On 16/03/2015 at 02:44, Sir Why You Little said:

This is exactly why Essendon & Hird have gone down this road.

They want it to drag out as long as they can

Incite public boredom

It is the ONLY DEFENCE they have got.

Sadly it seems to be working with many people wanting it all to end and blaming ASADA/AFL for the delays.

But I suspect the real reason is that delays allow enough time for the list to turnover to minimise the damage.

Anyone know how Essendon are fairing with salary cap breaching? Surely the AFL must have given them permission to pay overs and also extra players on list. Other clubs would be very interested in this I would imagine.

The AFL has bent over backwards to help the cheats and yet the EFC keep blaming them.

  On 16/03/2015 at 03:01, sue said:

Sadly it seems to be working with many people wanting it all to end and blaming ASADA/AFL for the delays.

But I suspect the real reason is that delays allow enough time for the list to turnover to minimise the damage.

Yep. That's the other reason.

List turnover.

Not one Media outlet has mentioned these two points

Makes me so angry.

Ryan Crowly has tested positive to a banned substance and accepted provisional suspensions which is why he is not currently playing..

the plot thickens.

  On 16/03/2015 at 03:01, sue said:

Sadly it seems to be working with many people wanting it all to end and blaming ASADA/AFL for the delays.

But I suspect the real reason is that delays allow enough time for the list to turnover to minimise the damage.

have said for a long time that efc have been playing for time. Bout to run out though .

Wonder what Crowley got done for.

And lastly...perhaps our missing threadster might return as Dees2015 ??

no one seems too worried about Crowley's privacy...

  On 16/03/2015 at 03:59, biggestred said:

no one seems too worried about Crowley's privacy...

He and the club announced it themselves.

We wouldn't know if they didn't just hold a press conference to tell us. I assume they wanted to to get ahead of it before people started speculating as to why a perfectly fit elite tagger wasn't playing in round 1.

Crowley tested positive afte Round 17 and yet accepted a provisional suspension after September which enabled him to play in Freo's 2 losing finals. Why was he allowed to play these games after testing positive?

  On 16/03/2015 at 04:18, Choke said:

He and the club announced it themselves.

We wouldn't know if they didn't just hold a press conference to tell us. I assume they wanted to to get ahead of it before people started speculating as to why a perfectly fit elite tagger wasn't playing in round 1.

True, except they could have invented a mysterious injury or whatever for him. I don't think the questioner was questioning Freo's action, but that (or lack of it) of another club.

  On 16/03/2015 at 04:30, sue said:

True, except they could have invented a mysterious injury or whatever for him. I don't think the questioner was questioning Freo's action, but that (or lack of it) of another club.

Ah now I'm with you. Thanks Sue

  On 13/03/2015 at 14:19, Dees2014 said:

They can sue on the basis of negligence from Essendon, the AFL, and I would suggest individuals involved especially Hird. And they will!

Given that the AFL are on record as having warned EFC not to dabble in peptides, I would have thought it would difficult for a negligence case to get up against them.

EFC on the other hand.......

  On 16/03/2015 at 04:20, bazza226 said:

Crowley tested positive afte Round 17 and yet accepted a provisional suspension after September which enabled him to play in Freo's 2 losing finals. Why was he allowed to play these games after testing positive?

Athletes are entitled to have two samples tested. If the A Sample indicates positive they are allowed to have the B Sample tested and if it isnt' positive they get off. Apparently the Notice only went out after the B Sample was tested and was also positive.

I believe Michael Rogers the cyclist, had an A Sample test positive but his cycling team immediately suspended him from competing. I believe his B Sample was negative so he was cleared but he had already served a 6mth voluntary suspension.

  On 16/03/2015 at 07:03, It said:

I believe Michael Rogers the cyclist, had an A Sample test positive but his cycling team immediately suspended him from competing. I believe his B Sample was negative so he was cleared but he had already served a 6mth voluntary suspension.

Me again ...

Actually, Rogers had negative A and B samples. He was guilty (banned substance present in his body), and disqualified for the race concerned - but not penalised, as it was shown that it was ingested through contaminated meat (in China, where there's an ongoing WADA warning ... also Mexico if anyone's interested). There was a Belgian rider in the same situation - who subsequently tried to commit suicide ...

Re Rogers' suspension, in cycling, riders are provisionally suspended after the first (A) positive, and it's implemented by the governing body, the UCI. Not sure that you can call it a voluntary suspension, he didn't have a say in the matter ...

Just re Crowley, he was provisionally suspended after the B sample, which is what happens in most sports. Whether it's fair or not is a separate discussion, they're the rules as they stand.

  On 16/03/2015 at 08:32, bing181 said:

Just re Crowley, he was provisionally suspended after the B sample, which is what happens in most sports. Whether it's fair or not is a separate discussion, they're the rules as they stand.

The positive B sample was released on 11 September which was one day before the Fremantle semi final loss in which Crowley played. His infraction notice came on 1 October by which time the season was over. What I find strange is that the AFL didn't arrange for an immediate Tribunal hearing - you can't blame ASADA for tardiness in this case but, even allowing for the nature of the substance involved, this could see Crowley out for most of the season.

  On 16/03/2015 at 10:10, Whispering_Jack said:

The positive B sample was released on 11 September which was one day before the Fremantle semi final loss in which Crowley played. His infraction notice came on 1 October by which time the season was over. What I find strange is that the AFL didn't arrange for an immediate Tribunal hearing - you can't blame ASADA for tardiness in this case but, even allowing for the nature of the substance involved, this could see Crowley out for most of the season.

Funny you should say that wj. Matty Lloyd, doc Larkin's and g Healy were bagging asada for their tardiness on 3aw tonite, which I thought was ridiculous

  On 13/03/2015 at 10:18, biggestred said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-players-could-sue-the-afl-if-found-guilty-of-doping-by-anti-doping-tribunal/story-fni5f6kv-1227261875765

What???

Sorry, Did Essendon not exist?

  On 13/03/2015 at 12:49, jnrmac said:

I have heard this line run from an Ess fanatic. The AFL are the employer so they should carry the can.....

Its cr*p. The club is the employer. The AFL are co-signatories to the contract but the management of the club run everything and are in the firing line.

On the one hand it is crap and Essendon need to bear ultimate responsibility.

On the other hand the AFL have been caught with their pants down here as they clearly knew something was up and either tried to turn a blind eye or sweep it under the rug. Either way I think they have some culpability here and the situation is representative of the way the competition was run under Demetriou and continues to be run under McLachlin.

  On 16/03/2015 at 08:32, bing181 said:

Me again ...

Actually, Rogers had negative A and B samples. He was guilty (banned substance present in his body), and disqualified for the race concerned - but not penalised, as it was shown that it was ingested through contaminated meat (in China, where there's an ongoing WADA warning ... also Mexico if anyone's interested). There was a Belgian rider in the same situation - who subsequently tried to commit suicide ...

Re Rogers' suspension, in cycling, riders are provisionally suspended after the first (A) positive, and it's implemented by the governing body, the UCI. Not sure that you can call it a voluntary suspension, he didn't have a say in the matter ...

Just re Crowley, he was provisionally suspended after the B sample, which is what happens in most sports. Whether it's fair or not is a separate discussion, they're the rules as they stand.

So Bing excuse my ignorance. How was the banned substance present in his body discovered if both his tests were negative.

Given the Contador case, I was, to say the least, surprised that his defence of ingesting the clenbuterol from meat in China was successful. I understand there have been no cases in Europe but some in China and Mexico. But even so. I would say he was pretty lucky. I remember the Spanish cattle farmers being outraged with Contador suggesting they used Clenbuterol in their cattle.

  On 16/03/2015 at 12:16, It said:

So Bing excuse my ignorance. How was the banned substance present in his body discovered if both his tests were negative.

Given the Contador case, I was, to say the least, surprised that his defence of ingesting the clenbuterol from meat in China was successful. I understand there have been no cases in Europe but some in China and Mexico. But even so. I would say he was pretty lucky. I remember the Spanish cattle farmers being outraged with Contador suggesting they used Clenbuterol in their cattle.

Both his tests were positive. Not sure what I was thinking of when I wrote that ... probably still glorying in our first half against the dogs.

My apologies.

Re clenbuterol, you're right re Spanish farmers and Contador. But it's apparently rampant in China ... and Mexico. (amongst others ...) Rogers was presumably able to show that the Clenbuterol came from contaminated meat - whereas Contador couldn't. Contador should have visited China for a couple of races, he might have got away with it ...

There has been a WADA warning on meat/clenbuterol in China since 2011, and even the locals have warned against it - this from 2012:

"China’s General Administration of Sport has issued a warning to all athletes hoping to compete at this summer’s Olympic and Paralympic Games not to eat certain meats in China for fear they could accidentally ingest the prohibited substance clenbuterol. The national team has been advised to stop eating beef, lamb and pork, due to fears that they could consume the banned substance. When dining in restaurants, China’s athletes have been advised to eat either chicken or fish."

Plenty of wriggle room there.

thanks to the filthy Essendon we cant even get a proper test in the final hit out before Round 1

they are a stain on the AFL

  On 16/03/2015 at 10:10, Whispering_Jack said:

The positive B sample was released on 11 September which was one day before the Fremantle semi final loss in which Crowley played. His infraction notice came on 1 October by which time the season was over.

Believe that the B sample was tested on 11 Sept, but it wasn't till the 18th that the result was confirmed. By which time, his season was over.

I see little told the efc faithful at their season launch that they are confident players will be cleared. Funny how this pronouncement gets full back page treatment

The Crowley bust no good for the efc spin machine. Hard to reconcile a likely 18 month ban with lesser penalties for multiple use of peds

  On 16/03/2015 at 22:02, binman said:

I see little told the efc faithful at their season launch that they are confident players will be cleared. Funny how this pronouncement gets full back page treatment

I have a sick feeling they will either be cleared or the charges will be so minor that no one will be severely impacted.

not gonna happen.

bans will be all over the shop - as the reporting of usage has been all over the shop.

Who does the AFL want to keep - the drug cheats or the sport-loving public? WADA cannot afford to be weak here, and possibly the Federal Government would get involved if the AFL dropped the ball, so that quite possibly the AFL doesn't have the option of saving the drug cheats anyway. How stupid do we think they are? How likely is it that they have no idea what the reactions from WADA and Government are likely to be if they stuff it up? I can't understand how anyone thinks Essendon have any chance here.