Mazer Rackham

ASADA established that Charter ordered TB4, that the Chinese lab shipped stuff supposed to be TB4, that the Chinese believed it was in fact TB4, that Charter received the shipment thinking it was TB4, that the chemist mixed it up according to how you would prepare TB4, that Dank injected it in concordance with a regime of TB4. And there were these "consent forms" saying "I hereby give permission to be injected with thymosin". And the players did indeed receive injections. Hardly a botched prosecution. The AFL tribunal said, what if it WASN'T TB4!?!? What if it was ...... SOMETHING ELSE and the vials just SAID TB4!? In effect, what if it was really icing sugar and engine coolant? The only way to know would be to go back in time and have a lab analyse the exact batch of stuff sent from China. That's not comfortable satisfaction. That's not even reasonable doubt. That's looking for absolute proof. The tribunal said, if we can't know what was in that shipment, then there's no point going further. Case dismissed! That's why the tribunal decision was scorned. Even before the tribunal convened, there were warning signs. The members were hand picked by the AFL presumably because of a propensity for a certain way of thinking. Enter Jones, the chairman and esteemed beak who some years before managed to find Barry Hall not guilty of striking so he could play in a grand final.

This decision should be easy and should have been made months ago. What hold has Jobby got on Gil? Why is Gil dithering? What private commitment has Gil made to Jobby that requires time for Gil to work his deal making magic and thereby extract himself from embarrassment? It seems that Gil is trying to avoid a situation where Jobby runs to Robbo saying "Gil promised me I could keep it."

I had thought in my innocence that a CEO of an organisation is the one empowered to make decisions, on a daily basis. If his decisions go against the philosophy of the business then the board can step in. Or if he thinks a pending decision conflicts with said philosophy then he can kick it upstairs to the board. But when a CEO makes public statements that his business is committed to clean sport and wishes to protect clean players, then this particular decision is easy. If a CEO refuses to make decisions then one presumes the board is duty bound to step in and replace him.

It was Jobe who initiated the drive for "consent forms" for the players. Not the action of a man who thought it was all completely above board and comprising harmless supplements. It shows he realised there was potentially something wrong, that the players needed to be protected against. And before the drug years of 11/12 and his Brownlow, the thing Jobe was best known for was his aborted sit-down protest against umpires. I know he was a lot younger then but it showed appalling judgement.

This applies to the entire AFL comp.

Here we go. Laying the groundwork. "Well we CAN'T take it off Jobe, because Sam REFUSED to tell us why he should get the medal. You can't blame us! We're trying to go about this the right way, but Sam ... he REFUSED to front up!" "the AFL is fully committed to clean sport, for the sake of all players from all clubs" Yes, Gil. Pull the other one. It squirts AOD-9604 cream! A meeting in mid-Nov. A month to gauge public opinion and massage the non-decision accordingly.

Imagine what Dank might say if he was forced in court to talk. Might blow away the "innocent little lambs led into depravity" line they've pushed for 4 years.

Scene: AFL house, Tuesday night. CEO's office. Gil McLaughlin: Sh!t. Peter Gordon told me they'd get off! Mark Evans: You didn't believe him surely? GM: I know ... but he spoke so well. Pronounces his words so beautifully. There's something about a man in a horsehair wig that makes me go all shivery ... um, anyway, he swore they'd be fine. ME: Yeah, but it doesn't change anything. They're still cooked. But we'll have to get on to Jobe now. GM: There's a bit of a problem there actually. ME: The media? Oh, the players association. GM: No. Jobe. I already told him he could keep it. ME: What'd you do that for!?! GM: Oh, I met with him and some of his boys back when we were running the tribunal against them*. Told them to sit tight and everything would work out for them including the Brownlow. ME: Isn't that a bit ... out of order? GM: Hey. I'm Gil McLaughlin, pal. Brother of Hamish. (pause) There's only one way out of this. ME: Robbo? GM: Yes. Bring me the Fatphone. * = this part really happened!

How would we know? He always seems to find a pack less than 5 metres away and runs into it.

I always meant to go but never tried to be upfront I went to Sydney "just to see", 'twas quite a cheeky stunt I lied to big Jim easily because I've so much front I'm cool about my wealth but not with being such a ... Damn, now I've run out of rhymes too.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/posts/42631559/

Can we get him to have a chat to Hogan?

These ones bat them into the crowd.

That might not be the only thing you don't understand

I love to have a beer with Melksham I love to have a beer with Jake We drink in moderation After three pots he can't stay awake We drink at the Leighoak pokies Where the atmosphere is great I love to have a beer with Melksham Coz he's my team mate I love to have a beer with Bernie I love to have a beer with Vince We drink in moderation We got drunk once but never since We drink at the Leighoak pokies Where the atmosphere is great I love to have a beer with Bernie Coz he's my team mate I love to have a beer with Wattsy I love to have a beer with Jack We drink in moderation Only beers though he prefers cognac We drink at the Leighoak pokies Where the atmosphere is great I love to have a beer with Wattsy Coz he's my team mate

If it achieved nothing else, the saga exposed our national hypocrisy when it comes to drugs in sport. The Russian athletes should have changed their nationalities to Aussie, that would have saved their bacon. The whole world knows Aussies don't cheat. (Don't they?????)

I reckon there was a very early impulse to "head em off at the pass", which largely succeeded in setting the agenda. A known EFC supporter in charge of the Herald Sun, a number of EFC supporting individuals in various media, certain red faced buffoons with a voice, all promoting that the sports scientist went rogue, the players were duped, etc, which mostly stuck. One prominent individual who is an EFC supporter and somehow counts as a journo, ended up on the payroll of the Essendon lawyers, advising them! I wonder if the "advice" was actually in the other direction. Not to mention media accreditations that can be renewed or annulled at the whim of the emperor.

I don't excuse them, they are guilty. As a group, they knew there was monkey business of some kind, and decided to cover it up. Just trying to explain the dilemma of a new player trying to reconcile his ASADA lectures with what Jobe & co were doing. (In this case Jobe & co won out, but it's easy to imagine the cognitive dissonance of trying to straighten it out in your head.)

Bear in mind that it is really their older, more worldly managers who are doing the saying. IMaybe you can recall old stories of awe-struck players being recruited literally for 10 pounds, 3 pelaco shirts and a slab for the old man. Players won't have changed. It's the system that's changed. Players no longer get diddled by clubs, and it's because of the player managers who have no fear of telling clubs to stick deals up their jacksies. Nonetheless the managers can't be with them 24/7. It's easy to see a wet behind the ears recruit, who doesn't know what's normal and what's not, going along with the other players and lining up for his stomach jabs. As elsewhere mentioned, the really culpable ones are the ones who had been in the system to know "something" was going on, who had the experience and the clout to make waves, and lined up for their jabs anyway.

Unfortunately yes, and this same discussion will be going on for Crameri and the others who changed clubs. The players, no matter what they do from here, and for which club, will always have an asterisk next to their names. The damage EFC have done is far reaching and will take years to fade away.

Why don't you take them some of your "powders over the counter that increases muscle growth" that are "not banned" then? Preferably before tonight's game.

Red herring

Explain your reasoning. ASADA charged players, AFL tribunal let them off, WADA appealed, CAS heard the case anew and suspended the players. I spot a travesty in there, but I don't see where WADA have erred.

How is this relevant? Anyway, all your pal is saying is that the AFL shouldn't have run the tribunal in the EFC/Dank thing. Conflict of interest. And from the finding they handed down, we can see why.

Why does there have to be? Does this really require an answer? There are too many substances out there. They cannot test them all. The funding for the cheats outstrips the funding for the ASDAs, USADAs, etc. There is no way they can test them all. Not time nor money. So they have "catch all" sections in the code. Not approved for human consumption? Banned. Too similar chemically to a known banned substance? Banned. You seem to be blaming the agencies. They are fighting an uphill battle. Underfunded, under-resourced, often deliberately by their controlling bodies.