On 07/03/2014 at 05:14, beelzebub said:

youll be waiting a hell of a long time

No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back.

Turkish Proverb

A man must be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them.

John C. Maxwell

All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes.

Winston Churchill

I am prepared to wait are you prepared to think?ManDee.

  On 07/03/2014 at 05:20, beelzebub said:

Those who might think Im playing heavy handed might just want to consider the actual actions of essendon

They set out deliberately to EXPERIMENT with drugs more commonly used on non humans and known to be banned for human use ( whether they cop to acknowledging it or not )

They didnt and still dont know what outcomes good or bad or what longer term harm , indeed danger players given into their care may incur.

Thats heinous. Its actually beyond comprehension in this day and age in these circumstances that they could set out on this course.

To say they didnt set out to harm is somewhat incredulous Im afraid for they had no idea of outcomes so they were /are in no position to guarantee anyones safety or health. That is grossly negligent. I would imagine that its only a mm away from actually being criminal.

These people ought to be in jail...not just slapped on the wrists or banned from sport.

I'm in sympathy with all the above. It still not analogous with the criminally evil.

There is a definitive scale of evil.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129175964

Columbia University professor Michael Stone knows evil. He's a forensic psychologist — the type of expert that provides testimony on the mental state of accused murderers when a declaration of insanity can mean the difference between life and death row.

Inspired by the structure of Dante's circles of hell, Stone has created his own 22-point "Gradations of Evil" scale, made up of murderers in the 20th century.

PS: Essendon are not there.

I think we have been edited. Back to the footy.

  On 07/03/2014 at 06:42, ManDee said:

I think we have been edited. Back to the footy.

About time... Moving along

  On 05/03/2014 at 17:22, bing181 said:

I'm not quite sure people are really getting this. The only real rule of law here is the WADA code, policed by ASADA and applied by those who are signatories to it (AFL in this case). Abbott, Essendon, Hird or anyone else with a vested interest can think what they want, but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant.

In the Contador case (Clenbuterol), the Spanish Prime Minister came out and said that he was sure Contador was innocent, and he was then cleared by the Spanish cycling Federation (surprise surprise).

At which point WADA stepped in, appealed to CAS, and after a hearing he was banned.

I have been very much of that view all along, but i see worrying siGns. For instance, I think the federal court judge is in there to inspect the evidence and then wind up the investigation "because of lack of evidence". WADA can then appeal but at the end of the day it relies on evidence gathered by its local affiliate, in this case ASADA. IF ASADA is nobbled, and starved of funds, then it will not have the resources to finish the investigation, and the "not enough evidence" finding will be technically correct.

That I believe is the game being played here. It is dirty pool, but it is not the first time that has happened in Canberra.

  On 07/03/2014 at 13:39, Dees2014 said:

IF ASADA is nobbled, and starved of funds, then it will not have the resources to finish the investigation, and the "not enough evidence" finding will be technically correct.

"All the evidence that ASADA needs to collect has been collected and the people they need to speak to have been spoken to ..."

Catching up on The Footy Show's "Bomber" Thompson interview, I couldn't help but wonder about his demeanour -

Anyone else think this is what the Bombers should be expecting from their coach after a year under fire over drug use?

  On 07/03/2014 at 21:22, Whispering_Jack said:

Catching up on The Footy Show's "Bomber" Thompson interview, I couldn't help but wonder about his demeanour -

Anyone else think this is what the Bombers should be expecting from their coach after a year under fire over drug use?

Perhaps the entire crew were a little tired and emotional after a stressful off season?

  On 01/03/2014 at 12:44, Whispering_Jack said:

The sympathy card might stir up some feeling with the masses but it's a massive deception.

The more I think about the playing of the sympathy card for the Essendon players, the more it riles me.

Let's take a different tack on the subject and reprise the Wade Lees case - VFL player Wade Lees cops 18-month ban for importing performance-enhancing drugs.

One of the arguments made for Lees was that, as a VFL player who received no education on how to deal with supplements and any other substances which might lead a sportsperson to be charged with anti doping violations, he deserved some consideration.

  Quote

Lees said he bought the product from overseas to save costs, with the aim to lower his skinfolds to better compete with AFL midfielders in the VFL.

He said the VFL's drug education program was sub-standard.

"If the education was up to scratch all these incidents, like mine and Travis Casserly and Matt Clark wouldn't happen," he said.

His plea fell on deaf ears.

Now consider Lees' AFL counterparts at Essendon who, like all AFL players receive regular advice and education on drug use.

Confronted with waiver forms that detail a number of supplements that don't sound like your regular vitamins to me, their education should have alerted them to the potential peril they were facing.

Did not one of them take the trouble to check the nature of the substances they were taking?

That some of those things had not yet been tested for human consumption or that some were human growth hormones?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these clowns - they deserve what should be coming to them and any whitewash by officialdom of this sordid affair would be absolutely reprehensible and an insult to those athletes and officials worldwide who strive to keep the sport clean.

  On 08/03/2014 at 22:35, Whispering_Jack said:

The more I think about the playing of the sympathy card for the Essendon players, the more it riles me.

Let's take a different tack on the subject and reprise the Wade Lees case - VFL player Wade Lees cops 18-month ban for importing performance-enhancing drugs.

One of the arguments made for Lees was that, as a VFL player who received no education on how to deal with supplements and any other substances which might lead a sportsperson to be charged with anti doping violations, he deserved some consideration.

His plea fell on deaf ears.

Now consider Lees' AFL counterparts at Essendon who, like all AFL players receive regular advice and education on drug use.

Confronted with waiver forms that detail a number of supplements that don't sound like your regular vitamins to me, their education should have alerted them to the potential peril they were facing.

Did not one of them take the trouble to check the nature of the substances they were taking?

That some of those things had not yet been tested for human consumption or that some were human growth hormones?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for these clowns - they deserve what should be coming to them and any whitewash by officialdom of this sordid affair would be absolutely reprehensible and an insult to those athletes and officials worldwide who strive to keep the sport clean.

Agree, the fact they did not run it past the club Doc, the players association, there manager, family or who ever they could have spoken to is laughable yet they are winning the PR battle. I just hope that it doesn't transfer to the ruling even if that hits the Dees players too.

Notwithstanding the need for all sportsmen to check what substances going into their body, Wade Lees crime was he sought to import banned substances into the country. It's not the same as the Essendon players predicament but at least Lees made the dumb choice on his own volition.

I do have some sympathy for 18-24 years old goaded by senior and respected Club personnel to participate in a dubious program. Ultimately ASADA will determine what price they have to pay. I hope those that were in charge pay higher price when this is all said and done.

  On 08/03/2014 at 23:13, Rhino Richards said:

Notwithstanding the need for all sportsmen to check what substances going into their body, Wade Lees crime was he sought to import banned substances into the country. It's not the same as the Essendon players predicament but at least Lees made the dumb choice on his own volition.

I do have some sympathy for 18-24 years old goaded by senior and respected Club personnel to participate in a dubious program. Ultimately ASADA will determine what price they have to pay. I hope those that were in charge pay higher price when this is all said and done.

Of course it's not the same - in fact Lees ingested no drugs at all. However, my point is that AFL players have the benefit of better education and provided with far more information. Those in charge deserve punishment and should IMO be banned from the sport for a long time, if not for life but the players don't deserve sympathy or a free pass.

  On 08/03/2014 at 23:13, Rhino Richards said:

I hope those that were in charge pay higher price when this is all said and done.

Look like you will get your wish. Hird now has to pay tax on a $1m plus per year for the next 3 years. He would be devastated.

Tracey Holmes was on "Offsiders" today. She made a case for the fact that ASADA has had a year to prove the drugs used in NRL and EFC were banned.

She says that:

1)it is still murky as to if the supplements were banned (at the time)

2) other large penalties in NRL's recent past have found the original offense to have subsequently been allowed

3) Head coaches do not necessarily have input into medical practice in the club

It was interesting that only Caro spoke against what I thought was outlandish statements that we heard a year ago, before the arguments and information became more complex and revealing.

Caro didnt seem outraged at all.

I think that Cronulla and Essendon will walk.

  On 09/03/2014 at 00:48, Franky_31 said:

Tracey Holmes was on "Offsiders" today. She made a case for the fact that ASADA has had a year to prove the drugs used in NRL and EFC were banned.

She says that:

1)it is still murky as to if the supplements were banned (at the time)

2) other large penalties in NRL's recent past have found the original offense to have subsequently been allowed

3) Head coaches do not necessarily have input into medical practice in the club

It was interesting that only Caro spoke against what I thought was outlandish statements that we heard a year ago, before the arguments and information became more complex and revealing.

Caro didnt seem outraged at all.

I think that Cronulla and Essendon will walk.

Yes, Holmes has routinely pushed the mantra about the status of the drugs taken but it's dead wrong and no supporting evidence for that view has ever been produced save the unsubstantiated say so of a man who won't testify despite claiming to have received it from the bowels of ASADA.

On the same programme Roy Masters, a much more respected and credible journalist than Holmes said he believed the NRL's recent ruling on sanctions against Cronulla was bad news for the players.

Tracey Holmes....tabloid junkalist