I think we need to stop wallowing in other club's misery.

We are no great football team or club ATM and you never know what is around the corner.

Agree wholeheartedly but then Titus O'Reilly has an interesting take on this -

Collingwood currently retreating from the high moral ground

well one thing would be to increase the number of tests from a current average of <1 per player per year

hardly a serious amount of testing

Testing will only catch a small percentage of people anyway, we saw that with cycling. In fact I think testing is likely to catch more innocents or stupids (like Saad) than the real trouble makers like Essendon (regardless of whether they've technically cheater or not).

That said, the AFL is already on to it and are willing to do more than ASADA prescribes - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-to-use-asada-alternative-in-expansion-of-drug-testing-program-20140214-32rl8.html

I think we need to stop wallowing in other club's misery.

Don't say that on the Essendon thread - you'll be lynched. I was!

just thinking about Eddie makes me go

Agree wholeheartedly but then Titus O'Reilly has an interesting take on this -

Collingwood currently retreating from the high moral ground

If Collingwood ever did have the high moral ground it must have been stolen goods. At the very least obtained under false pretences.

I think we need to stop wallowing in other club's misery.

We are no great football team or club ATM and you never know what is around the corner.

Very well said. There is much misplaced hubris on this site.

We shouldn't be casting stones at other clubs.

But this is a disaster for the game and the AFL......and by consequence MFC.

I think we need to stop wallowing in other club's misery.

We are no great football team or club ATM and you never know what is around the corner.

You know what Red?

Given a choice between another Club suffering and us.. I'll take them !!

I think we need to stop wallowing in other club's misery.

They have wallowed in ours for my entire lifetime.

Hard to see the contaminated meat angle working. Mick Rogers got off because he was/had just been in China - where the problem of contamination is so bad that WADA has an ongoing warning out. The other country where the same situation exists is Mexico - there had been a Danish cyclist who got off after racing in Mexico.

But the half-life of Clenbuterol is fairly short, 36 hours or so, so unless they'd been in Mexico/China just beforehand, this isn't going to work. You can't just say you had a beef in black bean sauce down in Chinatown ... and in any case, you need to provide solid evidence, which would mean getting meat tested etc. etc.

theyd be staring down 4 year bans

Don't say that on the Essendon thread - you'll be lynched. I was!

I think you would agree there is a pretty big difference between the cause and effect in both matters.

Essendon's behaviour before, during and since has been nothing short of disgraceful.

ATM I have some sympathy for Collingwood, I have none for Essendon.

Very well said. There is much misplaced hubris on this site.

We shouldn't be casting stones at other clubs.

But this is a disaster for the game and the AFL......and by consequence MFC.

whos casting stones....its natures karma's avalanche and we're just spectating

everything these players and clubs have done...theyve done to themselves

Essendon's behaviour before, during and since has been nothing short of disgraceful.

i largely agree however there was a period where they were ok. They should have stayed the course that Evans put them on. If they had this would all be done and dusted and like Cronulla their 2015 season would have gone ahead with minimal distraction.

Hard to see the contaminated meat angle working. Mick Rogers got off because he was/had just been in China - where the problem of contamination is so bad that WADA has an ongoing warning out. The other country where the same situation exists is Mexico - there had been a Danish cyclist who got off after racing in Mexico.

But the half-life of Clenbuterol is fairly short, 36 hours or so, so unless they'd been in Mexico/China just beforehand, this isn't going to work. You can't just say you had a beef in black bean sauce down in Chinatown ... and in any case, you need to provide solid evidence, which would mean getting meat tested etc. etc.

Yeah the test samples were collected on Feb 10. Way too late for their end of season trips.

They're going to have to come up with a pretty strong defence to win me over. Being in Mexico would've - as I expressed earlier - had me pretty interested in them getting a fair hearing and stating their case.

Still hoping ASADA do nail them with some other evidence, even if it's just the levels being really indicative of cheating.

Or I wouldn't care if they got 3 or even 2 years if they pleaded guilty, the chance of them making it back to AFL is pretty remote. Collingwood have moved swiftly to distance themselves from this. I hope the players tackle it head on as well instead of lawyering up and dragging it on for months with excuses..

seems like there's still a hangover down near the old lexus swimming centre, these days... too many still popping the little black & white pills

here's some at end of training

Very well said. There is much misplaced hubris on this site.

We shouldn't be casting stones at other clubs.

But this is a disaster for the game and the AFL......and by consequence MFC.

I see it the other way around Q30, this is cleansing, just as the catolic church is about to go tru.

get the skeles out of the closet, & start afresh & clean.

Collingbuterol?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clenbuterol

Yeah the test samples were collected on Feb 10. Way too late for their end of season trips.

They're going to have to come up with a pretty strong defence to win me over. Being in Mexico would've - as I expressed earlier - had me pretty interested in them getting a fair hearing and stating their case.

Still hoping ASADA do nail them with some other evidence, even if it's just the levels being really indicative of cheating.

Or I wouldn't care if they got 3 or even 2 years if they pleaded guilty, the chance of them making it back to AFL is pretty remote. Collingwood have moved swiftly to distance themselves from this. I hope the players tackle it head on as well instead of lawyering up and dragging it on for months with excuses..

They were in New Zealand on camp immediately prior to the positive tests

They were in New Zealand on camp immediately prior to the positive tests

Is it possible they were contaminated from tainted mutton?

They were in New Zealand on camp immediately prior to the positive tests

What's the relevance? Does NZ have different meat standards to us? I wouldn't think so. Maybe even more stringent.

Unless they were visiting this website http://www.clenbuterol.co.nz/

From the Age article in the opening post ~ "The players have both been suspended after recording a failed test in the A sample collected earlier in the year. The B sample is due to be tested and returned in April."

I haven't had the opportunity to delve deeply into this story today but does anyone know why have they been suspended after failing the A sample but before the testing of the B sample whereas Crowley was allowed to play on after the A sample was taken and it wasn't until after the result of the B sample that the AFL issued him with a ‘show-cause’ notice and it was a week after that when he voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension notice?

From the Age article in the opening post ~ "The players have both been suspended after recording a failed test in the A sample collected earlier in the year. The B sample is due to be tested and returned in April."

I haven't had the opportunity to delve deeply into this story today but does anyone know why have they been suspended after failing the A sample but before the testing of the B sample whereas Crowley was allowed to play on after the A sample was taken and it wasn't until after the result of the B sample that the AFL issued him with a ‘show-cause’ notice and it was a week after that when he voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension notice?

Because Crowley tested positive to a drug that falls into a different category (whose name i forget) than a PED. As i understand it the drug he tested positive for (contained in a pain killer he used) is only banned on match day. Provisional suspension does not kick in for this category until the b sample comes back, though the player can voluntarily take a suspension (as Crowley did after his last game)

The CFC players tested positive to a PED . All PEDs are banned at all times and are in a different category. If an athlete test positive to a drug in this category that are immediately provisionally suspended.

Because Crowley tested positive to a drug that falls into a different category (whose name i forget) than a PED. As i understand it the drug he tested positive for (contained in a pain killer he used) is only banned on match day. Provisional suspension does not kick in for this category until the b sample comes back, though the player can voluntarily take a suspension (as Crowley did after his last game)

The CFC players tested positive to a PED . All PEDs are banned at all times and are in a different category. If an athlete test positive to a drug in this category that are immediately provisionally suspended.

Thanks binman

From the Age article in the opening post ~ "The players have both been suspended after recording a failed test in the A sample collected earlier in the year. The B sample is due to be tested and returned in April."

I haven't had the opportunity to delve deeply into this story today but does anyone know why have they been suspended after failing the A sample but before the testing of the B sample whereas Crowley was allowed to play on after the A sample was taken and it wasn't until after the result of the B sample that the AFL issued him with a ‘show-cause’ notice and it was a week after that when he voluntarily accepted a provisional suspension notice?

Surely you don't expect consistency from the AFL. Jack. Jack. Jack.

WJ it depends on whether it is a listed substance. Not exactly sure what that means though.