I suspect the players themselves also knew a lot more about the supplements programs in the other clubs. They have friends, don’t they, working in the same industry? That’s why there is no ‘EXODUS’ from the club because there is nothing alarming deemed happened by the players themselves all along.
There is an old Chinese saying about ‘killing the chicken to warn the naughty monkeys’. The EFC has just been unfortunate enough to be the chicken in this case.
#standbyhird
The way the AFL has handled this entire matter is straight out of their own play book.
When West Coast got into trouble with illicit drugs what did they do? They introduced an illicit drug policy and appointed an AFL approved Director to their board. I’m certain there were/are other clubs with similar problems but the AFL just moved along - nothing to see here.
Also what about tanking? I know Melbourne wasn’t found guilty of tanking but if the AFL were serious about the intregrity of the game why were no other clubs investigated? Carlton for starters would have a case to answer given Libba’s comments were arguably more damning than what Brock McLean said. Again nothing was done except the AFL have basically taken over Melbourne and made sure the incentive of a priority pick no longer exists.
I do believe we did things wrong, but the punishment handed down is not justifiable given what other club may have been doing. I still clearly remember Nick Maxwell making a comment back in Feburary that he had no idea what he takes when given supplements - yet for the same reason out club failed to show a duty of care.
I’m really not sure why I support such a corrupt sport.
couldn't give a flying fark anymore.
Yeah, surprised the AFL approved website released this info
Doesn't matter in the end
Supporters of opposition clubs and the wider community will forever condemn Essendon as the main protagonists
What it reinforces is that Essendon weren't the only club involved in unregulated practices
Begs the question how other clubs would've fared under the same scrutiny
Ultimately Essendon were naive enough to employ Dank and suffered (under exaggeration) the consequences
#glasshouses
On the basis of this Report alone..............Chairman Little should be down at the Supreme Court this morning with an Injunction against the AFL asking for an immediate cease to AFL Trade Period, pending an appeal by EFC to the Commission for our Draft Picks to be reinstated.
Someone please wake him up............
We can't, and Little can't.
We ACCEPTED the penalties. They weren't imposed on us. And I bet there was no 'and any other club found to have been slack with their record keeping will cop the same punishment of else EFC gets their draft picks back' clause.
As soon as we signed on to the penalty agreement, we lost any legal leverage we ever had.
It's too late. Stop dreaming.
Therein lies the problem.............. we accepted it.
Our Chairman...........after all of his posturing & chest-thumping accepted it.
We were bent over as a Club then & in light of this latest information we are being bent over again.
And what do we do? We meekly accept it.
We have been & continue to be a laughing-stock over this entire drugs saga.
The real shame for me is we appear to have a Board paralysed with inaction & incapable of defending our cause.
We all deserve better.
I can't even conceptualise how I feel about this.
darkest day in sport.
Round 10, 1996, Essendon vs St Kilda at Waverley Park, half way through the third quarter when the lights went out.
Not entirely true, Malcolm Blight had a torch and I think a few fans made a fire out of the behind post.
Pretty sure my cousin started a fire that night.
initials AS?
Nope, JL.
I may be wrong, I'll have to ask him, I was only 8 at the time.
There is no suggestion of any wrong doing in that article. Players are within their rights to independently source supplements, and clubs are within their rights to administer supplements to players as long as they are WADA compliant.
Apart from the fact that if you look at what Essendon was punished for:
Not conducting proper background checks of Dank and Robinson
That players were put at risk of being administered banned substances (not that they were administered banned substances)
That the supplement program was not adequately recorded (ie was not recorded which players, took which substances, when)
That the supplement program was not adequately monitored or, "governed" if you like, and the lines of accountability for the supplement program were not defined.
That is exactly what the ******* article is saying how 11 other clubs were also at fault.
So don't give me some **** about the article not stating that the 11 other clubs had not done anything wrong. Given our treatment and what the AFL was able to prove we did wrong, 11 other clubs should be up to their necks in **** as well.
Now the AFL might believe more went on at our club than at other clubs, but they and ASADA were not able to prove it. Tough ****, doesn't mean they get to smack the **** out of us for the stuff they were able to prove and then ignore the fact that the exact same situation existed at 11 other ******* clubs.
Now let's not forget that soon after this story broke the AFL conducted an audit of all 17 other clubs supplement program and we were told they were completely fine. We already knew this wasn't the case with Melbourne, but now some 8 months later they lying bastards now admit that they have significant problems with the supplement programs that were running at 10 other clubs as well?
Well dear AFL all I can say is please kindly go and fark yourself. I will continue to support Essendon. I have signed up to become an Essendon member for the 2014 season for the first time since 2004. I will continue to watch and attend Essendon home games.
What I will no longer do is support the AFL in any other shape or form. I will no longer watch any non-Essendon game on TV nor listen to them on the radio (I will be informing all of the AFL's broadcast partners of this fact). I will no longer attend Essendon Away games as I refuse to actively support the 17 other clubs who actively assisted the AFL in ■■■■■■■ us over.
I will never, ever, ever again put my hard earn in for one of the pathetic tin rattling clubs trying to save themselves from obvilion...they can go and ■■■■ off and die.
Most importantly the AFL has now convinced me, now is an extremely good time to become a member of Melbourne Victory and Melbourne Storm, because let's face it there is no way possible that the FFA or NRL can possibly be as incomptent at running their League's as the AFL are.
Melbourne Heart…
There is no suggestion of any wrong doing in that article. Players are within their rights to independently source supplements, and clubs are within their rights to administer supplements to players as long as they are WADA compliant.
Correct me if I am wrong, but after all the fall out weren't we still WADA complaint? I thought we got whacked with the big stick because we 'brought the game into disrepute'.
It could not be determined whether or not we were WADA compliant. We got wacked with the big stick because of a duty of care breach.
Which is pretty much what they are saying other clubs had a problem with as well, ie. not keeping sufficient records, etc.
Isn't there are a leap in logic to say that inadquate record keeping practices mean that a club doesn't know what supplements are being administered?
I thought it was also that some of these players, if not most, were sourcing supplements themselves. Ipso facto, that means the clubs can't guarantee what was being taken.
The onus is on the individual when it comes to WADA. Players are within their rights to source supplements themselves. But when clubs implement a supplements regime across the team, then they have a duty of care to record what is administered and inform the participants.
The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.
I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.
On the basis of this Report alone..............Chairman Little should be down at the Supreme Court this morning with an Injunction against the AFL asking for an immediate cease to AFL Trade Period, pending an appeal by EFC to the Commission for our Draft Picks to be reinstated.
Someone please wake him up............
We can't, and Little can't.
We ACCEPTED the penalties. They weren't imposed on us. And I bet there was no 'and any other club found to have been slack with their record keeping will cop the same punishment of else EFC gets their draft picks back' clause.
As soon as we signed on to the penalty agreement, we lost any legal leverage we ever had.
It's too late. Stop dreaming.
But what if it wasn't in good faith?
There is no suggestion of any wrong doing in that article. Players are within their rights to independently source supplements, and clubs are within their rights to administer supplements to players as long as they are WADA compliant.
Correct me if I am wrong, but after all the fall out weren't we still WADA complaint? I thought we got whacked with the big stick because we 'brought the game into disrepute'.
It could not be determined whether or not we were WADA compliant. We got wacked with the big stick because of a duty of care breach.
Which is pretty much what they are saying other clubs had a problem with as well, ie. not keeping sufficient records, etc.
Isn't there are a leap in logic to say that inadquate record keeping practices mean that a club doesn't know what supplements are being administered?
Not at all...what if the Sport Scientist is telling the club he is giving the players one supplement when in fact they are actually giving them a completely different prohibited substance.
Unless everything is recorded and signed off by at least two people there is no way clubs can say with any surety what their players were given.
Remember Nathan Buckley admitting on Footy Classified that he had no idea what supplements his players were being given but he trusted the staff they had there running the program to do the right thing (you know kind of like James Hird). There is no evidence Nathan Buckley ever directed his sport science staff to make sure all supplements being given to Collingwood players were WADA compliant and did not jeopardise the health of the players, something we know James Hird did.
Unless Nathan Buckley can prove he did this, should he also cop a 12 month ban for not adequately ensuring the health and safety of his players?
The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.
I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.
I don't agree.
While no news source is entirely independent from an agenda or political stance, most still report objectively.
AFL Media are not objective in my opinion. The 'news' section on their site is propaganda, pr if you like. No objectivity. Everything is monitored and controlled. That's part of the reason they took over the EFC site.
There are player interviews and fluff pieces of interest to supporters of individual clubs, however most stories are written to generate chatter and build their online presence.
It's a brilliant strategy, but it aint objective. The story, the lead, was buried last night. The paragraph on the 12 clubs should have been the opener. AFL Media know what they're doing and it's a strategy from the top.
Edit: This explains it in more detail: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/30/technology/afl-media-future-content-marketing
On the basis of this Report alone..............Chairman Little should be down at the Supreme Court this morning with an Injunction against the AFL asking for an immediate cease to AFL Trade Period, pending an appeal by EFC to the Commission for our Draft Picks to be reinstated.
Someone please wake him up............
We can't, and Little can't.
We ACCEPTED the penalties. They weren't imposed on us. And I bet there was no 'and any other club found to have been slack with their record keeping will cop the same punishment of else EFC gets their draft picks back' clause.
As soon as we signed on to the penalty agreement, we lost any legal leverage we ever had.
It's too late. Stop dreaming.
Therein lies the problem.............. we accepted it.
Our Chairman...........after all of his posturing & chest-thumping accepted it.
We were bent over as a Club then & in light of this latest information we are being bent over again.
And what do we do? We meekly accept it.
We have been & continue to be a laughing-stock over this entire drugs saga.
The real shame for me is we appear to have a Board paralysed with inaction & incapable of defending our cause.
We all deserve better.
It makes me feel sick just thinking about how meek we've become. I said at the time & still feel like I may never again have the same pride in the club. I cannot reconcile the damage we have facilitated through innaction & lack of conviction.
The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.
I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.
I don't agree.
While no news source is entirely independent from an agenda or political stance, most still report objectively.
AFL Media are not objective in my opinion. The 'news' section on their site is propaganda, pr if you like. No objectivity. Everything is monitored and controlled. That's part of the reason they took over the EFC site.
There are player interviews and fluff pieces of interest to supporters of individual clubs, however most stories are written to generate chatter and build their online presence.
It's a brilliant strategy, but it aint objective. The story, the lead, was buried last night. The paragraph on the 12 clubs should have been the opener. AFL Media know what they're doing and it's a strategy from the top.
Edit: This explains it in more detail: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/30/technology/afl-media-future-content-marketing
Probably posted there so they can say 'see we're not biased'.
There is a simple explanation to why we accepted. The AFL hold all the cards in a dispute with an AFL club board, they can sack them and put in their own. It is what happened to the Storm and it is in the rules and would have happened to us.Therein lies the problem.............. we accepted it.We can't, and Little can't.On the basis of this Report alone..............Chairman Little should be down at the Supreme Court this morning with an Injunction against the AFL asking for an immediate cease to AFL Trade Period, pending an appeal by EFC to the Commission for our Draft Picks to be reinstated.
Someone please wake him up............
We ACCEPTED the penalties. They weren't imposed on us. And I bet there was no 'and any other club found to have been slack with their record keeping will cop the same punishment of else EFC gets their draft picks back' clause.
As soon as we signed on to the penalty agreement, we lost any legal leverage we ever had.
It's too late. Stop dreaming.
Our Chairman...........after all of his posturing & chest-thumping accepted it.
We were bent over as a Club then & in light of this latest information we are being bent over again.
And what do we do? We meekly accept it.
We have been & continue to be a laughing-stock over this entire drugs saga.
The real shame for me is we appear to have a Board paralysed with inaction & incapable of defending our cause.
We all deserve better.
It makes me feel sick just thinking about how meek we've become. I said at the time & still feel like I may never again have the same pride in the club. I cannot reconcile the damage we have facilitated through innaction & lack of conviction.
darkest day in sport.
Round 10, 1996, Essendon vs St Kilda at Waverley Park, half way through the third quarter when the lights went out.
Not entirely true, Malcolm Blight had a torch and I think a few fans made a fire out of the behind post.
Pretty sure my cousin started a fire that night.
initials AS?
Nope, JL.
I may be wrong, I'll have to ask him, I was only 8 at the time.
There's probably hundreds of guys running around claiming to have started the fire & just as many claiming to have knocked over the post. BTW, the post wasn't burnt, the fires were only paper fires that burnt out pretty quickly.
The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.
I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.
I don't agree.
While no news source is entirely independent from an agenda or political stance, most still report objectively.
AFL Media are not objective in my opinion. The 'news' section on their site is propaganda, pr if you like. No objectivity. Everything is monitored and controlled. That's part of the reason they took over the EFC site.
There are player interviews and fluff pieces of interest to supporters of individual clubs, however most stories are written to generate chatter and build their online presence.
It's a brilliant strategy, but it aint objective. The story, the lead, was buried last night. The paragraph on the 12 clubs should have been the opener. AFL Media know what they're doing and it's a strategy from the top.
Edit: This explains it in more detail: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/30/technology/afl-media-future-content-marketing
Spot on.
This is absolutely deliberate; the content, the timing, the placement, the digital channel, the order of statements etc.
Part of an ongoing whitewash strategy.
We were scapegoated, and unreasonably, unfairly so.
Our beloved Bombers - an established, high-profile club and its high profile people - have taken the unneccessarily heavy-handed hits from the AFL, to help rebuild the AFL's reputation and rebuild the perception that the AFL is in control of the supplements situation.
This - in spite of these revelations that multiple teams and players are accessing supplements.
In spite of the fact that our discredited/sacked sports scientists and high performance staff worked at multiple other AFL Clubs (what did they do at those Clubs?) - none of whom self-reported, none of whom were investigated by the AFL and none of whom have received any penalties.
So exhausted by all of this.
Andy Maher (yes, he is that old) and Ross Glendenning disgraced themselves on the telly the day after LightsGate, labelling it a violent riot. At least Don Scott told them they were speaking rubbish.