28 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

How is this relevant?

Anyway, all your pal is saying is that the AFL shouldn't have run the tribunal in the EFC/Dank thing. Conflict of interest. And from the finding they handed down, we can see why.

Really?  Is that all he is saying?  Well spray me black and call me a panther!!!!!

 

10 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Making sweeping statements with nothing to back them up and no expertise in the field in question is not being pedantic.

So I take it by that you are a bio chemist, and I'm not, I just read things, I have tried to back up my statements, but obviously not to your exacting standards, for that I do apologise, you will still not change my opinion though

 

15 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Can we focus on discussing Melksham (and Hibberd?) as a footballer and what value he/they will bring to the Melbourne side in 2017? I am absolutely fatigued by all this endless debate on EFC and their drug culture! It's over: let's get back to Melbourne!

I think Melksham will be a good pickup, obviously Goodwin rates him, has over 100 games experience, stats (not everyones favourite) indicate a pretty consistent player

Edited September 16, 20168 yr by Satyriconhome

20 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Can we focus on discussing Melksham (and Hibberd?) as a footballer and what value he/they will bring to the Melbourne side in 2017? I am absolutely fatigued by all this endless debate on EFC and their drug culture! It's over: let's get back to Melbourne!

I agree CBD, oh and in future could we all please work on getting the spelling of his name correct, it's Melchett... MELCHETT!!

 

2 hours 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.

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

Outstanding post Bing. Great work.

5 hours 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

Should have ended the discussion there, bing.  But then we all knew it would fall on deaf ears.

Welcome back Jake hope you have a great career at the Dees ...that is all that matters to me 

On 9/16/2016 at 0:05 PM, Mickey said:

Why would sports people take them if they aren't thought to be performance enhancing? These drugs should absolutely be banned

Sports people do things and take things that improve (or, if you prefer, enhance) their performance all the time. That's why they take protein supplements, eat massive amounts of food and train with weights. I'm not defending the EFC - they had a responsibility to ensure that their players only took legally approved performance enhancing products. And the players, too, had a personal responsibility to ensure what they took was legal. Did what they take do anything to improve their performance? Who knows (although I've said before I doubt it - I think Dank is a charlatan and should be behind bars). But that's not the point. If a product or practice is banned - so be it. The user wears the consequences. 

22 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Fish oil? No, have a look at some of the advertising, Hawthorn have won the last three premierships because they take Swisse?

Actually, I wouldn't mind a regulatory authority investigating whether Luke Hodge actually uses that food preparation service (is it called Light and Easy?) They may be a perfectly sound option for the average human being but I find it hard to believe a professional AFL footballer could survive on those products alone.

16 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Actually, I wouldn't mind a regulatory authority investigating whether Luke Hodge actually uses that food preparation service (is it called Light and Easy?) They may be a perfectly sound option for the average human being but I find it hard to believe a professional AFL footballer could survive on those products alone.

My lovely lady falls about laughing every time that ad comes on, she reckons he balances it up with all the free Swisse products

 

16 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Did what they take do anything to improve their performance? Who knows (although I've said before I doubt it - I think Dank is a charlatan and should be behind bars).

And thanks, exactly what I say as well, they unfortunately had to wear taking a 'banned' substance, not necessarily a performance enhancing substance

On 16/09/2016 at 9:58 PM, Wiseblood said:

Should have ended the discussion there, bing.  But then we all knew it would fall on deaf ears.

It didn't fall on deaf ears Wise, I answered it, all it says is desirable effects, but you probably didn't see my reply as you have me on ignore and don't read my posts

55 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

And thanks, exactly what I say as well, they unfortunately had to wear taking a 'banned' substance, not necessarily a performance enhancing substance

you don't give up do you? i didn't realise you were a pharmacologist. it's on the wada banned list as a specific product as a performance enhancing substance, not on the s0 generic category. i know whose expertise i would consider most credible

come on people enough is enough about the bloody drugs!!! either talk about what you think Jake can bring to the club ( on the field ) or just close the thread, by now we know everyones opinions on the whole saga so just let it go.

No one is going to change anyones mind so just get over it , we will all be cheering when he does good things on the field and moaning when he doesn't just like every other player who pulls in the red & blue are we going to go through all this again when Hibbard joins ?

Bloody hell as my wise mother used to say people who live in glass houses..........        

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

you don't give up do you? i didn't realise you were a pharmacologist. it's on the wada banned list as a specific product as a performance enhancing substance, not on the s0 generic category. i know whose expertise i would consider most credible

Oh please, so they put it on a banned list and say it is performance enhancing, others have said that it aids recovery from injury, or may have desirable outcomes? I am not a pharmacologist, I just read both sides of the argument, my opinion, which by the way I don't have to change, even though you don't agree with it, is that the agencies just blanket ban

7 minutes ago, old demon me!!! said:

are we going to go through all this again when Hibbard joins ?

Of course we are, because we have posters like SWYL who want to condemn before a bloke has laced on a boot for MFC, I think both Melksham and Hibberd (if he arrives) will bring experience and added hardness to an already competitive side, they have served their time, and as far as I am concerned they are like everybody else who joins in October/November they arrive with a clean sheet, ready to have it covered in bile they minute they make an error during a game

7 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Oh please, so they put it on a banned list and say it is performance enhancing, others have said that it aids recovery from injury, or may have desirable outcomes? I am not a pharmacologist, I just read both sides of the argument, my opinion, which by the way I don't have to change, even though you don't agree with it, is that the agencies just blanket ban

there is nothing contradictory about being performance enhancing and having other desirable medical benefits. why is that such a hard concept to understand?

there is also a documented procedure in wada whereby in certain cases and for certain drugs under certain strict conditions,  permission can be given to use banned drugs for medical purposes.

Why do you bother? He's already said he won't change his opinion.  You're clearly dealing with a stubborn fool,  isn't supporting the dees enough masochistic behaviour for one lifetime dc? 

The great Dale Carnegie explained back in the 1930s that it's impossible to 'win' an argument. 

It is especially so when the other person is deranged.

12 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

Why do you bother? He's already said he won't change his opinion.  You're clearly dealing with a stubborn fool,  isn't supporting the dees enough masochistic behaviour for one lifetime dc? 

you're right jesse, got caught in a moment of weakness. 

I have watched a lot of Essendon as the wife supports them. Melksham is fast and hard and most of the time is a good kick but will make two clangers a game that burn into your memory that will make you forget the good things he did. I suspect he will be a better player for us under Goodwin's tutelage and away from the distractions of the passed 4 years. At a minimum he will be an upgrade on the roles and performance of M Jones (19 games) and Harmes (10 games) and Wagner (14 games) played this season. I suspect though he will give us a lot more.

1 hour ago, old demon me!!! said:

 are we going to go through all this again when Hibbard joins ?     

Unfortunately yes, and this same discussion will be going on for Crameri and the others who changed clubs.

The players, no matter what they do from here, and for which club, will always have an asterisk next to their names.

The damage EFC have done is far reaching and will take years to fade away.

12 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Unfortunately yes, and this same discussion will be going on for Crameri and the others who changed clubs.

The players, no matter what they do from here, and for which club, will always have an asterisk next to their names.

The damage EFC have done is far reaching and will take years to fade away.

Exactly

Interesting that I get called stubborn fool or deranged, and yet I am supposed to be the troll, classic troll behaviour from keyboard warriors

Thymosin Beta 4 has been categorically proven in numerous research studies to promote advanced healing in human muscle, organ and bone tissue. A simple google search will provide you with all you need. It's main medical function when administered in the large injected dosages like the Essendon players received is to help with the quicker healing of heart tissue after major heart attacks, it also promotes the same kind of rapid healing in all muscle tissue. 

It is banned because the majority of increase in athletes fitness comes from making small breaks in muscle tissue due to excercise and having them repair stronger. Tb4 speeds this process up to superhuman levels. 

Saty I respect your love of the Mfc and your enormous contribution to most threads, particularly training.

But Jake Melksham was found guilty of taking Tb4 in large dosages to aid his athletic performance at a time when it was banned. He is a drug cheat, he's done his time and will be welcomed back by MFC supporters but no amount of blurring lines because you are unaware of details of peptides like Tb4 changes that fact. 

Watched a couple of old highlight reels and the 'arrivials lounge' interview with him, and I must say there's more to him than my memory was telling me.

He's actually capable of doing a whole lot of good things. 

He can kick it a long way with an excellent fast low arc. He can snap goals instinctively. He can chase opponents down. He has that energetic attitude of fast thinking and action in chaos, and trying things that aren't regulation.

Now, I've sat with Essendon supporters many a time and seen them beat their hands on tables in frustration at Melksham because of the turnovers and the blunders, but I think a lot of that comes down to him actually trying to do something useful. A lot of those same Essendon supporters (back at the time) would spend the rest of the game groaning about handballing in circles at half-back, or tedious switches of play that come to nothing. 

 

So, anyone losing the plot now about how there's been a post about Jake Melksham in the Jake Melskham thread?

On 16 September 2016 at 4:25 PM, 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

Great post, I missed this before I posted my less detailed one above. Got fired up by the ignorance of Saty's comments on the subject and skipped ahead. Beautifully put Bing.

On 9/16/2016 at 4:43 PM, Grapeviney said:

 

 

 

Is this a cut-and-paste job or are you typing these responses out individually?

They are monotonous aren't they....