ManDee

Every time I have been to the footy (the Melb matches at the G) he has been there. That has to be a good thing.

Back on my bandwagon. Attempted use. Please consider that the players are ultimately responsible for what goes in their bodies. It is not acceptable to have a program like the Essendon zealots would have them getting off. 1 Employ a bio chemist to source the drugs. 2 Tell the players it is OK everything is legal. 3 Attempt to use illegal PHD's 4 If caught the players claim they were told it was all koscher. 5 Records containing who took what and when disappear. If this method was allowed to proceed in sport every sporting body in the world would cheat. No risk to players/athletes as they claim they were duped. No records of who took what so they cannot be guilty. That is why the code clearly states , use or attempted use. The athletes are responsible for everything that goes into their bodies and not knowing that you have taken a prohibited substance is not an excuse. Any other criteria will lead to the use of PHD's flourishing. So to reiterate (sorry to those that already know) Use or attempted use = Guilty Not knowing that you have taken or attempted to take an illegal substance = Guilty It has to be that way to stop rorts.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hird-was-warned-the-inside-story-on-essendons-drug-scandal-20130821-2savu.html Haven't read that for a while. Well worth a read by anyone commenting here.

Again. From :- http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. In addition to testing athletes, ASADA also has the power to investigate the possible use of prohibited substances, drugs, medications or methods in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection. An athlete does not have to have succeeded in using a prohibited substance or method – if there is sufficient evidence that the athlete has attempted to use a prohibited substance or method, they can be sanctioned. It is the athlete’s responsibility to ensure that no prohibited substance, drug or medication enters his or her body. Not knowing that you have taken something is not an excuse. Please read the 8 doping rule violations. Please look up the meaning of attempted. Then get back to me.

Damn, missed that altogether. Well played S&S, nice pick up DC. The avatar is my business logo. I designed its about 20 years ago. The red & blue are obvious (the dees) (blue sky) the green is grass/the earth. I had not considered boomerangs they are inverted ticks in my mind. I like the boomerangs. As for 2 dogs, that's another story.

Remembering that through this process they are still provisionally suspended, draw it out for as long as you like.

Is that anything like 2 dogs?

Sweets, I think his avatar is anonymous already.

Better the AFL give 3/4 penalties (18 months) in the hope that ASADA/WADA won't appeal. 1/2 strength or no penalties will have ASADA/WADA appealing in an instant, then taking it out of the AFL's hands. And ASADA/WADA will not be lenient, expect 2 years. IMO

Peterson [Pedersen] pedersen petersen peaderson paederson paedersen Edit:- Damn have a look at that! lower case is ok?

I would think anyone that signed the waiver would be in trouble. Also those involved in the implementation of the program. Edit: Also of note, I don't think it is possible in Australia to sign away your legal rights. Therefore if the program was illegal those that signed the waivers should still be able to sue.

What a bunch of pedantic (self censored) we are. Could we have a vote on guilty or not guilty?

Time, I have said it many times and attached the relevent ASADA clauses. NO PROOF OF TAKING ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVEN GUILTY. Think Lance Armstrong.

Not entirely, one of the excuses was that the product ordered was not administered as it was damaged or unsuitable for use. So if that product, presumably illegal was not administered they are still guilty. Other legal products or placebos may have been administered.

As I always say. When all is said and done there is a hell of a lot more said than done.

It's time (apt) when arguing terminology that we get things right. Posters keep referring to proof of what they took. That is not the level required. It is also what they attempted to take.

Sorry Binnie, but that is wrong. Attempted to take is guilty. Edit: They don't need to actually take anything.

Sasdee it is unlikely any proof exonerating the players could exist, their hope is that the proof of their guilt is weak. As an interested observer I think guilt is obvious, unfortunately there exists legal argument and degrees of probability of guilt. The all that smoke argument is good enough for me, the process is looking for a little bit more than just smoke. The players cannot deny or prove that the smoke does not exist. Let us hope that in the name of fairness, that cheats get penalised.

And the lawyers advice to date for Essendon, the players and Hird has been.......outstanding? Edit: If the players are stupid enough to undergo the Dank/Hird program without getting external advice then perhaps it was good advice to get the players to say nothing. One can only imagine how badly they would incriminate themselves if left to their own devices.

You think this is a democracy?

Congratulations, well done.

Only when he is alone, then only sometimes.

If Danks wanted to push back he has been given plenty of opportunity. I don't think he has anything which would help his case. At this point I think he is a loose cannon. Essendon probably have a few of those roaming around, ex players, ex employees, disenfranchised current players the list goes on. Self interest is probably all that is holding the ship together at the moment, but I imagine when it starts to really go pear shaped there will be missiles from all directions.

The media tends to be expedient when it comes to language and sometimes the truth. So, no is an expedient way of explaining insufficient or inadequate. In this case literally it could be misleading but contextually I think it is ok.

Binnie I think you are taking "no" too literally. If a record exists that they bought Thymo????? then records exist. The point is that the club were unable to tell what the players were given. So in effect no records if we presume a record is a medical record see :- Wikipedia:- The terms medical record, health record, and medical chart are used somewhat interchangeably to describe the systematic documentation of a single patient's medical history andcare across time within one particular health care provider's jurisdiction.[1] The medical record includes a variety of types of "notes" entered over time by health care professionals, recording observations and administration of drugs and therapies, orders for the administration of drugs and therapies, test results, x-rays, reports, etc. The maintenance of complete and accurate medical records is a requirement of health care providers and is generally enforced as a licensing or certification prerequisite. If that is a definition of a medical record it is fair to so no records.