ManDee

List of sanctions. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/list-of-charges-against-essendon-and-its-officials Essendon Football Club Essendon FC breach of AFL Player Rule 1.6 The AFL Commission and the Essendon FC acknowledge that the conduct in its totality relied upon by the AFL and EFC to constitute a breach of Rule 1.6 is as follows, namely, that Essendon FC: - established a program relating to the administration of supplements to its players in preparation for, and during, the 2012 AFL premiership season (the Program); - engaged in practices that exposed players to potential risks to their health and safety as well as the potential risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; - disregarded standard practices involving the human resources department when employing Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank at EFC; - failed to conduct routine, systematic pre-employment checks in respect of Dean Robinson and Stephen Dank; - failed to ensure that persons with the necessary integrity, reputation and training were engaged by EFC to implement the Program; - failed to ensure that those implementing the Program were adequately supervised; - failed to devise or implement adequate systems or processes to ensure that some substances provided to and used by players were safe and were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; failed to have proper regard to player health and safety, including failing to ensure that some substances had no potentially negative effects on players; - failed to identify and record the source from which some substances used by players were obtained; - failed to adequately monitor and record the use of some substances; - failed to audit or monitor some substances held on the premises of EFC; - failed to implement a system for recording and storing some substances held on the premises of EFC; - failed to meaningfully inform players of some substances the subject of the Program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of some of the substances; - failed to take appropriate and adequate action when it became aware of facts that suggested that unsatisfactory and potentially risky practices were occurring in relation to the administration of supplements; and - permitted a culture at EFC of frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements. The AFL Commission further determines, and the Essendon FC further acknowledges, that by reason of the above matters: - EFC failed to ensure it adequately protected the health, welfare and safety of the players; there was a risk that Essendon players could have been administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code and any such risk is an unacceptable risk; and - EFC is unable now to determine whether players were administered some substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code,

Duffer, change the clock in the dairy, cows are dumb enough to believe the wrong time. Same goes for curtains, set the clocks back, they have no idea. I did it in the chook pen, those roosters are too smart I reckon they can see the town hall clock.

I still don't get it, "nearly reaching picket fence levels" 3'6"? 潮湿的似乎是一个完全成熟的黄油，几乎达到了栅栏的水平，如果有人说吉米在同森泰斯的owines Oh that's clearer now. Dank ਕਿਸੇ ਨੂੰ owines ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਵੀ ਉਸੇ ਦਾ ਨਵੀਨੀਕਰਨ ਵਿਚ Jimmy ਕਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਕਰੀਬ picket ਵਾੜ ਦੇ ਪੱਧਰ ਤੱਕ ਪਹੁੰਚਣ ਲਈ, ਇੱਕ ਪੂਰੀ ਉੱਡ ਮੱਖਣ ਵਰਗੇ ਲੱਗਦਾ ਹੈ Punjabi makes more sense.

I agree during play, but between I thought he had a slight limp on several occasions.

Good point. Approved for what? Approved for animal use. Approved weed killer. Approved for production. Approved for paint removal. Approved chemical weapon. He is a charlatan, and he was Essendons main man, scary.

Shorthand? Edit: - I know I'm old. I have no idea what you are talking about.

They put that guy in charge of the drug cabinet! Dank comes across as a loon to me, has he changed dramatically or did the people in charge at Essendon fail in their duty of care? We know the answer. One thing I do believe is that records were kept, that they no longer exist according to the EFC is damning. No thinking person believes that no records were kept. That evidence was destroyed should lead to further charges. The governance issues bringing the game into disrepute were for failure to keep proper records. Destroying records is another issue. Dank needs to be put on record in a court of law. If the records existed once they will still be somewhere. We need to Lance the boil that is Essendon, time for some strong arm tactics. Pun intended.

A tailored program with no records, yeah right.

Whats with the soda Ernie? Are you dehydrated?

Its all mathematics really. EG: Three people have been in the house. There were 6 eggs in the fridge. I had two eggs, you had 2 eggs and now there are no eggs in the fridge. Mathematics tells me the third person is responsible for the missing eggs. No one saw them take the eggs. That is circumstantial evidence. No one can prove the players took a banned substance. The club ordered and paid for a banned substance. Thousands of injections of substances took place. No records of thousand of vials of approved substances exists. Now I am no mathematical genius but to me it is obvious. I agree with Stephen Hawkins, black holes exist not because I know they exist but because they must exist.

Not long enough. I would also like to see his Brownlow taken away.

FMD "It's been very disappointing what's happened the last two years and the way our football club has been treated and we hope we get the chance to get on and do what we do best and that's play football," Hird said on Friday afternoon. Mr Hird, what brought about that treatment of the past two years? Who accepted responsibility? Who ordered the Good Stuff? Who had a convicted drug dealer as a personal trainer? Who brought that drug dealer to the club? There is evil at play hear Mr Hird and if you take a look in the mirror you will see it.

Any chance you could follow Essendon this year and come back to us next year?

And surprisingly all 8 are still at the club? What does that mean? Of the 34 that did sign the waiver half have gone! Edit:- If you do as Hirdy says you have a 50% chance of getting out. Don't follow Hirdy and 100% chance of staying. That augers well for the future.

We have already had this, good for another laugh though.

Too much red meat?

I have been to matches and have come away thinking X was the best player on the ground, only to hear on the way home X was playing on Y and Y had 45 disposals and kicked 4 goals. All a matter of perspective I suppose.

I thought you were going to say you could remember Newtown when it was.

And TDI. Variety is the spice of life, I enjoy reading all the reports and accept them for what they are, opinions. It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything. Kudos to all reports.

On topic please guys this is a footy forum, oh, that is footy sorry carry on. Go Cronulla. Sounds weird. Glad to hear your kids are playing footy in Sydney.

I can't even see the last one.

Nice work UB. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke Boycotts can work, I boycott EFC sponsors and have told them (the sponsors). I like the idea of boycotting their games.

For the first 2 numbers in tattslotto.....zip. For the first two in deelotto....zip. Keep up the good work.

Reality check. They kept no records! If this does not scream out, we are breaking the rules and trying to hide it. Then nothing does. The club is guilty, only feats of magic and illusion can spare the players. I do not think it possible to gather a group of 42 men, tell them we are embarking on a program of improvement that is close to the edge of legality. Have 8 pull out of the program, why? And no one check for themselves if it really was OK I want to know why 8 players pulled out. Did they check the legality? If so did they discuss this with teammates? Too many questions, no innocent answers. All I see is a recreation of the Titanic disaster set in a football team. I think all the players were informed about what they were taking. I think they were told it was leading edge stuff on the border of legality. I think 8 chose to inquire further and opted out. The remaining 34 put their trust in their club. I think the club has breached it duty of care. I think the club and the players are guilty. NB: Attempting to cheat is cheating.

Brilliant, unfortunately you may be correct. Pragmatic crooks, you can hate them but sometimes you have to admire them.