12 minutes 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. 

We talk about the players, Hird and the rest of the gang and that gang includes our new coach. 

From Matt Harvey - Lecturer in Law - Victoria University

 

Quote

In my constitutional law classes, I teach that government consists of the legislature that makes the law, the executive that implements it and the judiciary that decides disputes as to how it applies in a particular case.

In the football world, the AFL is seeking to fulfil all these functions. It may hold up from a strictly legal perspective - the AFL is simply seeking to apply the rules they wrote - but from the perspective of justice and good governance, it does not. .......

......On the legal front, this case has revealed the inadequacy of the AFL’s judicial system and a separation of prosecution from judge and jury is the most pressing reform for the league, while some cool heads at club level with access to all areas could help to save clubs from ethical crises and save players from being treated as guinea pigs.

 

On 14 September 2016 at 10:40 AM, Sir Why You Little said:

He Better be good....

 

On 16 September 2016 at 4:11 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

He Better be Good....

 

On 16 September 2016 at 4:27 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

So as i have said, He better be good. 

 

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

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

 there is no scientific proof that any of these substances work

It's like talking to a Trump supporter.

I give you a link to 601 scientific articles on TB4, and you try and claim that " there is no scientific proof ..."

There is EVERY proof that these substances work, though once again, you're completely missing the point as to HOW many of these products work when used as PED's. Valid scientific research that establishes that "this product enables faster recovery from muscle injury" is all that's needed for the likes of Dank to [censored] up their ears and start injecting it into athletes. That list above from the PED site covers the benefits of TB4 as established by scientific research. 

4 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.   

yeah, i heard that too ernest. However at the start of the year i was at a family do and my wife's cousins are all mad bomber fans. I asked them what they thought and they all thought he was a good pickup who was down a little on form in 2015 probably because of all the pressure re asada at the club, meaning he became a bit of a whipping boy to some.

guess we will all find out next year. btw i consider jake has done the crime/done the time and starts off with a second chance, so i hope he succeeds. I was against the trade initially and events proved that correct in at least one aspect (i.e. out for a year) but that's now water under the bridge and we move on

13 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

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

You don't have to be aware of specific evidence in this case to know that post by Saty is plain nonsense.  He is usually more sensible than that so I expectsomeone has hi-jacked his account.

So WADA just bans everything in sight so they can justify their existence and keep busy?  I would have thought anyone can see that WADA and CAS have more work than they can possibly handle.

WADA is a travesty and was proven to be so, when CAS stepped in.

 

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

It's like talking to a Trump supporter.

I give you a link to 601 scientific articles on TB4, and you try and claim that " there is no scientific proof ..."

There is EVERY proof that these substances work, though once again, you're completely missing the point as to HOW many of these products work when used as PED's. Valid scientific research that establishes that "this product enables faster recovery from muscle injury" is all that's needed for the likes of Dank to [censored] up their ears and start injecting it into athletes. That list above from the PED site covers the benefits of TB4 as established by scientific research. 

I may be being pedantic, but SWYL said they were playing like supermen through juicing up, others infer the same thing, so what you are saying is that the substances are not performance enhancing but an aide to recover from muscle injury, so therefore if it is a medical benefit and not a performance enhancement then surely it shouldn't be banned as it actually helps an athlete recover quicker from injury and get back to competing, something that most sporting bodies would welcome rather than discourage? You are sort of making my point for me about the agencies

17 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.   

So we wait....

12 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

There has to be research into performance enhancing drugs by credible organisations,

Why does there have to be?

13 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

otherwise what is the point banning them

Does this really require an answer?

14 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

again my point, as to why they blanket ban anything they have no idea about

There are too many substances out there. They cannot test them all.

The funding for the cheats outstrips the funding for the ASDAs, USADAs, etc. There is no way they can test them all. Not time nor money.

So they have "catch all" sections in the code. Not approved for human consumption? Banned. Too similar chemically to a known banned substance? Banned.

You seem to be blaming the agencies. They are fighting an uphill battle. Underfunded, under-resourced, often deliberately by their controlling bodies.

6 minutes ago, bing181 said:

It's like talking to a Trump supporter.

I give you a link to 601 scientific articles on TB4, and you try and claim that " there is no scientific proof ..."

There is EVERY proof that these substances work, though once again, you're completely missing the point as to HOW many of these products work when used as PED's. Valid scientific research that establishes that "this product enables faster recovery from muscle injury" is all that's needed for the likes of Dank to [censored] up their ears and start injecting it into athletes. That list above from the PED site covers the benefits of TB4 as established by scientific research. 

Its like conversing with a Brick Wall Bing..

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I may be being pedantic, but SWYL said they were playing like supermen through juicing up, others infer the same thing, so what you are saying is that the substances are not performance enhancing but an aide to recover from muscle injury, so therefore if it is a medical benefit and not a performance enhancement then surely it shouldn't be banned as it actually helps an athlete recover quicker from injury and get back to competing, something that most sporting bodies would welcome rather than discourage? You are sort of making my point for me about the agencies

Oh my God.....

On 16 September 2016 at 4:43 PM, iv'a worn smith said:

From Matt Harvey - Lecturer in Law - Victoria University

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.

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I may be being pedantic, but SWYL said they were playing like supermen through juicing up, others infer the same thing, so what you are saying is that the substances are not performance enhancing but an aide to recover from muscle injury, so therefore if it is a medical benefit and not a performance enhancement then surely it shouldn't be banned as it actually helps an athlete recover quicker from injury and get back to competing, something that most sporting bodies would welcome rather than discourage? You are sort of making my point for me about the agencies

errr................what about those highlighted ones........they seem more performance enhancing than medical recovery

Quote

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

 

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

From Matt Harvey - Lecturer in Law - Victoria University

 

 

One of the obvious questions for me would be is there another comparison in sporting circles where the AFL's delicate,if not shaky, judicial system/ legal minefield would be worth a look at by them with a view to some sort of Ethical resolution. 

12 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

WADA is a travesty and was proven to be so, when CAS stepped in.

 

Explain your reasoning.

ASADA charged players, AFL tribunal let them off, WADA appealed, CAS heard the case anew and suspended the players.

I spot a travesty in there, but I don't see where WADA have erred.

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

errr................what about those highlighted ones........they seem more performance enhancing than medical recovery

 

Desirable...........there is a billion dollar vitamin supplement industry in Australia thriving on the same type of claims, every persons physiology is different, so the effect may be different, you can buy powders over the counter that increases muscle growth, they are not banned

 

 

25 minutes ago, Grapeviney said:

 

 

 

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

Individually as i see fit. It is the bottom line

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Desirable...........there is a billion dollar vitamin supplement industry in Australia thriving on the same type of claims, every persons physiology is different, so the effect may be different, you can buy powders over the counter that increases muscle growth, they are not banned

Red herring

27 minutes ago, hemingway said:

We talk about the players, Hird and the rest of the gang and that gang includes our new coach. 

Yes i know. I am still wary of where "Goody" our new senior coach has come from...

4 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Red herring

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

Edited September 16, 20168 yr by Satyriconhome

2 minutes 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?

Why don't you take them some of your "powders over the counter that increases muscle growth" that are "not banned" then? Preferably before tonight's game.

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!

30 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

I may be being pedantic

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

13 minutes 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?

I think you will find Saty that it is the other way around.  Swisse is piggy-backing on the fact Hawthorn have one the last 3 premierships.