Jump to content

THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS

Whispering_Jack
in General Discussion

Featured Replies

On 4/23/2017 at 4:09 PM, Ted Fidge said:

Look at it this way.

Why did the Bombers lash out at the AFL, ASADA, WADA, etc, etc, sack their CEO, sack their football boss, sack their high performance manager,  wage a PR war through the media, try to get the Feds to kill off the investigation ....

But the bloke who did the injecting has been treated with kid gloves.

It's like they don't want to provoke him. Why?

He has the records.........hmmmmm.....

  • Quote
    •  
    19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

    He has the records.........hmmmmm.....

    Of course he does. That's what pays his wage. 

    It is disgraceful. It will only take one child born with complications or birth defects to one of those 34 players and this will blow a big hole in the AFL. 

    Vlad couldn't wait to run and his successor is as soft as Fairy Floss...

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    As I said iut before cheating does prosper as long as you do it properly. Long live cheating !!!!!!

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    On 5/25/2017 at 2:40 PM, jnrmac said:

    He has the records.........hmmmmm.....

    Get Comey on to him. He's in between at the mo'

  • Quote
    • 2 weeks later...

    1 hour ago, biggestred said:

    [censored] meet Fan

     

    Wow this is disturbing. 

    Also 31 of the 33 have reached settlement. Hope they had scope for future support should some future disclosures throw up further disturbing events.

  • Quote

    twas only a matter of time...sadly

  • Quote
    •  

    That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    21 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

    i have some experience in this area - you do not need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But you do need to prove there is a plausible association between the drugs and what adverse reactions potentially occurred. his lawyers would need to be hiring medical professionals to investigate the drugs to see if there is a medically plausible association. as these cases are so grey, they tend to be settled if there is substance to them

  • Quote

    28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    That's a very disturbing story but I don't know how the link to the supplements and the poor girl's health can be proved. Would it have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt or the balance of probabilities for any legal action to be successful? The other concern I have is for Lovett-Murray himself. Surely if he goes to the Supreme Court he'll be found to have contributed to his own problem by (a) not checking with ASADA and (b) lying to ASADA about the injections.

    If he took it further EFC might have to prove that their drug regime DIDN'T cause the kid's condition. Difficult proposition. Presumably they would then have to cough up a list of drugs that they gave.

    Can't see how it would be a criminal proceeding, I think reasonable doubt applies only to criminal.

    NLM not checking with/lying to ASADA is a sporting tribunal matter and the supreme court wouldn't care. They'd probably be more interested in whether NLM gave his consent.

     

  • Quote

    My thinking  is that if they cant prove what he was given then they cant prove that what he was given WASNT damaging. 

    Theyre gonna be hoisted on their own petard 

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Been waiting for this from day 1. 

    Knew it would surface. Does this mean Dank can be bought before a court legally. 

    I am sure all his records are still intact somewhere. What is the mad scientist waiting for?

    this could be bigger than what has already gone down. 

    "Abnormal Chest Growth...." Hmmmm

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    31 minutes ago, biggestred said:

    My thinking  is that if they cant prove what he was given then they cant prove that what he was given WASNT damaging. 

    Theyre gonna be hoisted on their own petard 

    But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around? 

  • Quote

    Strikes me as door opening for a handfull of civil actions.

    Think I'll stock up on the Reds and  cheeses;)

    Still more to play out...for some whiles.

  • Quote

    7 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around? 

    Surely now he can demand to know what he was in fact injected with via Dank and the EFC...?

  • Quote
    17 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    But if Lovett-Murray is initiating the action, wouldn't the burden of proof, on the balance or probabilities, be on him to show that the supplements were damaging, not the other way around? 

    May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    1 minute ago, Chris said:

    May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

    Bring it on...

    let's hope Rohan Conolly is writing the story..

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    I may well be wrong

    but i thought in the case of civil action it becomes incumbent upon the defendant to prove beyond reasonable probability.

    Love to see how EFC do that.

    Hopefully a legal type can clarify.

  • Quote
    4 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    Bring it on...

    let's hope Rohan Conolly is writing the story..

    And Rita Panhani (sorry if spelling is wrong). As Rita doesn't bow to the AFL due to not having an accreditation hanging over her head she seems to be able to cut through the crap and tell it how it is.

    Edited by Chris

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    7 minutes ago, Chris said:

    May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

    Yes because they would have to either 

    A) fully disclose  what they gave

    Or

    B) say they dont know whereupon they cant exactly defend the case

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 minute ago, Chris said:

    And Rita Panhani (sorry if spelling is wrong). As Rita doesn't bow to the AFL due to not having an accreditation hanging over her head she seems to be able to cut through the crap and tell it how it is.

    I still think Patrick Smith has had the best sources working for him since day 1. 

    But yes Rita is certainly a loose cannon who has little time for Windy Pill

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    7 minutes ago, Chris said:

    May well be, but his first question may well be for Essendon to show what they actually gave him, the answer to that would be interesting, especially if a few key people end up under oath!

    from what i read, he is only asking for $1m. if that would be a final payment (i.e. no possibility of later claims) then i'd expect essendrugs would cough up to avoid the the obvious problems and costs of a dragged out court case(s). wouldn't be surprised if the issue is not so much the money but ensuing the finality of any claims.

  • Quote
    •  

    Panahi far from being a loose cannon is a very informed and motivated commentor. No scattergun here.

    Gil would be wise to be most respectful of her. 

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Like
      • 155 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Angry
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 42 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Angry
      • 327 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All