THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS

[Willmoy1947 4,017]

4 minutes ago, Abe said:

Makes you wonder if Essendon won the flag in 2012 would Gil and the AFL have taken the flag off them

you'd hope that and the brownlow would be no brainers.

Imagine seventy thousand TWSNBN supporters queuing up at WH to hand in their Membership Medallions.

[TRIGON 4,783]

Still haven't been able to locate the missing spreadsheet, however have located the missing PowerPoint slide.

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, Abe said:

Makes you wonder if Essendon won the flag in 2012 would Gil and the AFL have taken the flag off them

you'd hope that and the brownlow would be no brainers.

Didn't they cheat the salary cap in the 90's int eh year the won a flag? Pretty sure they still hold that flag!

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

 

[monoccular 17,360]

23 hours ago, bing181 said:

I'm not sure why the Brownlow question is even being asked. In any sport, if you're found guilty of a doping infringement, you lose all victories, awards and prize money for the period when you were found to be doping. 

but not in good old Gil's AFL

7 hours ago, jnrmac said:

And then watch the sycophantic media after that!

Pope Francis will put him up for Sainthood...

Pope Robbo certainly would

4 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Watson is going to get booed just as much as when he was last on the field.  The hawks fans will let him hear it in round 1.

Its going to be beautiful and I hope he cries again.

I wonder if Sam Mitchell will repeat his injection dig at them when they next play?   Would love to see Sam do his hallmark corking of Jab at the opening bounce.

[monoccular 17,360]

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

 

Put him in the comfy chair and hit him with the soft pillow?

[jnrmac 19,949]

4 hours ago, Abe said:

Makes you wonder if Essendon won the flag in 2012 would Gil and the AFL have taken the flag off them

you'd hope that and the brownlow would be no brainers.

Well they were found guilty of salary cap breaches from 92-96 and they won a flag in 93. That wasn't taken off them.

Cheating is in their DNA and the AFL does nothing about it. The bigger you are and the bigger the transgression the less the AFL will do.

[dpositive 1,662]

14 hours ago, beelzebub said:

what....cant add 2 and 2 by now

a person with honour would already have handed it back and humbly apologised !!!

if cleared , could have it back.

hasnt occured therefore....

Too true

[steve_f 40]

On 25/10/2016 at 3:38 PM, TRIGON said:

Still haven't been able to locate the missing spreadsheet, however have located the missing PowerPoint slide.

At a more basic level, you could see he had suddenly become more much strongly built at the start of 2012.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

7 hours ago, steve_f said:

At a more basic level, you could see he had suddenly become more much strongly built at the start of 2012.

I'd like to see some photos that prove this assertion. Otherwise I can't help thinking it's oft-repeated groupthink.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'd like to see some photos that prove this assertion. Otherwise I can't help thinking it's oft-repeated groupthink.

A while back someone did do a photo compilation showing the differences between one season and the other. I can't remember where I saw it, but if I can track it down I'll post it.

I also recall commentators at the time making remarks about the size of his thighs.

[jnrmac 19,949]

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'd like to see some photos that prove this assertion. Otherwise I can't help thinking it's oft-repeated groupthink.

Jobe Watson early 2012

Jobe Watson Early 2010

 

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

6 minutes ago, Choke said:

A while back someone did do a photo compilation showing the differences between one season and the other. I can't remember where I saw it, but if I can track it down I'll post it.

I also recall commentators at the time making remarks about the size of his thighs.

He had big thighs when he started his career. But if his thighs were demonstrably bigger between one season and the next, I agree that there would be questions asked (and which may be answerable by responses such as changed diet, additional (legal) supplements and a different training regimen).

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

Jobe Watson early 2012

Jobe Watson Early 2010

 

 

Thanks, but on this evidence, I remain unconvinced. 

(Right now, though, I suspect the club is pleased they've moved on from Samsung as jumper sponsor.)

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

He had big thighs when he started his career. But if his thighs were demonstrably bigger between one season and the next, I agree that there would be questions asked (and which may be answerable by responses such as changed diet, additional (legal) supplements and a different training regimen).

I really wish I could find the compilation for you. The search continues.

[jnrmac 19,949]

57 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Thanks, but on this evidence, I remain unconvinced. 

(Right now, though, I suspect the club is pleased they've moved on from Samsung as jumper sponsor.)

Still not convinced. Then read this article with the benefit of hindsight.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bigger-bombers-for-bruising-battles-20111108-1n5it.html

Changed body shape in 2 1/2 weeks? Really? Nothing wrong here....

Edited October 26, 2016 by jnrmac

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

14 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Still not convinced. Then read this article with the benefit of hindsight.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bigger-bombers-for-bruising-battles-20111108-1n5it.html

Changed body shape in 2 1/2 weeks? Really? Nothing wrong here....

I think you're right to ask the question. I doubt 2-and-a-half weeks of anything would change someone's body shape. I'll treat that story as puffery. 

[daisycutter 29,482]

41 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think you're right to ask the question. I doubt 2-and-a-half weeks of anything would change someone's body shape. I'll treat that story as puffery. 

seems jobe disagrees with you

Quote

"You can see the body shapes have changed for some of the guys at the club," Watson said yesterday.

"It's noticeable that the program that has been put in place has already been effective on most guys. Certainly it has been an eye-opener for the guys who have been doing it for two-and-a-half weeks.

 

[jnrmac 19,949]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think you're right to ask the question. I doubt 2-and-a-half weeks of anything would change someone's body shape. I'll treat that story as puffery. 

puffery?

I treat it as straight from the horse's mouth  

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

45 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

puffery?

I treat it as straight from the horse's mouth  

Puffery defined.

Doesn't matter who's mouth it comes from.

[steve_f 40]

5 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'd like to see some photos that prove this assertion. Otherwise I can't help thinking it's oft-repeated groupthink.

I thought this at the time well before we knew what was going on.  The moral is post, post and post again.

[monoccular 17,360]

11 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Still not convinced. Then read this article with the benefit of hindsight.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bigger-bombers-for-bruising-battles-20111108-1n5it.html

Changed body shape in 2 1/2 weeks? Really? Nothing wrong here....

Pretty damning stuff in that article.  

[jnrmac 19,949]

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

Pretty damning stuff in that article.  

agreed. Geelong was doing it it must be OK....

[jnrmac 19,949]

21 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think you're right to ask the question. I doubt 2-and-a-half weeks of anything would change someone's body shape. I'll treat that story as puffery. 

2 1/2 weeks of dozens of injections of illegal substances and a high intensity workout programme (because of increased recovery capacity) would beg to differ.

Proof. Pudding.

[beelzebub 23,254]

An excellent article by Tim Lane

The AFL Commission needs to deal in fact. Two facts to be precise.

As you may or may not get behind the paywall, probably the most poignant of all  points is that which many here have been saying for a long while;

The Charlie is about the Best  and Fairest..  Tim puts it as :

"The first is the description of the fundamental criteria designed to determine the outcome of the game's most coveted individual honour. The Brownlow Medal is an award for the 'best' and the 'fairest' player in each year. The time-honoured matter of 'fairest' continues to be treated with sufficient seriousness by the AFL that a player who is suspended – even for one week – due to an offence committed in that season, is automatically rendered ineligible for the award. Which you'd think locks the gate on a player hit with a two-year suspension for an 'unfairness' violation. "

Having already noted that suspension  will negate your ability to win the Brownlow , and that this can be as a result of a less than conscious felony of the game then surely you have to treat being in breach of Anti_Doping  in the same light/

"Well, 'fair' has two relevant meanings. The first connotes to playing within the rules, and here – many would argue – the Essendon star has long been beyond reproach. He has always appeared to be a fair and honourable footballer. He has, nevertheless, found himself in breach of the WADA code.

It's the second meaning of 'fair', though, which unambiguously trips Watson up. For this meaning relates to competing with one's rivals on a level playing field. Athletes who dope, or who are doped – even if unconsciously – can't possibly claim that they competed in a way that was fair to their rivals. Put simply, if a player is found to have been in breach of the WADA code, he is adjudged to have gained an unfair advantage. Intent doesn't come into it."

I shan't quote the entire article but he does make an interesting argument.

I would however wish to point out to Mr Lane that Jobe Watson has indeed been found guilty of NOT playing within the rules. The issue of the Brownlow does indeed not require 'intent".  I would think though there is sufficient evidence to show that the 34 did  indeed intend to flout the rules.

Any which way. I do concur Mr Lane. The AFL has no real decision to make. Its really made for them. What is the question is do they have the moral fibre to carry it out?