Stephen Dank has 11 days to hand over papers about supplement program to former Sharks players

[Sector 7G]

Read the actual Dr Peter Larkin Part who was at the conference

3AW's doctor Peter Larkins was among the more than 200 medical experts shown the report but sworn to secrecy in grand final week.
He said the results are cause for concern.
“It showed that 10 per cent of all AFL players were using a supplement, that nearly four per cent of all AFL players were using more than one supplement,” he said.
“And that more than two per cent of the 15 clubs had players who were using supplements that were considered ‘risky or potential health risks’.”
The document, posted on the AFL's website, also reveals players from nine clubs admitted sourcing supplements privately.
The league has found those involved ran programs with medium or high levels of use.

Peter was sworn to secrecy but told his employer everything. Not sure why all the secrecy if report is on the afl website.
10 percent of AFL players take supplements and 4 percent (34 EFC players we know were involved in the injection program would be around 5% of players) are using 2 supplements. I would be shocked if 90 of players weren't taking protein and fish oil let alone the dodgy things a smaller percentage would be taking

2percent of the 15 clubs had players using risky supplements. So is that 0.3 clubs ( let's just say that is Easendon). Or do they mean that there are more than13 players using risky supplement?

What the article doesn't tell us is how many of the risky users are like Saad and how many are injecting substance that aren't approved for human use.

This is a poorly written article full of vague stats that gives little clarity on the use of supplements and the type of use/ programs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JRoo]

They did fail to document substances, hence their programs had inadequate documentation!

Wow

Um no you stated; "when can the other 11 AFL clubs who failed to document their supplement programs expect a visit from work safe"?

Not failed to document substances, "failed to document their supplement programs"!

 

[mxett]

Here is the link:

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/breakin...d-with-supplements-danger/20131016-2vlzj.html

Doc Larkins is not quoted as saying any of that, I hope you are just trying to play silly word games mxett. Allison said that as part of her blog, not Larkins.

And both work for 3AW. Why would Allison make up these comments?

 

[I Rock]

Peter was sworn to secrecy but told his employer everything. Not sure why all the secrecy if report is on the afl website.
10 percent of AFL players take supplements and 4 percent (34 EFC players we know were involved in the injection program would be around 5% of players) are using 2 supplements. I would be shocked if 90 of players weren't taking protein and fish oil let alone the dodgy things a smaller percentage would be taking

2percent of the 15 clubs had players using risky supplements. So is that 0.3 clubs ( let's just say that is Easendon). Or do they mean that there are more than13 players using risky supplement?

What the article doesn't tell us is how many of the risky users are like Saad and how many are injecting substance that aren't approved for human use.

This is a poorly written article full of vague stats that gives little clarity on the use of supplements and the type of use/ programs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does however create mass speculation and sell advertising space.

 

[mxett]

In fact in the 3AW blog 3AW's Larkins, an attendee at the survey release, was quoted, this statement is seen: "According to the report, Essendon and 11 other clubs admitted to using supplements that were not clearly understood or documented".

That is not a Peter Larkin Quote, we are not stupid Mxett , Stop talking out of your backside[/quote]
I never said it was, so clearly you are stupid.

 

[I Rock]

And both work for 3AW. Why would Allison make up these comments?

She didn't. You did. Peter Larkins was not quoted as saying anything about club documentation as you eluded too.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Peter was sworn to secrecy but told his employer everything. Not sure why all the secrecy if report is on the afl website.
10 percent of AFL players take supplements and 4 percent (34 EFC players we know were involved in the injection program would be around 5% of players) are using 2 supplements. I would be shocked if 90 of players weren't taking protein and fish oil let alone the dodgy things a smaller percentage would be taking

2percent of the 15 clubs had players using risky supplements. So is that 0.3 clubs ( let's just say that is Easendon). Or do they mean that there are more than13 players using risky supplement?

What the article doesn't tell us is how many of the risky users are like Saad and how many are injecting substance that aren't approved for human use.

This is a poorly written article full of vague stats that gives little clarity on the use of supplements and the type of use/ programs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The findings of the survey and recommendations of change are in the article/Document , the actual survey would be sworn to secrecy due to privacy issues.

 

[I Rock]

I never said it was, so clearly you are stupid.

No your use of sentence structure was stupid.

 

[Armchair Critic]

That is not a Peter Larkin Quote, we are not stupid Mxett , Stop talking out of your backside

I never said it was, so clearly you are stupid.[/quote]

Have a good night Mxett

 

[mxett]

Um no you stated; "when can the other 11 AFL clubs who failed to document their supplement programs expect a visit from work safe"?

Not failed to document substances, "failed to document their supplement programs"!

What the....?

They failed to document substances they used in their program.....in other words they used substances but didnt document them.

I never said they failed to document every substance. That was your idiotic interpretation, and you're clinging to it because you've been shown up in every other area.

 

[mxett]

No your use of sentence structure was stupid.

Agree, not my finest phrasing. Its getting late

 

[mxett]

Night guys, see you next time

 

[I Rock]

What the....?

They failed to document substances they used in their program.....in other words they used substances but didnt document them.

I never said they failed to document every substance. That was your idiotic interpretation, and you're clinging to it because you've been shown up in every other area.

Fail to document or just inadequate documentation?

 

[Armchair Critic]

What the....?

They failed to document substances they used in their program.....in other words they used substances but didnt document them.

I never said they failed to document every substance. That was your idiotic interpretation, and you're clinging to it because you've been shown up in every other area.

 

[JRoo]

What the....?

They failed to document substances they used in their program.....in other words they used substances but didnt document them.

I never said they failed to document every substance. That was your idiotic interpretation, and you're clinging to it because you've been shown up in every other area.

Your post #1457;
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-sharks-players.1047521/page-59#post-31705860

"Was failing to document all substances used a failure in due diligence"?

and you're clinging to it because you've been shown up in every other area

Tell me what other areas there #standbyhird suicide squad member?

 

[jenny61_99]

Deary me. Mxett you certainly went up the wrong path with this one. Reckon you should acknowledge you made a blue and be done with it.

 

[TerryWallet]

Sleep well Mexxy. But be careful, if you have another nite like this you could be taken off the payroll like ol Mr Hanke.

 

[blackcat]

Sleep well Mexxy. But be careful, if you have another nite like this you could be taken off the payroll like ol Mr Hanke.

is hanke pro bono now

 

[teagueyubeauty]

This is where the line has been greyed substantially and purposely.

Essendon had a drugs program that was in addition to their supplements program......

It astounds me no end how the sycophantic media has allowed this to happen and besmirch every club in the process.

There is only one club in the AFL being investigated for systematic doping

 

[mxett]

Fail to document or just inadequate documentation?

Inadequate means they failed to document some of the substances used, no?

 

[mxett]

Your post #1457;
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...-sharks-players.1047521/page-59#post-31705860

"Was failing to document all substances used a failure in due diligence"?



Tell me what other areas there #standbyhird suicide squad member?

so you think saying "they failed to document every substance used" means they failed to document all substances? Deary me!

Your noble pursuit of player safety. Seems it only ever related to Essendon. What a surprise

 

[replicant]

I found it!

 

[I Rock]

Inadequate means they failed to document some of the substances used, no?

No, not necessarily. It's not to say that didn't happen, but it's not a definite that it is a failure to document substances used.

 

[mxett]

No, not necessarily. It's not to say that didn't happen, but it's not a definite that it is a failure to document substances used.

You're making a lot of excuses for 11 other clubs that ran substantial supplement programs with questionable control

 

[I Rock]

You're making a lot of excuses for 11 other clubs that ran substantial supplement programs with questionable control

No I'm not. I'm not making anything of anything in regards to any clubs. I trying to converse with someone desperate to try to point fingers at others to justify the behavior of the club they support.

Someone who will ignore and sub quote to suit his agenda. And them practice ten fold what he complains others are doing to Essendon.

Again mxett that report on first clance does look disturbing. However once you take a breath a realise what is a actually written, it could mean a number of things. The only article you have shown that remotely suggests what you are trying to claim/push is questionable at best.

The only real thing we can definitely say about documents was the one that simply said documentation was inadequate. And again this could mean a variety of things. However for you to claim that it 100% means 12 or any other number of clubs didn't document all substances is just wrong. That's what I am arguing with you. Not that it did or did not happen that way, just that based on what you have provided you cannot claim it to be 100% fact.

To do so is not only wrong but very hypocritical on your behalf given the way you post about information reported and provided that shows guilt towards certain Essendon staff.

Should the AFL provide clarification to the public on this survey. 100% they should. Do I think other clubs should be punished if they have breaches, of course I do.