"Jobe Watson never cheated" - Hird

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
PetterdHoisted said:
Surprised and disappointed with Caro's comments there, she's fallen back to the herd and apparently fails to see the true neanderthals on this issue in her midst?

All 34 players lied to drug testers and their own club doctor about what they were taking. There are several possible reasons why they would all do that, none of which ooze integrity.

The narrative pushed by Hird, King, Caro etc. just further damages EFC in the long run. I honestly think they'll go nowhere as a club until they can say the words to themselves and publicly 'We tried to gain unfair advantage' .
Click to expand...
Wilson is the AFL mouthpiece.

When it was the AFL versus Hird - she was savaging Hird. Rightly so though.

Now it's the AFL versus 'any bad press about drugs and Essendon', she's pushing that line.

That's how she rolls.


She's great how she puts her nuts on the line and doesn't hold back - but her relationship with the AFL is as clear as day.
 
Demon in Hell said:
This is starting to give me the shits.

The form state you are required to list anything you had within the past 7 days. It also recommends to list anything you have had so that if something comes up later then you would be covered.

It is damning that not one of the 34 players listed any of the injections given by Dank, or his associates.

Watson could have, and should have, listed these injections. He didn't.

Complicit.
Click to expand...

The form doesn't require you to list anything.
On the back of the form it says what is compulsory, and the declaration is not included.
The instructions and guidelines given to players (separate from the form) advised that they should list anything that might affect their test results.
Not one of the 34 players have been shown to have been tested within 7 days of having received an injection (based on anything published to date).
Watson was deemed to have been concealing the injection program from ASADA eventhough he had not had an injection at any time close to his testing, and so had nothing he should have declared that might have affected his test results.
The players at no time believed they were receiving anything illegal and so had no reason to believe that anything they were being given would adversely affect their test results. According to the AFL's own guidelines for filling in the form, they should not have declared anything unless they thought it might adversely impact their results, even if they had received it in the 7 days prior to the test.

It is not the slightest bit damning that the players declared nothing about their injections on their forms.
What it is, is a contrivance by both WADA, as prosecutor, and CAS, as adjudicator, seeking to justify an outcome it wanted to justify despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, to interpret the declarations in the way they did.
 
60sbomber said:
The form doesn't require you to list anything.
On the back of the form it says what is compulsory, and the declaration is not included.
The instructions and guidelines given to players (separate from the form) advised that they should list anything that might affect their test results.
Not one of the 34 players have been shown to have been tested within 7 days of having received an injection (based on anything published to date).
Watson was deemed to have been concealing the injection program from ASADA eventhough he had not had an injection at any time close to his testing, and so had nothing he should have declared that might have affected his test results.
The players at no time believed they were receiving anything illegal and so had no reason to believe that anything they were being given would adversely affect their test results. According to the AFL's own guidelines for filling in the form, they should not have declared anything unless they thought it might adversely impact their results, even if they had received it in the 7 days prior to the test.

It is not the slightest bit damning that the players declared nothing about their injections on their forms.
What it is, is a contrivance by both WADA, as prosecutor, and CAS, as adjudicator, seeking to justify an outcome it wanted to justify despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, to interpret the declarations in the way they did.
Click to expand...
Why did the majority of the 34 withhold information in their interviews about the number and type of injections if they were doing nothing wrong.

Just a coincidence?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Spongebob said:
Ask the club DOCTOR
Ask their own doctor
Ask ASADA
Ask their managers
Ask the AFLPA
Ask the AFL Medical Commissioner
Ask Mr Google
Click to expand...

So player A is a perfect player in the eyes of the BF jury. He asks ASADA, doctors, managers, AFLPA and everyone that the BF wise men can throw up.
He asks - "I am being asked to take thymosin. Is it legal?"
Answer?
Well, almost certainly, most of the above wouldn't have known in 2012, but let's say they knew then all that we know now.
Answer would (should) be "There are many forms of thymosin. Some are legal and some are not. Which one are you taking?"
Player A - "I have no idea. But we had a meeting and the people responsible for the program told us that the thymosin we are taking was legal under the WADA code".
ASADA/doctor/AFLPA/manager (insert whichever guru you want) - "Well then, I guess that means you must be having the legal form."
Player A - "ok, thanks".

What did you want players to do?
Short of taking what was in Dank's needle to their personal chemist to have it analysed, they had no way of knowing that it wasn't what they were told it was ie the legal form of thymosin.
No amount of enquiries to ASADA, doctors, the AFLPA or anyone else, would have told them any different.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Wilson is the AFL mouthpiece.

When it was the AFL versus Hird - she was savaging Hird. Rightly so though.

Now it's the AFL versus 'any bad press about drugs and Essendon', she's pushing that line.

That's how she rolls.


She's great how she puts her nuts on the line and doesn't hold back - but her relationship with the AFL is as clear as day.
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha, all 34 players lied. Get real !!
 
60sbomber said:
So player A is a perfect player in the eyes of the BF jury. He asks ASADA, doctors, managers, AFLPA and everyone that the BF wise men can throw up.
He asks - "I am being asked to take thymosin. Is it legal?"
Answer?
Well, almost certainly, most of the above wouldn't have known in 2012, but let's say they knew then all that we know now.
Answer would (should) be "There are many forms of thymosin. Some are legal and some are not. Which one are you taking?"
Player A - "I have no idea. But we had a meeting and the people responsible for the program told us that the thymosin we are taking was legal under the WADA code".
ASADA/doctor/AFLPA/manager (insert whichever guru you want) - "Well then, I guess that means you must be having the legal form."
Player A - "ok, thanks".

What did you want players to do?
Short of taking what was in Dank's needle to their personal chemist to have it analysed, they had no way of knowing that it wasn't what they were told it was ie the legal form of thymosin.
No amount of enquiries to ASADA, doctors, the AFLPA or anyone else, would have told them any different.
Click to expand...
Wrong, a qualified person would have told them different , let's say a doctor. Dr Reid would have asked for the data sheets on the product and would have been able to make a determination if it was legal to use in sport and safe for human use. At this stage if Dank had done the switch to use the good stuff he would have served time by now as Dr Reid would have been able to say this is what he said he was going to inject but he used something else.
These people trusted Reidy emphatically, he is a wonderful caring doctor so why did they deliberately keep him out of the loop. The reason is not really important as in doing so they circumvented the one person who could have saved them.
 
Demon in Hell said:
This is starting to give me the shits.

The form state you are required to list anything you had within the past 7 days. It also recommends to list anything you have had so that if something comes up later then you would be covered.

It is damning that not one of the 34 players listed any of the injections given by Dank, or his associates.

Watson could have, and should have, listed these injections. He didn't.

Complicit.
Click to expand...

Where, show me where it says that on the form - don't run away boy.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
?

It talks of a captain that queried the legitimacy of a drugs program, yet did nothing to follow it through. He openly says, even though he was the leader of 34 guys and responsible for them as captain - he did nothing to follow up on a drugs program that none of them would have ever seen before.

He was told about several drugs he was getting, and was concerned enough to query one of them - but not others. Even though he was told one of them was banned?? And particularly one that he didn't get told the real name of!?

And then, he tries to tell the CAS that he didn't trust Dank and started fobbing him off and dodging him. Foir real?? This leader of men. This beacon of leadership. The great, magnificent Jobe Watson - has a problem with getting drugs injected into him, and doesn't do anything about it? Other than dodge the bloke that is giving them to him?

And what did he do to help his mates that were also getting the shots??


Seriously. This is pretty damning stuff to his case, and to his reputation.
Click to expand...
At no stage did he say he didn't trust Dank. You made that up. See below. Watson’s testimony is that, by that stage of the season, he had lost faith in Dank’s program, was no longer receiving injections and was fobbing off the sports scientist.
 
takenoterock said:
The timing of Watson’s treatment by Dank also puts his failure to declare injections on his doping control forms in a benign light. Watson was drug tested on January 23, 2012, two months before he received his first injection from Dank, and again on July 12, 2012, two months after he received his last injection. At the time of both his drug tests he had nothing to declare. Like all 34 players, his failure to declare injections counted against him in the CAS judgment.
Click to expand...
As only 15 players were tested in 2012, it means 19 players weren't required to fill out the declaration yet they were all lassooed by an incompetent panel of three buffoons in Switzerland masquerading as learned arbiters of fair play in sport.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bombfire said:
As only 15 players were tested in 2012, it means 19 players weren't required to fill out the declaration yet they were all lassooed by an incompetent panel of three buffoons in Switzerland masquerading as learned arbiters of fair play in sport.
Click to expand...

Wasn't one of them appointed by Essendon by the players? And even he found them guilty.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Wasn't one of them appointed by Essendon by the players? And even he found them guilty.
Click to expand...

Yup, and was considered for High Court Chief Justice after years of highly respected service on the NSW Surpeme Court and Chief Justice of that court. Did not become Australia's top judge due to politics. Not too many judges more respected.
 
takenoterock said:
Ha ha ha, all 34 players lied. Get real !!
Click to expand...
Not one, not one of them managed to put down on their form when tested "Supplement Injection"
What do you call that if not lying?
 
Bombfire said:
As only 15 players were tested in 2012, it means 19 players weren't required to fill out the declaration yet they were all lassooed by an incompetent panel of three buffoons in Switzerland masquerading as learned arbiters of fair play in sport.
Click to expand...
Well except for the case being heard in Sydney by three highly regarded jurists :rolleyes:
 
60sbomber said:
So player A is a perfect player in the eyes of the BF jury. He asks ASADA, doctors, managers, AFLPA and everyone that the BF wise men can throw up.
He asks - "I am being asked to take thymosin. Is it legal?"
Answer?
Well, almost certainly, most of the above wouldn't have known in 2012, but let's say they knew then all that we know now.
Answer would (should) be "There are many forms of thymosin. Some are legal and some are not. Which one are you taking?"
Player A - "I have no idea. But we had a meeting and the people responsible for the program told us that the thymosin we are taking was legal under the WADA code".
ASADA/doctor/AFLPA/manager (insert whichever guru you want) - "Well then, I guess that means you must be having the legal form."
Player A - "ok, thanks".

What did you want players to do?
Short of taking what was in Dank's needle to their personal chemist to have it analysed, they had no way of knowing that it wasn't what they were told it was ie the legal form of thymosin.
No amount of enquiries to ASADA, doctors, the AFLPA or anyone else, would have told them any different.
Click to expand...


Player A: "Dude, I Googled 'thymosin' last night and I saw this -

Thymosin Beta 4 was identified as a gene that was up-regulated four-to-six fold during early blood vessel formation and found to promote the growth of new blood cells from the existing vessels. This peptide is present in wound fluid and when administered subcutaneously, it promotes wound healing, muscle building and speeds up recovery time of muscles fibres and their cells.

So when you're typing up those consent form thingies, can you make sure you use the correct name, cause there's actually no such thing as a peptide called 'thymosin'. So you'd better be specific - as you are with all the other drugs you're giving me and have listed. You just haven't with thymosin for some reason. So could you actually be specific?
Thanks, cause you know we get this ASADA guy come in every year and he tells us to be really careful and all."
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Player A: "Dude, I Googled 'thymosin' last night and I saw this -

Thymosin Beta 4 was identified as a gene that was up-regulated four-to-six fold during early blood vessel formation and found to promote the growth of new blood cells from the existing vessels. This peptide is present in wound fluid and when administered subcutaneously, it promotes wound healing, muscle building and speeds up recovery time of muscles fibres and their cells.

So when you're typing up those consent form thingies, can you make sure you use the correct name, cause there's actually no such thing as a peptide called 'thymosin'. So you'd better be specific - as you are with all the other drugs you're giving me and have listed. You just haven't with thymosin for some reason. So could you actually be specific?
Thanks, cause you know we get this ASADA guy come in every year and he tells us to be really careful and all."
Click to expand...
Player A wouldn't have seen that in 2012 when he googled thymosin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top