THE BOMBERS' DOPING SAGA - THE FAT LADY SINGS

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

9 hours ago, beelzebub said:

He was in a position of trust and responsibilities. 

He had enormous resources and ample opportunities to make good judgement. He failed himself and others.

I have not one single ounce of sympathy for such kind. I dont Ernest.

He not only has brought misery upon himself, more fool him but without doubt he's affected others by design or decision.

If a victim...hes a victim of his own stupidity. I care not for such.

Ive seen the harm drugs can do. They are the scourge of our society.

He's made Faustian deals which are now calling for payment. 

Such is life...Tough shlt.

I find it strange that when this site discusses drugs, it's the users who are generally criticised yet when the discussion is about poker machines, it's the machines that are the problem.

[beelzebub 23,253]

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I find it strange that when this site discusses drugs, it's the users who are generally criticised yet when the discussion is about poker machines, it's the machines that are the problem.

In both instances might i suggest its the facilitation of either evil. 

Id be needed to be convinced that Bomber is some poor enduser victim ( only )

[jnrmac 19,937]

19 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I find it strange that when this site discusses drugs, it's the users who are generally criticised yet when the discussion is about poker machines, it's the machines that are the problem.

Snap

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

In both instances might i suggest its the facilitation of either evil. 

Id be needed to be convinced that Bomber is some poor enduser victim ( only )

That's where we differ. I don't think poker machines are evil. I don't play them but have no problem that other people who wish to do so can have that choice.

Note: I find it ironic that it's someone called Beelzebub that is concerned about the facilitation of evil.

[daisycutter 29,438]

3 hours ago, Stretch Johnson said:

Why?   That's what court is for. 

DNA especially trace DNA isn't the panacea that it is made out to be and can come from anywhere.

because 'contamination' of evidence is a police procedural problem and needs explanation

of course in court, but not only in court

no-one is saying dna (trace or otherwise) is a panacea, but it raises a red flag when the biggest amount of illicit drug is mysteriously 'contaminated' and cannot be tested for dna as all the other (smaller) samples were

i am wary of 'coincidences' especially in controlled and carefully planned operations like this . anyway, enough said already, i will follow this aspect with interest

[beelzebub 23,253]

And once again it all gravitates back to who knows what and when about who.

There was a lot of anecdotal  material doing rounds for yonks about Bomber. Some even made its way to this thread before ' finger waving' and such detered it. GFC had a pretty good idea... Yet what did they do? Seems they were more interested in the Silverware. EFC knew what was what..well the movers and shakers must have. This still raises many questions... especially of either complicity or conspiracy by some within AFL house.

 

[John Crow Batty 8,826]

What disgusts me most are the efforts to paint Bomber as some sort of victim as was done with Hird. This guy is successful and wealthy. Yes he may have a personal drug problem but if he crosses that line to hanging around with hardened criminals and trafficking dangerous drugs for profit which are a cancer to society and destroys many lives he deserves to be cast away as a pariah and heaped all the scorn to go with it.  I see the damage these vicious drugs cause  every day when visiting nearby Victoria Street and know personally of many lives destroyed and lost. We are not talking about relatively harmless weed here. 

Edited May 3, 2018 by america de cali

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

because 'contamination' of evidence is a police procedural problem and needs explanation

of course in court, but not only in court

no-one is saying dna (trace or otherwise) is a panacea, but it raises a red flag when the biggest amount of illicit drug is mysteriously 'contaminated' and cannot be tested for dna as all the other (smaller) samples were

i am wary of 'coincidences' especially in controlled and carefully planned operations like this . anyway, enough said already, i will follow this aspect with interest

At this stage I believe it was just a committal so it is not appropriate for the informant to make a comment about the forensic process, when she herself had nothing to do it.  She is not the relevant witness.  That will be something that will be addressed by the forensic scientists if and when it goes to trial.

It may be a procedural error but it is just as possible that is is no-ones fault.  Trace DNA evidence is incredibly easy to contaminate and it can happen even when taking all the necessary precautions.

I guess what I am saying is not to jump the gun.  It is frustrating when there is an implication of impropriety or a lack of competence or care based on very little information.

[daisycutter 29,438]

13 minutes ago, Stretch Johnson said:

 

I guess what I am saying is not to jump the gun.  It is frustrating when there is an implication of impropriety or a lack of competence or care based on very little information.

i understand, but until there is more info, i will maintain a 'healthy' degree of suspicion ? without going overboard

[Guest]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

i understand, but until there is more info, i will maintain a 'healthy' degree of suspicion ? without going overboard

Yeah got to test, analyse and question.

But I guess they could find his dna all over the stuff but then that would just generate a different type of allegation against the investigators. 

Fairly frank admission by the informant, probably has me leaning more towards the honesty and transparency of the investigation.

Anyhoo nuff said, can revisit this in the event of a trial.

[beelzebub 23,253]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's where we differ. I don't think poker machines are evil. I don't play them but have no problem that other people who wish to do so can have that choice.

Note: I find it ironic that it's someone called Beelzebub that is concerned about the facilitation of evil.

Ah...the Devil ....

Strangely I don't personally have an issue with a machine per se. It ALWAYS comes back to an individual's decision.. play/ not play ...drugs ..take not take.

But there are subtle coercions applied to lure many an unsuspecting punter. 

I register your thoughts though. Devil out ...

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i understand, but until there is more info, i will maintain a 'healthy' degree of suspicion ? without going overboard

I don't disagree with your concern about the flawed process, but it's equally possible from where we stand that without the contamination, the evidence could have damned or cleared the defendant.

[KingDingAling 3,750]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

And once again it all gravitates back to who knows what and when about who.

There was a lot of anecdotal  material doing rounds for yonks about Bomber. Some even made its way to this thread before ' finger waving' and such detered it. GFC had a pretty good idea... Yet what did they do? Seems they were more interested in the Silverware. EFC knew what was what..well the movers and shakers must have. This still raises many questions... especially of either complicity or conspiracy by some within AFL house.

 

And what standards did anyone in the box at EFC set? There is no doubt those in the coaching box would have known about Bombers drug addiction. It is also a fact those in the box known about Dank's suspect doping program (as they were all on board). Any of the individuals  tied to Essendon at the time of the saga have no business in the football industry IMO. There is just not enough scrutiny being placed on them and Bomber was a prime example of that. A lot of the blame shifting during the saga ended up being very effective in shifting the blame - Hird was painted as a hard done by and naive coach, and Bomber the guy who wanted to speak up and stop the program but didn't (and lived in regret). Perhaps there was some truth to Bomber wanting to speak up, but ultimately he didn't speak up, and therein lies the problem for many of those in the coaching box - they didn't do anything to prevent any of this mess (and that includes Bomber's drug addiction whilst he was coaching). None of these individuals belong near a football club IMO. Essendon is better off without them all.

[deejammin' 2,253]

If only Demetriou had called Bomber to let him know the cops were onto him... he could’ve destroyed the evidence and relied on being a hard done-by good bloke to get the lowest possible penalty....

Edited May 4, 2018 by deejammin'

[hemingway 7,615]

It happens a lot in life.

In Bomber's case, clearly everyone knew. 

Even the humble old spectator watched Bomber appear on TV looking (at times) in terrible shape. Sleepy, bags under his eyes, appearing depressed. Whatever, in bad shape. Now you can imagine how many times this would have occurred at both GFC and EFC, indeed even within his own social circle.

There are always opportunities for intervention. Not just to ask the question and accept the denials. As a father, you may accept your children's denial of a misdemeanor but if that misdemeanor is as obvious as the nose on your face or persists over time, you do something about it. Not always easy, but if you care, you do something. You intervene and find a solution or get assistance to deal with the problem. You don't accept "no" as the answer.

Now that is perhaps a bit simplistic, but it reflects a tendency in today's society. To accept something at face value and not to go the extra yards to do something meaningful. Even if offers were made and rejected by Bomber, it does not appear that anyone took that extra step.  

If someone is accused of stealing, a simple denial is not satisfactory.  You investigate and do something about it so that you have a satisfactory answer and solution to the problem.  

Bomber may have failed society, the folks who trusted him, his family, indeed himself, but somehow I feel that there are a lot of people, particularly those close to him in both clubs who have failed Bomber. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by hemingway

[daisycutter 29,438]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't disagree with your concern about the flawed process, but it's equally possible from where we stand that without the contamination, the evidence could have damned or cleared the defendant.

there is more than one defendant, ldvc ?        (but i know what you mean)

and absence of dna evidence doesn't amount to 'clearing'

Edited May 4, 2018 by daisycutter

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there is more than one defendant, ldvc ?        (but i know what you mean)

and absence of dna evidence doesn't amount to 'clearing'

You're quite right. I should have said that the evidence before it was contaminated might have helped clear or damn the defendants. 

[Cards13 9,117]

23 minutes ago, hemingway said:

It happens a lot in life.

In Bomber's case, clearly everyone knew. 

Even the humble old spectator watched Bomber appear on TV looking (at times) in terrible shape. Sleepy, bags under his eyes, appearing depressed. Whatever, in bad shape. Now you can imagine how many times this would have occurred at both GFC and EFC, indeed even within his own social circle.

There are always opportunities for intervention. Not just to ask the question and accept the denials. As a father, you may accept your children's denial of a misdemeanor but if that misdemeanor is as obvious as the nose on your face or persists over time, you do something about it. Not always easy, but if you care, you do something. You intervene and find a solution or get assistance to deal with the problem. You don't accept "no" as the answer.

Now that is perhaps a bit simplistic, but it reflects a tendency in today's society. To accept something at face value and not to go the extra yards to do something meaningful. Even if offers were made and rejected by Bomber, it does not appear that anyone took that extra step.  

If someone is accused of stealing, a simple denial is not satisfactory.  You investigate and do something about it so that you have a satisfactory answer and solution to the problem.  

Bomber may have failed society, the folks who trusted him, his family, indeed himself, but somehow I feel that there are a lot of people, particularly those close to him in both clubs who have failed Bomber. 

Hird confirms it as well. 

“We all thought he had a problem in that area, personally, but no one thought that it was any more than that.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/we-didn-t-get-through-hird-opens-up-on-bomber-20180504-p4zdc7.html

I recall these “whispers” at the time as well. “Those close to Thompson claim he became erratic in his final season as Geelong coach in 2010.”

Hird also says the Bombers didn’t support he and Thompson during the the whole mess.

[Guest]

I feel for both Hird and Bomber in some ways. To have your guts splattered all over the media would be a fairly horrible experience.

However, let's remember that Hird especially wasn't the most diplomatic person in that imbroglio.

A simple 'I was inexperienced and stuffed up' probably would have seen them get a Cronulla style slap on the wrist. Most reasonable people could have accepted that as an explanation too.

Jimmy, probably harking back to the time when he called that umpire a cheat back in 2004 and still came up smelling of roses in the court of public opinion, was so arrogant that he took the complete opposite tack. Not only had he not made a mistake with no malice or ill intent in mind, he had done nothing wrong period.

Threatened law suits against his club, basically replacing board members and execs with his personal fan club and hiring Malcolm Tucker style spin doctors to threaten journalists don't sound like the behavior of a cleanskin to me.

I can wear bits about Hird suffering through the saga but when is he going to come out and say straight up that he stuffed up with no qualifiers attached? Same with Bomber.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Colin B. Flaubert

[hemingway 7,615]

14 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I feel for both Hird and Bomber in some ways. To have your guts splattered all over the media would be a fairly horrible experience.

However, let's remember that Hird especially wasn't the most diplomatic person in that imbroglio.

A simple 'I was inexperienced and stuffed up' probably would have seen them get a Cronulla style slap on the wrist. Most reasonable people could have accepted that as an explanation too.

Jimmy, probably harking back to the time when he called that umpire a cheat back in 2004 and still coming up smelling of roses in the court of public opinion, was so arrogant that he took the complete opposite tack. Not only had he not made a mistake with no malice or ill intent in mind, he had done nothing wrong period.

Threatened law suits against his club, basically replacing board members and execs with his personal fan club and hiring Malcolm Tucker style spin doctors to threaten journalists don't sound like the behavior of a cleanskin to me.

I can wear bits about Hird suffering through the saga but when is he going to come out and say straight up that he stuffed up with no qualifiers attached? Same with Bomber.

No genuine contrition. Bit like Bank executives apologising without any genuine feeling or meaning. Heard CBA CEO say he was ashamed but he could have used any word as it had no meaning. 

[Lucifers Hero 39,063]

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

Hird confirms it as well. 

“We all thought he had a problem in that area, personally, but no one thought that it was any more than that.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/we-didn-t-get-through-hird-opens-up-on-bomber-20180504-p4zdc7.html

Hird also says the Bombers didn’t support he and Thompson during the the whole mess.

Interesting article. 

I wonder what Sheedy means with this cryptic comment:

"I think the supplements saga at Essendon didn't help him [Thompson], it definitely didn't help James Hird so I think that's going to play out in the next five, six years, particularly with the players that got banned and also with Jobe losing his Brownlow Medal," he said on The Footy Show.

"I reckon after 10 years it will be interesting to see what happens there."

Law suits?  Mental health issues?  Medical issues? 

This has become such a mess of so many lives and it need not have been.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, hemingway said:

No genuine contrition. Bit like Bank executives apologising without any genuine feeling or meaning. Heard CBA CEO say he was ashamed but he could have used any word as it had no meaning. 

There have been apologies but there has always been some rider attached to them. It's always been  I'm sorry but it wasn't my job to know what supplements the players were getting our I'm sorry for the uproar but you still can't say we are drug cheats.

While Tim Watson got no where near the public crucifixion that Hird did when he was sacked as Saints coach, he was big enough to admit the blindly obvious. He wasn't in a position to be a senior coach coming straight out of the media because the job is so much more than shuffling magnets on a whiteboard. 

If Hird came out and admitted that plus that his PR strategy just made a bad situation worse and that the process leading up to the decision to give off site injections has left young men unsure with what might happen to them in 10 years time, then my sympathy may increase.

[Willmoy1947 3,990]

I could have sworn a few players and their families suffered.......ahh well, cheers media......

[What 18,810]

On 4/30/2018 at 3:30 PM, Petraccattack said:

The drug stuff will haunt them for years.  You cant just put something like that behind you so easily as a club or as a player.  Any player who stayed at Essendon after all that made a huge mistake.

Theres every chance it has ruined their culture for good

 

 

On 4/30/2018 at 3:39 PM, Danelska said:

Please explain how it’s ruined their culture for good?

 

On 4/30/2018 at 4:04 PM, Moonshadow said:

Hyperbole

 

 

On 4/30/2018 at 4:09 PM, sue said:

possibly, but also justice (until the club stops playing the victim and confesses and apologises)

Feeling pretty good about my statement now after the last couple of days.  

The words of Hird and Sheedy today backed up my feeling that the Bombers are going to be a mess for many years.   The drug saga was a culture changer. 

 

[Engorged Onion 10,188]

10 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

 

 

 

Feeling pretty good about my statement now after the last couple of days.  

The words of Hird and Sheedy today backed up my feeling that the Bombers are going to be a mess for many years.   The drug saga was a culture changer. 

 

Hunting down all those quotes reminds me of this  

Edited May 4, 2018 by Danelska