muscle to deal with your weekly fiscal challenges.

As a non-expert you are of course intrigued but mindful of the risks. You raise this with him and his advice is to get you to sign a waiver, but also requests that you don't discuss it with any external parties. Of course you could go to the relevant body who devised the rules that you have to play by, but you decide not to this. Essentially you have only sought validation from the parties that came to you with the idea in the first place.

Now, later down the track the ATO comes and knocks on your door and advises that they believe that you have stepped outside the guidelines and thus will face the appropriate punishment under their charter. You claim to have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that what you did was by the books. Your response to the question, "Did you ask any question of the ATO regarding the scheme you undertook", is "I was advised that it was all above board....by the guy who came up with the idea".

Have a guess what the ATO's response is... You are responsible and are going to have to face the penalty. They do however provide you with an option to mitigate your penalty - tell us everything about how your tax accountant set this scheme up, who was involved and we will reduce (but not eliminate) your obligation to us as and we will then use that information to pursue others up the food chain. Note that the offer does not get you off scot-free, and does require an admission that not all was right, and as an individual you bear some responsibility. If you decide not to take this offer, then all bets are off and you will likely face the maximum charge available to you... And the ATO will continue to pursue their case against the other parties that set this up, with or without your co-operation.

Is passive acceptance the right term for these events? Maybe, maybe not - but you can hardly claim either that you "took an active role in ensuring that everything was compliant with the Code" (paraphrasing Prendergast).

This is all a sideshow to the core argument, which is attempting to be obfuscated by the legal and PR advisors representing the EFC and Hird, and now apparently the AFLPA.
 
Bazza37 said:
The presentation by Dr Peter Hardcourt was posted on youtube 7 months ago

Why now is this video being referenced ????
Click to expand...

I don't really know way the shock value, people must have a short memory, all of this stuff was covered in the AFL charge sheet last year.

The purpose now seems to be to illustrate the AFL and ASADA were aware of "noises" (whatever the **** that means) in 2012 and quietly did a bit of joint investigating - which came to nothing.
 
Positive tests being the major source of convictions has gone the way of East Germany, find some other straws to clutch at.
 
At least it is even more clear why Essendon are studiously avoiding poking the bear (Dank). The speculation he could tip a massive bucket of s--- over the whole club to me now seems very accurate.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top