Anyhow back to Jake...good bloke by all accounts

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

There is ample precedent from WADA investigations to suggest otherwise.  I look forward to Jake suiting up for the first round in 2016.

When??

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Devil is in the Detail

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

There is ample precedent from WADA investigations to suggest otherwise.  I look forward to Jake suiting up for the first round in 2016.

Which particular precedent regarding participants in a vast  multi-thousand  injection program over an extended time involving any number of banned substances would yo be referring to  Iva?

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by beelzebub
grammar

1 hour ago, iv'a worn smith said:

In my view, WADA is only going through this process, as they were appalled as to how the investigation was carried out by ASADA. In this case, what I believe mitigates in the players favour is the fact that they acted on the instructions of their employer, who is duty bound to provide a safe workplace.  It would appear that there is a prima facie argument that this may not have occurred.

If there are any sanctions handed down by WADA to players, I reckon they will be back dated (token) suspensions.  In my view, WADA'S real target is the employer in this case.  

Thanks for the response. Interesting. I think we are all looking forward to this coming to a conclusion in a way that does provide an outcome that does target the right people if it is established there was full black ops jab jabs.

10 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Which particular precedent regarding participants in a vast  multi-thousand  injection program over an extended time involving any number of banned substances would yo be referring to  Iva?

Article 10.5 of the WADA Code.  

19 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Article 10.5 of the WADA Code.  

I think that would more cover tainted food. eg Alberto Contador. Occasions were they had absolutely no opportunity to research information related to the drug.

The players may have been told "We are injecting drug named 'x' into you, the club says it is OK". I would think that would be the players opportunity to check the information of said drug.

That clause would only cover them if they made an effort to do some research on the drug themselves

Depends on what the players said to WADA. eg. They had made an effort to research the drug. They asked the club what the drug was on multiple occasions but the club refused to give them the information. If the players just accepted what was put into their body without asking the appropriate questions, they have only themselves to blame.

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Devil is in the Detail

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Article 10.5 of the WADA Code.  

yeah...nah  No significant fault ?? really

youre right  Iva...we read this all very differently

Apart from anything else the corner stone of this defence goes to two particular things. .It was an incident in isolation and that they could not have reasonably been expected to know what they took.

Firstly not only were there many injections per person but to multiple persons over an extended period of time. 

Secondly the players signed a form of waiver which purported to outline what they were to be jabbed with  and as such the players had some knowledge that something was being introduced  and in what manner. Not ..I had no bloody idea about anything.

To make matters worse is the recent coming to light that the players deliberately withheld information.  Not that they didnt know something, they didnt say so.  This isnt how you co-operate with WADA

 

21 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

yeah...nah  No significant fault ?? really

youre right  Iva...we read this all very differently

Apart from anything else the corner stone of this defence goes to two particular things. .It was an incident in isolation and that they could not have reasonably been expected to know what they took.

Firstly not only were there many injections per person but to multiple persons over an extended period of time. 

Secondly the players signed a form of waiver which purported to outline what they were to be jabbed with  and as such the players had some knowledge that something was being introduced  and in what manner. Not ..I had no bloody idea about anything.

To make matters worse is the recent coming to light that the players deliberately withheld information.  Not that they didnt know something, they didnt say so.  This isnt how you co-operate with WADA

 

Bub, point out to me where there has been a finding of players taking a banned substance.  The current investigation is predicated on the basis that WADA believe that ASADA stuffed the whole thing up.  There certainly was a pattern of conduct, which involved  injecting players, but there has been no finding as to whether these substances were on the banned list.

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by iv'a worn smith

11 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Bub, point out to me where there has been a finding of players taking a banned substance.  The current investigation is predicated on the basis that WADA believe that ASADA stuffed the whole thing up.  There certainly was a pattern of conduct, which involved  injecting players, but their as been no finding as to whether these substances were on the banned list.

you realise that is the crux of the appeal. To establish to a comfortable satisfaction  that the players received a banned substance i.e TB4.

The current situation is actually predicated on the opinion by WADA that the AFL returned an incorrect finding. That WADA think ASADA could have done better is incidental  but not the motive for their action.

 

I'll leave discussion of WADA here...so the others can enjoy their unsullied Milkshakes

happy to continue in the other thread

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by beelzebub
addendum

we probably should move this conversation to the relevant topic, but you have just answered your own question in your last post.  This whole issue is so vague, with a lack of substantive evidence.

Bottom line, to get back on topic, I'm looking forward to seeing Jake run out on the 'G come the first round.

 

There is an entire thread devoted to WADA. 

I like the sounds of Jake and Christian and even Bernie using their foot skills off half back, a real improvement on previous seasons.

6 hours ago, rpfc said:

I am so sorry for using the word 'hate' Pman and BB.

When I have time I will grab all the 'non-personal' comments about this person when he was a prospective Demon, and even when he was newly minted...

I look forward to seeing it. Fruitful for all concerned,

Most of what I saw related to his onfield persona, his ability, or any impending ban. Find some personal comments from those who have responded positively in this thread, and we can say your frivolous point at least has some basis.

And if you can convince me this isn't yet another instance of you internet point scoring, I'll award you an additional internet point. 

1 hour ago, P-man said:

I look forward to seeing it. Fruitful for all concerned,

Most of what I saw related to his onfield persona, his ability, or any impending ban. Find some personal comments from those who have responded positively in this thread, and we can say your frivolous point at least has some basis.

And if you can convince me this isn't yet another instance of you internet point scoring, I'll award you an additional internet point. 

'Frivolous' point?

You are the one having a go at me for the incorrect use of a word, while agreeing with my point that posters/fans didn't like him, his play, the vibe, or the idea of him as a Demon for, can I say, frivolous reasons...

And now here we are and one interview has swayed the mindless herd.

If you found it frivolous, superfluous, superficial, pointless, and ignorant...

So did I: http://demonland.com/forums/topic/39099-welcome-to-the-melbourne-football-club-%E2%80%93-jake-melksham/#comment-1155162

5 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Article 10.5 of the WADA Code.  

Good luck with that.

The criteria to meet 10.5 are clear - and almost impossible to achieve in normal circumstances. 

Jake: nice guy, nice get, will be nice seeing you sometime in 2017.

5 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Bub, point out to me where there has been a finding of players taking a banned substance. 

Bomberblitz would welcome you with open arms.

4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

'Frivolous' point?

You are the one having a go at me for the incorrect use of a word, while agreeing with my point that posters/fans didn't like him, his play, the vibe, or the idea of him as a Demon for, can I say, frivolous reasons...

And now here we are and one interview has swayed the mindless herd.

If you found it frivolous, superfluous, superficial, pointless, and ignorant...

So did I: http://demonland.com/forums/topic/39099-welcome-to-the-melbourne-football-club-%E2%80%93-jake-melksham/#comment-1155162

All completely irrelevant to comments on a) what kind of person he seems like; and b) expressing hope that a fresh start will be good for him.

Many have expressed reservations based on recent form. Can you seriously blame them? Melksham is a punt. Hopefully one that pays off trusting in Goodwin's judgement, but he is definitely a punt.

Basically you can't provide any comments of a personal nature from posters that might contradict the positive sentiments expressed here. So yes, a frivolous and redundant point.

God forbid starting off with a clean slate. You have to dwell on this crap instead.

Moving on.

 

There is a whole thread dedicated to the WADA saga, let's keep/take your arguments over there eh?

As a teen he was very fond of the jab.

Under Hirdy it was mandatory.

I've been out of the loop for a few days, but I was just thinking how exciting it is going to be Melksham in 2016.

5 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I've been out of the loop for a few days, but I was just thinking how exciting it is going to be Melksham in 2016.

We knew the risk CB now 2017.

where does this leave our coach?

17 minutes ago, old dee said:

We knew the risk CB now 2017.

where does this leave our coach?

Coach is fine. Goodwin wasn't involved.

20 minutes ago, old dee said:

We knew the risk CB now 2017.

where does this leave our coach?

He didn't take Thymosin-Beta 4 or whatever it was...

So does this mean Essendon now have to pay Jakes salary for 2016?

I'd expect Mitch White to be elevated now....like for like as both play the half back role.

7 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

I'd expect Mitch White to be elevated now....like for like as both play the half back role.

A little ray of sunshine? I was in Europe for the last round, and yet to see a fully replay, but looks OK. Decent size?