Chris

Join the EFC faithful with their heads buried firmly in the sand. I dare say not many people would still have any record of placing a bet 4 years ago, although with online betting I may be wrong, maybe we will see all bet records mysteriously wiped from 2012.

He was asked if he had an opinion on it. He Said, 'no I don't' Of course, off camera he may also have been asked if he thought they should get it.

It was misquoted in the Hun. The video clip and the written quote didn't match.

It is written on the form Saty. Unless the players can't read or ASADA tampered with the forms in a mass conspiracy then that is what was asked. You are still yet to say why you don't trust them with a reasonable reason. They aren't perfect but they are a he'll of a lot closer than the AFL or any alternative.

Here is a statement from ASADA'S website. Athletes must declare any substance used in the last seven days including any substances for which they have a current and valid Therapeutic Use Exemption. Not declaring use may affect results management and have adverse consequences for the athlete.

Saty we have been through this before. The question is simple, what have you taken, it includes anything as what they are looking for is an explination of any anomalies in the test results in order to let the players off. there is no reason you would not tell ASADA about any thing you have outside of food as it actually covers you, it isnt use to ban you. In fact the only reason not to tell ASADA is if you know it I banned. hmmmmm

Robbo presented an incredibly biased view without any basis in fact. My view is also not from following any pack, it is from someone who was once under the WADA code before ASADA even existed. I have an understanding of what is expected, what the rules are, and how the whole thing works. The bias spouted by much of the AFL media and the AFL itself is embarrassing misinformed rubbish. The AFL industry are decades behind the times on this and it shows. The whole anti WADA commentary is ridiculous in the extreme and is doing far more damage than good. The only thing that has stopped me from turning from the game is that the AFL actually respected the 12 month bans without too much fuss (although there was quite a bit). Much more and I was gone, no matter how good the future looks for the dees. Time for the AFL industry and it's supporters to grow the f up.

unfortunately the code didn't allow for that then, it does now.

that's where the likes of Watson are even more culpable.

To a degree I agree. they are victims of trusting the wrong people. fact is though that they trusted the very people you are trained not to in an ASADA sense. As an athlete you are trained to trust no one but ASADA with the stress of what you take. Therefore they are also victims of their own poor judgement.

The truth is that the AFL are very often behind the stance of the journos. very few are independent of the grasp and if you wish to keep your accreditation then you don't rock the boat.

Robbo's bias used to be funny but I am beginning to worry about his mental state with the amount of Inna curate deluded bial he is spouting on this topic. I always thought Journos had to be vaguely intelligent, Robbo proves that isn't necessarily the case.

semantics Saty. You know what I meant

No, ASADA spent a long time putting together all the evidence that either existed or they had access to. Not really their fault if evidence they would like to have doesn't exist.

once again Saty you are pointing blame the wrong way on that. ASADA can not make a ruling on Whitfield as the AFL have not supplied all the info as yet, even though it has been requested. It is the AFL who are incompetent and obstructionist, unless you would like ASADA to start making rulings with incomplete information.

There have been a few other meetings since the guilty verdict was handed down, surely a bit of forward planning wouldn't go astray.

Didn't they cheat the salary cap in the 90's int eh year the won a flag? Pretty sure they still hold that flag!

Judd would be the most likely I would think

That was only one of the things they were injected with. Dank had all sorts of stuff going on including horse drugs, no one knows what went where and which players had what!

Comfortably satisfied, which is rather fluid in its application. The AFL tribunal had no real experience in applying it to doping cases. Various comments were that it was set way too high to the point is was almost beyond reasonable doubt. CAS stepped in and lowered it back to where it has been used internationally in doping cases and bam, guilty!

Thanks, but I thought they meant the findings from the Swiss appeals court, not CAS.

Simple, the burden of proof was not applied by the AFL Tribunal as precedence would prescribe.

Where can we find it?

They are asked to give ASADA a list of everything they take whether they think it is legal or not. They are asked this for their own protection. For example, a player says yes I have had asprin, their test comes back positive for steroids, the player has no idea what is going on as he doesn't take steroids. ASADA go back to this form and look to see what he has taken, as it turns out asprin made a mistake and didn't clean their machinery well enough and some of their asprins contains steroids, bingo, player gets a massive discount (potentially no ban) as they are not at fault. This is obviously completely made up but it is one of the reasons the players are asked to fill out the forms with EVERYTHING they have taken. Why did not one player mention the injections?

I think you may have just written the speech for Dill!