I wonder if they are still taking the revenue from the pokies they have?

Lol. Of course they are

Gambling bad but Bombers good!

AFL giants Essendon have turned their back on the lucrative world of wagering, announcing they will not consider sponsorships from betting partners.

In a move aimed to curb the impact of gambling messages, which have become prevalent in modern sport, Bombers chief executive Xavier Campbell said feedback from the club's near 60,000-strong members was important. "We certainly respect the right of betting agencies to advertise in sport," Campbell said.

"But as an industry we need to proactively monitor the way this message is delivered particularly given many of our fans are children."

Oh pleeease!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-say-no-to-sponsorship-deals-with-betting-agencies-20150625-ghxh33.html

well that gives them the moral high ground

no club who turns their back on gambling could be labelled as cheats......or could they?

ah, the image builders at it again.....whiter than white

You just have to wonder how much longer Little/EFC will hang on to James. If they were winning and playing good footy it would help Hird and the pro Hird forces. However, I can't see the Essendon faithful and more importantly the Board putting up with a continuation of recent performances. They need to show something to save dear old James. If they continue to play poorly, I reckon he may be gone at season end.

You just have to wonder how much longer Little/EFC will hang on to James. If they were winning and playing good footy it would help Hird and the pro Hird forces. However, I can't see the Essendon faithful and more importantly the Board putting up with a continuation of recent performances. They need to show something to save dear old James. If they continue to play poorly, I reckon he may be gone at season end.

Trouble is Ernest he has them over a barrel.

He has a contract for 2016/7 in his pocket.

Most people believe that is $1million PA or $2million in total they would have to come up with if they dispense with his services.

There is also the matter of what he might say if push came to shove.

To be honest I am very happy for them to suffer on under him for another two years

You just have to wonder how much longer Little/EFC will hang on to James. If they were winning and playing good footy it would help Hird and the pro Hird forces. However, I can't see the Essendon faithful and more importantly the Board putting up with a continuation of recent performances. They need to show something to save dear old James. If they continue to play poorly, I reckon he may be gone at season end.

Ernie, they have the Hawks this week then Saints then us. They could lose all three. Then North, Port, Dogs, Giants then Crows, could lose all those too. Then Suns, Richmond and Collingwood. They could finish the season with one or two more wins.

Bye bye, Hirdy.

Edit: Spelling. I type worse with glasses?

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by ManDee

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Or Nil ManDee

That sounds delightful.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Or Nil ManDee

That sounds delightful.

Depends if they are already playing for draft picks.

Depends if they are already playing for draft picks.

by the time the draft comes they may be ineligible - lol

Gambling bad but Bombers good!

AFL giants Essendon have turned their back on the lucrative world of wagering, announcing they will not consider sponsorships from betting partners.

In a move aimed to curb the impact of gambling messages, which have become prevalent in modern sport, Bombers chief executive Xavier Campbell said feedback from the club's near 60,000-strong members was important. "We certainly respect the right of betting agencies to advertise in sport," Campbell said.

"But as an industry we need to proactively monitor the way this message is delivered particularly given many of our fans are children."

Oh pleeease!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-say-no-to-sponsorship-deals-with-betting-agencies-20150625-ghxh33.html

amazing that you take issue with this.

I wonder if they are still taking the revenue from the pokies they have?

AFL clubs take more than $88 million from pokie players in 2013-14 financial year

VICTORIAN AFL clubs creamed more than $88 million from pokies punters in the last financial year, with Hawthorn and Carlton leading the way.

Collingwood and Essendon also generated more than $10m in the year to the end of June.

Gaming revenue has become such a factor in football that AFL boss Gillon McLachlan recently cited it as one of four chief reasons why the league had introduced equalisation measures.

The 19 gaming venues operated by the AFL clubs generated $88.7m in net gaming revenue, according figures published by the industry regulator.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-take-more-than-88-million-from-pokie-players-in-201314-financial-year/story-fni5ezdm-1227102811873

. . . . . . . .

Hypocrite "a person/footy club who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person/footy club whose actions belie stated beliefs"

Possibly true.

The only way that would have occurred is if ASADA turned up and demanded records. Do they have the ability/legal right to do that? The assumption would be that the 'authorities' had the right to walk into the club unannounced and demand records, computers etc,. Frankly I highly doubt that.

And if the club wanted to hide/lose the records in that scenario I am sure that would have happened.

If for example, worksafe turned up at my office and demanded records etc and I had been doing the same dodgy stuff that the EFC was doing then I would immediately call the lawyers and go to court challenging their right to access that information. You will find when legislation is drafted for these kind of things that there are loopholes everywhere, poor drafting of wording etc etc. All challengeable by a competent lawyer.

I am not sure it is as open and shut as you might think.

I don't think there is any doubt that AD would have had the 'How do I protect the AFL' hat on and a lot of the assumptions are in hindsight. From what we have read this saga moved pretty quickly over a couple of days and not many would have been thinking straight or with long term ramifications etc...

Not sure about ASADA rights in these circumstances, but WORKSAFE definitely can turn up at the door and inspect and seize whatever they want to enforce the law. there are and were ways and ways.

no doubt this will be examined in minute detail at CAS.

Chip Le Grand on ABC this morning said

they didnt cheat, players signed documents after being lied to, the independent AFL investigation could not be satisfied,

it is unlikely that WADA will be able to prove anything

Oh Well he has a book to sell I guess!

wishing and hoping and wishing and......

Funny how when nothing seems to be happening the ferals invent things.

There are those who are worried,deservedly.

Tic toc

Rats will run

Not sure about ASADA rights in these circumstances, but WORKSAFE definitely can turn up at the door and inspect and seize whatever they want to enforce the law. there are and were ways and ways.

no doubt this will be examined in minute detail at CAS.

True but WS didn't even START investigating until late 2012 when they had a complaint lodged. That should be the subject of an ICAC inquiry. Far King dis grace.

True but WS didn't even START investigating until late 2012 when they had a complaint lodged. That should be the subject of an ICAC inquiry. Far King dis grace.

If they were in a position to make an excuse they would be saying they are waiting for all the court matters to be finalised. Then they will think of something else.

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by america de cali

Depends if they are already playing for draft picks.

or as one guy named Brock would say, tanking.

Not sure about ASADA rights in these circumstances, but WORKSAFE definitely can turn up at the door and inspect and seize whatever they want to enforce the law. there are and were ways and ways.

no doubt this will be examined in minute detail at CAS.

should they choose to do so. As could AHPRA with Dr Reid, should they choose to do so.

Does anyone know who are their decision makers, and if so what are their footy allegiences?

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by monoccular

Speakin of worksafe, duty of care, players responsibility for what goes in their body and about a million other issues, try this . . .

From Chips book posted on bigfooty!

"Only it wasn't El Paso Texas, it was bought in Juarez, the Mexican city that joins with El Paso. How do we know this? Because the Essendon lawyer fought to have the Mexican drug changed to New Mexico, then had to retract and state it was in fact, bought in Mexico."

I know it's a serious issue but I just can't stop laughing: Ok guys lets see what we've got for ya today. Mmm . . how bout something with hint of Ol Mehico. WTF!!

Though not strictly legally enforcable in the general community, the morals* related to the Helsinki Declaration on Human Experimantation appear to have been violated in multiple areas.

It is worth a read, but here is a bit of an outline - from Wkkipedia

*morals - of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; (Definition inserted for the benefit of any EFC folk who may be reading, and who don't understand the concept)

Principles The Declaration is morally binding on physicians, and that obligation overrides any national or local laws or regulations, if the Declaration provides for a higher standard of protection of humans than the latter. Investigators still have to abide by local legislation but will be held to the higher standard. Basic principles The fundamental principle is respect for the individual (Article 8), their right to self-determination and the right to make informed decisions (Articles 20, 21 and 22) regarding participation in research, both initially and during the course of the research. The investigator's duty is solely to the patient (Articles 2, 3 and 10) or volunteer (Articles 16, 18), and while there is always a need for research (Article 6), the subject's welfare must always take precedence over the interests of science and society (Article 5), and ethical considerations must always take precedence over laws and regulations (Article 9).

The recognition of the increased vulnerability of individuals and groups calls for special vigilance (Article 8). It is recognised that when the research participant is incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, or is a minor (Articles 23, 24), then allowance should be considered for surrogate consent by an individual acting in the subjects best interest. In which case their consent should still be obtained if at all possible (Article 25).

Operational principles Research should be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific background (Article 11), a careful assessment of risks and benefits (Articles 16, 17), have a reasonable likelihood of benefit to the population studied (Article 19) and be conducted by suitably trained investigators (Article 15) using approved protocols, subject to independent ethical review and oversight by a properly convened committee (Article 13). The protocol should address the ethical issues and indicate that it is in compliance with the Declaration (Article 14). Studies should be discontinued if the available information indicates that the original considerations are no longer satisfied (Article 17). Information regarding the study should be publicly available (Article 16). Ethical publications extend to publication of the results and consideration of any potential conflict of interest (Article 27). Experimental investigations should always be compared against the best methods, but under certain circumstances a placebo or no treatment group may be utilised (Article 29). The interests of the subject after the study is completed should be part of the overall ethical assessment, including assuring their access to the best proven care (Article 30). Wherever possible unproven methods should be tested in the context of research where there is reasonable belief of possible benefit (Article 32).

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by monoccular

Speakin of worksafe, duty of care, players responsibility for what goes in their body and about a million other issues, try this . . .

From Chips book posted on bigfooty!

"Only it wasn't El Paso Texas, it was bought in Juarez, the Mexican city that joins with El Paso. How do we know this? Because the Essendon lawyer fought to have the Mexican drug changed to New Mexico, then had to retract and state it was in fact, bought in Mexico."

I know it's a serious issue but I just can't stop laughing: Ok guys lets see what we've got for ya today. Mmm . . how bout something with hint of Ol Mehico. WTF!!

Texas or mexico that is an absolute fuckinh disgrace.

Why arent the players losing their [censored] over that? Id be lawyering up.

Speakin of worksafe, duty of care, players responsibility for what goes in their body and about a million other issues, try this . . .

From Chips book posted on bigfooty!

"Only it wasn't El Paso Texas, it was bought in Juarez, the Mexican city that joins with El Paso. How do we know this? Because the Essendon lawyer fought to have the Mexican drug changed to New Mexico, then had to retract and state it was in fact, bought in Mexico."

I know it's a serious issue but I just can't stop laughing: Ok guys lets see what we've got for ya today. Mmm . . how bout something with hint of Ol Mehico. WTF!!

Am I reading this correctly?

Hooper is a pharmacist?? HE (a pharmacist). INJECTED PLAYERS WITH A SUBSTANCE UNKNOWN TO THE INDIVIDUALS?

Where is the Pharmacy Board? Asleep on the it own Mogadon??

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by monoccular

wishing and hoping and wishing and......

must say I'm shocked to be sitting here seeing you desperately avoiding acknowledging being wrong again. I love that you just ignore it and hope no-one notices

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by Lance Uppercut

must say I'm shocked to be sitting here seeing you desperately avoiding acknowledging being wrong again. I love that you just ignore it and hope no-one notices

Go away Tania, I am sick of your pedantic ravings and myopic views of your evil club. You claim to abhor any wrong doing but refuse to demand the club come clean. How can you possibly not see the endemic failings of the EFC over several years putting young men's lives at risk? Where are you demanding the records of what was actually given to the players? You come on here feigning concern and being the hindsight specialist. Put your silky sidewindings to a better purpose and start demanding the club come clean. In your heart you must know that the wrong thing has been done and if not you are more deluded than I thought.

Edit: Hypocrite.

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by ManDee

Am I reading this correctly?

Hooper is a pharmacist?? HE (a pharmacist). INJECTED PLAYERS WITH A SUBSTANCE UNKNOWN TO THE INDIVIDUALS?

Where is the Pharmacy Board? Asleep on the it own Mogadon??

I suspect you've got the wrong Malcolm Hooper. The Malcolm Hooper who manages Hypermed Clinic is not a pharmacist. He is a chiropractor who was de-registered in August 2103 for misconduct.

(http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/dodgy-chiropractor-struck-off-for-two-years-for-misconduct/story-fni0fee2-1226690450599)

From memory he charged the EFC $60,000 for treatment to 34 players prior to the 2012 ANZAC day game. Possibly the only invoice the Bombers have been able to produce.

Snake oil salesman first class.

must say I'm shocked to be sitting here seeing you desperately avoiding acknowledging being wrong again. I love that you just ignore it and hope no-one notices

ROFLMAO

And you are from Easendon, right?

Go away Tania, I am sick of your pedantic ravings and myopic views of your evil club. You claim to abhor any wrong doing but refuse to demand the club come clean. How can you possibly not see the endemic failings of the EFC over several years putting young men's lives at risk? Where are you demanding the records of what was actually given to the players? You come on here feigning concern and being the hindsight specialist. Put your silky sidewindings to a better purpose and start demanding the club come clean. In your heart you must know that the wrong thing has been done and if not you are more deluded than I thought.

Edit: Hypocrite.

interesting, given you have no idea what I have or have not done. And you call me a hypocrite. lol

You may notice a pattern to my contributions - recognising that I'm a guest on this board and the general vibe that dissenting opinion isn't exactly welcome here I tend to only respond when I am directly referenced. Do you think I don't deserve the right of reply?