ManDee

From:- http://theconversation.com/frankenfooty-essendons-mixed-bag-of-supplements-17323 Unproven drugs, not a scientific approachHere is a short list of the drugs allegedly given to the players from the 34 page Notice of Charges (page 24-25): actovegin unspecified amino acids unspecified multi-vitamins AOD-9604 creams AOD-9604 injections cerebrolysin colostrum REDACTED (it’s blanked out in the charge list) lactaway lube-all-plus melatonin melanotan II TA-65 thymosin beta 4 traumeel tribulus For more interesting articles see :- http://theconversation.com/au/topics/essendon

和高旗飞扬

1st the CEO 2nd the board 3rd the Hird Then the players

If it was us the coach would have been sacked, the board would have stepped down and we would be under administration of the AFL. And this all would have happened 2 years ago.

I just spoke to an Essendon supporter that reckons the players have claimed they had no idea that the injections contained anything illegal therefore they cannot be banned. ..........................sigh! So to carry that to the extreme, clubs can inject anything into their players and it is ok so long as the players don't know what it is. But there were no positive tests he claimed. It will all be thrown out. I am staggered at the lack of understanding of some Essendon supporters.

Welcome to the madhouse DG12

That is a bit of a generalisation. Which drugs? Some can be detected in hair samples months later.Think of Ben Cousins shaved head & body, No hair.

From the Age http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/nine-afl-clubs-cleared-but-workcover-probe-into-essendon-afl-continues-20150223-13mict.html "WorkSafe has completed an investigation into alleged health and safety breaches by nine Victorian-based AFL clubs and will take no further action," the VWA said in a statement. "Separate investigations relating to the Essendon Football Club and the AFL are continuing, and it is inappropriate to comment further."

Sue, I didn't know the gun was loaded when I aimed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger. Would that be a successful defence against manslaughter? I didn't know that the hundreds of injections were loaded! I do not believe for one moment that not one player thought the program was suspect. Not one player contacted ASADA to clarify what they were taking was OK. Not one player contacted their manager to clarify what they were taking was OK. Are you suggesting a Jonestown situation where they all did as they were told. What about the eight that did not take part? Why? Or did they do due diligence? Edit: What I am suggesting is that the players knew that the program was risky but they did it anyway, they were probably told that they would get away with it.

From ASADA http://www.asada.gov.au/substances/supplements.html Assess the risk The risk of doping through the use of supplements is real. Prior to using any supplement, an athlete should ask themselves: Is it legal? Is it safe? Is it effective (in improving performance)? Is it necessary? If you are in doubt about the first two questions, the product should not be used. The third and fourth questions are intended to help the athlete consider what potential benefit, if any, the supplement may offer. Despite the claims made by supplement manufacturers that their products are safe and free of substances prohibited in sport, it is not possible to offer an absolute guarantee to athletes. It is for this reason ASADA and WADA do not endorse supplement products or offer advice to athletes about which supplement to take. There have been cases where both Australian and international athletes have been sanctioned after they have used supplements that they thought were safe, but were actually contaminated with prohibited substances. If an athlete chooses to use supplements, they should weigh up the risks and make an informed decision. What athletes need to do? Athletes need to be aware under the World Anti-Doping Code they are ultimately responsible for any prohibited substance found in their body. Athletes should understand the risk of supplement use and make every attempt to minimise those risks. How substances come to be prohibited For a substance or method to be prohibited, it must meet two of the following three conditions: The substance or method has the potential to enhance, or does enhance performance in sport. The substance or method has the potential to risk the athlete’s health. WADA has determined that the substance or method violates the spirit of sport. The full definitions of reasons why methods and substances are prohibited (along with the rest of the World Anti-Doping Code) can be found on WADA’s website. Every athlete is responsible for the substances that enter their body. Athletes are also responsible for any method they undertake. ASADA can help athletes and their support personnel check substances they may have to take, as well as find out more about banned substances and methods.

Do you believe in fairies? Edit:- I think with all the spin doctoring coming out of Essendon that we may have head about this before now. If some story does come out now showing their innocence I shall personally apologise to tinkerbell and the tooth fairy.

NO. http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html Read rule 2: 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. Read and understand what is said. Use or attempted use .... Read rule 7: 7. Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method Read and understand what is said. Trafficking or attempted trafficking... Read rule 8: 8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation. Read and understand what is said. Administration or attempted administration...... Go to the ADADA site and read it. Essendon are guilty.

Welcome to the Titanic (Essendon FC) never mind the icebergs (rules of world sport) full steam ahead! Now if we hit an iceberg, just move the deck chairs (destroy all records) then get the musicians (press) out on the poop deck and get them the play a few songs (spread some bullshyt). We have a wonderful Coach in Francesco Schettino (James Hird) from the Costa Concordia he knows how to leave a sinking ship. See what happens when you let a narcissistic criminal run things.

DM it doesn't matter what they actually took. If they intended to take it they are guilty. PS: Welcome to the nut house.

I have been to a few matches at Brunswick Street and judging by the age of the supporters at the players race I would think they are the parents of your friends. They love their team. http://www.fitzroyfc.com.au/ Worth a read, specially the section on the AFL's most successful side.

OD, I have a two ex Fitzroy supporter friends, one now supports Bulldogs the other Brisbane, both have an interest in Fitzroy in the VAFA.

Your compassion is to be commended. So if we accept that individuals accept long-term/lifetime bans what is an acceptable punishment for the organisation that stood to derive the benefits of the scheme? Financial penalty? Would have to be means tested, rich clubs to receive a bigger penalty. Draft choice removal? Would also have to be scaled, Hawthorn losing their 1st 2 picks for 2 years would be less harsh than StKilda for the same period. Banning from finals for a period? Would not be a penalty to StKilda. So how do we structure a suitable penalty? I am not sure if there is a suitable penalty, I am just glad I am not an Essendon supporter.

Fair point, my reply above was written prior to reading your point. As to the view of damage to weaker clubs from excising the boil of Essendon from the competition, I think the competition will be better for it. South & Fitzroy supporters have not all been lost to football. Sometimes short term pain is needed in order to go ahead. Tassie Bombers would be a positive outcome and it would show others that the cost of seriously transgressing the rules can be massive.

Sorry, but a comparison was made. However I do accept what you say with regard to the general public and the EFC. The spin doctors from Essendon have been working feverishly to get the great uninformed onside. I think they have been largely successful to date, so I agree that they do not care as much as us. But that is no reason to compare us to them. I feel sullied to have my team compared with Essendon. We may not play the best footy but we don't risk the futures of our players using illegal substances.

LaDee, we were not found guilty of tanking. Admittedly our on field performances have been poor, but to compare our transgressions with those of Essendon is a step too far. What we did was pretty much what others were doing, the difference being we got caught. There was no systemic use of drugs unapproved for human consumption. There was no destroying or failing to keep evidence. There was no drawn out campaign of obfuscation. There was no drawn out legal challenge. There was no risk of permanently and irreparably damaging the health of young men under our care. We may be many things but we are not the cheats and liars that Essendon are nor do we perform unethical illegal human experimentation. No we cannot be compared to Essendon.

Undergoing some life changes, first new profile logo. Plus signature icons gone. Apparently those massive signature icons clogged up mobile version users. They are gone. Sorry.

Beeb, perhaps Eddie is conflicted, you know, stones and glass houses. There maybe an odd skeleton in the closet. Best not rock the boat, if you know what I mean.

Maybe you could add Demonpk as a signature or favorite player? Then it is attached to all posts. Thanks for reports Saty