Little has seen the evidence

[BomberBro2]

I would say every club except one would have all the documentation they need, I would say every club except one did not have a convicted drug dealer supplying drugs to their sports scientist.
I would say every club except one, was not under suspicion from the ACC.
I would say every club except one was not using their players as experiment

Apparently your club Collingwood were suspected of doing something similar.

Do you have records proving you didn't inject prohibited substance or have you "lost" them?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Apparently your club Collingwood were suspected of doing something similar.

Do you have records proving you didn't inject prohibited substance or have you "lost" them?

If they do an investigation and we are required to show them, then i am quite confident they will.

 

[BomberBro2]

If they do an investigation and we are required to show them, then i am quite confident they will.

So you have documents stating "we did not give our players TB4"?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

under rule 7.4 of the AFL anti-doping code, it is a breach

It's not an ADRV and that's all that counts

 

[Matilda05]

Incorrect sorry

Shit's and giggles Lance?

 

[Outstanding]

That is a good question. Our mate yaco suspects political interference - I can't offer a theory on that myself.

Not sure if I would say McDevitt is a fall guy, it is equally possible that he was excited at the possibility of taking down the biggest anti-doping case in Australian history and did not realise exactly what he was in for. The fact he could not possibly have known the full extent of evidence ASADA has before his appointment, and his ridiculous comments on his media tour, says a lot.

Wasn't his last position at the ACC, he knows exactly what evidence they had because they got it first.

 

[LoungeLizard]

So you have documents stating "we did not give our players TB4"?

if we were accused of giving players tb4, and we knew it was alpha1, yes i think we would be able to show we were giving that.
now if we were cheating, i would say no, we wouldn't have the evidence, we would probably throw it all out and tell ASADA we didn't keep any

 

[BomberBro2]

if we were accused of giving players tb4, and we knew it was alpha1, yes i think we would be able to show we were giving that.
now if we were cheating, i would say no, we wouldn't have the evidence, we would probably throw it all out and tell ASADA we didn't keep any

How do you know you didn't take alpha1 AND tb4? Where is your proof you didn't take tb4?

 

[LoungeLizard]

How do you know you didn't take alpha1 AND tb4? Where is your proof you didn't take tb4?

I just told you, if we cheated we would throw it out, tell ASADA we didn't keep records, that's the way to go isn't it?
When do they start our investigation by the way?

 

[hoianbulldog]

Yeah I'm not sure how we could stop that. Don't want us to be a precedent for that kind of stuff.

That's the problem. That scenario can't be stopped therefore responsibility falls on the athlete. They have to know what they are taking and that it's not prohibited. No ifs buts or maybes.

 

[BomberBro2]

That's the problem. That scenario can't be stopped therefore responsibility falls on the athlete. They have to know what they are taking and that it's not prohibited. No ifs buts or maybes.

I can't really argue against this.

But somehow I still think I am right.

 

[hoianbulldog]

I can't really argue against this.

But somehow I still think I am right.

You may be having trouble reconciling the moral position the players find themselves in and the legal position.

The players have been shown to have made some very bad decision during the supplements program. EFC people will argue that they simply trusted others and are not at fault. Morally that might be arguable however legally they operate under strict liability. They knew it and didn't bother to make a quick call the the AFLPA to check things out.

Their stupidity may cost them dearly.

 

[BomberBro2]

You may be having trouble reconciling the moral position the players find themselves in and the legal position.

The players have been shown to have made some very bad decision during the supplements program. EFC people will argue that they simply trusted others and are not at fault. Morally that might be arguable however legally they operate under strict liability. They knew it and didn't bother to make a quick call the the AFLPA to check things out.

Their stupidity may cost them dearly.

So essentially we would be sacrificing ourselves for the greater good of the sporting world, even if we're innocent?

 

[hoianbulldog]

So essentially we would be sacrificing ourselves for the greater good of the sporting world, even if we're innocent?

No, if guilty you will be punished for breaching the wada code. There is no martyrdom here, simply guilt or innocence.

 

[BomberBro2]

No, if guilty you will be punished for breaching the wada code. There is no martyrdom here, simply guilt or innocence.

We could be guilty of not keeping evidence...

But innocent of injecting drugs.

 

[BomberBro2]

Furthermore, we could be banned despite being innocent because of the strictness of anti-doping laws (which are necessarily so for the greater good) - which is why we would be sacrificing ourselves purely to stop others from cheating, even though we didn't cheat.

 

[Thrawn]

Furthermore, we could be banned despite being innocent because of the strictness of anti-doping laws (which are necessarily so for the greater good) - which is why we would be sacrificing ourselves purely to stop others from cheating, even though we didn't cheat.

You are drug cheats. Making an alt account and posting shit doesn't change that.

 

[BomberBro2]

You are drug cheats. Making an alt account and posting shit doesn't change that.

1995*

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

We could be guilty of not keeping evidence...

But innocent of injecting drugs.

Sadly, in all likelihood, they were doing both.
The simple fact is that drugs work 2+2 always equals 4

 

[Thrawn]

1995*

Says the club who went over the cap in '93.

 

[HoopsAhoy]

Pretty obvious emotive media spin.

It's remarkable!

"We need the evidence for the player's health because we don't know what they took. We do know that whatever they took is not prohibited and we have been wrongly accused"

It's a wonder Amnesty International hasn't mounted a case against the serious amount of torture to logic there!

 

[BomberBro2]

Sadly, in all likelihood, they were doing both.
The simple fact is that drugs work 2+2 always equals 4

We've got a situation where we know 2 + _ = 4 and the _ is the missing evidence.

What if we injected a 3 and it's legal? Won't stop people saying 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

We've got a situation where we know 2 + _ = 4 and the _ is the missing evidence.

What if we injected a 3 and it's legal? Won't stop people saying 2 + 2 = 4.

Do you seriously think that they are going to inject drugs that don't work?

 

[BomberBro2]

Says the club who went over the cap in '93.

Everyone did it then, so it wasn't an advantage. Everyone else pulled back after that, except for your mob - giving you an unfair advantage hence 1995*

 

[BomberBro2]

Do you seriously think that they are going to inject drugs that don't work?

They do work, but they're not prohibited.