im crying inside . if the bombvers get found guilty itll wipe us out . some people will be dancing on our graves but we are a big old club and without the bombers the afl will be poorer .

Lol, Mark Robinson :lol: Can't remember the last time I hated a journo as much as him, the stuff he says and writes about is absolute crap.

Love him or hate him, it's hard to argue with his broad assessment. Even if all of this turns out to be borderline legal, a "darkness" attaches to it, Essendon and Hird are tainted, either wittingly or unwittingly, they have allowed the club to dabble in the dark art of PEDs, even if just to a small degree, the club is tainted.

I don't know about the organised crime bit, but if Robbo reckons there is a press conference brewing set to rock the game, then I'd say he's in a position to know.

Demetriou's record also comes into question, having ignored the dangers of tanking, the tippett affair, and now this - it's a lot to happen in a short space of time.

IF this whole thing turns out to be untrue, I hope that the club sues the likes of Barrett, Robinson and Reimers for defamation, whether its untrue or true, like Mr Football said, this will tarnish the club forever. But that doesn't effect me, I'm still a Bomber until the end.

As head coach it's your responsibility to know what your players are taking though. It's either really poor form on his part or he has turned a blind eye to it.

This just in: Lance Armstrong to play for Essendon Bombers in 2013.

You are too funny

ASADA deals bitter pill to AFL’s brand protectors
RICHARD HINDS February 06, 2013

A high-profile club flouting the unambiguous regulations. A large group of players – unwittingly, or not – using a banned substance to improve strength or aerobic capacity. A systematic and widespread abuse of the rules to which the competition had been hog-tied. Mandatory long-term suspensions imposed by an independent tribunal over which they had no influence.

For the AFL, and other major Australian sports, this was the nightmare scenario. The deep-seated reservation that caused the AFL, particularly, to squirm and prevaricate when, in 2005, the federal government demanded all Australian sports sign the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

Harry Houdini did not work as frantically to escape his bonds as the AFL worked to avoid signing with WADA. They claimed the WADA punishments for recreational drugs use were excessive, and adopted their own three strikes policy as an attempt to fulfil this obligation. They pleaded WADA’s list of banned substances was arbitrary, and the program required costly in-house administration. They cited the major US sports, which were not signatories to WADA. Never mind that baseballers with forearms the size of Christmas hams were making Babe Ruth’s famous slugs look like Little League pop flies.

Inevitably, long after the NRL, cricket and the ARU had caved, the AFL was forced, virtually at gunpoint, to put pen to paper. Actually, the threat was even more menacing than a gun. It was only when the federal government set a deadline for its threat to withdraw funding from any body that had not signed with WADA that the AFL rolled over. The AFL is so adept at picking the government pocket it has lobbyists sleeping on stretcher beds outside the cabinet room. Loss of funding was even less tolerable than the loss of control of the drug testing regime.

This was a bitter pill – if you will excuse the allusion – for a competition used to making and administering its own rules and, consequently, presenting a fresh and highly marketable face. One that has, suddenly, left the AFL enduring the worst of both worlds.

The ill-conceived three strikes policy has forced the AFL to deal furtively with both the detection and the consequences of an apparently rising tide of recreational drug use. This, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has admitted, means players have been secretly withdrawn from games while in rehabilitation. At the same time, the AFL is now, very publicly, subjected to the consequences of WADA’s regime for the detection of performance-enhancing drugs. Something that could, notionally, wipe out an entire club.

An independent investigation by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority into the administration of supplements – not yet proved to be banned – by Essendon’s sports science staff has grave ramifications.

Most pertinently, mandatory two-year bans for players who used banned substances, with no concession for ignorance. In the very worst case, the majority of an entire club’s playing stocks could be sidelined.

And for once, the AFL – masters of ‘‘brand protection’’ – are unable to intervene. Some bodies, including the NRL, retained the ability to hear cases against players caught using performance-enhancing drugs in their own judiciaries. However, former ASADA chief executive Richard Ings said on Tuesday that, in the Essendon case, alleged offenders could well appear before an independent tribunal.

Doubtless, the AFL will feel enfeebled as Essendon is investigated by the proactive and independent officers of ASADA. But the AFL’s poor recent record in administering its own regulations suggests an independent investigation is the most reliable route to justice.

In his usual pugnacious style, Demetriou denied the existence of ‘‘tanking’’ – an attitude that might well have emboldened clubs seeking priority draft picks to drop late-season games. Subsequently, the AFL’s investigation of allegations Melbourne tanked has proceeded at snails pace.

There was also the bizarre do-it-yourself justice that allowed Adelaide to set part of its own penalty for draft tampering by voluntarily opting out of the first round of last year’s draft. And a smack-on-the-wrist six-month ban for Crows chief executive Steven Trigg, who hid the illegal player payments from his board, and the AFL. This time, if Essendon has knowingly or ignorantly broken the code, the AFL will not be able to smooth the edges. A domestic organisation with international pretensions will discover it can be very tough out there in the big, wide world.

http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-deals-bitter-pill-to-afls-brand-protectors-20130206-2dxtu.html

Not sure if this was posted already, but an interesting article from Hinds. The AFL's reluctance to agree to sign with the WADA would suggest there have been major issues for quite awhile, certainly issues that their "3 strikes policy" doesn't seem to address adequately.

Hinds shows his ignorance here.

The AFL's 3 strikes policy is for out-of-competition testing of recreational drugs.

WADA doesn't cover this sort of testing, it only tests for recreational drugs on days of competition.

Ignorance on the part of the author.

If all Essendon's players from last season cop 2 year bans and they have to rebuild with a ragtag band of misfits and goofballs that could be prime material for a feel-good, underdog sports movie

Lol, did you even read the article?

"Harry Houdini did not work as frantically to escape his bonds as the AFL worked to avoid signing with WADA. They claimed the WADA punishments for recreational drugs use were excessive, and adopted their own three strikes policy as an attempt to fulfil this obligation. They pleaded WADA’s list of banned substances was arbitrary, and the program required costly in-house administration. They cited the major US sports, which were not signatories to WADA. Never mind that baseballers with forearms the size of Christmas hams were making Babe Ruth’s famous slugs look like Little League pop flies."

Doesn't matter what category a drug is. If its on the banned list, heads should roll.

Remember when there were the rape incidents in the NRL?
Crowd averages went up that season:lol:
Expect the same when the shit hits the fan with the AFL.

Yes, and I repeat, Hinds is ignorant on this point.

The AFL's 3 strikes policy is additional to WADA requirements, over and above WADA requiremetns, goes further than WADA requirements, so only a very stupid person would equate the 3 srikes policy with WADA.

Cricket Australia and the ASC copied the AFL policy holus bolus, the NRL copied it too, but they changed it to a 2 strikes policy (and they don't publicly report the tests either).

English Rugby copied the AFL policy in its entirety.

What did UEFA do? When they suggested the concept of out-of-competition testing to their millionaire stars - how do you think they reacted?

What's the FFA's policy again??

Stabilo

It's not just you and Mr Hinds, stacks of people are confused and mix up the minimum standards of WADA (which all sports comply with) and the additional teting conducted by the AFL (which can only occur with the approval of players becaues it is entirely voluntary).

Don't take my word for it, read this comprehensive article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which outlines the AFL policy.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2012/09/09/bjsports-2012-091329.full

It says quite clearly that the WADA requirements do not mandate the testing for recreational drugs on non-match days - and that's precisely what the AFL policy is - out of competition testing for recreational drugs.

So anyone who talks of WADA and the AFL's 3 strike policy in the same breath is clearly confused, and most probably, quite stupid.

Those were confined to just one season? :-k

This is different, you are talking about breaching the trust of a club to players (including young players). The CEO, chairman and coach cannot even be certain about what was administered to the players. As a parent I would not allow my children to be involved in this environment and a lot of parents I have spoke too (especially the mums) are of the same opinion.

There is a difference here, the NRL could be perceived as a few players playing up (rightly or wrongly)and being dealt with.

As a parent I am absolutely stunned by these allegations and the thought the club (and this is one club with the perception of being one of the best clubs for family and image) could put their players in this position to just win a game of football. Carline Wilson (AFL writer) wrote a great article on this in The Age today.

If you are not a parent you may not understand. This will do untold damage to the game (especially if proved to be illegal substances were issued).

The AFL is not stupid, it is trying to minimize the damage i.e. articles appearing all of sudden pointing the finger against other sports and certain players. There is your first sign on how worried they are, by saying hey it is not just us what about all the others.

It'd be a safe bet to assume that Essendon's last few years worth of draft picks were all involved imo, I mean the way it's been described I can't imagine any of them having the courage to turn it down when (allegedly) the majority of the club were partaking, especially the new recruits keen to endear themselves to their team mates and show they're ready to make the jump up to the next level, the peer pressure would have been immense. Which is why I can understand why parents of prospective draftees would be scared shitless at the moment.

Given that most players are signed to agreements that don't allow them to disclose their respective treatments to other players, I doubt that.

No dickhead. The suggestion is that the AFL knew exactly what a problem they have with recreational drugs (let alone performance enhancers!) and have decided to suppress this knowledge with an in house "testing policy" due to not wanting the excessive penalties imposed by the WADA affecting every playing list of every team.

The AFL IDP is likened to corrupt police investigating themselves. Without a completely independant body controlling the who, when, what and where of the testing, its mickey mouse.

Did you read the article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine? It explains that the AFL's out of competition testing for recreational drugs is over and above WADA minimum requirements.

So if the AFL's policy goes beyond WADA's minimum requirements, how on Earth can the AFL be attempting to escape penalties under WADA? You and Hinds are not making sense.

WADA only tests for recreational drug use on match day (and all sports are signed up to WADA, including the AFL).

The AFL's out-of-competition testing for recreational drugs goes beyond WADA requirement - obviously.

Read the article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine again if you didn't get it the first time.

Going from the Reimers interview it sounds as if the playing group were initially pulled in together for a meeting introducing the idea of the supplements and the way they were going to go about it. Now imagine if (and I'm only being theoretical here and am in no way suggesting these players are involved) you're a fresh draftee taken at a high pick with a decent chance of playing football but still keen as fuck to impress your team mates and get that sense of belonging, and you're feeling a bit suspicious of it all and you see a Jobe Watson or Dustin Fletcher type character sign the waiver right off the bat, it would be pretty hard to turn away imo.

Edited by fredsta: 9/2/2013 08:49:56 PM

Sorry, human beings are a pretty dumb and stubborn lot. Sociological ingrained habits die hard.
The drug taking to be exposed will create a siege mentality amongst AFL fans and increase solidarity.
As a result, crowds will increase.

#passionisnotacrime

#ignoranceisnotacrime.......

It's hilarious when football fans get all preachy when the shoe is on the other foot.

To label THEM ignorant is hilarious, especially if you don't believe that there are drug cheats in football as well.

What's even more hilarious are eurosnobs who fail to accept the plasticity of their baseless club connection

Doping is rife in every sport . To think it doesn't happen in football is either a) head in sand or b) ignorant

lolwut? You don't know me. You know nothing of my reasoning for supporting Liverpool. And that has nothing to do with anything. What is wrong with you?

He's wandered out of AF, and discovered not everyone is a mindless idiot who hates the AFL for no other reason than they're told to/it's something different. I'm sure it's confusing for him.