THE BOMBERS' SWISS ADVENTURE

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

3 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Stephen Dank loses part of defamation challenge over NRL peptide stories

No love in court for Dank.

My God that is outrageous

accelleration of Cancer...Woah i was expecting this at some stage...

[Cards13 9,117]

19 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Stephen Dank loses part of defamation challenge over NRL peptide stories

No love in court for Dank.

Still baffles me this "Despite receiving the advice from Dank, who doesn’t have any medical qualifications,".

The guy has 0 medical qualifications and yet was the darling of the sports science guys around "professional clubs Aust wide".

Also love how lower down he goes the spell defence, "it was not my responsibility, it was someone else's. I just administered the gear."

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

18 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Still baffles me this "Despite receiving the advice from Dank, who doesn’t have any medical qualifications,".

The guy has 0 medical qualifications and yet was the darling of the sports science guys around "professional clubs Aust wide".

Also love how lower down he goes the spell defence, "it was not my responsibility, it was someone else's. I just administered the gear."

How is it The Medical Fraternity cannot charge this guy?

i have never understood this area. 

The guy is a [censored] ...

[Cards13 9,117]

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

How is it The Medical Fraternity cannot charge this guy?

i have never understood this area. 

The guy is a [censored] ...

Besides developing and implementing expensive, banned drug programs I'm not sure he has ever claimed to be a doctor?

He is like the snake oil salesman for yore, rides into town with the next new thing only to be found out later. I'm yet to see the town tar and feather him and hang him from the nearest tree. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

3 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Besides developing and implementing expensive, banned drug programs I'm not sure he has ever claimed to be a doctor?

He is like the snake oil salesman for yore, rides into town with the next new thing only to be found out later. I'm yet to see the town tar and feather him and hang him from the nearest tree. 

Agreed. But it crosses over in a blurred way...

[beelzebub 23,390]

12 hours ago, biggestred said:

Apparently jake Carlisle wants to sue the saints cos they havent paid him yet ???? blokes a drug cheat

The guy's  also an idiot

[beelzebub 23,390]

10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

How is it The Medical Fraternity cannot charge this guy?

i have never understood this area. 

The guy is a [censored] ...

How do they. He's not one of them. He's a nothing, selling something.

 

[Biffen 12,949]

11 hours ago, bing181 said:

I see you're on a roll today Biff with the French, and it's fine work of course, but ... "mensonges", and almost certainly the lies would be "des" not "les". Also, no doubt you're up to speed on the spelling reforms that have just come into place, but the circumflexes on "être" and "êtes" aren't included.

It is what it etes , Bing.

I can't put the little berets on the e.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,040]

10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

How is it The Medical Fraternity cannot charge this guy?

i have never understood this area. 

The guy is a [censored] ...

In all seriousness, I keep wondering why the Police haven't charged him. I can only assume he hasn't committed any offences, which suggests to me that perhaps we need to look more closely at the laws which allow him and his like to "practice". I'd like to think that anyone that can inject a person or give instructions for someone else to administer the injection should hold some form of qualification, registration or licence. (With exemptions for people who administer insulin and Epi-pens and probably a few other things. ) 

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In all seriousness, I keep wondering why the Police haven't charged him. I can only assume he hasn't committed any offences, which suggests to me that perhaps we need to look more closely at the laws which allow him and his like to "practice". I'd like to think that anyone that can inject a person or give instructions for someone else to administer the injection should hold some form of qualification, registration or licence. (With exemptions for people who administer insulin and Epi-pens and probably a few other things. ) 

Agree. Anyone who does not keep records or destroys them should be at least charged

[old dee 24,004]

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Agree. Anyone who does not keep records or destroys them should be at least charged

With what?

You have to be able to prove a case to go to court.

[John Crow Batty 8,882]

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In all seriousness, I keep wondering why the Police haven't charged him. I can only assume he hasn't committed any offences, which suggests to me that perhaps we need to look more closely at the laws which allow him and his like to "practice". I'd like to think that anyone that can inject a person or give instructions for someone else to administer the injection should hold some form of qualification, registration or licence. (With exemptions for people who administer insulin and Epi-pens and probably a few other things. ) 

Would be so simple to follow. Any injection to be done by a qualified  person namely a registered doctor or nurse only. Any injectable substance to be  prescribed by a club doctor only.  Only substances on a players treatment sheet authorised by a doctor can be administered by injection or other route including frequency and doses. All administrations to be recorded on recording sheets. This is how it is done in the health system and consequences can be severe if procedures are not followed correctly.  The AFL can lift their policy straight from the the mainstream health system. So in this case any other substance not listed on a players treatment sheet is covered by a blanket ban and no reasonable excuse is possible.

Edited March 14, 2016 by america de cali

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

3 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Would be so simple to follow. Any injection to be done by a qualified  person namely a registered doctor or nurse only. Any injectable substance to be  prescribed by a club doctor only.  Only substances on a players treatment sheet authorised by a doctor can be administered by injection or other route including frequency and doses. All administrations to be recorded on recording sheets. This is how it is done in the health system and consequences can be severe if procedures are not followed correctly.  The AFL can lift their policy straight from the the mainstream health system. So in this case any other substance not listed on a players treatment sheet is covered by a blanket ban and no reasonable excuse is possible.

Oh wow. That's for old fogeys and hidebound people rooted in the past. What an anchor for a progressive cutting edge scientist/genius.

When you're smarter than everyone else, you don't have to follow "rules" such as those outlined above.

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

8 minutes ago, old dee said:

With what?

You have to be able to prove a case to go to court.

Charged for not keeping records would be a good place to start....

[John Crow Batty 8,882]

4 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Oh wow. That's for old fogeys and hidebound people rooted in the past. What an anchor for a progressive cutting edge scientist/genius.

When you're smarter than everyone else, you don't have to follow "rules" such as those outlined above.

Yes, exposes the lack of will of the AFL to be fair dinkum over drugs in sport.

[Cards13 9,117]

AFL 2016: Bombers' list manager meets suspended players

Good to see the Dons have met some of the players to discuss contracts...

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Charged for not keeping records would be a good place to start....

According to Essendon the players weren't given anything illegal. The only reason they can't prove this is Danks failure to have kept records that I would assume would have been the minimum requirement of his contract with the Club. If I had contracted someone and they were this negligent you bet I'd be suing them. They should have insurance to cover this sort of negligence. 

So the question then arises. Why aren't Essendon suing him?  Hmmm, maybe just maybe, it wasn't him that lost them. Maybe just maybe it was someone else in the Club. Why would that be so. Only one reason I can think of.  

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

14 minutes ago, It's Time said:

According to Essendon the players weren't given anything illegal. The only reason they can't prove this is Danks failure to have kept records that I would assume would have been the minimum requirement of his contract with the Club. If I had contracted someone and they were this negligent you bet I'd be suing them. They should have insurance to cover this sort of negligence. 

So the question then arises. Why aren't Essendon suing him?  Hmmm, maybe just maybe, it wasn't him that lost them. Maybe just maybe it was someone else in the Club. Why would that be so. Only one reason I can think of.  

See this is where it becomes obvious to me, there were no records kept, and they kept him on the pay role for how long? how many legit supplements programs would be allowed to go on for more than a week without constant updates and comprehensive records to show it was worth the hundreds of thosands of dollars they were investing?

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

30 minutes ago, It's Time said:

According to Essendon the players weren't given anything illegal. The only reason they can't prove this is Danks failure to have kept records that I would assume would have been the minimum requirement of his contract with the Club. If I had contracted someone and they were this negligent you bet I'd be suing them. They should have insurance to cover this sort of negligence. 

So the question then arises. Why aren't Essendon suing him?  Hmmm, maybe just maybe, it wasn't him that lost them. Maybe just maybe it was someone else in the Club. Why would that be so. Only one reason I can think of.  

Agreed. Even in today's Slobbo article on Drugendon it is always everybody elses fault except Drugendon. 

They shouldn't be in the AFL this year it is a disgrace that a bunch of drug cheats will have such a bearing on the 8 after 22 rounds

those that play them twice have a massive advantage...

Edited March 15, 2016 by Sir Why You Little

[ManDee 7,322]

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Agreed. Even in today's Slobbo article on Druendon it is always everybody elses fault except Drugendon. 

They shouldn't be in the AFL this year it is a disgrace that a bunch of drug cheats will have such a bearing on the 8 after 22 rounds

those that play them twice have a massive advantage...

I hope their only wins are against sides they play twice.

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

9 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I hope their only wins are against sides they play twice.

The only good thing about watching Drugendon lose weekly this year will be Brendon Goddard is the Captain. Mr. I will go to a "Power Club" to win that flag...bahahahaha

[Dees2014 2,377]

On 8 March 2016 at 0:15 PM, beelzebub said:

what does the drug in question help ?  both legitimately...and covertly ?

 

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

39 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The only good thing about watching Drugendon lose weekly this year will be Brendon Goddard is the Captain. Mr. I will go to a "Power Club" to win that flag...bahahahaha

Spoken like a true Saints supporter

[Sir Why You Little 37,313]

3 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Spoken like a true Saints supporter

Please do not tar me with that tragic and empty path. 

Ours is bad enough!!

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Agreed. Even in today's Slobbo article on Drugendon it is always everybody elses fault except Drugendon. 

They shouldn't be in the AFL this year it is a disgrace that a bunch of drug cheats will have such a bearing on the 8 after 22 rounds

those that play them twice have a massive advantage...

Cats

Tigers

Suns

Saints

Blues

Potentially Cats, less likely but possibly Toigs, could be fighting for a place in the top 4. Hawks, Weagles, Swans, Dockers might be very effected by this. Teams fighting for home final at 5th & 6th perhaps Kangas, GWS, could have to deal with Toigs or even Suns.  Saints and Blues won't effect anything but all games should be against bottom 5.  The AFL should really decide this after all teams have played each other once. The only way of guaranteeing it would be irrelevant.