The stepping up of the PR war has been quite extraordinary and naturally the Murdoch empire whose Chief Executive, one Robert Thomson directs News Corp from New York and is a devoted Bomber fan, has been to the fore of that campaign.

Earlier this week News Limited publications sensationally revealed AFL chief medical officer Peter Harcourt's speech at a FIFA anti-doping sports conference in Zurich last November where he spoke of the AFL's suspicions of Essendon's illegal use of peptides and how blood samples were sent by ASADA to Cologne for testing. The Hird camp maintains that Harcourt's revelations are proof of some illegal joint investigation between ASADA and the AFL.

Last night on AFL360 the two hosts were involved in a discussion about the fact that the samples were negative i.e they showed nothing irregular in the players' blood. Whateley was convinced that this virtually exonerates the players and maintained indignance on their behalf. Robinson grinned along in agreement.

They miss the entire point of why world sport needs a stringent anti doping code with strict liability and an across the board standard of proof that will differ from the sovereign laws that apply to various countries around the world.

We need these laws because of sports scientists who operate ahead of the game with their technology and science to achieve a competitive advantage for their clients.

Let's take the case of a mythical athlete who I will call Lance A. In late 2011 and early 2012 he undertakes a supplements programme supervised by sports scientist D. He is injected with an untested drug called UBeaut which aids muscular development and also ingests a masking agent called Zorro which makes it difficult for current testing technology to detect the presence in Lance A's system of UBeaut and any other chemicals he's been taking along the way. Zorro is also a prohibited substance.

Then in July, 2012 USADA take Lance A's blood sample. You can be pretty certain that in August, 2012 the test results will come back negative because they don't even have a test for UBeaut. As technology improves - perhaps in five year's time, a laboratory might be able to detect the presence of UBeaut and/or Zorro in the blood sample if someone cares to look at that time but for now, Lance A is happily going about breaking world records in the 50k walk and living the high life off the back of million dollar endorsements from some chocolate bar company while his rival Fred B, a clean athlete struggles and has to sell some of his trophies just to make ends meet.

How Did Lance Armstrong Avoid a Positive Doping Test?

That is why the WADA Code doesn't just apply to impose sanctions on athletes who provide positive samples to their blood tests. There are a number of other ways to prove that an athlete has committed an anti doping violation and I have discussed these previously in this thread.

Unfortunately, it takes a lot more time and a great deal more detective work via the indirect methods to prove one's case against an offending athlete, especially when you're dealing with a sporting organisation which claims to have "lost" all records relating to its supplements programme except for one convenient vial of the "good UBeaut" which was found in the bootstudder's locker.

It's my understanding that ASADA has the power to operate in conjunction with other authorities when investigating suspected offenders but of course, that matter is now in the hands of Middleton J in the Federal Court and thankfully, not with Foxtel, the Herald Sun, the Australian or even the Age.

So, whilst they don't have records of exactly which of the drugs not approved for human use, (presumably because they had been proven unsafe, or at least not proven to be safe), were actually injected into their employees, but they are sure they were safe!!

Pull the other leg, Little.

Any drug not approved for human use is automatically a banned substance under WADA

The PR war isn't confined to Newscorp either. Lawyer and Deakin University lecturer Martin Hardie who has worked as an adviser for the EFC has come up with this gem as reported by Jon Pierik - AFL chief medico Peter Harcourt may have breached Essendon drugs agreement, says lawyer

I love these "non-disparagement clauses" which in this case means that the AFL isn't allowed to make disparaging remarks about parties that have been found to have committed breaches of governance serious enough to have warranted a $2m fine, being kicked out of a finals series, loss of draft picks and suspension of staff and officials just so that the guilty parties can come out of it all smelling like roses.

So what does the article prove about the matter at hand? That the AFL is no less grubby than the EFC which Hardie slavishly follows?

I'll say one other thing as well even though I haven't seen the settlement agreement which Hardie claims was breached by Harcourt. In all probability, it will also contain a "confidentiality" clause which prevents the parties and their agents from disclosing its contents.

And if I'm right, then who is guilty of breaching the confidentiality clause in the settlement terms?

Anyway, it's all just another side issue. Hopefully, we'll get to the gist of the matter some day soon.

It is only a matter of time until Paul Little or Hird calls for Essendon to be reinstated into the 2013 finals.

Wj. Big kudos. I'm loving your posts on this issue. By far the best and most useful stuff I've read on this issue. Not trying to be ironic but getting good reliable info from what is essentially an alternative media source shows why mainstream media is under so much pressure and also shows up how poor much of it is

Wj am I right in thinking this video has surfaced because hird introduced it as evidence in the current hearings to prepare for the case in August?

I take WJ's point and for me he writes so well on this . I would just like to add, that if this craziness hadn't been picked up, it probably would be a race by all clubs to get the best illegal enhancing gear. All the sideshows and PR in the world don't cover up the wrongdoing and if the proper decision isn't arrived at, then the AFL and for that matter all Australian sport, could be rebranded and come into the East German and Chinese range for sporting integrity. If Essendon don't pay the price , all of a sudden it becomes a way bigger issue.

  On 03/07/2014 at 23:09, binman said:

Wj am I right in thinking this video has surfaced because hird introduced it as evidence in the current hearings to prepare for the case in August?

Not sure binman but I think so.

am I correct in saying that the bombers are so desperate to be cleared that they are happy to carry the cheaters tag, I don't see how any of this clears their name, if somehow it makes the investigation invalid and they get off it doesn't make them any better people.

  On 03/07/2014 at 13:02, Cards13 said:

So Doc Reid approved everything, and yet wrote a letter saying otherwise? No make a sense to me.

This will make more sense to you " we took nothing illegal, banned or harmful' but " we don't know what we took because we have no records".

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:17, Redleg said:

This will make more sense to you " we took nothing illegal, banned or harmful' but " we don't know what we took because we have no records".

Oh ok total sense. What makes the most "sense" is the guy who was ASKED to provide approval for the substance (I note that in no statements being made over the last few days in relation to the Essendon Doc actually approving or giving consent that everything was above board) program is still in charge at the club and discussed as some kind of medical saint where as the likes Dean Robinson have suspended and sacked and totally pillared for the program. Total Essendon sense.

I read that the bombers want the players names suppressed but didnt the herald sun come out earlier in the year and name them?

Essendon Bombers say AFL flouted ‘its duty of care’

This is brilliant.

The AFL flouted its duty of care.

Amazing.

Pure champagne comedy.

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:17, Redleg said:

This will make more sense to you " we took nothing illegal, banned or harmful' but " we don't know what we took because we have no records".

I have no idea whether Essendon players took anything illegal or not. But the above two statements can be reconciled if you believe the second statement means "we don't know what legal supplements we took because we have no records" or "we don't know which players took what legal supplements because we have no records".

  On 03/07/2014 at 22:45, Tony Tea said:

It is only a matter of time until Paul Little or Hird calls for Essendon to be reinstated into the 2013 finals.

AND to have last years draft pics back....

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:46, biggestred said:

Essendon Bombers say AFL flouted ‘its duty of care’

This is brilliant.

The AFL flouted its duty of care.

Amazing.

Pure champagne comedy.

What about the bombers duty of care to the players?

they couldn't give a crap about the players, integrity of the game or even their own reputations they just want to get off charges, shows exactly how desperate they are and exactly how much trouble they're in.

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:51, Mike Nolan said:

What about the bombers duty of care to the players?

they couldn't give a crap about the players, integrity of the game or even their own reputations they just want to get off charges, shows exactly how desperate they are and exactly how much trouble they're in.

Disagree with this. I think they are doing this for the players so they (the players) can avoid not only the possibility of bans but a lifetime of reputational damage.

Pity the club didn't have the same duty of care concern back when they were undertaking the supplements program.

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:57, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Disagree with this. I think they are doing this for the players so they (the players) can avoid not only the possibility of bans but a lifetime of reputational damage.

Pity the club didn't have the same duty of care concern back when they were undertaking the supplements program.

Disagree. They are doing it for the players, but so the players dont get bans so they can win games. Thats it.

  On 03/07/2014 at 23:57, Mike Nolan said:

am I correct in saying that the bombers are so desperate to be cleared that they are happy to carry the cheaters tag, I don't see how any of this clears their name, if somehow it makes the investigation invalid and they get off it doesn't make them any better people.

I don't know if they are thinking that far ahead.

They have made so many comments, and there are so many things happening, that they have backed themselves in a corner and swinging at anything to get themselves out of it. Regardless of contradictions (refer to Robinson lawsuit) or implications ("we dont know what was given or who took what" defense to AFL/ASADA which opened them up to WorkSafe)

You are literally seeing a club that is self-imploding.

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:46, biggestred said:

Essendon Bombers say AFL flouted ‘its duty of care’

This is brilliant.

The AFL flouted its duty of care.

Amazing.

Pure champagne comedy.

“If there is a serious health risk that he knows about that he hasn’t passed on to us that is worse than irresponsible,’’ Little said. “We will certainly be pursuing that.’’

Little said the club would seek advice from medical experts to ease the concerns of players and their families, who are already working with Essendon and the AFL Players Association to monitor any future health effects from the discredited program.

But of course it isn't EssUndone's fault in any way !!!!!!!!!!!

It must have been Harcourt or maybe Vlad who secretly injected their players with unknown / unapproved substances !!

Players now not joining action and undertake not to instigate action against ASADA .

Essendon players choose not to join Hird, club case against ASADA

ASADA investigation: Essendon players to remain anonymous

  On 04/07/2014 at 01:43, beelzebub said:

Players now not joining action and undertake not to instigate action against ASADA .

Corner into backed.

  On 04/07/2014 at 00:46, biggestred said:

Essendon Bombers say AFL flouted ‘its duty of care’

This is brilliant.

The AFL flouted its duty of care.

Amazing.

Pure champagne comedy.

The Spinmeister's Handbook

Rule Number 1: "Say nothing."

Rule Number 2: "Say something which means nothing."

Rule Number 3: "Opposite speak."

Rule Number 4: "We did it? They did it too."

  On 03/07/2014 at 05:06, ManDee said:

Oxford dictionary:-

bummer

ˈbʌmə/

noun

informal

plural noun: bummers

1. 1.

   a disappointing or unpleasant situation or experience.

   "the team's relegation is a real bummer"
2. 2.

   NORTH AMERICAN

   a loafer or vagrant.

   "baby doesn't have to be a travel bummer"

   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Bummers was a nickname applied to foragers of Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's Union army during its March to the Sea and north through North Carolina and South Carolina during theAmerican Civil War. The designation "bummers" was used, both by soldiers and civilians, to describe Sherman's soldiers, official and unofficial, who requisitioned food from Southern homes along the route of the Army's march. Often highly destructive in nature, bummers became notorious among Southerners for looting and vandalism, and they did much to shatter the illusion that the Confederate Army was successfully defending its territory on all fronts. The bummers' activities in Georgia and the Carolinas helped ensure that the South would be unable to sustain its war effort; additionally, bummers' destruction of industrial property rendered the garrisoning of southern cities largely unnecessary by destroying most, if not all, of those facilities in their path that replenished the Confederate war effort (such as cotton gins, farms, foundries, lumber mills, etc.).^[1][2]

   Sorry what was your point? Perhaps it is you that doesn't know what was meant!

  On 03/07/2014 at 09:56, PJ_12345 said:

ManDee, I'm very sure they didn't use bummers in that context.

Look at the quote you have put and your meaning, its to describe a bad or disappointing situation. You can even use it when people constantly pinch cigarettes off you.

When RPFC said "the Bummers" he was using it as a noun, and you can't use your meaning as a noun nor do I think he was referring to Essendon as the cigarette pinchers.

All I asked was if it was necessary. If you want to know my views on the drug issue just read some of the things I've posted in this thread, or even better - just look at who started it - but that is all irrelevant to what I have raised.

It wasn't necessary and was a pun in poor taste.

Edit: Double quote

Yes bummer was used as a noun, because it is a noun. Bummers is a plural noun.

You're sensitivity to this is coming from you. The term bummer or bummers most common usage has no homosexual meaning. To imply that its use in this case has homosexual meaning is patently wrong.

I ask you, if you were to describe the EFC would you say they were best described by,

a- Often highly destructive in nature, bummers became notorious among Southerners for looting and vandalism, and they did much to shatter the illusion that the Confederate Army was successfully defending its territory on all fronts. - Wikipedia

b- Old fashioned UK slang term for a homosexual man. -Urban Dictionary

It is nonsensical to describe the EFC by the latter.

I think bummers was used correctly.

Four more years he roamed the land till his legs was worn away.
Then he bummed around from town to town: "Has a stranger passed this way?

Vivian Stanshall (Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band): "Bad Blood"

Not sure that Essendumb have too many legs left to stand on either.