old man emu Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 WANTED: Persons to fill recently vacated positions in a professional sporting team. ESSENTIAL: 1. Post-graduate degree in pharmacology from an internationally recognised University. 2. Bachelor degree in Human Nutrition and/or Sports Medicine. DESIRABLE: 1. Above average physical coordination. 2. Thorough knowledge of the game known as Australian Rules football. 3. Demonstrated ability to kick and catch a football of Australian Rules design. In compliance with Anti-Discrimination laws, the employer will accept applications from persons of any age or gender, however the employer advises applicants that the position will expose the successful applicant to occasional forceful physical contact with other persons, the ground, or immovable structures. Applicants are also advised that participating in the occupation will involve outdoor activities in a wide range of atmospheric conditions, ranging from the high/dry to the cold/wet. Applicants are invited to forward their applications to: The President Essendon Australian Rules Football Club Essendon Victoria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Not an Essendon supporter are you OME? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I am all for the suspension of the players- they knew the rules and got busted. However the club should have also been banned for over this saga. As it stands only the players and some very selective staff have suffered. It was the club that started the whole thing and put the players in this situation but gets away with it. The doctor involved should also be criminally charged for injecting a illegal substance and also struck off. If he did this in any other area but sport- the medical board would have his guts for garters. Just my two cents- and no I do not follow any AFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 Not an Essendon supporter are you OME? LOL. No I'm not an avid fan of the game. The point I was trying to make was that the comment that the players themselves are strictly liable for what goes into their bodies implies that these young persons (and I will throw the net wide to include all persons involved in elite sport - male and female) are now expected to have expert knowledge of pharmacology so that they are not lead up the garden path by persons who are expected to be experts in that field. Consider this. If Joe Player is told by the club doctor that injecting monoxydihidride is OK , who does Joe trust for unbiased information? Does his hometown GP have the knowledge? Does Joe consult a Professor of Pharmacology. Or does he just accept that the doctor has been appointed by the club because the doctor has proved his expertise to the club, and Joe gets on with what he is expert at - kicking a ball. Just a correction: I don't think that the substances used were illegal in the criminal sense ( ie listed in the Poisons Act). They were banned for use by competitive sportspersons, so only not allowed within that occupation. It is a bit like Professional transport workers. On the weekend it is quite legal for them to drive a car for private use with a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.04 gms/100 ml, but come Monday morning, if they are driving a vehicle professionally, then that 0.04 reading is illegal. OME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Got my membership kit today... They sent me the 2013 kit though.. [ATTACH]47833._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47834._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 OME, Yes, I accept that the injected drug was not on the poisons list per se. However the credo of do no harm was clearly broken, and the doctor through knowledge or neglect actively gave the players a injection that was not in their best interests, was not for a therapeutic reason and actually caused harm to their career and was given in a workplace setting. And further they were made sign documents that they would never disclose they had received the injections. It would appear to be premeditated medical negligence- but alas the doc gets away scott free and has even sued to keep his reputation untarnished. But just like plastic surgery it appears sports and doctors are completely unregulated. Glad my son is not into pro sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The world body is making it's point HARD. Any prior punishment isn't deducted, or taken into account. The club "managers" failed a proper duty of care as it would be hard for a junior player particularly, not to go along with what they were assured many times was OK. At elite level this is a serious business so absolute loyalty is demanded. It fails the workplace test. It's not a fair thing to expect the individual in this situation to make the "right" decision. Those who arranged the "process" are the ones to answer for it. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billwoodmason Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 You're right Facty. The President and board, the Coach and club Doctor would have all had to agree to this course of action and should be held accountable. Whether they were aware that the supplements chosen were illegal is another matter. The AFL have been in damage limiting mode and have been selective with who has been held responsible. I believe the entire board should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Not just the board etc but the club itself should be banned- in a corporate sense the club is the guilty party. Any personnel changes are but a slap on the wrist. If the club was sanctioned it would ensure all interested parties including fans would make damn sure it nor anything like would never happen again. The sanction must be big enough that it discourages the behaviour- nothing that has happened so far can truly stop such behaviour because the entity- the club is not punished. The corporate entity must cop punishment that is sufficiently painful to completely change the culture. Currently it is like the club is the Mr big of drug importation but we choose to only arrest the street dealer. So Mr big just gets more minions to deal for him. No solution at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Notice that you are all condemning the Board; the doctor; the senior staff, which is something I completely in agreeance with. My point is that the doping agency has come down on these young men (the players) like a tonne of bricks for not having the pharmacological knowledge necessary to decide "Yes" or "No" to accepting this 'therapy'. I bet that if you asked a member of the authority to fully discuss the pharmacology of Panadol, the member would fail miserably. That's where their decision does not deliver natural justice. OME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA. Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 [ATTACH]47837._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I agree the regulator is been tough but compared to the life bans many in other sports have received- they are getting a small penalty. They may have been naive to believe the club but the fact they had to sign documents that they would never tell about the injections speaks volumes. They are professional sportsmen, highly paid and are fully aware that almost anything they take can be a risk- even cough medicines. Shane Warne got a ban for cough medicine from memory and he copped it sweet.(gave him more time for shagging and drinking) Yes, they would have had some pressure to sign and take the injections but as it has been said- they have their own lawyers and managers to look after their financial and legal interests, because they know the clubs will screw them otherwise. The antidoping rules are simple and actually do not require a science degree- basically you take nothing except antibiotics when you are sick. If in doubt- don't take it. Anything they give you to assist you to either recover or be stronger essentially is a performance enhancer- so is banned. As is the copious illegal drugs they often take. But their system of testing and reporting has always been slack and lead to the belief they could get away with it. To believe as a player that a special concoction they are giving you, that you can't talk about, and comes with a need to waive your rights and will boost your performance is not against the anti doping rules stretches it too far. And assumes the intelligence of the players is serverly substanded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 So they have just signed up Ryan Crowley from Fremantle as there first top up player. Perfect fit, he was suspended last season from Fremantle for taking a prohibited substance!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 the people doing the penalising may have aniticpated the board could perhaps be dealt with by the club in any case - in the future ............ as a consequence of the selected few getting the rough end of the pineapple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I watched Hird's full interview. He reckons only the Dr knows the real list of substances. By some peoples definition, vitamin C and D and fish oil wouldn't be allowed. WADA may be in an "example and bullying" situation. Previous penalties applied aren't taken into account. Technically since no one knows what substances are involved, who is to presume they are outside the code? There's still some distance to go on this. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 [ATTACH]47844._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 That may be the key to their problem. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now