Sorry Neita.

I asked him a question, and he was simply replying.

My fault

I missed that, sorry mate Thought Lance had decided to troll club boards, my fault.

I missed that, sorry mate Thought Lance had decided to troll club boards, my fault.

All good.

In fairness, I mentioned his/her name, and was simply getting a reply.

Yes, the same stuff that avoids the question of illegal performance enhancing drug use by essendon players, but i still think someone has a right for a respectful reply, if called to task on our site.

For example: individual athletes are the employer in the doctor athlete relationship. In a team sport, that's not the case. You have no say. You can't fire the doc. You're only option is to dob in your whole team. You can kind of get why that's a problem for some people.

Also, team sports run to seasons, not on the olympic calendar. Yet the WADA code doesn't take this into account. So you can have bans served almost completely in off-season.

This has been roundly discussed In Another Place, and as I and others suggested there, if you were to look at the reality of Olympic sports, or any sport at an elite level, these points are pretty well invalid. Sure, every sport has its idiosyncrasies, but there's not that much difference, especially once you get to the professional level.

Athletes in olympic sports have to toe the organisation's line every bit as much as at a footy club, perhaps even moreso. Cyclist Trent Lowe was sacked for going to a non-team doctor, as was sports director Matt White who recommended said doctor. In the Armstrong case, there was much made of the fact that the cyclists who were penalised were given a 6 month ban which just happened to be right across the off-season.

Then, this mention of the Olympic calendar is a complete furphy - you only have to look at the Olympic winter sports for example, where the focus is completely on the season-long competitions: world cup, world championships etc. etc., with the Olympics themselves as a bit of a postscript. Cycling is the same ... can anyone here tell me who won the gold medal in the men's road race at the last Olympics?

etc. etc.

Rather large red herring for mine.

All good.

In fairness, I mentioned his/her name, and was simply getting a reply.

Yes, the same stuff that avoids the question of illegal performance enhancing drug use by essendon players, but i still think someone has a right for a respectful reply, if called to task on our site.

You are right faulty, i should have checked earlier posts before getting on my high horse, sorry again mate

Why the hell do i have to read your crap here as well, stay on bigfooty, FFS lance, broken record

I like Lance. Don't always agree with him, in fact, often don't, but he does his homework, which is more than can be said for many.

happy to [censored] then. But if people are going to talk smack about me and make false accusations then don't have a cry when I defend myself. Cheerio

Fair call Lance, i was out of line, apologies

I like Lance. Don't always agree with him, in fact, often don't, but he does his homework, which can more than can be said for many.

Fair enough Bing, not the first time ive put my footy in my mouth, wont be the last. Ill sneak of and leave the converstion to the adults sorry lads

I agree with your comments on record keeping, and as I have posted before, I think this has already happened.

I also thought that that was the case, but don't have the time to go looking for anything to support that.

If it's something that has come in recently, it can't be applied retrospectively in any case. And if it's something that hasn't come in, I would imagine it's only a matter of time.

I also thought that that was the case, but don't have the time to go looking for anything to support that.

If it's something that has come in recently, it can't be applied retrospectively in any case. And if it's something that hasn't come in, I would imagine it's only a matter of time.

Fairly sure it came in with the update earlier this year. The AFL signed upto it. As you say though, would not be right to make it retrospective.

As David Letterman said - Vodka

bit ironic really you making a post like that, when all you're doing is playing the man. I thought maybe you'd have the nuts to actually debate the issue, but you do strike me as a bit of a flat track bully so maybe not

Oh really? I would have thought most of my posts are reasoned and extensive, often to the frustration of others on here. I have never been accused of being superficial. Maybe that is your problem. I have challenged you in the past the take down my arguments point by point and you have not been able to. Why? Because your position is indefensible and you know it. And also I notice that a number of your fellow bomber supporters on big footy know it as well, questioning your continuous assertion over a number of months that "that bloke on Demonland knows nothing", and then when the WADA appeal came out, you all of a sudden went very quiet. Some of your fellow supporters didn't. They thought maybe the narrative on Demonland had a point.

I look forward to your detailed rebuttal of what we have been asserting, rather than your usual narrative of character assassination.

but that's not what the rules say, is it?

no the rules put the responsibility squarely with the athlete. The rules require you to show you have no been wayward and explain what you have taken. A "dunno" doesn't wash.

The rules require proof from the athlete of what's taken.

no the rules put the responsibility squarely with the athlete. The rules require you to show you have no been wayward and explain what you have taken. A "dunno" doesn't wash.

The rules require proof from the athlete of what's taken.

Sir Launcelot is not only wrong as you say but he raised a point which smacks of desperation. While it may not have been against any specific rule (as he stated) to 'vanish' records, or not keep them during a pharmaceutical experiment, their absence 9or inability to produce them) is evidence (a fact) which together with other evidence may even lead to a beyond reasonable doubt verdict, let alone the weaker level of proof required in this case.

I await a reasonable explanation of why there are no records, especially since they would prove the program was kosher.

no the rules put the responsibility squarely with the athlete. The rules require you to show you have no been wayward and explain what you have taken. A "dunno" doesn't wash.

The rules require proof from the athlete of what's taken.

Err not quite.. but in any case this will all be about the comfortable satisfaction. The AFL tribunal basically said they ordered TB 4 it was compounded and delivered and we know they didn't inject Thymosin into the players and there was never any Thymosin on the premises (despite the laughable picture of Dean Wallis' pill bottle!). But even though it was ordered etc we can't actually be sure thats what they got.

Its like saying you go to a fish and chip shop and order the flake (that's illegal because of over fishing). You pay for flake, eat it but can't be 100% sure it was flake so you get off. Wada instead will say you attempted to get TB4 ordered it compounded it etc etc, and have no records to the contrary, guilty. Adios EFC

" I am unprepared to hang them on skerricks of evidence leaked to the media in a PR war "

There's your weaknessLance

EFC has chosen to not tell the truth re a performance enhancing program

Have you asked them what the truth is?

Do you honestly believe they had no records of a legal drug program?

Do you believe the world body can allow any sports person to undertake an illegal drug program and ignore it on the basis that there are no records?

Do you think the cost of testing every athlete for drugs every time they perform is worth it just to ensure that no athlete can use that excuse?

Do you support drugs in sport as a reasonable extension of whatever it takes?

That'll do for now

A video all Essendon FC supporters and club officials must watch

Don't worry there a whole series of these video for you all to watch.

A video all Essendon FC supporters and club officials must watch

Don't worry there a whole series of these video for you all to watch.

Oh the pain. I was so impressed with these originally and then it all came crashing down!

A good speaker is all CS was....

A video all Essendon FC supporters and club officials must watch

Don't worry there a whole series of these video for you all to watch.

High performance with high integrity? He left us with neither!

Err not quite.. but in any case this will all be about the comfortable satisfaction. The AFL tribunal basically said they ordered TB 4 it was compounded and delivered and we know they didn't inject Thymosin into the players and there was never any Thymosin on the premises (despite the laughable picture of Dean Wallis' pill bottle!). But even though it was ordered etc we can't actually be sure thats what they got.

Its like saying you go to a fish and chip shop and order the flake (that's illegal because of over fishing). You pay for flake, eat it but can't be 100% sure it was flake so you get off. Wada instead will say you attempted to get TB4 ordered it compounded it etc etc, and have no records to the contrary, guilty. Adios EFC

I was a,ways under the impression, perhaps erroneously, that intention to use illegal drugs was deemed as bad as actually using them.

In this case the intent was there and is pretty much undisputed: at very least therefore surely those who planned this should be severely punished ie life bans.

Re Whiteboard Wed video

Nothing wrong with his intent,

Liked that Stategy was a strategic unit and all his mentions of stuff and things.

He has presented a reasonable intellectual model pity it didnt produce the results of Hawthorn.

Where can I view the rest of this rivetting series.

Oh the pain. I was so impressed with these originally and then it all came crashing down!

A good speaker is all CS was....

good speaker?...those videos would send me to sleep.

A video all Essendon FC supporters and club officials must watch

Don't worry there a whole series of these video for you all to watch.

Is that Stephen Trigg in disguise?

Err not quite.. but in any case this will all be about the comfortable satisfaction. The AFL tribunal basically said they ordered TB 4 it was compounded and delivered and we know they didn't inject Thymosin into the players and there was never any Thymosin on the premises (despite the laughable picture of Dean Wallis' pill bottle!). But even though it was ordered etc we can't actually be sure thats what they got.

Its like saying you go to a fish and chip shop and order the flake (that's illegal because of over fishing). You pay for flake, eat it but can't be 100% sure it was flake so you get off. Wada instead will say you attempted to get TB4 ordered it compounded it etc etc, and have no records to the contrary, guilty. Adios EFC

Well...effectively in a fashion. Then the following question you would think is. Can you show/prove you 'actually ' took something else. They can't.

Well...effectively in a fashion. Then the following question you would think is. Can you show/prove you 'actually ' took something else. They can't.

Yes beeb but they know it was good for them!

When this finally backfires and (heaven forbid) a player contracts cancer or a child is born deformed, what defence does the club have? None!

This may have been posted before.

Roy Masters piece on how the AFL signed up to WADA

Why the Essendon 34 ended up on a journey to CAS

At this point, Browne leaned across to Demetriou and whispered, "You're f---ed." The AFL's long-term lawyer convinced the CEO the AFL could no longer continue in the position it was adopting.

The AFL agreed to become WADA compliant by November 1 that year.

It wasn't such a bad outcome for the AFL considering that, on Demetriou's departure after a decade in charge, he had won $2 billion in public funding for the AFL.

The AFL has major stadia in all capital cities but the issue now is whether funding would be continued if the code left WADA.

Bartels says, "It would only require a stroke of the pen by government for any future funding of grounds to be dependent on any sport that plays on that ground being WADA compliant."

Consider no MCG SCG Gabba AO etc where would the AFL play?