Essendon = Entitlement

[Tenacious]

There's nothing wrong with any of that but like anything, it needs context.

For example saying 'no Essendon player declared the injections during Asada testing missions to the club "despite being asked each time whether they had taken supplements" sounds damning until you consider they are talking about the standard protocol of a drug test, where the players are asked a series of set questions.

The question isn't have you been given injections, it refers to supplements. You don't need to and wouldn't declare a pain killer or a flu shot or a tetanus jab for example. So there is no reason to declare an injection unless you know you've taken a supplement.

Then you look at the AFL's own admission that the bulk of the clubs had programs where the 'definition of supplements was not satisfactory'. So if the definition of supplements is not satisfactory, it stands to reason that many players may not have been aware that what they were taking was defined as supplements and therefore not declared them to the drug testers.

It doesn't change the fact that they should know and should find out, but it's certainly much less damning than the implication that they were trying to cover them up, particularly in the case of the Essendon 34, who were only suspended because they honestly answered questions in their interviews about receiving injections.

Do you ever get tired of writing this crap?

 

[Brodders17]

There's nothing wrong with any of that but like anything, it needs context.

For example saying 'no Essendon player declared the injections during Asada testing missions to the club "despite being asked each time whether they had taken supplements" sounds damning until you consider they are talking about the standard protocol of a drug test, where the players are asked a series of set questions.

The question isn't have you been given injections, it refers to supplements. You don't need to and wouldn't declare a pain killer or a flu shot or a tetanus jab for example. So there is no reason to declare an injection unless you know you've taken a supplement.

Then you look at the AFL's own admission that the bulk of the clubs had programs where the 'definition of supplements was not satisfactory'. So if the definition of supplements is not satisfactory, it stands to reason that many players may not have been aware that what they were taking was defined as supplements and therefore not declared them to the drug testers.

It doesn't change the fact that they should know and should find out, but it's certainly much less damning than the implication that they were trying to cover them up, particularly in the case of the Essendon 34, who were only suspended because they honestly answered questions in their interviews about receiving injections.

If not "supplements" or PEDs, what did they think they were getting injected with? Ice?

 

[BT Tiger]

Not really, because I think I'm pretty safe to assume that in the vast majority of cases, I've forgotten more about the sorts of procedures and processes we are talking about than other people know.

After 30 years in professional sport domestically and internationally, hundreds of hours of education in various drug codes, witnessing thousands and thousands of testing procedures and 10 years in the AFL system at three different clubs dealing with these scenarios day in and day out, I'm quite comfortable with my understanding in these areas. Being mocked and dismissed by people whose experience and understanding of these matters has been drawn from reading a few Caroline Wilson articles really doesn't rock that.

And yet people more experienced and more knowledgeable than you on these matters found them guilty and punished them accordingly.

 

[BT Tiger]

Who ever said they weren't guilty?

I've said I feel sorry for them and I think the right result would have been something less than a suspension, and I've said that it isn't right that only Essendon was investigated and charged when there was a huge stink around most, if not all of the other clubs and players, but under the letter of the code the Essendon players were clearly in the wrong.

Only in your mind was there as bigger stink around other clubs as there was at Essendon.

 

[Tenacious]

Not really, because I think I'm pretty safe to assume that in the vast majority of cases, I've forgotten more about the sorts of procedures and processes we are talking about than other people know.

After 30 years in professional sport domestically and internationally,........ blah blah blah

Golly gosh - forgot all about your superior knowledge and experience!
It's not as if you've ever mentioned it before ........ like time after time after time after bloody time .........

 

[BT Tiger]

Mine, the AFL and the clubs themselves actually.

The AFL and the clubs don't agree with that at all.

But the AFL won’t launch new investigations on the other clubs identified in its survey, confident they are guilty of sloppy process only and not the consumption of illegal or questionable substances.

You dismissed others for basing their knowledge on "a few Caroline Wilson articles" yet quote this one proof. Can't have it both ways. There are plenty of respected voices who have concluded that Essendon were guilty and the other clubs had nothing to answer for. If you look hard enough you'll find climate scientists who tell you that human induced global warming is exaggerated too.

 

[Brodders17]

Who ever said they weren't guilty?

I've said I feel sorry for them and I think the right result would have been something less than a suspension, and I've said that it isn't right that only Essendon was investigated and charged when there was a huge stink around most, if not all of the other clubs and players, but under the letter of the code the Essendon players were clearly in the wrong.

you might have a point, in Watson wasnt the "spokeperson" for the players, as Captain, and if he didnt behave the way he has since, still in denial, claiming the Brownlow should have been his etc- there is no hint from him that he may have, even unwittingly, done something wrong.

 

[BT Tiger]

I'm using that article because it refers to the AFL survey data that Pete Harcourt presented to the club medicos, which is absolutely horrific.

If you read the results of that survey you will see there is no possible way you could be confident nothing illegal occurred, without a full investigation.

Is there somewhere else we can read about this survey and how horrific it supposedly was? That HS article doesn't reference Harcourt and doesn't support what your claiming.

 

[AngryAnt]

There's nothing wrong with any of that but like anything, it needs context.

For example saying 'no Essendon player declared the injections during Asada testing missions to the club "despite being asked each time whether they had taken supplements" sounds damning until you consider they are talking about the standard protocol of a drug test, where the players are asked a series of set questions.

The question isn't have you been given injections, it refers to supplements. You don't need to and wouldn't declare a pain killer or a flu shot or a tetanus jab for example. So there is no reason to declare an injection unless you know you've taken a supplement.

Then you look at the AFL's own admission that the bulk of the clubs had programs where the 'definition of supplements was not satisfactory'. So if the definition of supplements is not satisfactory, it stands to reason that many players may not have been aware that what they were taking was defined as supplements and therefore not declared them to the drug testers.

It doesn't change the fact that they should know and should find out, but it's certainly much less damning than the implication that they were trying to cover them up, particularly in the case of the Essendon 34, who were only suspended because they honestly answered questions in their interviews about receiving injections.

Appreciate the players will take what they are advised to take by the club without asking too many questions and that's true of all clubs no doubt.

I think the scale, the number of injections they were getting, the offsite injections, the necessity for them to sign a special waiver absolving the club of responsibility etc would have raised red flags for all but the most stupid of players.

And players talk right - they would have talked to each other about doubts and concerns, and to their managers and others.

Anyways it's ancient history now.

 

[BT Tiger]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/452645/players-sourcing-supplements-outside-of-club-afl-survey

There's one that refers to the Harcourt presentation but the details are the same in both.

12 clubs conducting supplements programs with 'medium to high' use of supplements, lacking a single point of accountability, with flawed definitions of supplements and with a flawed selection of support personnel. Oh and players at 9 AFL clubs are sourcing and taking their own stuff with zero supervision.

So in simple terms clubs were using lots of supplements, which may or may not have been supplements, in programs supervised by unqualified people, without someone responsible for overseeing the whole thing, while players were taking god knows what from god knows who.

Anyone who thinks that mess didn't warrant further investigation doesn't want to know the truth.

There's nothing new here, its just the HS article rehashed.

Despite what you tend to insinuate, we're not all a bunch of mindless one-eyed Richmond supporters lacking objectivity and incapable of rational thought on this topic. You don't need to have an insiders view to see that what Essendon were up to was far worse than any other club and the publicly available evidence supports this.

You can keep pontificating about the other clubs "alleged" dodgy behaviour but all it serves to do is reinforce the perception that you're a smarmy contrarian.

 

[BT Tiger]

I just can't see how you can so confidently draw that conclusion based on those survey results.

The information we have is sounding alarm bells everywhere and there has been no investigation to establish any evidence at all. It has just been buried and everyone has walked away.

Considering that there was no investigation into these we have to assume that the evidence wasn't strong enough to warrant one. And that's coming from both the AFL and ASADA/WADA. That's the line I highlighted in the HS article you quoted.

 

[Baloo]

I wonder if the Essendon players took ivermectin

 

[AngryAnt]

I wonder if the Essendon players took ivermectin

Would have won the flag and been Covid-immune at the same time.

 

[HR]

Supplements are such a risky proposition that the blanket ASADA advice to athletes is don't take them. Half the stuff in Chemist Warehouse will get you 2 years. I don't know what the percentage of athletes who test positive is of ones who legitimately choose the wrong store bought product but it would be pretty high, especially in Australia.

TBR, come on man.
This was not a Chemist Warehouse drug saga. This wasn't a laced pre work out drink for Joe Blogs down the road.
Feds, WADA, ASADA.
Enough said.

 

[BT Tiger]

The thing about evidence is you have to be prepared to actually look for it to find it.

Let's just forget all the club based stuff and concentrate on the nine clubs with players who sourced their own supplements without supervision.

Supplements are such a risky proposition that the blanket ASADA advice to athletes is don't take them. Half the stuff in Chemist Warehouse will get you 2 years. I don't know what the percentage of athletes who test positive is of ones who legitimately choose the wrong store bought product but it would be pretty high, especially in Australia.

So what were those players taking? Where was it coming from? Was it being prepared in an accredited laboratory? Was it control tested to verify the contents were as advertised? How many players were taking them, when and how often?

None of those questions were ever asked or answered and I'd argue they are pretty important. Instead all we got was clubs being told to ask players who sourced something themselves and then being told to make it clear they were not to do it again.

Now you can ask yourself why evidence wouldn't be sought but my theory is the Essendon 34 could have conceivably turned into the AFL 250. I wonder what that would have done to the competition? And that's before we even dealt with the clubs.

There is a difference between Essendon's club-sanctioned doping program and allegations that maybe some AFL players were independently sourcing illegal supplement. Up to as many as 12 players per club, by your most extreme estimates.

Pretty sure the WADA/ASADA code says if there’s reasonable suspicion of an athlete doping, that its up them to prove their innocence. Essendon were accused and couldn’t produce any evidence to exonerate them and it was the supply chain which proved the most effective evidence against them. If there was strong evidence to support allegations against other clubs/players then why didn’t WADA use the same argument on them?

 

[deedee]

The thing about evidence is you have to be prepared to actually look for it to find it.

Let's just forget all the club based stuff and concentrate on the nine clubs with players who sourced their own supplements without supervision.

Supplements are such a risky proposition that the blanket ASADA advice to athletes is don't take them. Half the stuff in Chemist Warehouse will get you 2 years. I don't know what the percentage of athletes who test positive is of ones who legitimately choose the wrong store bought product but it would be pretty high, especially in Australia.

So what were those players taking? Where was it coming from? Was it being prepared in an accredited laboratory? Was it control tested to verify the contents were as advertised? How many players were taking them, when and how often?

None of those questions were ever asked or answered and I'd argue they are pretty important. Instead all we got was clubs being told to ask players who sourced something themselves and then being told to make it clear they were not to do it again.

Now you can ask yourself why evidence wouldn't be sought but my theory is the Essendon 34 could have conceivably turned into the AFL 250. I wonder what that would have done to the competition? And that's before we even dealt with the clubs.

Nah, I'll concentrate on the ones found guilty and refuse to acknowledge they done anything wrong.

 

[taztiger4]

The thing about evidence is you have to be prepared to actually look for it to find it.

Let's just forget all the club based stuff and concentrate on the nine clubs with players who sourced their own supplements without supervision.

Supplements are such a risky proposition that the blanket ASADA advice to athletes is don't take them. Half the stuff in Chemist Warehouse will get you 2 years. I don't know what the percentage of athletes who test positive is of ones who legitimately choose the wrong store bought product but it would be pretty high, especially in Australia.

So what were those players taking? Where was it coming from? Was it being prepared in an accredited laboratory? Was it control tested to verify the contents were as advertised? How many players were taking them, when and how often?

None of those questions were ever asked or answered and I'd argue they are pretty important. Instead all we got was clubs being told to ask players who sourced something themselves and then being told to make it clear they were not to do it again.

Now you can ask yourself why evidence wouldn't be sought but my theory is the Essendon 34 could have conceivably turned into the AFL 250. I wonder what that would have done to the competition? And that's before we even dealt with the clubs.

Deleted.

Life is too short

 

[TigerPort]

Trying to work out what is dragging on more, this 1,000th discussion on Essendon or the long wait to draft night

 

[The Lurker]

Why has fox footy now become the Bombers channel, bunch of cheating losers.

 

[artball]

Ask Steve Dank what he told them. Maybe he will tell you.

'Take this. It'll give you a bit of a headache, but it might make you play better....' ?