Chris

Bit worried about Jesse's attitude. This is based on a few things. 1: His call that his stats are better than Schwarz's so he doesnt need his help. That is the wrong way to look at it, if you really want to learn and be the best you can learn from everyone, sometimes especially those you least expect to. 2: Roos pointing him out about not knowing yet what is expected from an AFL footballer (or now starting to work it out). He did point out others but Hogan stood out. 3: His dummy spits at the umps where he stops playing. 4: He usually has little second effort and only seems to when the ball comes back to him, not when he chases the ball. He seems to give up easily. He seems to believe the hype and expects to be great. There are warning signs there that he may not realise the work you need to put in to be great no matter how much talent you have. In saying all of that he does seem quite stand offish and reserved so it may just be an outward projection that doesn't match his inner thoughts. One of those introverts most on here seem to discard at will.

And for the whole club - up up and away! (yes it is four words but it is really only three with one repeated

Bomber Thompson has gone on one of the great deluded rants about WADA. Worth a read in the hun just for a laugh. Apparently WADA just twisted a few old things around and didnt know what the players took and they are the ones who treated the players badly. The funniest was him saying WADA don't care about Aussie rules or the players. Hahahahaha. I've got news for you bomber, WADA don't need to care about the sport and they certainly don't care about cheats!

The whole AFL management really has been embarrassing for a long while. The attitude you describe is also not the one needed but I don't think they will ever get it. What they need is for the clubs to pass the onus onto the players and create an environment where they feel responsible and empowered to ensure they are clean. What the AFL want to do is make sure the players are isolated from their responsibilities and try and pass the responsibility off to the clubs and club doctors. Was always a recipe for disaster. Hopefully this may change a little now but the dinosaurs in AFL land can't seem to reconcile how you could have a one in all in club environment while having personal responsibility. It really is very easy to have both.

It would be tough in these circumstances but that is the expectation and they are told that. It all comes down to the culture of the sport or organisation to allow and encourage this to happen. The AFL have been sorely lacking in that department.

But i would expect a 12 year old to question their coach when it comes to medications or suppliments, you are trained to not trust anyone but WADA or the national affiliate. Any sport or organisation that takes this seriously makes sure the athletes do not trust these people with these things. You are trained to even question your doctor and any doctor who knows anything about this makes sure their patient does their own checks. I did that as a teen when not yet an adult, why cant we expect it from these men? That is a rhetorical question as the answer lies in the ancient boys club culture across the entire AFL.

Sorry but that is bull. We expect 12 year old gymnasts to stick to the standards so why not a MAN playing AFL?

Maybe we need to ask Maverick and Goose?

Reported in the Hun that Dank lost all but one part of his defamation case. No damages awarded to him and he has to pay the telegraphs legal costs, which are in excess of 2 MILLION DOLLARS!. Guess that is the end of his legal fight as he will now not be able to afford it. Was interesting the different tone in the article talking about Dank than the one used talking about the Dons. Not surprised though.

I really struggle to get the issue with Caro, she has been right far more times than wrong which is far more than can be said for almost every other journo in the AFL. What was it that started your vendetta?

I can think of plenty of conspiracies to support this happening but not one reason that would stand up to any pressure. Maybe it is all a conspiracy after all.

Would prefer it was Daisy!

From my reading of this it goes something like this. Dank is annoyed as he thinks they said he injected them with something but doesn't seem to be able to say he didn't and due to careful wording the journo also didn't say he did. (sounds familiar) Dank is annoyed they say the substance causes growth in cancer cells and defends himself saying that isn't the case (again,sounds familiar) The court find Dank is wrong and the substance does cause growth in cancer cells and the journo is cleared as you can't defame someone with the truth. Dank is baffled and will appeal. (Sounds familiar again). In short it appears that again all the experts are wrong and Dank knows more than everyone else. I wonder how many selfies there are on the phones of the narcists involved in this affair!

Can you at least answer my questions? And what is with the dollar sign, is it a typo?

I think the difference of opinion is actually closer than it seems. If I am taking what you say and understanding ir right you dont like people taking anything that may be seen as performance enhancing to the broad community. The vast majority of these things end up banned, and rightly so. I certainly don't agree with having people allowed to take performance enhancing substances. The difference of opinion comes from an acceptance of regulation of what is deemed to be ethical and legal. Someone has to draw that line and then everyone plays within that line. I veiw it like a playground, the fence around the playground is the rules, within that play ground you have to act with common decency and within the laws of the land but in terms of what you do it is up to you no matter how close to the fence you get. In motor racing millions of dollars are spent to get as close as possible without going past the fence. That includes dollars on the cars and on the best sports science for the drivers. There is a clear fence and that is what makes it fair and equitable. If you find a way to get closer than your competitor then well done. If you introduce another imaginary fence that varies depending on the opinions of people from day to day then no one knows where they stand and pretty much everyone can be seen as acting unethically at any point in time depending on whos standard you live by. Footy isn't a sport where the rules aren't pushed all that much at all so it is somwhat foreign in the grand scheme of things. One question, do you think Australia should have won the Americas Cup in 83'. Ben Lexen pushed the rules and found a legal advantage that helped us win, was he ethical or right to do so.

I woulsnt have any issue with TB4 use if it wasn't banned. What you have yet to explain is how you decide what is a PED and what isn't, that is where the Sandilands commentcomes in. A better diet will boost your performance, why would you not count that, where is that line. My stance is that you let WADA draw that line, otherwise you condemn people for playing within the rules. I also fail to see how using something that is within the rules is unfair, can you explain how it is? I come from a background of family involvement in two very technical sports where engineer design plays a big part. Engineers are employed to push the rules to edge to find any little advantage that is within the rules. This is no different. If you follow F1 did you have an issue with Red Bull having the double diffuser? It was legal, anyone could have done it but they didnt think of it, and it gave Red Bull a clear advantage?

I am over the errors we made and for the first time in a long time am exited by our future. That is unfortunately being ruined by the rest of the AFL issues. I understand the issue with health effects of drugs and agree they need to be found and drug. I just fail to see how it unfair if the rules allow it. That doesnt mean the rules shouldn't change and i am glad they do as our knowledge grows. Just like in every other aspect of life it is unfair to judge those of the past by todays standards. I also didnt bring up long legs and fast twitch. Strong coffee is an interesting one though as caffeine is actually a banned substance (or at least was when i went through the WADA training in the 90's) but wasn't completly banned but was past a certain point, which from memory was something like 10 cups a day.

And you said I would make them legal to take if they weren't banned. No where have I said they shouldn't be banned. As I said earlier you can not judge users of these drugs in the past by todays standard. They did not know what we know now. I also wont be watching or attending eutral games or any game involving the dons. I am actually very close to walking from the entire sport due to the complete disregard for fairness and and integrity within the AFL community, not just in AFL house.

You have completly miss understood my stance and have actually put words in my mouth. Can you please point out where I said steroids shouldn't be banned, that they aren't harmful, and that athletes should be using them? You may find I actually have never said any of that. I do find it completly illogical that you think people cant do things the rules allow them to do. If there is a problem you change the rules, as they do. I am all for doing that but you can't get upset at someone for doing something that is not against the rules. Maybe I am a stickler for the rules but that would come from competing at a state, national, and international level in an olympic sport, it gave me pretty good exposure to the code and how it works and how the elite athletes (who 15 years ago were ahead of where the AFL boys are today for professionalism and commitment) go about their business and how the top level of sport works. My protest of not paying my membership is also against the AFL, I know the club gets punished but what power do we have other than memberships, bums on seats, and eyes on TV? They are our only three options.

Agreed. I suppose my point is that if it is within the rules it is fair game. One of the great things WADA do, and a big part of why they were formed, is put in place protection for the health of athletes. That is not seen as a role of theirs by the vast majority of people. Glucose would be all but impossible to ban but you could have acceptable levels as they do with caffeine.

That comes down to a question of whether it should be banned or not. That is a different question to me.

We will disagree on this but yes i would be happy for them to take it if it wasn't banned. If you are allowed to use then that is that, you are allowed to use it. No different to using other rules to your advantage like the Hawks did in 08 when the rushed a million behinds in the GF. It was allowed so there is no problem.

I still cant see how taking something that is legal and available to everyone is an unfair advantage. It doesnt make sense.

Yes lots of athletes did. Judging by todays standards they are all cheats, back then they were not banned and you were not cheating, anyone could have done it.

Honestly wouldn't bother me. Every serious athlete out there is on a concoction of various things that aren't banned and has been for a long long while, be it protein powders, to supplements, to prescription drugs. It is part of finding out what works for you to maximise your performance. Every one of the Demons players would without a shadow of a doubt be taking some series of substances, and no doubt they are different to what Collingwood players are using, or Geelong players etc etc. Every one of these could be seen as a PED .