ManDee

? I was worried for a minute.

More the ghost who walks.

Blah blah blah.... nice avatar! Who is she?

Only if you think he means your ar5e. You would be the best judge of that.

Don't worry about it Werridee. There are those on this site, I will call them keyboard warriors, that when their arguments fail they fall back on insults. I doubt they would have the courage to look you in the eye if you fronted them. Move on. Edit: PS: I don't think Dunn was close to AA last year. But that is my opinion.

Had to be 1 from each coach. 5 4 3 2 1 voting system

I disagree Franky. If all the s4it is kept on that one thread that is fine by me. You don't have to go there.

Haven't you been reading, The No T$ No B$ Thread?

It only takes one goat!

Trengove could do it on one leg.

NB: No Tommy Mac on the masthead. Must have been an oversight.

I don't think so. As an aside, I cannot bear to even look at Hird now. I change channel when he is on.

Does anyone have any idea why Essendon have not been charged yet? Surely it would be easier to find them guilty.

3 things 1 If I was wrong the players would have been found guilty. 2 No one has come out and stated that they injected an illegal substance into the players. 3 The players are responsible for what goes into their bodies, prove what that was.

Great discussion guys, have a great Easter.

I think I will quote you to answer this one. "However, there has been ambiguity regarding information about the legality of AOD. Which is why there haven't been prosecutions, because athletes "couldn't be expected to have known".

No personal insults yet, this is a good thread. Wade Lees ordered a product that contained a banned substance. In this case it is his responsibility to ensure the product was legal. He intended to take a substance that was illegal. How could the Essendon players be found guilty? 1 Positive test NO 2 Provable chain that TB4 was administered - Failed 3 Intent and that is difficult to prove. None of us know what really happened at the tribunal, but it is fascinating.

Sorry but 6.1.1 refers to failed test. We don't have a failed test.

And now we know why this failed at the AFL tribunal. It is murky. 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. So have we established that they may have attempted to use a prohibited substance by inference? Is that strong enough for a guilty verdict? I understand why the tribunal let the cheats off. WADA can still get them. They can issue subpoenas.

By signing a waiver you do not absolve the waivee of negligence or dishonesty or misrepresentation, but of known risks like you might hurt yourself because what you choose to do may be risky. If the players suffer ill health as a result of being administered drugs that they were not fully informed of EFC will be sued successfully.

I think what you suggest is a transference of guilt. I don't think you can tranfer the clubs intent onto the players. I don't think 34 players would sign a waiver and then intend on taking a banned substance.

I have not read the waiver. You cannot sign away your legal rights. If the waiver mentions legal drugs and you are given illegal drugs that does not show intent on the part of the player. Edit: By intent I mean in the context of intent to use illegal PED"s

I am enjoying this conversation. If the club did a power point display for the players showing correspondence saying that the supplements that they planned on using were all OK and the players did a check and found Thymosin (for example) was OK it would give credence to the lack of intent to use illegal PED's. Most if not all clubs use supplements, do you think the players check if they are OK? I know that they should but do they? Essendon knew that they were cheating so they would not contact ASADA. Hird inquired with the AFL about peptides and was told to steer clear of them. He ignored that advice. How could the players ask ASADA about the legality of a drug if they were not told what it was and had been shown documents (I presume) to say the program was OK?

Guilty. Edit; Weightlifter Fails Rule 1. Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample This does not apply to EFC players Essendon players:Rule 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. Requires knowledge that a substance was prohibited.

deanox, what many are failing to do is recognise that no illegal substances have been found in any EFC player. Yes, they are responsible for what they take, but prove what they took. There is no proof. You say that the players could have done a search or call ASADA, why, they were told it was a legal supplements program. If they did a search on Thymosin in 2011/12 as now, it is not illegal. What more could the player do? Ignorance is not a defence against having PED's found in your system correct, but that is not the case. Nothing has been found. Ignorance is a defence against intent, by that I mean if you did not know you were being given illegal substances how could you have intended to use them. I hate it but I get it.