• 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.

Neutral Supporters; Are you comfortably satisfied?

Do you have comfortable satisfaction that EFC used banned substances?

  • Total voters
    334

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Cat Attack08 said:
Think the feelings of most neutral supporters are summed up in this article by Peter Fitzsimmons:

"None of the injections with unknown products EVER happened? The whole thing was a media concoction, yes, with the help of ASADA, and the Gillard government, and probably Gillard herself, and the whole thing just goes to show how the whole lot of us should go and get nicked?

Such is the tenor of much of the reaction to the news on Tuesday that the AFL anti-doping tribunal has decided overturn the suspensions of 34 past and present Essendon players. To hear their supporters tell it – in missives not always written in crayon – it just goes to show how Essendon was innocent all along and as a matter of fact weren't even there on the night, instead choosing to visit their Auntie Ethel down on St Kilda Boulevard!

Please. Oh people, my people, can we get a grip here?

The first and most obvious thing to note is this was not a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia. It was, instead, the AFL's own tribunal finding that the AFL didn't in fact have the colossal problem it would have had, if they had come up with any other decision.

This is not to impugn the integrity of those who sit on the tribunal, but to observe that it is a quasi-judicial body set up by the AFL itself, not the full monty with a high bench, horse-hair and three gavels. Whereas the likes of New Zealand and Great Britain have fully funded independent judicial bodies with full judicial powers, populated by specialists in sports law, this was not that.

For a start, the tribunal couldn't get the man doing the injecting, Stephen Dank, to testify and that gentleman – despite suddenly emerging since Tuesday with enough holier-than-thou protestations to kill a brown dog – is yet to testify in any forum.

Further, that decision, when handed down was not of the "not guilty" variety, it was of the "insufficient evidence" nature. As in, there is insufficient evidence that the players had taken, most particularly the dangerous not fit-for-humans performance enhancing drug thymosin beta-4."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/spo...sendon-remains-a-mystery-20150401-1mcz1t.html
Click to expand...
The striking part of this article, for my part, is this:

(Of Stephen Dank) "...emerging since Tuesday with enough holier-than-thou protestations to kill a brown dog"

Does being holy, or protesting, generally have the effect of killing dogs? Is the brown-ness of the dog significant? Would the dog survive the protest if it was a black dog? Or one of those stripy dogs, that has brown and black?

Awesome phrase. But what does he mean?
 
Best part about this thread is that a handful of posters answered "no" from the general thread title when they wanted to answer "yes" based on the question hahaha
 
comfortably satisfied EFC are drug cheats
comfortably satisfied JH was up to his neck in it
comfortably satisfied the tribunal did its job ok but was ultimately stymied by the break in the chain in evidence due to document shredding
comfortably satisfied that the AFL tried its hand at stage managing early on (as any responsible custodian of the game would) but backed off honourably through 2014 and let due process take its path
comfortably satisfied that I will long hate the EFC for the damage its done to our fragile indigenous game at time when imposters are claiming to be 'Australian Football' and are doing everything in their power to try and muscle the AFL out of its way.
Comfortably satisfied I will boo JH if I see him on the big screen at a match.
comfortably satisfied I will carry a significant amount of resentment and illwill towards EFC above and beyond every other club going forward (and I don't meant the 'hate you because you're good' kind of resentment).
comfortably satisfied EFC have an organisational cancer since circa 2010 and that they are going to degenerate further and taht we haven't seen the worst of their degeneration yet.
comfortably satisfied that EFC supporters will need to get ready to endless 'potshots' of the funny and unfunny kind for years to come; I hope if ****ing grates on them.
 
2one2 said:
Best part about this thread is that a handful of posters answered "no" from the general thread title when they wanted to answer "yes" based on the question hahaha
Click to expand...
It is a lesson in survey design :)
 
Lance? Zone2? I thought you'd hate (or more likely shrug and dismiss) that post: genuinely curious why you applied a 'like' to it.... Partly because I admit it was a bit of a rehash of the usual polemics!
 
Proper Gander said:
The striking part of this article, for my part, is this:

(Of Stephen Dank) "...emerging since Tuesday with enough holier-than-thou protestations to kill a brown dog"

Does being holy, or protesting, generally have the effect of killing dogs? Is the brown-ness of the dog significant? Would the dog survive the protest if it was a black dog? Or one of those stripy dogs, that has brown and black?

Awesome phrase. But what does he mean?
Click to expand...
Originally "going to kill a brown dog" is slang for going off to the boghouse.
 
AstroboyUK said:
Lance? Zone2? I thought you'd hate (or more likely shrug and dismiss) that post: genuinely curious why you applied a 'like' to it.... Partly because I admit it was a bit of a rehash of the usual polemics!
Click to expand...
Because it made me laugh :)
 
RegHickeyStand said:
Originally "going to kill a brown dog" is slang for going off to the boghouse.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I'm not sure where this gets me.

The guy is now saying Danksy has emerged with enough holier than though protestations to have a crap?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

zachary said:
Back in 2001, British and American Tobacco used a "Document Retention Policy" as a cover for destroying evidence in order to defeat a court claim by cancer sufferer Rolah McCabe - http://www.mccabecentre.org/about/about-the-mccabe-case . The term became a euphemism for corruptly destroying documents to subvert the legal process.
The fallout from that case was that the law was changed to make it a criminal offence to destroy relevant documents when it was reasonable to expect that they might be needed for a potential future court claim, even if there is no case on foot at the time.
If any of the Essendon players decide to sue the club, this law will become very relevant. I will be satisfied when someone goes to jail over this.
It aint over yet.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Neutral Supporters; Are you comfortably satisfied?

Back
Top