8 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

DC taking 5 people to bring down an ice head and that person going out to play high level sport... I just can't correlate it.

well i'm not suggesting that someone that high could play sport, but just the fact it gives a user greater strength and courage, so at a lower dose it could help and the person still be aware enough to play a physical sport. Soldiers are known to be administered controlled doses of amphetamines by their superiors in situations where decision making is still required. 

Cards13 - my point was the reaction of the AFL to the story - "nothing to see here, move on.." They just want to sweep it all under the carpet so they can go around saying what a wonderful job they are doing of running a clean sport, No drugs, gambling, concussion or other damaging issues for mums to deny their kids the joy of playing AFL.

Essendon and Port Adelaide both chasing Jamar as top up player

Essendon and Port want Jamar

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

Essendon and Port Adelaide both chasing Jamar as top up player

Essendon and Port want Jamar

If one has scuples and so avoids Essendon what is Left other than Port !

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If one has scuples and so avoids Essendon what is Left other than Port !

not touching that....

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Essendon and Port Adelaide both chasing Jamar as top up player

Essendon and Port want Jamar

I see the Drug Lords are a protected species to the AFL.

They get to fill their ranks regardless of what the other AFL clubs say.

 

On 29 January 2016 at 0:30 PM, Ted Fidge said:

I used to watch Cousins and his incredible intensity and just assumed he had a good mental game. But it could have been stimulants.

Amphetamines = stimulants. For players who need a bit of a gee-up. Marijuana = depressant. For players who get too keyed up before a game and waste energy.

Party drugs can most definitely enhance performance.

The same shady types who can supply the "substances" can often also supply the PED's. There's more separation now because some PED's may well be available through prescription but any sportsperson wanting to get hold of these drugs would probably not want any sort of trace of the drugs (PED's) that they might get hold of.

I've always felt one might go with the other just because it carries similar risks (but not always, obviously) There could be any number of sportspeople who are prepared to go down both paths ... either/or shouldn't necessarily be the default thinking.

I'm not siding with Cousins but we tend to point the finger at the more obvious types ... my opinion is that if any AFL player wanted to take PED's in the AFL, they could and can do so without a whole lot of risk.

We're brainwashed into believing otherwise but the AFL aren't really trying to nail drug cheats (PED users) ... if they were, they would have ramped things up at least 10 fold from their 1 or 2 'urine' tests per player, per year (that's on average) ... that amount of testing has been in operation for a number of years now. Apart from anything else, the league should be conducting blood tests and lots of them.

After the Essendon debacle you'd reckon the AFL might have gone on the offensive with a new "mission statement" but in a lot of ways, nothing has changed. However, I'm not at all surprised with that - transparency has it's price (as many sports have found out)

But here's the other issue - the footy public aren't really demanding a tougher stance on PED use. Most are just glad the whole thing is over which to my way of thinking is rather dismaying.

We can have clean sport in this country but the sporting bodies need to be on the front foot (big time) in order for that to happen. 9 years ago Paul Roos was calling for weekly or twice weekly testing ... tough penalties are all well and good but what if the testing procedures, standards and quantities of testing aren't up to scratch?

I'm specifically talking about individual athletes going forward. The Essendon debacle involved a brazen and arrogant operation that was fatally flawed (as it turned out)

 

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

If one has scuples and so avoids Essendon what is Left other than Port !

There is no Port Left Bub. Sadly

18 hours ago, Cards13 said:

DC taking 5 people to bring down an ice head and that person going out to play high level sport... I just can't correlate it.

On one hand you have a reckless person taking a substance that gives them greater endurance and possibly focus of strength to be more reckless, i.e they become more of one facet of their personality. Dosage levels may also be more in tune with psychological dependencies rather than a measured and possibly previously experienced successful dosage level outcome as in one maybe taken by an elite sportsperson.

 

2 hours ago, Melbman2 said:

On one hand you have a reckless person taking a substance that gives them greater endurance and possibly focus of strength to be more reckless, i.e they become more of one facet of their personality. Dosage levels may also be more in tune with psychological dependencies rather than a measured and possibly previously experienced successful dosage level outcome as in one maybe taken by an elite sportsperson.

 

Yea true I guess I was just thinking of the dosages people on the weekend take, usually a lot. If you can dose up smaller amounts it may be of assitance. 

Dank hits back

Mate, any time you wanna tell everyone what you actually did give the players would be good.

This could backfire spectacularly on the Dankster.

12 hours ago, biggestred said:

Dank hits back

Mate, any time you wanna tell everyone what you actually did give the players would be good.

Some of the stuff in that article is really precious. Dank v Charter - two witnesses with close to zero credibility whose evidence was never given in person to either the AFL Tribunal or to CAS. Which one is going to tell the truth in court?

7 hours ago, biggestred said:

Dank hits back

Mate, any time you wanna tell everyone what you actually did give the players would be good.

Ha ha wait until the reconstructed self serving spreadsheet appears in court.

'Here is what I gave the players'. See here, panadol and thymomodulin. I don't know waht al the fuss is about.

 

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Ha ha wait until the reconstructed self serving spreadsheet appears in court.

'Here is what I gave the players'. See here, panadol and thymomodulin. I don't know waht al the fuss is about.

 

....followed  by an article in the Sun with the headline . "Danks stunning new evidence" or "PLAYERS CLEARED "   this saga has veered between being depressing and  an out and out  circus show. 

 

On 29 January 2016 at 11:30 AM, Ted Fidge said:

I used to watch Cousins and his incredible intensity and just assumed he had a good mental game. But it could have been stimulants.

Amphetamines = stimulants. For players who need a bit of a gee-up. Marijuana = depressant. For players who get too keyed up before a game and waste energy.

Party drugs can most definitely enhance performance.

 

I don't have much time for Peter Jess, but if the assault case he's talking about against Dank actually proceeds and the players win, I can't see how the CAS convictions can stand. How could the payers be guilty of taking a banned substance when they were given it without their knowledge or consent, which is effectively what the assault argument is going to have to be.

However, getting the assault charge to stick...and having the case heard and all appeals exhausted is likely to extend a fair bit into the period of suspension anyway. It might, however, make a difference to the AFL Commission's decision as to what to do with Jobe's Brownlow win.

Irrespective of anything else, I hope the assault case proceeds. There needs to be a much higher level of accountability for charlatans people who work with supplements of questionable value and unknown longterm effects.

Its not like dank tied them down and injected them or the time i got mugged at needle point in Barcelona...

24 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Its not like dank tied them down and injected them or the time i got mugged at needle point in Barcelona...

That's not the argument. Everyone agrees they consented to being injected. The assault argument, if it proceeds, will be that Dank injected something they did not give their consent to and not what he told them he was giving them. As I've said before, there is no way the players could know what they were being injected with (and nor could any of us when a doctor says he or she is giving us a tetanus shot) as they don't have access to scientific equipment to test the product. Therefore they had to rely on what Dank told them he was doing, just like we rely on our doctors when they tell us what they're doing. To me, believing in Dank was an obvious error and effectively what EFC got done for in the Magistrates' Court and the reason for the governance penalty applied by the AFL.

Having said all that, though, I suspect the assault case is a long shot because of the difficulty in getting evidence from events which occurred 4 years ago.

33 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Its not like dank tied them down and injected them or the time i got mugged at needle point in Barcelona...

I was going to say, the injection regime they signed waivers to be involved in...

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's not the argument. Everyone agrees they consented to being injected. The assault argument, if it proceeds, will be that Dank injected something they did not give their consent to and not what he told them he was giving them. As I've said before, there is no way the players could know what they were being injected with (and nor could any of us when a doctor says he or she is giving us a tetanus shot) as they don't have access to scientific equipment to test the product. Therefore they had to rely on what Dank told them he was doing, just like we rely on our doctors when they tell us what they're doing. To me, believing in Dank was an obvious error and effectively what EFC got done for in the Magistrates' Court and the reason for the governance penalty applied by the AFL.

Having said all that, though, I suspect the assault case is a long shot because of the difficulty in getting evidence from events which occurred 4 years ago.

On this basis, id argue that not having any records of what was injected is a form of assault in itself.

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's not the argument. Everyone agrees they consented to being injected. The assault argument, if it proceeds, will be that Dank injected something they did not give their consent to and not what he told them he was giving them. As I've said before, there is no way the players could know what they were being injected with (and nor could any of us when a doctor says he or she is giving us a tetanus shot) as they don't have access to scientific equipment to test the product. Therefore they had to rely on what Dank told them he was doing, just like we rely on our doctors when they tell us what they're doing. To me, believing in Dank was an obvious error and effectively what EFC got done for in the Magistrates' Court and the reason for the governance penalty applied by the AFL.

Having said all that, though, I suspect the assault case is a long shot because of the difficulty in getting evidence from events which occurred 4 years ago.

Unless something extraordinary happens, it's too late for that argument. The CAS hearing has taken place and won't be reviewed unless an appeal to the Swiss Federal Court successfully results in such an outcome. IMO, there's a very small chance of that happening and an even much lesser chance that a review would involve a rehearing of the facts of the case.

Love to see Dank outsmarted and finding himself in the box with learned folk circling

On 29 January 2016 at 5:04 PM, DemonFrog said:

I see the Drug Lords are a protected species to the AFL.

They get to fill their ranks regardless of what the other AFL clubs say.

 

And before other clubs get a look in.

14 hours ago, biggestred said:

Dank hits back

Mate, any time you wanna tell everyone what you actually did give the players would be good.

Note how Dank focuses on something basically irrelevant, ie whether he sent Charter to China or not. In the end, that is a side issue.The main questions is what Dank gave to the players, not where whatever it was came from, or who purchased it. As has been said above, the chance of Dank and Charter saying something truthful between them is pretty low.