54 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

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. 

Not sure you are right there DJ

WADA said that the CAS panel found "to its comfortable satisfaction" that clause 11.2 of the 2010 AFL anti-doping code had been violated, and found by a majority that "all players were significantly at fault".

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Not sure you are right there DJ

WADA said that the CAS panel found "to its comfortable satisfaction" that clause 11.2 of the 2010 AFL anti-doping code had been violated, and found by a majority that "all players were significantly at fault".

Wow, you are a hair splitter aren't you.

CAS the worlds leading authority and top arbiter of doping in professional sport found to a "comfortable satisfaction",  CAS's determinant of guilt for all its cases that "all players were significantly at fault" for violating the code by taking a nominated banned substance which was Tb4.

You can argue legal wording semantics all you want but the result is the same. All doping cases worldwide are judged by comfortable satisfaction, this is the standard by which guilt is judged in doping in professional sport. Tb4 was the substance the players were accused of taking that violated the code. The highest court in the world on drugs in sport found to the worldwide standard for the leading code in drugs in sport that Melksham and his colleagues took TB4.

Melksham= Banned drug cheat

Edited September 18, 20168 yr by deejammin'

3 hours ago, deejammin' said:

Wow, you are a hair splitter aren't you.

CAS the worlds leading authority and top arbiter of doping in professional sport found to a "comfortable satisfaction",  CAS's determinant of guilt for all its cases that "all players were significantly at fault" for violating the code by taking a nominated banned substance which was Tb4.

You can argue legal wording semantics all you want but the result is the same. All doping cases worldwide are judged by comfortable satisfaction, this is the standard by which guilt is judged in doping in professional sport. Tb4 was the substance the players were accused of taking that violated the code. The highest court in the world on drugs in sport found to the worldwide standard for the leading code in drugs in sport that Melksham and his colleagues took TB4.

Melksham= Banned drug cheat

Not hair splitting. The bolded bit is just wrong.

Oh CAS, the 'court' set up by that well known leader in ethics and morale behaviour in sport, the IOC, they had to do something, there were too many sportspeople  being dobbed in and they had sat on their hands for so long.

You know to appeal a decision by CAS, you have to go to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, now that will be a cheap process for an Australuan based athlete

Will never change my opinion that Jake was a naive footy player in his early twenties who was set up by a snake oil salesman and a narcissist 

Posters on here will be telling me FIFA is not corrupt next

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

Oh CAS, the 'court' set up by that well known leader in ethics and morale behaviour in sport, the IOC, they had to do something, there were too many sportspeople  being dobbed in and they had sat on their hands for so long.

You know to appeal a decision by CAS, you have to go to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, now that will be a cheap process for an Australuan based athlete

Will never change my opinion that Jake was a naive footy player in his early twenties who was set up by a snake oil salesman and a narcissist 

Posters on here will be telling me FIFA is not corrupt next

Stop crawling up the players rings Saty.

"Naive footy player"- give it a rest?

You are old school in your staunch support of players but when they [censored] up, as they do, they must acknowledge it and not blame others.

Responsibility in the hands of the guy that made the error.

No apologists/ hiding the truth.

Same with on field performance .

The efc players deserved their penalty.

One for taking peds. Naive - maybe. But that is neither here nor there. Do the crime and do the time. Take responsibilty.

And two by componding that stupid decision by not taking a deal early, pleading guilty and missing only 3 months and perhaps as few as 3 games like the cronulla players.

I dont buy them getting any slack for taking the peds based on just doing what they were told by the club. But even if i did they cant blame the club for not taking the deal. They made that stupid decision all by themselves and more fool them if they took advice on that matter from the very people who got them into the mess in the first place.

But they have served their penalty and i have no issue with any of them. Looking forward to having the melk run around for us. Its like gaving a brand new recruit.

Edited September 18, 20168 yr by binman

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Oh CAS, the 'court' set up by that well known leader in ethics and morale behaviour in sport, the IOC ..

... and independent of it (including funding) since the 1994 restructure.

Following on from an appeal ... "In 2003 the Swiss Federal Tribunal dissected the current organisation and structure of the ICAS and CAS, concluding that the CAS was not "the vassal of the IOC" and was sufficiently independent of it, as it was of all other parties that called upon its services, for decisions it made in cases involving the IOC to be considered as true awards, comparable to the judgements of a State tribunal."

Oh yeah right, sorry you are speaking to an old cynic, the Swiss Federal Tribunal, let's not find against organizations that are based in our.country and add to the economy     please  we want them to stay here

Edited September 18, 20168 yr by Satyriconhome

10 hours ago, deejammin' said:

Melksham= Banned drug cheat

In my first few years of working, I called anyone in a suit "sir".  I didn't stand up to my boss until the fifth year.  Imagine if he had been a legend of AFL like James Hird.

Another concept from those days is having one's hand on it.

If supporters, journos, ASADA and WADA think that a young man is going stand up to a legend of the game and club while his mates are lining up for their jabs, they are being self-indulgent.  Nor would defence force rookies walk funny.

 

 

9 minutes ago, steve_f said:

In my first few years of working, I called anyone in a suit "sir".  I didn't stand up to my boss until the fifth year.  Imagine if he had been a legend of AFL like James Hird.

Another concept from those days is having one's hand on it.

If supporters, journos, ASADA and WADA think that a young man is going stand up to a legend of the game and club while his mates are lining up for their jabs, they are being self-indulgent.  Nor would defence force rookies walk funny.

 

 

So what is Duston Fletcher, Brent Stanton and Jobe Watson's excuse?

And funny how Zaharakis could say no.

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Oh yeah right, sorry you are speaking to an old cynic, the Swiss Federal Tribunal, let's not find against organizations that are based in our.country and add to the economy     please  we want them to stay here

Hasn't helped Sepp Blatter and his pals, and didn't help CAS when the same Federal Tribunal laid into them in 1992.

Pathetic. We're getting to Pauline Hanson/Trump levels of conspiracy theory and ignorance here.

9 hours ago, steve_f said:

In my first few years of working, I called anyone in a suit "sir".  I didn't stand up to my boss until the fifth year.  Imagine if he had been a legend of AFL like James Hird.

Another concept from those days is having one's hand on it.

If supporters, journos, ASADA and WADA think that a young man is going stand up to a legend of the game and club while his mates are lining up for their jabs, they are being self-indulgent.  Nor would defence force rookies walk funny.

 

 

While I understand what you're getting at, don't forget all players upon induction into the AFL are also told exactly what they are expected to do with respect to checking everything personally with ASADA. So while you are correct that they might find it hard to stand up to their Essendon boss(es), by not doing so they ultimately did stand up to their AFL bosses. 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I understand what you're getting at, don't forget all players upon induction into the AFL are also told exactly what they are expected to do with respect to checking everything personally with ASADA. So while you are correct that they might find it hard to stand up to their Essendon boss(es), by not doing so they ultimately did stand up to their AFL bosses. 

They also do around 40 hours a year of training in relation to drugs.........

9 hours ago, bing181 said:

Hasn't helped Sepp Blatter and his pals, and didn't help CAS when the same Federal Tribunal laid into them in 1992.

Pathetic. We're getting to Pauline Hanson/Trump levels of conspiracy theory and ignorance here.

It's not theory chap,, it's being on this dustbin we laughingly call our home, and reading, watching, listening etc to what has occurred over the last 64 years I have had the privilege the share the oxeygen with others.

If there is a dollar to be made, ethics and morality are quickly sold

Edited September 19, 20168 yr by Satyriconhome

11 hours ago, steve_f said:

In my first few years of working, I called anyone in a suit "sir".  I didn't stand up to my boss until the fifth year.  Imagine if he had been a legend of AFL like James Hird.

Another concept from those days is having one's hand on it.

If supporters, journos, ASADA and WADA think that a young man is going stand up to a legend of the game and club while his mates are lining up for their jabs, they are being self-indulgent.  Nor would defence force rookies walk funny.

 

 

It seems to me young AFL players say no to their bosses all the time. They say no to contracts, they say no to staying if they have a better offer, they say no to giving the club an idea of their intentions, some really talented players say no to different roles, they say no to staying an hour away from their hometown, we had one who lied to a club champion who was dying of cancer for a whole year to take a big contract. The good ones say no to booze with friends, unhealthy food, staying out late, etc etc. But when it comes to saying no to taking an enormous amount of injections that contravene your ASADA/AFL training, aren't administered by a doctor or nurse, aren't told to the club doctor or put on ASADA forms before matches it's all of a sudden impossible to say no. I think you should get your hand off it.

 

4 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

It seems to me young AFL players say no to their bosses all the time. They say no to contracts, they say no to staying if they have a better offer, they say no to giving the club an idea of their intentions, some really talented players say no to different roles, they say no to staying an hour away from their hometown, we had one who lied to a club champion who was dying of cancer for a whole year to take a big contract. The good ones say no to booze with friends, unhealthy food, staying out late, etc etc. But when it comes to saying no to taking an enormous amount of injections that contravene your ASADA/AFL training, aren't administered by a doctor or nurse, aren't told to the club doctor or put on ASADA forms before matches it's all of a sudden impossible to say no. I think you should get your hand off it.

 

Fair call. Also I find it hard to be sympathetic toward the EFC players when sportsmen and women in this country and across the world have to live with their decisions regarding doping. Ignorance of what you have taken or casting blaming on others (ie coach or club) is not a legitimate excuse. AFL footballers should not be treated any differently than any other professional sportsperson. 

24 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

It seems to me young AFL players say no to their bosses all the time. They say no to contracts, they say no to staying if they have a better offer, they say no to giving the club an idea of their intentions, some really talented players say no to different roles, they say no to staying an hour away from their hometown, we had one who lied to a club champion who was dying of cancer for a whole year to take a big contract. The good ones say no to booze with friends, unhealthy food, staying out late, etc etc. But when it comes to saying no to taking an enormous amount of injections that contravene your ASADA/AFL training, aren't administered by a doctor or nurse, aren't told to the club doctor or put on ASADA forms before matches it's all of a sudden impossible to say no. I think you should get your hand off it.

 

BANG!!

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

They also do around 40 hours a year of training in relation to drugs.........

As deejammin notes they also decided to lie by ommision by not indicating on the pre testing ASADA forms they had injections. I assume these forms are confidential, in so far as the club would not not know what a player puts on their form. So they wouldn't have to stand up to their bosses at all. Just tell the truth. The club would not have known which players did so. 

I'm actually amazed that the players did not cop more stick for this lie by omission.  To me it was the most daming bit evidence against the players (one that wouldn't have come out if they had taken a deal early in the piece - so much for trying to protect their reputation by fighting on). 

That all players seem not have recorded what drugs they took or the number of injections is way too much of a coincidence not to be aconscious decision to deceive ASADA and suggests the club asked them to carry out this deceit. Surely this should have set off major alarm bells for the players.  

Edited September 19, 20168 yr by binman

14 minutes ago, binman said:

As deejammin notes they also decided to lie by ommision by not indicating on the pre testing ASADA forms they had injections. I assume these forms are confidential, in so far as the club would not not know what a player puts on their form. So they wouldn't have to stand up to their bosses at all. Just tell the truth. The club would not have known which players did so. 

I'm actually amazed that the players did not cop more stick for this lie by omission.  To me it was the most daming bit evidence against the players (one that wouldn't have come out if they had taken a deal early in the piece - so much for trying to protect their reputation by fighting on). 

That all players seem not have recorded what drugs they took or the number of injections is way too much of a coincidence not to be aconscious decision to deceive ASADA and suggests the club asked them to carry out this deceit. Surely this should have set off major alarm bells for the players.  

quite

17 minutes ago, binman said:

As deejammin notes they also decided to lie by ommision by not indicating on the pre testing ASADA forms they had injections. I assume these forms are confidential, in so far as the club would not not know what a player puts on their form. So they wouldn't have to stand up to their bosses at all. Just tell the truth. The club would not have known which players did so. 

I'm actually amazed that the players did not cop more stick for this lie by omission.  To me it was the most daming bit evidence against the players (one that wouldn't have come out if they had taken a deal early in the piece - so much for trying to protect their reputation by fighting on). 

That all players seem not have recorded what drugs they took or the number of injections is way too much of a coincidence not to be aconscious decision to deceive ASADA and suggests the club asked them to carry out this deceit. Surely this should have set off major alarm bells for the players.  

The AFL never wanted to ban them. Essendrug is too important. 

Gill told us that

1 hour ago, binman said:

As deejammin notes they also decided to lie by ommision by not indicating on the pre testing ASADA forms they had injections. I assume these forms are confidential, in so far as the club would not not know what a player puts on their form. So they wouldn't have to stand up to their bosses at all. Just tell the truth. The club would not have known which players did so. 

I'm actually amazed that the players did not cop more stick for this lie by omission.  To me it was the most daming bit evidence against the players (one that wouldn't have come out if they had taken a deal early in the piece - so much for trying to protect their reputation by fighting on). 

That all players seem not have recorded what drugs they took or the number of injections is way too much of a coincidence not to be aconscious decision to deceive ASADA and suggests the club asked them to carry out this deceit. Surely this should have set off major alarm bells for the players.  

Agreed.

It's further compounded by the text messages between some of them asking if they 'go their thymo' injection yet.

Text your teammate to ask if they got their shot, but not write down the shot on the disclosure form?

I reckon the players have gotten off very lightly, the media could have gone very hard but didn't.

2 hours ago, deejammin' said:

It seems to me young AFL players say no to their bosses all the time. They say no to contracts, they say no to staying if they have a better offer, they say no to giving the club an idea of their intentions, ETC

Bear in mind that it is really their older, more worldly managers who are doing the saying.

IMaybe you can recall old stories of awe-struck players being recruited literally for 10 pounds, 3 pelaco shirts and a slab for the old man. Players won't have changed. It's the system that's changed. Players no longer get diddled by clubs, and it's because of the player managers who have no fear of telling clubs to stick deals up their jacksies.

Nonetheless the managers can't be with them 24/7. It's easy to see a wet behind the ears recruit, who doesn't know what's normal and what's not, going along with the other players and lining up for his stomach jabs. As elsewhere mentioned, the really culpable ones are the ones who had been in the system to know "something" was going on, who had the experience and the clout to make waves, and lined up for their jabs anyway.

4 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Bear in mind that it is really their older, more worldly managers who are doing the saying.

IMaybe you can recall old stories of awe-struck players being recruited literally for 10 pounds, 3 pelaco shirts and a slab for the old man. Players won't have changed. It's the system that's changed. Players no longer get diddled by clubs, and it's because of the player managers who have no fear of telling clubs to stick deals up their jacksies.

Nonetheless the managers can't be with them 24/7. It's easy to see a wet behind the ears recruit, who doesn't know what's normal and what's not, going along with the other players and lining up for his stomach jabs. As elsewhere mentioned, the really culpable ones are the ones who had been in the system to know "something" was going on, who had the experience and the clout to make waves, and lined up for their jabs anyway.

Interestingly none of the Essendon players managersor the AFLPA were kept fully informed by their players on the program at Essendon either. So while I see your point, the players only have themselves to blame, they were fully able to fill out their ASADA forms, speak to Bruce Reid or speak to their managers but chose to maintain secrecy for a competitive edge, that is not innocent behaviour and I don't see why so many are so keen to excuse it.

Edited September 19, 20168 yr by deejammin'

2 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

Interestingly none of the Essendon players managersor the AFLPA were kept fully informed by their players on the program at Essendon either. So while I see your point, the players only have themselves to blame, they were fully able to fill out their ASADA forms, speak to Bruce Reid or speak to their managers but chose to maintain secrecy for a competitive edge, that is not innocent behaviour and I don't see why so many are so keen to excuse it.

I don't excuse them, they are guilty. As a group, they knew there was monkey business of some kind, and decided to cover it up.

Just trying to explain the dilemma of a new player trying to reconcile his ASADA lectures with what Jobe & co were doing. (In this case Jobe & co won out, but it's easy to imagine the cognitive dissonance of trying to straighten it out in your head.)