12 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Think that's a bit of a long bow Chris. If he's not at the club and not training with the others or by an employee of the club, it's highly unlikely that a conversation about taking a break from footy before getting back into it would be in breach of the code.

The ban includes getting any instruction from the club about what training you do, i.e they can't put a program together for you. In the article Roos talks about Milkshake going for a run to two every week until June July before he ramps up what he is doing. If you are really strict on the interpretation you could construe this as instruction from the club. The AFL wont have a problem with it as they would like to see the banned players running around with the rest of the team, ASADA or WADA may have a quiet word though and say that he is close to the line of instructing. 

On 18 February 2016 at 11:46 AM, Chris said:

The ban includes getting any instruction from the club about what training you do, i.e they can't put a program together for you. In the article Roos talks about Milkshake going for a run to two every week until June July before he ramps up what he is doing. If you are really strict on the interpretation you could construe this as instruction from the club. The AFL wont have a problem with it as they would like to see the banned players running around with the rest of the team, ASADA or WADA may have a quiet word though and say that he is close to the line of instructing. 

Do you think Roos is stupid enough that he wouldn't know exactly where to draw the line? Don't you think Melksham would have been given a detailed training regime before the ban was announced, regardless of length? We are a club run by adults (for once) who know what they are doing. Roos, Goodwin and Jackson would be all over this, far more than us Demonland posters. I trust them to make informed decisions, as they have the runs on the board.

4 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Do you think Roos is stupid enough that he wouldn't know exactly where to draw the line? Don't you think Melksham would have been given a detailed training regime before the ban was announced, regardless of length? We are a club run by adults (for once) who know what they are doing. Roos, Goodwin and Jackson would be all over this, far more than us Demonland posters. I trust them to make informed decisions, as they have the runs on the board.

Exactly, and as well the bloody media maggots denigrate anything Melbourne does because they hate our guts and that is totally reciprocated.

Well we weren't so super smart in having recruited a quickly banned player. Who's to say what we might also get wrong ?

42 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Exactly, and as well the bloody media maggots denigrate anything Melbourne does because they hate our guts and that is totally reciprocated.

willmoy your paranoia is showing,

The media don't hate the MFC the main problem is we have made it easy for them for the better part of a decade.

WE took a chance that a drug taker would not be found guilty and if he was we expected a soft penalty.

The hard option happened and we now have a convicted drug taker on the side lines for a year.

The MFC took the risk and were left holding the bag.

Once again we shot ourselves in the foot it is not the Media's fault.

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

willmoy your paranoia is showing,

The media don't hate the MFC the main problem is we have made it easy for them for the better part of a decade.

WE took a chance that a drug taker would not be found guilty and if he was we expected a soft penalty.

The hard option happened and we now have a convicted drug taker on the side lines for a year.

The MFC took the risk and were left holding the bag.

Once again we shot ourselves in the foot it is not the Media's fault.

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were.

Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it).

I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

 

 

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were.

Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it).

I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

Semantics or not LDC they are banned for taking illegal substances what you call them means little in my opinion.

How does banned cheats grab you?

They broke the rules and now they have to sit out a year.

Milkshake is no different to any of the other 33.

It annoys me that because he has joined the MFC we want to pretend he is not one of the guilty 34.

Edited February 19, 20169 yr by old dee

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were.

Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it).

I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

 

 

OK.

They're penalised substance abusers, who were deemed to have acted inappropriately within a systemic injection regime.

How about peptide cheats ?

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were.

Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it).

I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

 

spot-on ldvc. it's semantics. what would you prefer though as a title?

13 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were.

Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it).

I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

 

 

Sorry LDvC, when a murderer is found guilty of breaking the law beyond reasonable doubt he is convicted.  In this case the level required to be found to have been breaking the law was 'comfortably satisfied'.  So they are  convicted of the offence. I won't quibble whether a peptide is a drug or not - the point is that they were found guilty of <insert drug/peptide>. ie. convicted drug/peptide takers.

Edited February 19, 20169 yr by sue

16 minutes ago, old dee said:

Semantics or not LDC they are banned for taking illegal substances what you call them means little in my opinion.

How does banned cheats grab you?

They broke the rules and now they have to sit out a year.

Milkshake is no different to any of the other 33.

It annoys me that because he has joined the MFC we want to pretend he is not one of the guilty 34.

No problem with that...or calling them "penalised substance abusers" (thanks, ProDee).

I just think we should call it what it is. Language matters.

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

No problem with that...or calling them "penalised substance abusers" (thanks, ProDee).

I just think we should call it what it is. Language matters.

But do you have a problem with the word 'convicted' as in 'convicted substance abusers'.

32 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know its semantics, but Melksham and the rest of the 34 are not "convicted drug takers" and we shouldn't say that they were.

Firstly, no-one was "convicted" of anything. CAS was comfortably satisfied. Secondly, it wasn't drugs, it was peptide supplements. (And I'm not even sure that CAS was comfortably satisfied that those peptides were definitely taken but that there was enough evidence in the strands of the cable to infer that they probably did. However, if I'm wrong with that, so be it).

I'm not arguing that what Melksham and the other players were found to have done was not wrong. But let's also not make it into something that it wasn't.

Actually...Id suggest thats EXACTLY what theyve become  LDVC.

An Internation Court of Arbitration , still bound by law have found them to be guilty of participating  in a program of taking banned substances   aka drugs . Paracetemol is still a drug...lets not dance around here..drugs are drugs.

Im calling them convicted drug takers. Youre free to not 

6 minutes ago, sue said:

But do you have a problem with the word 'convicted' as in 'convicted substance abusers'.

Yes, I do. But I understand others do not. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive or even cautious, but to my way of thinking they've been caught cheating and they've been found on the balance of probabilities to have been injected with TB4, but it wasn't a criminal trial about the taking of illegal drugs and therefore I'm sticking with my view that "convicted drug taker" isn't the right language to use.

However, I'm not disagreeing with the CAS finding or the penalty imposed.

 

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. So I'll let it go with one final comment...you can be found guilty of something and not be convicted.

whilst ldvc points out that this was not a criminal court conviction, it should be pointed out that burden of proof, whilst lower than a criminal court was still higher than that required for a civil court. regardless a conviction in all is still a conviction

7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. So I'll let it go with one final comment...you can be found guilty of something and not be convicted.

I too don't want to prolong this, but do you consider Chinese/Russian altheletes etc when found to have been taking drugs  to be 'convicted'?  But only if the drugs have been found in their body perhaps? And not if there is a strong chain/rope of evidence that they did?  There is always doubt, even if their urine is full of drugs. Perhaps the detection chemistry was wrong, a mix-up in the lab etc.

49 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. 

Yes You are

Convicted Drug Cheats...(Just Remember James Hird just had his court costs paid by an Essendrug Fairy...So we now won't hear any truth from him)

Just because the club was naive enough to recruit one of them doesn't mean we should apply any sugar coating....

Your argument, LDVC, lacks conviction.

I'm happy to call them guilty doping drug cheats.

4 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Do you think Roos is stupid enough that he wouldn't know exactly where to draw the line? Don't you think Melksham would have been given a detailed training regime before the ban was announced, regardless of length? We are a club run by adults (for once) who know what they are doing. Roos, Goodwin and Jackson would be all over this, far more than us Demonland posters. I trust them to make informed decisions, as they have the runs on the board.

I am not overly confident anyone in AFL land has any real grasp of what is going on, no one as yet has shown any real appreciation of it. I hope you are right that the had a back up plan in place beforehand and that Jake knows what he is to do. If that is in place then Roos' comments are irrelevant as if he is asked he could easily show when the pkan was put in place. If it wasn't put in place then he may well be walking a fine line. I have confidence that Roos would be near the front in the AFL for actually working out what is going on so it shoyld be fine. 

I would prefer they just didn't comment and went about supporting him in private in what ever way they legally can. 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

I am not overly confident anyone in AFL land has any real grasp of what is going on, no one as yet has shown any real appreciation of it. I hope you are right that the had a back up plan in place beforehand and that Jake knows what he is to do. If that is in place then Roos' comments are irrelevant as if he is asked he could easily show when the pkan was put in place. If it wasn't put in place then he may well be walking a fine line. I have confidence that Roos would be near the front in the AFL for actually working out what is going on so it shoyld be fine. 

I would prefer they just didn't comment and went about supporting him in private in what ever way they legally can. 

I haven't read the Hun article that you originally mentioned due to paywall, but you wrote that Roos told Jake to take a break from footy to recharge. Also that Roos said in the article Jake should ramp up his training mid year to be ready for September return. If he was saying that to a reporter, it's clearly not giving Jake instruction on training during the banned period. 

We need to take a breath, not read too much between the lines, stop jumping at shadows

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Obviously I'm in a minority of about one. So I'll let it go with one final comment...you can be found guilty of something and not be convicted.

You are correct in a sense, as it has two meanings in law.

To be found guilty of an offence, is to be convicted of that offence.

However you can be convicted of an offence, without the recording of a penalty known as a conviction. For example, you are convicted of the offence (found guilty), but the penalty recorded, is a fine without conviction, or a bond to be of good behaviour, or a diversion,  etc. 

9 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

I haven't read the Hun article that you originally mentioned due to paywall, but you wrote that Roos told Jake to take a break from footy to recharge. Also that Roos said in the article Jake should ramp up his training mid year to be ready for September return. If he was saying that to a reporter, it's clearly not giving Jake instruction on training during the banned period. 

We need to take a breath, not read too much between the lines, stop jumping at shadows

Would you say the same if woosha told a reporter his players should run 3k 5 days a week and do 4 weights sessions, and make sure they take their vitamins? What Roos said is not that detailed and I  dont think it oversteps the mark but there is a line there of what they can and cant say. I would prefer we go no where near it. 

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Would you say the same if woosha told a reporter his players should run 3k 5 days a week and do 4 weights sessions, and make sure they take their vitamins? What Roos said is not that detailed and I  dont think it oversteps the mark but there is a line there of what they can and cant say. I would prefer we go no where near it. 

Woosha hypotheticals are irrelevant to the MFC. I trust Roos to answer media questions (that all coaches are required to do) using his considerable media experience and footy knowledge. I've said my peace and will leave you Chris to look for the negative in what appeared to be a positive media story.

22 hours ago, old dee said:

willmoy your paranoia is showing,

The media don't hate the MFC the main problem is we have made it easy for them for the better part of a decade.

WE took a chance that a drug taker would not be found guilty and if he was we expected a soft penalty.

The hard option happened and we now have a convicted drug taker on the side lines for a year.

The MFC took the risk and were left holding the bag.

Once again we shot ourselves in the foot it is not the Media's fault.

This opinion did not just fall from the sky as did neither i.

It does precede the Essendon shambles and by the same, ran concurrently with it.

All over the several years that I have participated on the forum we have been an unwarranted punch bag in a sea of punch-able bags whether it be about issues

like team selection, coach selection or recruit; jumpers or lack of courage. there are many and I have no time for them (the media, disillusion be thy name). I wish I was still back in M sometimes amongst it. Heaven knows we tolerate their lies in lots of other general issues, but we don't nor shouldn't have to HERE even if we aren't a top team.