Essendon = Entitlement

[Baloo]

38 Players signed the consent form. 34 were charged and found guilty. Lets change my use of the word "performed on all" to "intended for the majority of the senior players" then that is a Yes. It's not know whether players like David Zaharakis and Jason Winderlich who Hird used as examples to dodge the "All Players" charge are 2 of the 4 that signed consent forms but didn't get charged. 44 Players on a list is it's a select few that didn't partake. I'm assuming even Essendon had the good sense not to put Rookies through this.

Unspecific and buzzwordy? Let me dumb it down for you.

Let's replace Systematic with Organised. - Yes it was. Institionalised we can swap with the word Official. - Yes it was. You've accepted Clandestine with a caveat but the fact they sent the players outside of the club for the injections brings it back to my intent. So another Yes. Finally Injections you've agreed but you don't see an issue with using players as pin cushions. but still a Yes.

So what part doesn't fit Essendon?

But lets use your preferred watered down description so we can stop the deflections. So my question is, are you aware, or heard rumours, of another club that ran an unscientific and highly experimental supplement program that lacked any of the sort of appropriate levels of supervision, knowledge and accountability it should have required. One that exposed their players to unacceptable risks in all manner of ways by not ensuring the people in charge of them had the right level of knowledge and understanding to provide them with the proper support and expertise, and they failed to implement a chain of command to monitor the operations of their organisation, which led to break downs at almost every level of the chain, which targeted the vast majority of their senior players?

 

[Tenacious]

So what part doesn't fit Essendon?

But lets use your preferred watered down description so we can stop the deflections. So my question is, are you aware, or heard rumours, of another club that ran an unscientific and highly experimental supplement program that lacked any of the sort of appropriate levels of supervision, knowledge and accountability it should have required. One that exposed their players to unacceptable risks in all manner of ways by not ensuring the people in charge of them had the right level of knowledge and understanding to provide them with the proper support and expertise, and they failed to implement a chain of command to monitor the operations of their organisation, which led to break downs at almost every level of the chain, which targeted the vast majority of their senior players?

Good persistence Baloo - keep at it

 

[mrposhman]

I get both sides but I cannot fathom any thoughts that the Bombers players (or club) were hard done by. Sure there may have been other players from other clubs doing the wrong thing, but its hardly like the AFL were giving the blind eye to everyone.

Around the same time as the Bombers players were given 1 year bans which they claimed were too harsh because the doctors told them to do it, nice deflection, Ahmed Saad was given an 18 months suspension (which ultimately cost him his footy career) because he drank a sports drink. It was not a permanently banned drink, it was banned to be drunk on certain days (I believe it was match days). Ie. he drank the drink on the wrong day - career over.

 

[Baloo]

I think you are getting hung up on the ethical and moral aspect of Essendon's conduct which was diabolical but is irrelevant to the codes.

It makes no difference to the code if you load your players into a dark van, fly them in blackhawks into the Congo and inject them with something developed by removing the hearts of new born babies, or if you throw them an ice cold sports drink in the sheds after a hard game. If they take an illegal substance they break the code and face a penalty.

Yeah nah. Essendons shipping players Offsite for their injections is really all the proof you need to see they were knowingly doing something to their players they shouldn't have been.

But for me, the worst thing they did was destroy all records of what the players were injected with, how often, what doses etc. These players have no idea what they've been injected with and whether there will be any long term effects to them or their children. That to me is criminal and why I think EFC got off lightly. The club should have lost its AFL licence.

Yet despite all that, those in the "industry" reckon EFC were hard done by. Whatever industry that is needs a complete clean out and realignment.

 

[Tigeronprowl]

Jobe Watson won a brownlow due to the improvement in his game caused by the drug regime. Before and after this cheating period he was just a good ordinary player, which was a true reflection of his ability.

 

[Tenacious]

.............

And when you have the AFL itself confirming that 12-17 of its clubs were putting medium/high levels of poorly defined supplements into their players, with accountability problems, unqualified staff and on top of that unsupervised players taking their own stuff then I can't understand how anyone could argue anything but yes.

At the very least that requires a thorough and transparent investigation to maintain the credibility of the sport and you cannot have that credibility if you only apply the standard to one club instead of 18.

It suits your purposes to infer that 12-17 clubs were basically equivalent in terms of culpability.

That is quite unfair on 11-16 other clubs.

Even Essendon has acknowledged the existence and failings of it's doping program.

However there has never been equivalent evidence that these 11-16 clubs conducted anything like the same sort of program as did Essendon.

 

[Baloo]

I'd wager if you were to take a million ordinary AFL players and pumped the sort of rubbish into them that Dank was pedalling, you'd be more likely to turn one into a woman than produce a Brownlow medallist.

Yet Jobe has his best year. It was Heppell's best year too. Fletcher started playing like a 25yo again. And all season long, well until the soft tissue injuries started, we were bombarded by tales of "The Weapon". That's not an ordinary year, especially when the S&D man is being hailed as a miracle worker.

 

[daniel30]

You know what still puzzles me how the chief of football running the game at the time wasn't made accountable he was tipped of about the raids and then some how the dons president knew about it . Shortly after the saga he got out he left his position as the afl cheif nice and smoothly makes a you wonder.

 

[DavidSSS]

Hard done by was bad wording.

Can I believe the AFL made an example of one club while, behind the scenes, laying down the law to the rest of the clubs? Sure can.

I suspect they had evidence on one club, Essendon, but not enough to go after other clubs. Then again, whether they would have gone after other clubs if they had evidence is an open question, I have substantial doubts about that. Also, there is the practice of not looking for evidence you don't want to find, there's a fair possibility that the AFL knew that digging into a lot of clubs would have found some dodgy practices, so why dig? In fact, don't dig, because finding this out raises the risk of leaks.

From the point of view of protecting the game, or at least protecting the business, my suspicion is, they didn't look too hard.

Despite this the reality appears to be that the AFL and the various anti-drugging agencies only had enough evidence to go after Essendon. So, whether or not other clubs were involved in any practices which may have involved banned substances, I don't think they had the evidence. When it comes to individual players the evidence would be close to impossible to gather.

I tend to think that they found the smoking gun at one club, warned the rest of the clubs, and didn't look too hard at what was going on.

This allowed them to plausibly deny that there was more than an isolated problem and the whole show could continue with the least disruption possible.

We should get back on topic here, if Essendon think they are such a great club and so entitled, surely they don't need supplements - their superiority would enable them to recruit and develop players better and to be a destination club. If Essendon deserve their sense of entitlement, let's see how well they go with all the early draft picks they have. If the sorry drugs episode tells us anything it is that Essendon have no reason to feel any sense of entitlement, they have to do the hard graft all clubs have to do. Despite Richmond's greatness in my youth, in our dark years I didn't get the sense that Richmond felt entitled - lot's of other feelings like why don't we get our act together, but not entitlement. If Essendon want to get back up the ladder they need to lose any sense of entitlement, it would do them a lot of good. But it sounds like powerful people amongst the supporter base are likely holding them back.

DS

 

[HR]

I'd wager if you were to take a million ordinary AFL players and pumped the sort of rubbish into them that Dank was pedalling, you'd be more likely to turn one into a woman than produce a Brownlow medallist.

Come on then BR, let us know what they were given?

 

[Born_a_Tiger78]

I'd wager if you were to take a million ordinary AFL players and pumped the sort of rubbish into them that Dank was pedalling, you'd be more likely to turn one into a woman than produce a Brownlow medallist.

So, North Melbourne or West Coast?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Jobe Watson won a brownlow due to the improvement in his game caused by the drug regime. Before and after this cheating period he was just a good ordinary player, which was a true reflection of his ability.

Yet the deluded Bomber fans think Cotch doesn't deserve it. Watson's improvement clearly spiked as a result of their needle program. He hid the fact from testing officials that he was getting injections. Cheat.

 

[Baloo]

Thinking back over this, the Essendon ferals are still trying to clear their name, claiming an AFL agenda, conspiracy etc. Yet despite the multitude of lawyers and silks who are heavy Essendon supporters, despite the wads of cash the coiteries are happy to throw at the club, with a stable of media types desperate to clear Essendon of everything, not a single one has come out with any evidence of Essendon being hard done by. This purported AFL Evidence that makes Essendon hard done by has hardly made the news.

Really, if it's as cut and dried as is being made out by those in the industry, then the rest of us would have heard about it over and over again by now.

 

[mrposhman]

Hard done by was bad wording.

Can I believe the AFL made an example of one club while, behind the scenes, laying down the law to the rest of the clubs? Sure can.

I suspect they had evidence on one club, Essendon, but not enough to go after other clubs. Then again, whether they would have gone after other clubs if they had evidence is an open question, I have substantial doubts about that. Also, there is the practice of not looking for evidence you don't want to find, there's a fair possibility that the AFL knew that digging into a lot of clubs would have found some dodgy practices, so why dig? In fact, don't dig, because finding this out raises the risk of leaks.

From the point of view of protecting the game, or at least protecting the business, my suspicion is, they didn't look too hard.

Despite this the reality appears to be that the AFL and the various anti-drugging agencies only had enough evidence to go after Essendon. So, whether or not other clubs were involved in any practices which may have involved banned substances, I don't think they had the evidence. When it comes to individual players the evidence would be close to impossible to gather.

I tend to think that they found the smoking gun at one club, warned the rest of the clubs, and didn't look too hard at what was going on.

This allowed them to plausibly deny that there was more than an isolated problem and the whole show could continue with the least disruption possible.

We should get back on topic here, if Essendon think they are such a great club and so entitled, surely they don't need supplements - their superiority would enable them to recruit and develop players better and to be a destination club. If Essendon deserve their sense of entitlement, let's see how well they go with all the early draft picks they have. If the sorry drugs episode tells us anything it is that Essendon have no reason to feel any sense of entitlement, they have to do the hard graft all clubs have to do. Despite Richmond's greatness in my youth, in our dark years I didn't get the sense that Richmond felt entitled - lot's of other feelings like why don't we get our act together, but not entitlement. If Essendon want to get back up the ladder they need to lose any sense of entitlement, it would do them a lot of good. But it sounds like powerful people amongst the supporter base are likely holding them back.

DS

There is probably some truth in the above and what TBR is saying.

The AFL have for a long time distanced itself from anything to do with drugs, hence even with positive tests the details aren't released.

The fact that the ACC was publishing a report around supplements at the time and this referenced Essendon was probably the trigger moment that ensured that the Bombers would get penalties, but we all still need to remember that the AFL still tried to brush this under the carpet, from the reported "deal" with David Evans that was canned due to Hird wanting to appeal and clear their name, even to the AFL tribunal investigation. The key part of that which IMO was designed to cover up what was going on was this that I've just taken from wikipedia.

"On 12 January 2016, CAS handed down a guilty verdict on the thirty-four Essendon players, overturning the not-guilty verdict, after finding it was comfortably satisfied that the players were injected with Thymosin beta-4.[60] Key to the success of the appeal was the treatment of evidence: the CAS rejected the AFL Tribunal's approach, known as "links in the chain", where any given chain of evidence is dismissed if a link within it cannot be proven, and endorsed WADA's approach, known as "strands in the cable", where individual evidence chains with missing links may still be accepted if the combination of all such chains forms a sufficiently strong case. A complete account of the verdict and the arguments made by each side was released publicly.[61]"

So essentially, the AFL knowing that the documentation was suspect and the key component was whether the drug was Thymosin Beta-4 or just purely Thymosin (which was written on the paperwork) basically laid out the court that if 1 link in the chain couldn't be proven then they should dismiss the whole "chain" which meant that proof has to be 100% whereas CAS used essentially the behind reasonable doubt. Clearly, trying to prove 100% what Essendon had done was impossible because the documentation taken by Essendon was inaccurate and minimal, so essentially this was a kangaroo court and hence why they were found not guilty.

I stand by the AFL did not over punish Essendon and probably only did so because they were forced to, but they tried their hardest to ensure that the players weren't suspended. It wasn't the AFL that suspended the players, it was CAS. Bombers fans seem to forget these key components and think the AFL has it out for them, IMO its the complete opposite, and therefore TBR could be right that other clubs were running close to the line too. Whether or not they went over the line like Essendon did, is not clear cut at all though so to claim they should have been punished too is a bit of a long shot.

 

[Baloo]

The fact that the ACC was publishing a report around supplements at the time and this referenced Essendon was probably the trigger moment that ensured that the Bombers would get penalties, but we all still need to remember that the AFL still tried to brush this under the carpet, from the reported "deal" with David Evans that was canned due to Hird wanting to appeal and clear their name, even to the AFL tribunal investigation. The key part of that which IMO was designed to cover up what was going on was this that I've just taken from wikipedia.

Details are a bit foggy but if memory serves correctly, the deal was Essendon admitting the offences and taking the penalties on the chin, not brushing it under the table. The penalties would have been a lot less than what they copped after their years of fighting them. Much like Cronulla admitted what happened without fighting and it didn't ruin the club.

"The NRL later offered all five players a one-year ban, backdated to an effective six-month suspension, if they pleaded guilty to taking a banned substance. Sports scientist Stephen Dank provided sworn testimony about what involvement he had at Cronulla and which Staff and coaches were involved."

I think the 6 months happened over the off season so there was little damage done.

 

[tigerman]

Details are a bit foggy but if memory serves correctly, the deal was Essendon admitting the offences and taking the penalties on the chin, not brushing it under the table. The penalties would have been a lot less than what they copped after their years of fighting them. Much like Cronulla admitted what happened without fighting and it didn't ruin the club.

"The NRL later offered all five players a one-year ban, backdated to an effective six-month suspension, if they pleaded guilty to taking a banned substance. Sports scientist Stephen Dank provided sworn testimony about what involvement he had at Cronulla and which Staff and coaches were involved."

I think the 6 months happened over the off season so there was little damage done.

Yep, Cronulla copped their punishment and went on to win the Premiership 2 years later.
If the Bombers didn't have the arrogance of entitlement they could have moved on much much quicker.

 

[tigerman]

There was talk when it came out that the Bombers were sending players off sight to receive their supplement injections that the AFL would introduce a no needle policy.
Club doctors would only be allowed to inject for pain relief or health reasons. Does anyone know whether the no needle policy was brought in?

 

[Tenacious]

Yep, Cronulla copped their punishment and went on to win the Premiership 2 years later.
If the Bombers didn't have the arrogance of entitlement they could have moved on much much quicker.

Golden Boy addressed an early press conference and insisted he’d accept responsibility - and then spent the following years worming and squirming and denying.
If he’d fessed up like he‘d promised - and like Cronulla did - he and his club would have saved themselves an enormous amount of pain

 

[Tigertough1974]

Have to say by reading alot of the above quite a few still harbor hatred of the bombers about drug cheating. Have to admit im in that camp.

I do feel for the players and agree with some other comments that generally speaking players will do as clubs request especially the young blokes.

I really really disliked the bombers before this saga but had a grudging respect for them due to 80s/90s.... This was all lost though when the saga came out and now i have nothing but disdain.

 

[ninjahaha]

In general though people tend to have a 'magic bean' image of PEDs, you pop a pill and all of a sudden you have these massively improved sporting abilities but that just isn't the case.

There are some substances that can certainly help create an advantage but they are best used in one-dimensional sports where you can get an improvement through a specific area, eg gaining strength.

In a sport like AFL just about everything you are enhancing means you are de-enhancing another area of the game anyway because the game requires such multifaceted physiology. I think if you were going to dope in AFL then your best advantage would be as a way of treating injury but of course that means you need to be injured in the first place.

And on top of all of that you actually need to be pretty bloody good at whatever you are doing in the first place. They are performance enhancers, not creators.

Back in the 90's when I was still involved in local footy, there was hush hush talk n rumours and Chinese whispers of some of the guys on the cusp of breaking into higher levels looking for an extra edge.

From the bits I could piece together, the talk was of getting a regimen that worked for specific areas. Sounded like juggling. Taking just enough to help, not enough to hold them back. Balancing strength v flexibility. Endurance v speed. A boost in preparation, assistance in recovery. But the one that these guys would be caught out bragging about was the pep up on match day.

So one fella working on his own experimenting to find what works to give him the edge. I guess this would be common in many modern sports people playing for sheep stations.



TBR, I guess from a far, this is what the AFL was aware of at many clubs.



Essedon have hired a mad scientist and physical trainer who worked as a team to maximise to the best of their efforts, milking every last inch out of already elite sportsman.

All dreamed up and implemented by two ex players who most likely milked all this stuff as individual players and had first hand experience of the benefits. Hmmm, bomber had the ultimate success with another club and the two infamous experts.





It was done covertly, systematically and once exposed all documents that would in theory to be kept to maximise these efforts disappeared.




Essendon are not hard done by. They in my eyes should be despised for what they have done. Any other clubs that where operating to that level should be also. Maybe some have been lucky not to be exposed.



Its extremely "Aussie" to condemn drug cheats from outside, but make excuses for those with in.