Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Essendon FC drugs scandal

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by 2up, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. Dear Mr. Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid,
    You know you're guilty. The AFL knows you're guilty, ASADA knows you're guilty, Australia knows you're guilty and I know you're guilty.
    For God's sake be men and cop it on the chin.
    You got caught cheating and now it's time to face to consequences.

    The AFL announced tonight that Hird, assistant Mark Thompson, football manager Danny Corcoran and club doctor Bruce Reid had been charged over the club's 2011-12 supplements program.
    The club itself is also charged with conduct likely to prejudice the reputation of the AFL.
    But Essendon players have been cleared of taking performance-enhancing drugs.
    After a day of marathon talks, AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon read a short statement at AFL House tonight, announcing charges against Hird, Thompson, Corcoran and Reid.

    "The club and each person are all charged with engaging in conduct that is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League or to bring the game of football into disrepute, contrary to rule 1.6.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. They're all lawered up and willing to take on the AFL.... It could get messy.
  3. Could? I'd say will; and the burden of proof will be on the AFL. It's not enough to believe that they've breached the regulations the AFL have to have admissible proof.
  4. When is the public going to see the ASADA report? Or is it just going to remain secret forever?
  5. The club itself is also charged with conduct likely to prejudice the reputation of the AFL.

    What reputation? I think the AFL could have the same charges laid against it.
  6. But no mention of Jobe and his Brownlow other than the investigation is ongoing...
  7. I've barely given this any attention but I've picked up that the substances weren't specifically banned and they related to speeding up recovery rather than outright lifting performance.

    Is this a bit of a beat up?
  8. No idea about the full ins and outs of the supplements and their development program. I just like prodding a hornets nest with a stick and see what flies out.

    I have no real views either way etc. So many different sides to the story etc. The AFL side, Essendon side, the ASADA side and the real side. We will only ever hear and see the side that the media thinks will sell papers etc.

    Nobody knows the truth anymore when it is trial, and sentencing by media.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. The substances, like all substances that have not been therapeutically allowed for use on humans, are banned. There is no "specifically banned" part to this. The drugs were designed to speed up recovery, which allows athletes to exercise for longer, with less time between sets of exercise. This allows the players to "bulk up" quicker than others, and allows them to work on endurance quicker than others. This is a clear advantage for the team on the supplements, compared to teams that did not use them.

    Beat Up? I don't think so. I have a 14 year old daughter that is following her dream in sport at the moment, but is already concerned about the use of "protein shakes" that others use, some of which have testosterone in them. This effects her future in sport. She is determined to walk away from playing a sport she loves rather than take drugs to succeed.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Without having ever seen the report (obviously) I can't help but think that it is the beat up by the media that is influencing how this all plays out.
    Now I'm sure the EFC has stretched the boundaries on what is acceptable, hence the investigation, but this is nothing new in sport, professional or otherwise and I'm sure that they need a stern wack with a stick. But, athletes have been trying to find the edge on competitors since Jesus played full back for Jerusalem. He never had the scrutiny that we see now a days by the media though.
    This brings all sorts of debate into it. Would the AFL, who appears to have a fairly lenient 3 strikes policy on positive drug detection, have laid these charges if the media were not giving this story so many legs?
  11. If the AFL dealt with this earlier in the season, the media would have lost interest in it. The story has legs because it has not been dealt with yet. Maybe Matthew Clarke, or Wade Lees have different views on this, as both have been banned by the AFL for their use (and importation) of banned substances. But they were not high profile, so who really cares?
  12. Who the fcuk cares.

    Did it give them an unfair advantage? Well they weren't minor premiers and they didn't win the grand final, so I'd say that no advantage was made.

    Therefore who the fcuk cares.
  13. I care.

    Don't neglect the $ factor in this. If your team finishes 8th or finish 14th, there is a big difference in revenue from memberships, ticket sales and merchandising.

    And the players were being used as guinea pigs with peptides that were not even considered safe for human use.
  14. #14 CraigA, Aug 14, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
    Eating at a dodgy restaurant could also see you take peptides not fit for human consumption. Peptides are just a bunch of amino acids linked together but not in a long enough chain to be classed as a protien. Link a couple of peptides together and protein you have. I eat protein all the time therefore don't see the issue.

    This isn't an anabolic steroid. Just another way of taking a protein shake. What's the big deal? Talk about blown out of proportion!
  15. So unless you are an Essendon supporter/member/player you haven't been affected by this.

    Which means the rest of use don't or shouldn't care.
  16. Snake venom contains peptides too. Do you want an injection of that? These peptides were not approved for human use.
  17. Only because they are too new A clinical trial is just an arse covering exercise. They aren't neccesarily bad for you like the snake venom you want to inject me with. Its just that no one has trialled them to make sure the company producing them is safe from litigation if a reaction were to take place.

    Many newly developed peptides are being trialled and released onto the market via your local pharmacy to treat many ailments. The peptide Watson admitted to being injected with is one such peptide, so some are approved for human use.
  18. The teams that will get a free finals spot this year if they are rubbed out.
  19. Yeah the Crows with a bit of luck, although I doubt they would get any further than Essendon will if they aren't rubbed out.
    Only Essendon supporters care, the rest of the world doesn't give a rats arse.
  20. Oh I think a lot more people than just Essendon care.

    Other teams who lost points against them.

    We have no idea what the peptides did to their bodies since we do not actually know what peptides the athletes where given. So unable to link results to the peptides.