Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
Gold !Con M wrote:Loved the delicious irony of the photo in yesterday's "The Age" newspaper showing a workman taking down the Essendon slogan "Whatever It Takes" from the Clubroom wall!
Did they take performance enhancing drugs?Bomber wrote:Obviously you havent been watching how much the umpires hate Essendon.....the only cheats I see are them and those who rig the draw every year.
I dont know - did they?Wraith wrote:Did they take performance enhancing drugs?Bomber wrote:Obviously you havent been watching how much the umpires hate Essendon.....the only cheats I see are them and those who rig the draw every year.
ESSENDON coaches took drugs that were banned for players, the former club sports scientist at the centre of the Bombers' drugs crisis claims.
Stephen Dank last night said coaches - whom he did not name - took substances not approved by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
"A couple of coaches were using supplements that were a little bit outside the WADA code but, again, they were entitled to it and nothing illegal in those," Dank said.
In an explosive interview with ABC's 7.30, Dank also claimed head coach James Hird had full knowledge of the players' 2012 supplement regime, now at the centre of a doping authority probe.
Hird declined to respond to Dank's claims.
- BLOOD samples could be sent to Germany as part of the investigation of Essendon's drug controversy.
- THE AFL maintained it could not notify a second club about an alleged rogue doper within its ranks.
Coaches are not bound by the restrictions WADA places on performance-enhancing drugs.
Dank stressed the substances administered to players were all "very, very legal and within the constraints of WADA
Dank stressed last night "all levels" at the club were given regular details of the supplements program.
"There was a collective involvement - you know it wasn't just Steve Dank," he said.
"There was certainly input from people outside myself. There was a very significant involvement from Dean (Robinson) as the high-performance manager, there was detailed discussion with James Hird, there was detailed discussion with the club doctor (Bruce Reid).
"They were sort of the main people involved in the knowledge of the program."
On the coaches' own drug regimes, Dank alleged: "There were some differences in what we offered the coaches. Let's face it, the coaches themselves are not subjected to any WADA code.
"Off the top of my head three, four or five taking vitamin supplements, protein supplements.
"A couple of coaches were using supplements that were a little bit outside the WADA code but again they were entitled to it and nothing illegal in those."
The sports scientist declared his innocence throughout the interview, saying he was a biochemist and supplement programs were regularly used at most top AFL clubs.
He denied injecting players with a banned substance and said he was "very surprised" when the club called a conference announcing it was unaware of what the program involved.
Dank said the only supplements intravenously supplied were Vitamin D and Vitamin C. He denied peptides were injected but said up to four different peptide formulas could have been given to players
"We had a program, it was well documented, it was discussed at all levels throughout the club in terms of what the supplements were and the regime and dosages, and what time of the day or week you know," he said.
Dank runs two other rejuvenation clinics in Victoria and NSW that he said ran programs separate to his work with elite football teams.
A substance known as GHRP-6 or peptide 6 - listed on Mr Dank's clinic website - is a human growth hormone banned by the Australian Anti-Doping Authority of Australia.
Dank admitted selling the substance but denied it was used on elite athletes. He also rejected links with criminal gangs.
No wonder Bomber Thompson was always munching out and spilling coke in the coaches box!God is an Englishman wrote:Who cares what the coaches took, they're not players!!
you are so wrong its not even funny, go do some research then admit you are wrongPetro83 wrote:
Thank you JAY WALKING.
Port power 15 years historu
Crows 22 years history.
always rememer the power killed the magpies
I can't find any stories on google about Port Power prior to 1995.DOC wrote:you are so wrong its not even funny, go do some research then admit you are wrongPetro83 wrote:
Thank you JAY WALKING.
Port power 15 years historu
Crows 22 years history.
always rememer the power killed the magpies
to summarise, the magpies were given the license in 95, but had to pick a new name because of coliingwood, this was a stipulation, the magpies wanted to enter the afl and leave the sanfl, the sanfl, being greedy, would have have this, and were worried that an sanfl comp without the power may fail and they may face hefty financial losses, the made the power formulate a new magpies side as a separate entity to play in the sanfl, even made them train away from albertonBacon888 wrote:I can't find any stories on google about Port Power prior to 1995.DOC wrote:you are so wrong its not even funny, go do some research then admit you are wrongPetro83 wrote:
Thank you JAY WALKING.
Port power 15 years historu
Crows 22 years history.
always rememer the power killed the magpies
i think a few players may be pissed at them now, might lose their strikeWraith wrote:Either way.... Essendons reputation is now in the toilet.
God is an Englishman wrote:nothing to do with the crime commission findings then. You're a nation of drug cheats and it's out in the open. This is bigger than nrl and afl.
Bomber wrote:God is an Englishman wrote:nothing to do with the crime commission findings then. You're a nation of drug cheats and it's out in the open. This is bigger than nrl and afl.
And no matter what, you'll hang your hat on that theory every time we beat you at something from now on too.
God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:God is an Englishman wrote:nothing to do with the crime commission findings then. You're a nation of drug cheats and it's out in the open. This is bigger than nrl and afl.
And no matter what, you'll hang your hat on that theory every time we beat you at something from now on too.
Well you're a nation of drug cheats, so the question will always be raised. Not that often that you beat us these days anyway.
DOC wrote:speaking of rio, is he not a drug cheat? therefore can we name label all english footballers drug cheats?
I'm sure if you looked in many ritzy club sat night after a win you would find footballers on the charlieGod is an Englishman wrote:DOC wrote:speaking of rio, is he not a drug cheat? therefore can we name label all english footballers drug cheats?
I don't remember our crime commission stating that drugs in sport had reached epidemic proportions.
Similar to lance armstrong - he never produced a positive sample.
DOC wrote:I'm sure if you looked in many ritzy club sat night after a win you would find footballers on the charlieGod is an Englishman wrote:DOC wrote:speaking of rio, is he not a drug cheat? therefore can we name label all english footballers drug cheats?
I don't remember our crime commission stating that drugs in sport had reached epidemic proportions.
Similar to lance armstrong - he never produced a positive sample.
DOC wrote:in the epl would a positive test for recreation drugs give a 2 year ban?
mutu got a while, bosnich may have gotten 18 months? not exactly sure as chelsea sacked them bothGod is an Englishman wrote:DOC wrote:in the epl would a positive test for recreation drugs give a 2 year ban?
yes, i believe so. How long did bosnich get?
It says nothing of the sort.God is an Englishman wrote:I don't remember our crime commission stating that drugs in sport had reached epidemic proportions.DOC wrote:speaking of rio, is he not a drug cheat? therefore can we name label all english footballers drug cheats?
So they are making suspicions, and not findings on some.Widespread use of these substances has been identified, or is suspected by the ACC, in a number of professional sporting codes in Australia.
