Woosha – final moments or finals moment?

[jackman7]

Agree. Maybe it’s because the cow is semi retired.

[SeddonBomber]

I’ve found it interesting that no one within the club has really defended Woosha. X certainly didn’t back him in the interview during the week. None of the players have come out supporting Woosha either. You’d probably expect them to do that after a 100 point loss.

Edit: I don’t think Woosha will be moved on this year, but I’ve found the lack of public support this week interesting.

[darkknightpheonix]

It’s only fair to point out what he did after he won that flag by 1 point with one of the best midfields in modern time and with players drugged to the eyeballs.

Also probably worth pointing out that those drugs were definitely not performance enhancing.

Incorrect. Chick came out publicly saying they made them feel like they were bullet-proof when they played.

flags won by cocaine addicted fiends -1
flags won by essendon performance enhancing era -0

about as logical as lances attempts to justify it has no effect on players performance.

[AD_Don]

Was just asked post game by one of commentators why Melb and Goodwin not under anywhere near the scutiny that Woosh and Hinkley are when they fighting for spot in 8

And all that was responded was they getting leeway due to injuries.

I think there’s three factors to why Melbourne has largely avoided scrutiny:

1. Goodwin signed an extension just before round 1 so he’s no chance of being sacked. As a result, there’s less media interest in looking at their performance. Contrast that with Woosha and Hinkley where the media sense there’s a chance of a coach sacking, which equals headlines.

2. They made prelim last year which has bought Goodwin one bad year’s leeway. From what I’ve heard he’s stuffed next year if they’re not back competing in finals.

3. It’s Melbourne so not enough people care about discussing it. As Oscar Wilde said, “the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you”.

[Yossarian]

Goodwin is next year’s story

[theDJR]

Goodstuff was 2013’s story.

Oh no he wasn’t.

[Bacchusfox]

Depends on who you want to believe. Small doses of etorphine make you mentally think you can run through walls and physically you do it. Meth is known to send users into mental states that make them physically hard to control. I have seen the walls in a friends home that their Meth addicted daughter kicked in.

I was told in 2008 that samples tested at a lab in Melbourne allegedly from a previously named West Coke player tested to low levels of etorphine.

[RedandBlackPartisan]

Etorphine is a pain killer, so anyone on it probably wouldn’t notice the battering they would get running through brick walls. He wouldn’t feel a thing!
In itself, it isn’t a performance enhancer as such, though obviously illegal in sport.

[Sameolds2010]

This has confirmed to me that a lot of Essendon fans are still reading The Age.
Which I find disappointing.

[wimmera1]

I confess, I misread that initially.
I had a what the moment.

[Preliminary_Point2]

I hate grammar Nazis, but that sure does need an apostrophe.

[ArmyOfPoon]

Brissie get Fagan, we get Worsfold. ■■■■ yeah dons

[centipede]

I mean, was Fagan even looking at a Senior Coaching gig a year before he got the Brisbane gig? No. We did what we could with what the options were.

[Sameolds2010]

I confess, I misread that initially.
I had a what the moment.

Didn’t notice that.
Chuckle.

[localbomber]

You’re an idiot

[mdso]

Its a pain killer so anyone with any sort of injury can take it, and still play without feeling a thing. How is that NOT performance enhancing??? Its all in the interpretation.

[RedandBlackPartisan]

Of course it’s in the definition as defined by asada other regulatory agencies. Pain killers ENABLE performance, they don’t ENHANCE athletic ability or speed etc.
That’s the difference which needs to be clarified.
Players can legally use low level pain killers.
The higher dose pain killers are banned because if a player needs them to play, then they are possibly doing extra damage to themselves, a practice the law makers want banned to protect the players from themselves and clubs.
I think I’ve told you that before.

[Casio]

Just to make this clear Etorphine is not just any old pain killer. It is 10 to 30 times stronger than Fentanyl, you know the epidemic opioid drug that is killing people all over the world. There is no safe way for a human to take it, let alone do it then play footy.

[darkknightpheonix]

Of course it’s in the definition as defined by asada other regulatory agencies. Pain killers ENABLE performance, they don’t ENHANCE athletic ability or speed etc.
That’s the difference which needs to be clarified.
Players can legally use low level pain killers.
The higher dose pain killers are banned because if a player needs them to play, then they are possibly doing extra damage to themselves, a practice the law makers want banned to protect the players from themselves and clubs.
I think I’ve told you that before.

it’s not aimed at you, but that is just semantics, i get that’s what they go with with the definitions.

but you can’t say if a player say in the case of raz, if he needed pain killers to get up to play, but couldnt’ play without them, that’s performance enhancing because your base level of performance has changed from it’s original stance.

if you can run 15 laps on a normal pain free day, walk 1 on a pain day, and then run 7 laps with pain meds on any other day, well that is performance enhancing because your new level of fitness unaided is walking one lap.

but eh, drug codes are filled with that sorta bullshit, like how coffee is a stimulant and was on the banned list, but then removes when they realised they couldn’t restrict people using coffee legally in every day life.

[RedandBlackPartisan]

Of course it’s in the definition as defined by asada other regulatory agencies. Pain killers ENABLE performance, they don’t ENHANCE athletic ability or speed etc.
That’s the difference which needs to be clarified.
Players can legally use low level pain killers.
The higher dose pain killers are banned because if a player needs them to play, then they are possibly doing extra damage to themselves, a practice the law makers want banned to protect the players from themselves and clubs.
I think I’ve told you that before.

it’s not aimed at you, but that is just semantics, i get that’s what they go with with the definitions.

but you can’t say if a player say in the case of raz, if he needed pain killers to get up to play, but couldnt’ play without them, that’s performance enhancing because your base level of performance has changed from it’s original stance.

if you can run 15 laps on a normal pain free day, walk 1 on a pain day, and then run 7 laps with pain meds on any other day, well that is performance enhancing because your new level of fitness unaided is walking one lap.

but eh, drug codes are filled with that sorta bullshit, like how coffee is a stimulant and was on the banned list, but then removes when they realised they couldn’t restrict people using coffee legally in every day life.

As we know, definitions are needed to clarify what’s illegal and what’s not.

With your Raz example, that would still be classified as enabling because getting him back on the park for him to play at his normal level of ability is the object, and the amount of medication that he’s probably on would be limited to a maximum dose.
If he needed something like physeptone or too higher dose of morphine to enable him to play then asada would dictate that the dose is too high, so even though it’s still only enabling him, playing is dangerous to his health and therefore banned.
this is what happened with top up player Ryan Crowley.

And you’re right about drug codes, they are all over the place…but smarter people than us make those decisions, lol.