Reid is full of the proverbial

IF Doc Reid had said to the players "this substance is approved for human use and/or is WADA approved" then the players may have a defence, of sorts. But there is no suggestion at all that he did. Had he done so he would be pilloried, rightly, by AHPRA and I suspect be guilty of criminal negligence.

The biggest crime of Dr Reid is he knew about the program, he knew about the dangers and documented these and then rolled over and went blind and silent while the whole thing was proceeding.

He should have been run out of sports medicine for that gross failure. I would have thought his and others blatant failure to act and to turn the blind eye in running this program should be damning enough.

As another poster said these players have been duped by Club leaders and professionals.

It should be the Hirds, Thompson and the Dr Didlittle that are on trial on this.

The young footballers ARE professionals.

The average age of the 12 footballers when the supplement saga began in was 22. The youngest 2 players were 19.

They are no older than the junior MFC playing lists that we threw out on the ground for the past six years and bemoaning their inexperience, their lack of football knowledge and their ability to cope with the pressures of AFL.

They are no more professionals than kids we threw into battle.

He should have been run out of sports medicine for that gross failure.

He should have been run out of Medicine !!!! period

It was you who stated in your first post today that you "hope the players get off". I believe that would achieve exactly what the spin doctors operating on Essendon's behalf are seeking to achieve by playing the sympathy card and they've managed to get a lot of people, including yourself, hook line and sinker.

That's sad.

I don't agree. What would be sad is if we found the players "guilty" just so the spin doctors weren't successful in achieving their goal.

The players should get off because they were duped and put their trust in professional advice. If that happens to be the outcome the so called spin doctors want and it just happens to be equitable I'll happily back the spin doctors.

I don't agree. What would be sad is if we found the players "guilty" just so the spin doctors weren't successful in achieving their goal.

The players should get off because they were duped and put their trust in professional advice. If that happens to be the outcome the so called spin doctors want and it just happens to be equitable I'll happily back the spin doctors.

I agree in part 'Bob' and do feel sorry for the players, particularly the younger ones who would be more open to influence than the older established players who should have known better.

...but there is also the matter of competitive advantage that players may have had from taking illegal supplements (not saying they did but if they did) and that cannot be allowed. It is not just the penalty for being found guilty but also time out of the game to diminish the effect of any advantage they may have had.

Say the program shortened their physical development time by a year or 2, what should happen then? At least one club questioned what was going on and the physical changes in Essendons players.

Lets not get into an argument of what works and what didn't or doesn't because we don't know, and the club say they don't know what was taken.

There is no doubt in my mind that the club still has a lot to answer for but unfortunately for the players it doesn't let them off.

I don't agree. What would be sad is if we found the players "guilty" just so the spin doctors weren't successful in achieving their goal.

The players should get off because they were duped and put their trust in professional advice. If that happens to be the outcome the so called spin doctors want and it just happens to be equitable I'll happily back the spin doctors.

The anti doping laws don't work that way. The players will only get off if there is insufficient evidence of a breach of the anti doping laws - not because of what the spin doctors say or do or any other reason and that's how it should be.

One should never underestimate the deterrence factor. The nature of sports and the rewards on offer make deterrence an important element of anti doping policies and anyone who is concerned about the health of athletes should be seeking sanctions against the Essendon players (if the case against them is proven), not hoping that they are let off the hook.

Otherwise, the health of more generations of sportspersons will be placed in jeopardy in the future.

I agree in part 'Bob' and do feel sorry for the players, particularly the younger ones who would be more open to influence than the older established players who should have known better.

...but there is also the matter of competitive advantage that players may have had from taking illegal supplements (not saying they did but if they did) and that cannot be allowed. It is not just the penalty for being found guilty but also time out of the game to diminish the effect of any advantage they may have had.

Say the program shortened their physical development time by a year or 2, what should happen then? At least one club questioned what was going on and the physical changes in Essendons players.

Lets not get into an argument of what works and what didn't or doesn't because we don't know, and the club say they don't know what was taken.

There is no doubt in my mind that the club still has a lot to answer for but unfortunately for the players it doesn't let them off.

I didnt see any signs of any competitive advantage to Essendon players during 2012. In fact it was quite the opposite

I didnt see any signs of any competitive advantage to Essendon players during 2012. In fact it was quite the opposite

it was that they SOUGHT an advantage...thats the motive. That they completely fk'd things up is another

BB, I'd be interested to hear your views on why reinforcing the deterrence effect is less important than penalising the 'duped innocent' players.

In the case of normal criminality, it is of course unthinkable that innocent people would be punished to deter others (though sadly instances of that are not unknown), but the situation is different with drugs in sport for the reasons I and others have outlined. For example, without the deterrence effect non-innocent players could arrange to have a coach willing to act as a scapegoat, and despite being known to have cheated, get away with the fruits of their 'crime'.

So when I go to the doctor for my flu shot and he gives me something else it's my fault?

I don't see it your way. People rely on professional, the young footballers relied on professionals. They were duped.

cant quite cop this.

some people say the "if my doctor was meant to give a flu shot"blah blah.

you are a professional sportsperson and somebody within your realm says they are going to give you 50 injections in the abdominal area,i find that remarkable.

ive spoken to many people about this and a friend that works part time at an afl club.

not one person has stated anything other than"wow 50 injections in the stomach".

everybody has commented,unless you have some sort of disease you would want a second opinion on the 50 injections .

jobe watson[so called great leader] is a 27 yo man,and didnt think 50 injections in the stomach warranted a private enquiry outside of the lab rats at bomberland.

dont let the poor innocent blah blah krap get you sucked in.

50 injections

fifty

the big 50

innocent under 23 yo dumb,didnt pay attention footballers.i can offer some sympathy, and only some.

but grown men ,please it wasnt meth ,heroin or some habitual drug thats a disease of habit.

it was performance enhancing methods ,that werent questioned by GROWN men.

and that includes,vitamin mcviegh.

guilty on all counts.

fokker out.

I didnt see any signs of any competitive advantage to Essendon players during 2012. In fact it was quite the opposite

But if that is what they were looking for (why else would you use the program if it wasn't) then the effects would start to show in the following year. For most of 2013 they looked pretty good.

The players should get off because they were duped and put their trust in professional advice.

That's not actually a defence under the WADA code. Which the AFL is signatory to, as are all players:

5.3 c)

It is the obligation of each Person to whom this Code applies to inform himself of all substances and methods prohibited under this Code. It is not a defence to any claim that a Person has breached this Code for that Person to contend:

(i) ignorance that a substance or method is prohibited;

(ii) an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a substance or method is not prohibited under this Code;

etc.

The anti doping laws don't work that way.

As I said in my first post yesterday I don't give a flying fox about the legalities. It may well be that under the rules/laws that exist the players are in breach. That doesn't address my concerns.

I understand you've made a living in law and the principles of law are something you will respect and live by. I'm not burdened with that legacy and I see the law as an ass. So often we get inequitable results because it's not possible for the law to anticipate all situations. This is one such case.

I start from the premise that the players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did then throw the book at them. They are professional footballers and are expected and trained to be professional in the way they play. They rely on professional trainers, coaches, physiotherapists, doctors, administrators and so on and so forth to ply their trade.

They have been given a cocktail of substances which can't or won't be identified. They may or may not have had their lives put at risk. They may suffer minor, major or terminal health problems as a result. Those problems may surface in the short or long term. They will unquestionably suffer the stress of wondering what those health problems may be and they will live with that stress for a very long time (hopefully). They placed their trust in people who were responsible for them. They were duped.

You are welcome to explore the legalities of the situation and follow the intellectual demands of the law. All common sense says these kids have suffered enough.

BB, I'd be interested to hear your views on why reinforcing the deterrence effect is less important than penalising the 'duped innocent' players.

In the case of normal criminality, it is of course unthinkable that innocent people would be punished to deter others (though sadly instances of that are not unknown), but the situation is different with drugs in sport for the reasons I and others have outlined. For example, without the deterrence effect non-innocent players could arrange to have a coach willing to act as a scapegoat, and despite being known to have cheated, get away with the fruits of their 'crime'.

Sue I'm not sure that I've argued that reinforcing the deterrent effect is less important than penalising the "duped innocent" players.

I said earlier that I'd punish as far as I could those responsible for initiating and implementing the supplement program at Essendon. I've argued that Hird and Little should never be allowed in an AFL venue again. I've argued Reid should not be allowed to practice medicine. If that isn't a deterrent effect I don't know what is. I'd also advocate criminal charges if there are any and if it's possible.

In my view these players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did I've no issue with punishment. Hence your example above relating to a player and his coach is moot because the player knowingly takes the drug.

cant quite cop this.

If I'm reading your post correctly you seem to be saying the players knew they were taking banned drugs. Clearly this is where you and I disagree.

If I'm reading your post correctly you seem to be saying the players knew they were taking banned drugs. Clearly this is where you and I disagree.

The players knew the program was "on the edge" they said so

They knew they were to have an extensive and prolonged program of abdominal injections

They knew the program was intended to improve their performance

They signed a waiver

They claim they don't know exactly what they were injected with

They weren't all kids

Yet....not one seems to have sought outside professional advice despite their asada-related education

You would have to agree their behaviour (at least as reported) was highly reckless

As I said in my first post yesterday I don't give a flying fox about the legalities. It may well be that under the rules/laws that exist the players are in breach. That doesn't address my concerns.

I understand you've made a living in law and the principles of law are something you will respect and live by. I'm not burdened with that legacy and I see the law as an ass. So often we get inequitable results because it's not possible for the law to anticipate all situations. This is one such case.

I start from the premise that the players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did then throw the book at them. They are professional footballers and are expected and trained to be professional in the way they play. They rely on professional trainers, coaches, physiotherapists, doctors, administrators and so on and so forth to ply their trade.

They have been given a cocktail of substances which can't or won't be identified. They may or may not have had their lives put at risk. They may suffer minor, major or terminal health problems as a result. Those problems may surface in the short or long term. They will unquestionably suffer the stress of wondering what those health problems may be and they will live with that stress for a very long time (hopefully). They placed their trust in people who were responsible for them. They were duped.

You are welcome to explore the legalities of the situation and follow the intellectual demands of the law. All common sense says these kids have suffered enough.

What you are actually saying is its okay for sports people to take anything they like as long as they are told by there coaches and trainers it is a legal substance and dont ask any questions. Cant you see how easy this would be for crooks to utilise? None of us know what Essendon said behind closed doors and whether they intentionally breached the code or not.

The code is written specifically to prevent this defence for a reason. Players, adminstrators and coaches arer all trained and aware of there responsibilities. This is not secret. ASADA are very clear that the player is responsible and they have processes and procedures in place and spend a lot of money annually to ensure that players can make informed decisions about the supplements they are taken.

If AFL players absolve themself of responsibility and place trust in the club then so be it. But that is an informed choice they have made and now they need to wear the outcome.

If I'm reading your post correctly you seem to be saying the players knew they were taking banned drugs. Clearly this is where you and I disagree.

no,didnt mean they knew it was banned drugs.

my philosophy is fifty injections in the stomach ,{unless you have some horrible disease}is enough to alert anybodies senses.

i still dont believe that not one player thought this practise was over the top and at least made private enquires.

i do understand that they are afl players and have less IQ than most of the population,but surely one player had enough common sense to find out what the hell was going on.

If AFL players absolve themself of responsibility and place trust in the club then so be it. But that is an informed choice they have made and now they need to wear the outcome.

So a player is responsible if during a game he needs a needle to kill pain and the doctor, without telling him, adds a little bit of a banned drug known to speed healing.

What on earth is the player to do? Sorry doc, give me a sample of that fluid in the syringe and I'll send it for testing.

Players can be innocent and be victims. In those cases they should not be punished.

The players knew the program was "on the edge" they said so

They knew they were to have an extensive and prolonged program of abdominal injections

They knew the program was intended to improve their performance

They signed a waiver

They claim they don't know exactly what they were injected with

They weren't all kids

Yet....not one seems to have sought outside professional advice despite their asada-related education

You would have to agree their behaviour (at least as reported) was highly reckless

Whilst you argue that the players "must" have known because of the process I'd argue that it's inconceivable that 43 players knowingly took banned drugs.

Therefore I believe they didn't think they were taking banned substances.

But it's a moot point and my argument is based on us disagreeing on that point. I agree that on your basis they should be punished.

Whilst you argue that the players "must" have known because of the process I'd argue that it's inconceivable that 43 players knowingly took banned drugs.

Therefore I believe they didn't think they were taking banned substances.

But it's a moot point and my argument is based on us disagreeing on that point. I agree that on your basis they should be punished.

no i don't say they knew they were taking banned drugs. I just don't know

what i am saying is that there was much for them to be very suspicious about and none of them seem to have taken any precautions

this i find puzzling and as i said it at least indicates their behaviour was reckless if not worse and certainly limits my sympathy

no i don't say they knew they were taking banned drugs. I just don't know

what i am saying is that there was much for them to be very suspicious about and none of them seem to have taken any precautions

this i find puzzling and as i said it at least indicates their behaviour was reckless if not worse and certainly limits my sympathy

We are not privy to what inquiry the players made and whether this inquiry was individual or collective or both. We are not privy to what they were told.

In the same way you find it puzzling they they didn't take any precautions I find it puzzling that they all participated willingly. I don't believe that 43 players would have all acted in this "puzzling" way without some compelling reasons to do so. Hence I conclude they didn't believe they were taking banned drugs.

what i am saying is that there was much for them to be very suspicious about and none of them seem to have taken any precautions

this i find puzzling and as i said it at least indicates their behaviour was reckless if not worse and certainly limits my sympathy

The implied counterfactual is that from where they were sitting, there was no reason to be suspicious (because the doc or Dank was telling fibs). Like Bob I find it hard to believe that if it was so obvious at the time, that not one of the 43 players stopped and questioned it. That just seems too wild to believe.

Here....sign this waiver !!! Ffs...not to far to go to suspicion surely

As I said in my first post yesterday I don't give a flying fox about the legalities. It may well be that under the rules/laws that exist the players are in breach. That doesn't address my concerns.

I understand you've made a living in law and the principles of law are something you will respect and live by. I'm not burdened with that legacy and I see the law as an ass. So often we get inequitable results because it's not possible for the law to anticipate all situations. This is one such case.

I start from the premise that the players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did then throw the book at them. They are professional footballers and are expected and trained to be professional in the way they play. They rely on professional trainers, coaches, physiotherapists, doctors, administrators and so on and so forth to ply their trade.

They have been given a cocktail of substances which can't or won't be identified. They may or may not have had their lives put at risk. They may suffer minor, major or terminal health problems as a result. Those problems may surface in the short or long term. They will unquestionably suffer the stress of wondering what those health problems may be and they will live with that stress for a very long time (hopefully). They placed their trust in people who were responsible for them. They were duped.

You are welcome to explore the legalities of the situation and follow the intellectual demands of the law. All common sense says these kids have suffered enough.

If you don't care about the legalities and I do accept that as your position, then you've left no room for any debate because in the real world the kids who in your opinion have "suffered enough" are not above the law or beyond it's reach (I would strenuously argue that nor should they be) and whether you or they like it or not, their suffering might well not have even started yet.