I still would like to know if Saad was BOG in the game where he got busted.
I always have wondered about players getting a needle to kill pain during a game, as to why this is not performance enhancing, and I saw Judd get a needle this year in a game, where he was playing poorly in the first half and then after the break he came out and dominated for ten minutes. scum won the game due to this Judd moment.
The arguement is that you aren't enhancing their performance beyond their normal capabilities.
And yet as someone pointed out on here, caffeine was a banned substance until they figured out they couldn't police it enough.
And I would still like to know, in what area of his test results spiked past the normal non cheating amounts, to get him busted, and compare it to our players who had a sustained supposed drug cheating environment, yet no tests have resulted in any players samples returning a positive test.
If one pissy little energy drink can spike one players tests over the legal amount of whatever, surely our players would have failed drug tests, even just one player.
You really do have to chuckle when you see what happened to EFC, we had whispers, a press conference, threw the doors and books open, a joint investigation where the confidential details were leaking, media chaos for months, Jobe admiring to taking AOD, blood samples going to Germany, surely target testing throughout the season. Trial bu media, try by the footy public, With a leagues commisioner apparently hell bent on handing over the scalps to ASADA, and possibly a chairman bending the cliub over. EVERYTHING was stacked against the club, and for a measly 0 infraction notices.
Then
Some random takes an energy drink, which he is probably getting for free, no checks and balances and he’s staring down the barrel of 2 years on the pine.
It’s possible the ERC dodged the biggest bullet in history, but maybe they ran the biggest and best supplement program this sport has ever seen, that everyone at the club knew was taking place. yeah there were problems, but it was the best funded, with the best auditing with the best products resulting in no infractions.
You really do have to chuckle when you see what happened to EFC, we had whispers, a press conference, threw the doors and books open, a joint investigation where the confidential details were leaking, media chaos for months, Jobe admiring to taking AOD, blood samples going to Germany, surely target testing throughout the season. Trial bu media, try by the footy public, With a leagues commisioner apparently hell bent on handing over the scalps to ASADA, and possibly a chairman bending the cliub over. EVERYTHING was stacked against the club, and for a measly 0 infraction notices.
Then
Some random takes an energy drink, which he is probably getting for free, no checks and balances and he's staring down the barrel of 2 years on the pine.
It's possible the ERC dodged the biggest bullet in history, but maybe they ran the biggest and best supplement program this sport has ever seen, that everyone at the club knew was taking place. yeah there were problems, but it was the best funded, with the best auditing with the best products resulting in no infractions.
Would like to believe...but there were definitely gaps in the monitoring/documenting of our program...but no worse than 11 other clubs it seems.
Somehow, they don't need an extensive investigation.
Somehow, Vlad doesn't have an opinion about Saad.......but had plenty to say about us during our investigation that was meant to be confidential.
It's over.
We lost the battle but put up a mighty fight, bigger than any club in AFL history, but had to back down when the AFL seemingly threatened our (short term) existence just because it can.
We are starting to turn the tide of war though:
- no mass exodus of players...unlike Pies, Lions, Saints
- fantastic new facility that is the best in the comp by a long way
- brand new major sponsor that would be worth 1.5M-2M per year for the next four.....on top of losing no sponsors....and supposedly more good sponsorship news to come
- dual premiership coach appointed despite our coach being suspended for 1 year.....Saints, Lions, Eagles can only attract novice coaches.
We win the war by winning the flag in 2014 despite all that has been done to us which is more than any club has copped in history.
asada would love to throw the book at us and they think they have a pretty strong case that TB4 was used at the club. However, they can't prove which players it was given to so have reached an impasse.
asada would love to throw the book at us and they think they have a pretty strong case that TB4 was used at the club. However, they can't prove which players it was given to so have reached an impasse.
What "strong case"?
A "strong case" = have irrefutable facts, like a positive test sample.
Circumstantial evidence is not a strong case, not without a freely given confession of which they have none.
asada would love to throw the book at us and they think they have a pretty strong case that TB4 was used at the club. However, they can't prove which players it was given to so have reached an impasse.
What "strong case"?
A "strong case" = have irrefutable facts, like a positive test sample.
Circumstantial evidence is not a strong case, not without a freely given confession of which they have none.
i said "they think". from what is available in the public domain the evidence they have relates to the purchase of TB4 and no evidence of purchasing the alpha one.
asada would love to throw the book at us and they think they have a pretty strong case that TB4 was used at the club. However, they can't prove which players it was given to so have reached an impasse.
What "strong case"?
A "strong case" = have irrefutable facts, like a positive test sample.
Circumstantial evidence is not a strong case, not without a freely given confession of which they have none.
i said "they think". from what is available in the public domain the evidence they have relates to the purchase of TB4 and no evidence of purchasing the alpha one.
And there in lies the rub.
If they are relying on the initial Dank interview with The Age - the record of which he later corrected - he talked about TB4 in unison with immunity benefits. If the interviewing had done some actual background research he would have pulled Dank up straight away and asked for a clarification.
Namely that: "Isn't it (the legal) TB-A that has immunity benefits, whist TB4 has HGH benefits?"
It was this point that Dank later clarified and it was clear the journo in question at the time(...possibly one of those highly regarded types by Vlad...) hadn't done his research and didn't bother with the research during editorship (I forget: The Age journo's aren't restricted by editorship control = quality like nearly every other journo elsewhere) - or worse, if they did, deliberately left it there to create an impression of cheating.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china “enough to treat 44 players” or something hysterical like that which was reported.
You know whats worse? If he came to Essendon, he would be the best small forward we have.
You mean apart from that three time premiership player and Norm Smith Medalist, Paul Chapman, he seems more than capable of playing as a small forward.
Is he a crumbing small forward though? Or a midfield/high-forward? I'm talking geniune forward pocket goal sneak
He's the best snap kick (clearly) of the last 10 years. I think he'll manage.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
That's like the old bird with the waterproof cigarette cover "big enough to fit a camel"
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
What defence?
No means no.
Allegedly.
I'm still unsure what a circumcision defence is.
Circumstantial? Although, it's not a defence, it's a prosecution.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
What defence?
No means no.
Allegedly.
I'm still unsure what a circumcision defence is.
Circumstantial? Although, it's not a defence, it's a prosecution.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
What defence?
No means no.
Allegedly.
I'm still unsure what a circumcision defence is.
Circumstantial? Although, it's not a defence, it's a prosecution.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
What defence?
No means no.
Allegedly.
I'm still unsure what a circumcision defence is.
Circumstantial? Although, it's not a defence, it's a prosecution.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
What defence?
No means no.
Allegedly.
I'm still unsure what a circumcision defence is.
Circumstantial? Although, it's not a defence, it's a prosecution.
A circumcision defence is based on a tip-off.
Case has to be heard in front of a public Jewry
Ah...the unkindest cut of all. They say it doesn't hurt, but I can tell you I couldn't walk for a year afterwards.
Another piece of their circumcision defence would be Charter sayin he was asked what doses to give, and potentially ordered from china "enough to treat 44 players" or something hysterical like that which was reported.
What defence?
No means no.
Allegedly.
I'm still unsure what a circumcision defence is.
Circumstantial? Although, it's not a defence, it's a prosecution.
A circumcision defence is based on a tip-off.
Case has to be heard in front of a public Jewry
Ah...the unkindest cut of all. They say it doesn't hurt, but I can tell you I couldn't walk for a year afterwards.
Were you trying to just amble along? Or at more of a bris pace?