7 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

No-one is suggesting the Essendon 34 are convicted criminals.  They are convicted by a tribunal of breaching the regulations of the body concerned i.e. WADA via AFL.

It's like players found guilty of striking at the AFL tribunal.  Are you saying they're are not really guilty because it's not a court of law?

Not at all, - but thank you for your factual statement.  What I am saying is, I am not privy to all the evidence.  Unlike a Court of Law, the merits review is not bound by the legal principle of beyond a reasonable doubt, rather, it rules on probability.  And for the last time, these players' 'employer' has been found guilty of legal breaches. 

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

17 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No I'm not.  I am stating fact.  You are extrapolating the facts  

the fact is that you said  "CAS aint a Court."

the broad definition of cas is that it is a "court of arbitration" and is a "quasi-judicial body"

but, it is still a "court"........ sport!

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the fact is that you said  "CAS aint a Court."

the broad definition of cas is that it is a "court of arbitration" and is a "quasi-judicial body"

but, it is still a "court"........ sport!

OK, guess I better give up my day job.  Maybe I could become a bio chemist.

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

OK, guess I better give up my day job.  Maybe I could become a bio chemist.

What is the point you are trying to make?  The players have been found guilty by the relevant tribunal of breaking the regulations of the sport they signed up for and have been punished accordingly by being banned from participating.  This is all entirely appropriate.  The "court", the regulations and the punishment.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

there is paperwork. see cas findings. players took banned performance enhancing substance tb4. found guilty.

but some people know better than a court

Those would be the notes and records Dean Wallis kept so diligently?

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by Sir Why You Little

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Not at all, - but thank you for your factual statement.  What I am saying is, I am not privy to all the evidence.  Unlike a Court of Law, the merits review is not bound by the legal principle of beyond a reasonable doubt, rather, it rules on probability.  And for the last time, these players' 'employer' has been found guilty of legal breaches. 

i don't understand your beyond a reasonable doubt level of proof comparison as no-one here is claiming this is a criminal case and as you know. civil cases in "genuine" courts of law adopt a level of proof even lower than that used by cas

and yes, we understand, we (posters) aren't privy to all the evidence. and we understand the separate findings under worksafe laws which was a different issue to peds which is what was under discussion.

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the fact is that you said  "CAS aint a Court."

the broad definition of cas is that it is a "court of arbitration" and is a "quasi-judicial body"

but, it is still a "court"........ sport!

It is not a Court of Law and is not bound by codified jurisprudence.

 

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

It is not a Court of Law and is not bound by codified jurisprudence.

 

ah, so now you have moved the goal posts from "CAS aint a Court."  to " It is not a Court of Law and is not......"

it is still a court of arbitration which the players (by legal contract) have agreed to as part of the administration of the laws of the game pertaining to the use of substances.

13 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

It is not a Court of Law and is not bound by codified jurisprudence.

 

 

Welcome back Jake.  Looking forward to your contribution to the MFC in season 2017.

 

 

They are drug cheats in my eyes.

[censored] Essendon..

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Welcome back Jake.  Looking forward to your contribution to the MFC in season 2017.

 

 

He Better be Good....

Jake has served his penalty and as a player he should be welcomed to the MFC. He should not be "venerated" as I am afraid will happen to those of the 34 who return to Essendon next year. Instead he should be treated as any other player pursuing a sport at an elite level.

If there be anger and indignation (which is not inappropriate) it should be firmly directed at the Essendon Football Club and the AFL. It is obvious that neither of these organisations appreciate the damage that has occurred to the game not only by the drug taking itself but by the way that fact has been handled by the EFC and the AFL.

If one needs evidence of the damage that an issue like this can cause you need only look at the recent Olympics. People who were once avid followers of this sports fest either turned off or watched it with suspicion.

Welcome Jake. I hope you have a successful career at the MFC.

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

He Better be Good....

Have you looked at the kids selected from pick 30 onwards (would've been our pick in last years draft, instead of Melksham).

I'm happy with Melksham, as opposed to whoever else would've been available at that pick.

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by Demon Disciple

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Jake has served his penalty and as a player he should be welcomed to the MFC. He should not be "venerated" as I am afraid will happen to those of the 34 who return to Essendon next year. Instead he should be treated as any other player pursuing a sport at an elite level.

If there be anger and indignation (which is not inappropriate) it should be firmly directed at the Essendon Football Club and the AFL. It is obvious that neither of these organisations appreciate the damage that has occurred to the game not only by the drug taking itself but by the way that fact has been handled by the EFC and the AFL.

If one needs evidence of the damage that an issue like this can cause you need only look at the recent Olympics. People who were once avid followers of this sports fest either turned off or watched it with suspicion.

Welcome Jake. I hope you have a successful career at the MFC.

What further astounds me is that even if one subscribed to the 'players are victims' narrative, then the EFC is surely the perpetrator?

The lack of outcry against the EFC continually astounds me. My only explanation is that the players' lawyers have told them to keep quiet until settlement talks have concluded.

18 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

 

Correct

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

They were charged with taking a banned substance, show me the scientific research, from a reputable source, that says thay substance does enhance performance

This is a really simplistic, even ignorant comment, and whether it's deliberate or not, disingenuous. 

First of all, not all banned drugs are directly performance enhancing. For example, anything that enables better recovery after training or playing is in no way "performance enhancing", but clearly enables you to enhance your performance through more training. There are any number of masking agents that are banned that offer zero performance enhancement, but are banned for obvious reasons. Even some weight-loss products are banned, also for obvious reasons (just ask any cyclist) Same story with anything that "artificially" speeds up recovery from injury, which is one of the benefits of TB4, which is what the Essendon players were banned for.

Secondly, there is never going to be any direct research into performance enhancement of any performance-enhancing product apart from vitamins and the like for really obvious reasons. No funding body or scientific organisation would fund research into anything to be used an illegal product, nor would any credible researcher put their name to such a study (enter the likes of Stephen Dank).

On the other hand, there is a LOT of research into Thymosin beta-4, the product that Essendon players were banned for, and you can wade through any of these 601 articles and get back to us on what you find. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term="thymosin+beta(4)"[nm]

Or you could go to any of the sites peddling PED's, where you'll find the benefits of TB4 (or one of its forms, especially TB-500) spelt out in full, and tell us whether any of this would give anyone who took it an advantage in any way, shape or form:

Desirable effects of TB-500:

• • differentiation of endothelial cells (blood and lymphatic vessels)
  • growth of new blood cells
  • keratinocyte migration
  • collagen deposition
  • decreases inflammation in various tissue types
  • decreased inflamation in joints
  • increase muscle growth
  • increases in endurance and strength
  • relaxed muscle spasm and improved muscle tone
  • repair damaged heart tissue following a heart attack
  • healing of ulcers and lesions (including stomach and intestinal ulcers)
  • increased exchange of substance between cells
  • overall tissue repair
  • faster healing of wounds
  • repair of tendons and ligaments
  • improved flexibility of joints
  • prevents the formations of adhesions and fibrous bands in muscles, tendons and ligaments
  • promotes hair growth
  • protects and restores neurons after brain injury

2 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Have you looked at the kids selected from pick 30 onwards (would've been our pick in last years draft, instead of Melksham).

I'm happy with Melksham, as opposed to whoever else would've been available at that pick.

That's all fine. But he did nothing in 2016 so he has a fair bit of ground to make up

He was a willing participant in James Hird's Black Ops

So as i have said, He better be good. 

4 minutes ago, Choke said:

What further astounds me is that even if one subscribed to the 'players are victims' narrative, then the EFC is surely the perpetrator?

The lack of outcry against the EFC continually astounds me. My only explanation is that the players' lawyers have told them to keep quiet until settlement talks have concluded.

I agree. Thought the place would have been burnt down by now. 

The lack of outcry from parents astounds me, but it must be for legal reasons

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

There is no scientific evidence for a lot of these 'performance enhancing' substances, that is why I say the agencies just ban them anyway, it is a lazy way out, and gives them a justification for their existence

Thas just BS Saty. You're just throwing around wild generalisations and sweeping statements with little or no actual understanding of the processes involved in substances being banned (or not).

4 minutes ago, bing181 said:

This is a really simplistic, even ignorant comment, and whether it's deliberate or not, disingenuous. 

First of all, not all banned drugs are directly performance enhancing. For example, anything that enables better recovery after training or playing is in no way "performance enhancing", but clearly enables you to enhance your performance through more training. There are any number of masking agents that are banned that offer zero performance enhancement, but are banned for obvious reasons. Even some weight-loss products are banned, also for obvious reasons (just ask any cyclist) Same story with anything that "artificially" speeds up recovery from injury, which is one of the benefits of TB4, which is what the Essendon players were banned for.

Secondly, there is never going to be any direct research into performance enhancement of any performance-enhancing product apart from vitamins and the like for really obvious reasons. No funding body or scientific organisation would fund research into anything to be used an illegal product, nor would any credible researcher put their name to such a study (enter the likes of Stephen Dank).

On the other hand, there is a LOT of research into Thymosin beta-4, the product that Essendon players were banned for, and you can wade through any of these 601 articles and get back to us on what you find. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term="thymosin+beta(4)"[nm]

Or you could go to any of the sites peddling PED's, where you'll find the benefits of TB4 (or one of its forms, especially TB-500) spelt out in full, and tell us whether any of this would give anyone who took it an advantage in any way, shape or form:

Desirable effects of TB-500:

• • differentiation of endothelial cells (blood and lymphatic vessels)
  • growth of new blood cells
  • keratinocyte migration
  • collagen deposition
  • decreases inflammation in various tissue types
  • decreased inflamation in joints
  • increase muscle growth
  • increases in endurance and strength
  • relaxed muscle spasm and improved muscle tone
  • repair damaged heart tissue following a heart attack
  • healing of ulcers and lesions (including stomach and intestinal ulcers)
  • increased exchange of substance between cells
  • overall tissue repair
  • faster healing of wounds
  • repair of tendons and ligaments
  • improved flexibility of joints
  • prevents the formations of adhesions and fibrous bands in muscles, tendons and ligaments
  • promotes hair growth
  • protects and restores neurons after brain injury

You have answered what I have been asking, you said 'peddling' which is exactly right, and your ad above says 'desirable'. there is no scientific proof that any of these substances work, they may as well be selling snake oil, my point about Dank conning, there are all sorts of medicines, potions, oils, tablets in both the open and black markets that claim to do things

There has to be research into performance enhancing drugs by credible organisations, otherwise what is the point banning them, again my point, as to why they blanket ban anything they have no idea about

Just now, bing181 said:

Thas just BS Saty. You're just throwing around wild generalisations and sweeping statements with little or no actual understanding of the processes involved in substances being banned (or not).

And you are privy to the evidence which was led in the hearing?

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

And you are privy to the evidence which was led in the hearing?

Follow the thread.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

That's all fine. But he did nothing in 2016 so he has a fair bit of ground to make up

He was a willing participant in James Hird's Black Ops

So as i have said, He better be good. 

A couple of EFC acquaintances of mine, were happy to see him go and had a quiet snigger that MFC had picked him up. Reminded me of the snigger from my brother in law when we picked up Dawes and HH, 

In summary they regarded JM as a dumb footballer and turnover king. However on the plus side, Goodwin must believe that it will be a worthwhile pickup. Also one of the EFC supporters is a complete DH and hates Melbourne.   

2 minutes ago, hemingway said:

A couple of EFC acquaintances of mine, were happy to see him go and had a quiet snigger that MFC had picked him up. Reminded me of the snigger from my brother in law when we picked up Dawes and HH, 

In summary they regarded JM as a dumb footballer and turnover king. However on the plus side, Goodwin must believe that it will be a worthwhile pickup. Also one of the EFC supporters is a complete DH and hates Melbourne.   

I have an Essendon supporting colleague as well, said the same thing when he left, turnovers, maybe just group think like we get on here

Goodwin likes him as a player, that will do me

14 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

He was a willing participant in James Hird's Black Ops

When I had a chat to Jake last pre season, said the parachute harness sometimes chafes, but he does enjoy the waterboarding