Bomber wrote:Was it ever in doubt?
Let the apologies begin.
Translation = got caught up in media hype, now red faced as all along there was clearly no evidence.
More just laughing at the fact you feel you deserve an apology. You got off on a lack of evidence, which I actually think is technically the right decision although any layman can see how dodgy your "pharmaceutical experiments" were.
LFTWNG11 wrote:
More just laughing at the fact you feel you deserve an apology. You got off on a lack of evidence, which I actually think is technically the right decision although any layman can see how dodgy your "pharmaceutical experiments" were.
I might have to revise my ladder now though
You don't have to apologise really, but end of the day, haven't I said all along that unless you have 100% proof, and lets face it if they had it they'd have had something by now, that you're innocent? So many on here just jumped on the media bandwagon and "presumed guilt" and scoffed whenever I highlighted that IF they took anything illegal, they'd have proof - and clearly they never have.
I guess one day we can read all in Steven Dank's "tell all" book.
MegaBonus wrote:Thanks slinky...you've inadvertently picked up an error.....it should read...
'Not guilty' is not the same as 'innocent'
At Bomber....just answer the bloooooody question.... you're ducking and weaving more than Hird
1. I don't know, do you? Clearly it wasn't something banned or they would have tested positive.
2. Dank, a qualified sports scientist.
Do you really think that with all the staff on hand, doctors etc they would have deliberately en masse all think as a group they could get away with taking illegal substances? If you truly believe that, then I think your either paranoid, think they're all cyclists or just anti-Essendon.
Loved Sam Newman's opening to footy show last night. Pretty much summed up my thoughts on the whole thing.
MegaBonus wrote:Thanks slinky...you've inadvertently picked up an error.....it should read...
'Not guilty' is not the same as 'innocent'
At Bomber....just answer the bloooooody question.... you're ducking and weaving more than Hird
1. I don't know, do you? Clearly it wasn't something banned or they would have tested positive.
2. Dank, a qualified sports scientist.
Do you really think that with all the staff on hand, doctors etc they would have deliberately en masse all think as a group they could get away with taking illegal substances? If you truly believe that, then I think your either paranoid, think they're all cyclists or just anti-Essendon.
Loved Sam Newman's opening to footy show last night. Pretty much summed up my thoughts on the whole thing.
Dank being a "qualified" sports scientist is in doubt.
MegaBonus wrote:nice dodging of the first 2 questions....
BTW - Triggy was hounded out for a lot less.....
Yes, like I'm the only one who would know. :?
PS - Fuck ASADA - they can shout and get all narky, fact is they are inept and trying to gloss over it.
Mcdeville thought that his game of bluffing the players into accepting a soft penalty would work.
It might work with shiiitypants dumb crims but you weren't good enough against the big boys who called your bluff.
Mcdeville should be sacked immediately.
He himself admitted they couldn't prove what was taken.
That being the case , stop whinging and pss off.
Mcdevitt has gone to ground.
Not making any more comments.
Looks like the bully is too embarrassed to show his face
now that his cop-style tactical bluff failed.
I'm laughing at a Carlton supporter mate who has already backed his own team for wooden spoon before this decision.
Ironic that Geelong is one team that gets to play Essendon twice this season.
All shit aside, players have suffered enough and this is over the top. Some buddies of WADA on other side of world suddenly deliver them a favourable verdict. Bravo.
