Well what was it Thommo, if there were no drugs there then how could you say that only 12 to 14 had the drug injected?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-season-2016-mark-thompson-says-members-of-the-essendon-34-will-sue-afl-for-50-million-20160728-gqfifu.html

 

"Thompson also made the startling claim that at least 20 members of the Essendon 34 were unfairly suspended because they weren't given the banned peptide thymosin beta 4, even though the CAS found otherwise.

"If this drug happened to be at the club, which they've got no proof it has been at the club or injected to any player, but if it did it wasn't 34 that had it – [it was] 12 or 14," Thompson said.

"So that means if it's 14, it means 20 blokes are out there sitting a year out that are innocent. Now that's unfair, isn't it?"

 

Bomber is very adroit at rewriting history, especially his own it would appear..

Strikes me as something of a narcissist.

Bomber also "believes' the Banned players will sue the AFL  !!   wtf ????

How do idiots like Thompson still get their aim wrong. Suppose it helps with friends like Dumbo Robbo

48 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Bomber is very adroit at rewriting history, especially his own it would appear..

Strikes me as something of a narcissist.

 

34 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Bomber also "believes' the Banned players will sue the AFL  !!   wtf ????

How do idiots like Thompson still get their aim wrong. Suppose it helps with friends like Dumbo Robbo

Sue the AFL

"I'd like to see that"

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

Sue the AFL

"I'd like to see that"

for WHAT?? lol

Just now, beelzebub said:

for WHAT?? lol

Oh i am sure they can make something up!!

18 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

for WHAT?? lol

They will be suing as the AFL is the ultimate employer. If they do then I would think it would take all of 2 minutes for the AFL to include the EFC in proceedings. The AFL defence against it all is that they had procedures in place and they stuck to them and that they warned the AFL and took the correct action as soon as they were aware of wrong doing. The AFL may fall over if they can't demonstrate that. The EFC on the other hand may as well start writing blank cheques. 

9 minutes ago, Chris said:

They will be suing as the AFL is the ultimate employer. If they do then I would think it would take all of 2 minutes for the AFL to include the EFC in proceedings. The AFL defence against it all is that they had procedures in place and they stuck to them and that they warned the AFL and took the correct action as soon as they were aware of wrong doing. The AFL may fall over if they can't demonstrate that. The EFC on the other hand may as well start writing blank cheques. 

Gill the dill will at least be able to demonstrate that the League did have protocols in place. Though technically the ultimate responsibility is the league's in practice it is the club, the players' employer who will be called to task. Not sure it will even take those 2 mins.

Still, Bomber has shown over time he has little grasp of events.. ironically as senior assistant he ought to be among those directly in the firing Line  and he knows this, hence the calculated deflection. 

Hey everyone, look over there >>>>>>> ?

"It didn't happen and it happened like this"

Good work Mr Thompson.

Such a dodgy comment that it brings into question his integrity in a general sense.

2 hours ago, Dante said:

Well what was it Thommo, if there were no drugs there then how could you say that only 12 to 14 had the drug injected?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-season-2016-mark-thompson-says-members-of-the-essendon-34-will-sue-afl-for-50-million-20160728-gqfifu.html

 

"Thompson also made the startling claim that at least 20 members of the Essendon 34 were unfairly suspended because they weren't given the banned peptide thymosin beta 4, even though the CAS found otherwise.

"If this drug happened to be at the club, which they've got no proof it has been at the club or injected to any player, but if it did it wasn't 34 that had it – [it was] 12 or 14," Thompson said.

"So that means if it's 14, it means 20 blokes are out there sitting a year out that are innocent. Now that's unfair, isn't it?"

 

There's nothing wrong with Thompson's logic flow (although it may be factually incorrect). It's conceivable that if the banned substance was used it might only have been used on 12-14 players because of the timing of the injections, the type of injections each individual player was getting or from knowledge gained from results found in blood work. Mind you, if his statement is factually correct, was that point argued in front of the Tribunal or CAS? If not, why not?

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

for WHAT?? lol

Deprivation of Draft Picks and an unfair Wooden Spoon and persecution of an their honest Media (supporter) folk who are now tainted forever with gullible stupidity. That's all I can seriously think of at the moment....

30 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

"It didn't happen and it happened like this"

Good work Mr Thompson.

Such a dodgy comment that it brings into question his integrity in a general sense.

brings? don't you mean confirms?

2 hours ago, Dante said:

Well what was it Thommo, if there were no drugs there then how could you say that only 12 to 14 had the drug injected?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-season-2016-mark-thompson-says-members-of-the-essendon-34-will-sue-afl-for-50-million-20160728-gqfifu.html

 

"Thompson also made the startling claim that at least 20 members of the Essendon 34 were unfairly suspended because they weren't given the banned peptide thymosin beta 4, even though the CAS found otherwise.

"If this drug happened to be at the club, which they've got no proof it has been at the club or injected to any player, but if it did it wasn't 34 that had it – [it was] 12 or 14," Thompson said.

"So that means if it's 14, it means 20 blokes are out there sitting a year out that are innocent. Now that's unfair, isn't it?"

 

If you could provide the records of exactly what was ordered, and IF you could provide the records of what was compounded, and IF you could provide the records of exactly what was injected, and IF you could provide the records of whom it was injected into, then we wouldn't be listening to all of your pointless conjecture, would we, you complete, qualified idiot.

Wouldn't the legal types here love to have the witness, after he made a statement like this?

What a [censored].

2 minutes ago, faultydet said:

If you could provide the records of exactly what was ordered, and IF you could provide the records of what was compounded, and IF you could provide the records of exactly what was injected, and IF you could provide the records of whom it was injected into, then we wouldn't be listening to all of your pointless conjecture, would we, you complete, qualified idiot.

Wouldn't the legal types here love to have the witness, after he made a statement like this?

What a [censored].

What's better? To be a qualified idiot or an unqualified one?

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What's better? To be a qualified idiot or an unqualified one?

He was an apprentice idiot. until he graduated, with that comment.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Bomber is very adroit at rewriting history, especially his own it would appear..

Strikes me as something of a narcissist.

True. He might be a very good footy coach, but in all other areas, he strikes me as a dimwit who is not on good terms with reality.

Lol at essendon supporters who reckon his interview was straight down the line and honest truth

 

 

I mean, its not like someone who is associated with drug cheats to deny cheating is it

47 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's nothing wrong with Thompson's logic flow (although it may be factually incorrect). It's conceivable that if the banned substance was used it might only have been used on 12-14 players because of the timing of the injections, the type of injections each individual player was getting or from knowledge gained from results found in blood work. Mind you, if his statement is factually correct, was that point argued in front of the Tribunal or CAS? If not, why not?

What that says to me is, either Thompson knew more about this than previously let on, or he is just pulling numbers out of the air.  

Look at the statement he's made, if that's true, then he must have a more intimate knowledge of what occurred. He should be able to state which players were injected and which weren't, simple really.

 

And as if the fact that some unlucky players missed out on the banned drugs somehow excuses the club, its management, medical and coaching staff. 

I'm reminded of the old adage - it is better to keep your mouth shut and have some people will think you are an idiot, then open it and have them know for sure that you are.

If Thompson IS to be believed then it is grossly unfair...20 of their young men are at heightened risk of not being cured of cancer!

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

Sue the AFL

"I'd like to see that"

 

Exactly.....

Apparently, the AFL along with others has reduced its 'user-pays' funding to ASADA (but increased its in-house integrity work).  But as Chris Judd points out self-regulation is contentious.  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-2016-asada-funding-cuts-hurt-the-afls-battle-against-performanceenhancing-drugs-20160728-gqfhcf.html

"Regardless of whether the AFL is driven to act for commercial realities, or because it is  motivated by altruism, it makes sense for it, other sporting codes and the government to ensure ASADA is the best-funded, highest-quality outfit it can possibly be. In the long run, commercial support for sports depends on the belief that the athletes are clean. Morally, any parent introducing their child to a sport needs to believe in that ideal as well".

This will only lead to more AFL secrecy on drug use:  illicit or PED's. 

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Judd is a good writer if it is him and not a ghost writer

On the subject on illicit drug use has anyone else noticed how many players in the AFL are out this year for extended periods for a range of non-injury ailments.  I can think of 8-10 without even thinking too hard about it.  Some of those would have been 'stood down' for 3 strikes. 

I'm not sure we have any right to know about individual player's personal lives.  But I find it troubling that the AFL's appetite for secrecy and double standards is continuously increasing.

So should the AFL find a player guilty of PED use it seems unlikely that they will apply the WADA standards of suspension.  More players will be out with non-injury ailments.  I believe, PED users should be exposed because it actually affects the integrity of the competition and it is cheating!

Edited July 29, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero