Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

Remove this Banner Ad

I back Lance on this. Timing of AFL punishment was very unhelpful.

Regards

S. Pete
The timing of the AFL punishments on Carlton was a travesty... we had just finished last and they smacked us with a million buck fine and draft sanctions.

Essendon are a mid table team with some good young players coming through. They have managed to divest themselves of well over half of the players named and banned. They have had 3 years to "pay off" the fine levied on them while Carlton had to stump up the money on the barrel head.

And as I said in response to Lance the first time... the first punishment was for improper records management and governance issues. There was no punishment handed out for running a doping regime and it says that in the paperwork that the AFL handed out. Because at the time, it hadn't been fully investigated to determine if there was a case to answer to in regards to doping.

Now all the court cases have run their course and the Essendon players have been named (all 34 of them) and convicted of drug taking. It was proven that Essendon were the ones supplying the "supplements" and organising it. Ergo, it stands to reason that Essendon should be penalised for running a team wide doping regime.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Evidence is evidence I suppose.
It doesn't matter how high the afl tried to place the bar,you know one of those lanky pesky northern europeans will jump clean over it.
They have long legs and a catapult up their clacker.
 
holy shit!!! Dramoth!! You've worked up the courage to leave the safety of your club only threads!! Go you! Wonders will never cease.
I spoken to you on the main board before and on the HTB threads... you really must get some of the stuff Essendon was using to try and improve the players thought patterns. You seem to forget little things.

And I do pop out of the Carlton board on occasion...
 
true, however maybe if the players did know Monfires should have disclosed it to the your club. Maybe port should sue him

Pretty sure that playersdon't have to disclose strikes for drug offences to new clubs when they are being traded, so I can't why Monfries should have disclosed that he wanted out of Essendon because of the doping regime.
 
If train A travels at 40 miles per hour and Train B travels at 60 miles per hour, and Train A passes a station at 2:15 a.m. and train B passes the same station at 2:30 a.m., at what time will train B catch up with Train A?

Why are they going in the same direction on the one track?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top