5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Sheedy is a shlt stirrer from way back. Here he's attempting to stay relevant to the 21st century and now he's back in the Bombers fold hes obviously milking it for what he can.

Parasite

Sheedy has been way off the mark in his comments on ASADA/WADA, he's an AFL/EFC man and just doesn't get it.

...but 'BB', calling him a parasite is way off the mark.

Like him or not, he's got a huge record as a player and coach and is a true legend of the game.

Just now, rjay said:

Sheedy has been way off the mark in his comments on ASADA/WADA, he's an AFL/EFC man and just doesn't get it.

...but 'BB', calling him a parasite is way off the mark.

Like him or not, he's got a huge record as a player and coach and is a true legend of the game.

I call him a parasite because that is what he is doing right now.  No one else other than Essendon will employ the 'mouth' . He's been welcomed back  to Windy Hill for to their eyes it sort of legitimises their place in things again. He're's another club great back to build the club, he 'gets it"  ( the EFC stance )    and he keeps a paycheck ( for services rendered )

Maybe I should describe him as something else ...

2 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Francis on SEN had a go at the AFL and AFL people who have been thumbing there nose at the ruling. Basically stop moaning about stop poking your finger in CAS/WADA/ASADA eye and get on with it. Sack up and leave the code or man up on the decision and abide by it.

Sheedy another who doesn't get it.

 

Sheedy also took a swipe at WADA.

“It’s forced upon them by an organisation obviously that’s out of Europe, who don’t really know a lot about AFL.

“Their job is really to get back and sort out Russia for the Olympics.”

The rantings  of a senile old has been

Kev - WADA don't have to "know a lot about AFL": they do know how to weed out drug cheats though. 

Clearly he doesn't give a toss about the ideal of a drug free competition. 

3 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

If it's true that Prismall is still working at the Bulldogs with the AFL's permission then it's not only regrettable but a clear indicator of the AFL's arrogance and its contempt for the WADA Code. The rules simply don't allow it.

Here is what the rule says about working for the banned players. 

22.1 Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility

(a) No Player or other Person who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in an AFL Competition or activity (other than authorised Anti-Doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorised by the AFL, Affiliated State or Territory Body or AFL Clubs, any Signatory or Signatory’s member organisation or a club or other member organisation of a Signatory’s member organisation, or in competitions authorised or organised by any professional league or any international or national level event organisation or any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a government agency.

I think the AFL will be stuck on the word competition. Prismall is working in a welfare role (lets hope is he has a tertiary qualification to do so or a few on here will get very upset) and they don't see this as direct involvement with how they play, i.e. not coaching. All comes down to what is an activity.

Chris if the AFL were truly committed to Drug Free sport this would not be an issue.

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Chris if the AFL were truly committed to Drug Free sport this would not be an issue.

That's it in a nutshell.

And if Prismall  is OK to work in that capacity, then Jobe, for example, could be appointed to a similar role.

Please WADA, get the big stick out again.

The AFL continues to stink up the sporting world.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

If this IS the case  it can't be left undealt with. This is not just the AFL but Gordon  in particular  thumbing his nose.....it needs wiping !!

But who "deals" with it? ASADA are the body that upholds the WADA code but the sporting body must apply the apply the penalties. If the sporting body doesn't apply the penalties then what happens?

12 minutes ago, GM11 said:

That's it in a nutshell.

And if Prismall  is OK to work in that capacity, then Jobe, for example, could be appointed to a similar role.

Please WADA, get the big stick out again.

The AFL continues to stink up the sporting world.

Hopefully the stick can get bigger and he gets a ban under the new rules as this is a new violation of the code, bring on 4 years and watch the apologists howl!

14 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

But who "deals" with it? ASADA are the body that upholds the WADA code but the sporting body must apply the apply the penalties. If the sporting body doesn't apply the penalties then what happens?

Ultimately in AUS ASADA.

They will need to 'clarify' the AFLs misinterpreted position.

34 minutes ago, GM11 said:

That's it in a nutshell.

And if Prismall  is OK to work in that capacity, then Jobe, for example, could be appointed to a similar role.

Please WADA, get the big stick out again.

The AFL continues to stink up the sporting world.

The hypocrisy of drug cheats working as 'welfare officers' for AFL clubs in order to be employed and around the club while banned is exactly the kind of behaviour I expect from the AFL.

34 banned players. 18 teams. That's almost 2 extra welfare officers per team! The AFL could sell that to the fans!

I make myself sick with these hypotheticals. I think what makes me sicker though is that the AFL's horrendous track record on this issue means it could happen.

seems the afl are just as bad as essendope at playing the technical obfuscation long game

50 minutes ago, old dee said:

Chris if the AFL were truly committed to Drug Free sport this would not be an issue.

Gil and his acolytes have dragged the AFL through the mud - time to get rid of them all.

Bloody disgrace.

8 minutes ago, Choke said:

The hypocrisy of drug cheats working as 'welfare officers' for AFL clubs in order to be employed and around the club while banned is exactly the kind of behaviour I expect from the AFL.

34 banned players. 18 teams. That's almost 2 extra welfare officers per team! The AFL could sell that to the fans!

I make myself sick with these hypotheticals. I think what makes me sicker though is that the AFL's horrendous track record on this issue means it could happen.

You really shouldn't post things like this, you may well give them ideas and they are silly enough to go through with them!

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

You really shouldn't post things like this, you may well give them ideas and they are silly enough to go through with them!

Nah, there's no way Gillon reads Demonland for ideas.

He goes straight to Big Footy. Where all the sane ideas live.

Of course the Dealmaker will be trying to placate ASADA and work out some arrangement with them. I hope they don't buckle.

What comeback would ASADA have if the AFL continue to thumb their nose? Re-visit AOD-9604 perhaps? Or push for enforcement of the "two players in a team" rule?

4 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Of course the Dealmaker will be trying to placate ASADA and work out some arrangement with them. I hope they don't buckle.

What comeback would ASADA have if the AFL continue to thumb their nose? Re-visit AOD-9604 perhaps? Or push for enforcement of the "two players in a team" rule?

If I was ASADA and it came to that I would pull the rug from out under the AFL and state they are no longer signatories to the code as they are in continual breach of the code. That would stuff the AFL as they lose all the Government funds that come their way for development etc. If that did happen it would be a very very dark day for the AFL.

My tac might be as ASADA to approach the  Fed Sports minister ans seek  'assurances' that as a nation Australia is indeed  committed to drug free sport and the ideals of the WADA code as it applies to individual sports . Effectively the Gov has  no alternative position , it must agree that that is the case. Having got such assurance ASADA might press the point and ask what its view is to rogue operations ? it might suggest if there were any that the Gov  may wish to advise them as to their mischief.

34 minutes ago, Chris said:

If I was ASADA and it came to that I would pull the rug from out under the AFL and state they are no longer signatories to the code as they are in continual breach of the code. That would stuff the AFL as they lose all the Government funds that come their way for development etc. If that did happen it would be a very very dark day for the AFL.

Wouldn't be too sure about that. There are lots of votes in supporting AFL (and sport in general). I suspect Governments would just find another way to fund things. And I certainly wouldn't be looking at any Government to lead the way on ethics.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Wouldn't be too sure about that. There are lots of votes in supporting AFL (and sport in general). I suspect Governments would just find another way to fund things. And I certainly wouldn't be looking at any Government to lead the way on ethics.

Fairly sure it is in legislation that they only support sports that are signed up to the WADA code. They may find a way around this but it would be very stupid of the government to change the legislation as it is part of being a nation that supports WADA. Surely even our government aren't stupid enough to poke the bear when non compliance from a nation rules out Olympic participation?

20 minutes ago, Chris said:

Fairly sure it is in legislation that they only support sports that are signed up to the WADA code. They may find a way around this but it would be very stupid of the government to change the legislation as it is part of being a nation that supports WADA. Surely even our government aren't stupid enough to poke the bear when non compliance from a nation rules out Olympic participation?

So, if we ran a poll on Demonland on whether or not our government is "stupid enough", which way do you think most people on here would vote?

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

So, if we ran a poll on Demonland on whether or not our government is "stupid enough", which way do you think most people on here would vote?

Good point, It would be interesting to see which had more votes for the pollies, Olympics or the AFL. After all it is only votes they are interested in. 

30 minutes ago, Chris said:

Good point, It would be interesting to see which had more votes for the pollies, Olympics or the AFL. After all it is only votes they are interested in. 

Surely Gil would ask his mates at Sporsbet to tell him the odds on that question.  

They could offer progressive odds as the saga unfolded, and flash it across the scoreboards and TV screens. 

Gotta love the AFL.  - they are more worried about how a player fills a cup rather than the drugs that might be in it.

9 minutes ago, sue said:

Gotta love the AFL.  - they are more worried about how a player fills a cup rather than the drugs that might be in it.

Maybe WADA are circumventing the AFL - and why wouldn't they - and are getting their samples on the spot and under scrutiny of the TV cameras just to make sure the AFL don't tamper with them.  

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I call him a parasite because that is what he is doing right now.  No one else other than Essendon will employ the 'mouth' . He's been welcomed back  to Windy Hill for to their eyes it sort of legitimises their place in things again. He're's another club great back to build the club, he 'gets it"  ( the EFC stance )    and he keeps a paycheck ( for services rendered )

Maybe I should describe him as something else ...

Ankle tapper