Ch 7 names Aker Drug Suspect

[joffaboy]

Dont know if this has been mentioned but there was once an interstate player who had very bad acne.

Now we all know that acne is a symptom of steriod abuse. One season this particular interstate player had very bad acne, next year it was gone.

Had this player with acne got off the juice? I wonder if this player who once had acne and then suddenly didn't lose strength and therefore stamina.

I am not naming anybody mind you, just like Akermanis didn't name names.

And i am not accusing anybody of taking steriods either, just makes you wonder.

[SENsei]

Is Clearasil a steroid?

[joffaboy]

Is Clearasil a steroid?

Well I dont know.

Mabye channel 7 can name the player in question?

[congorozides]

A Anderson is a pimple on the face of footy.

[SENsei]

Is Clearasil a steroid?

Well I dont know.

Mabye channel 7 can name the player in question?

Maybe they'll also show us the face of that dentist Rob......

[Behind Play]

What I dont understand is why Chanel 7 is coping ALL the flack for naming Brauhn however it was Aker who started the initial complaint about him.. If he (Aker) had doubts he should never have put it in a colum in a newspaper - there are correct channels for this..

Akermanis is a joke, He is an uneducated loud mouth who should think before he speaks.. Of-course 7 will be in trouble naming Brauhn (i smell a law suit coming) but Aker should not, and will not, escape the trouble, without any evidence except the fact that he played better than him, he labelled Brauhn a drug-cheat..

Akermanis has for too long seen himself above the game & above the rules - He has tranished both another players name & the game.. He should be made responsible for his actions..

Its Braun for starters. I cant believe people are so quick to sink the boots into Aker and to defend the AFL brand. I mean people are so eager to buy the AFL PR spin and dont seem to care about the truth.

AKer wanted to raise the issue in a meaningful way and gave an example. He never named anyone.

Now Demetriou claimes Aker is bringing the game into disrepute because guess what. the AFL brand is being damaged. No care about truth. Just focus on the brand only.

Contrast this with Cousins. Once again AFL brand is being damaged, so COusins gets off scott free and the PR company spin it as "health issue and about Ben's welfare". Once again no matter for truth, just protect the AFL brand at all time.

So we have AKer - non drinker, anti drugs, favourite of little kids and grannies all over the country copping it because he dares to speak about something that hurts the AFL brand.

I tell you what, Demetriou and his sidekick Adrian Anderson have really put me off footy. They treat the fans with contempt and continually insult our intelligence by giving us transparent media spin from the PR companies. I am jack of them thinking we will lap it all up in the name of their brand.

Good on you Aker for daring to go against th AFL's cosy little hear no evil speak no evil policy.

Well said Con.

Demetriou really should show more respect to the football public. we know your agenda, and you cannot stand the fact that there could be drug cheats in football.

Wake up and smell the roses, the football public is not stupid.

Not only on the drug topic...yesterday with all your arrogance you get on TV and state that the AFL will not look at the contriversal hands in the back rule at the end of the season. Or the current first draft concept. Both have been contriversal topics this year, with many fan annoyed at the way both have been handled. May be you need to listen to the public and stop being so bloody minded.

Don't forget Deme, the bigger you are the harder you fall.

[plugger66]

What I dont understand is why Chanel 7 is coping ALL the flack for naming Brauhn however it was Aker who started the initial complaint about him.. If he (Aker) had doubts he should never have put it in a colum in a newspaper - there are correct channels for this..

Akermanis is a joke, He is an uneducated loud mouth who should think before he speaks.. Of-course 7 will be in trouble naming Brauhn (i smell a law suit coming) but Aker should not, and will not, escape the trouble, without any evidence except the fact that he played better than him, he labelled Brauhn a drug-cheat..

Akermanis has for too long seen himself above the game & above the rules - He has tranished both another players name & the game.. He should be made responsible for his actions..

Its Braun for starters. I cant believe people are so quick to sink the boots into Aker and to defend the AFL brand. I mean people are so eager to buy the AFL PR spin and dont seem to care about the truth.

AKer wanted to raise the issue in a meaningful way and gave an example. He never named anyone.

Now Demetriou claimes Aker is bringing the game into disrepute because guess what. the AFL brand is being damaged. No care about truth. Just focus on the brand only.

Contrast this with Cousins. Once again AFL brand is being damaged, so COusins gets off scott free and the PR company spin it as "health issue and about Ben's welfare". Once again no matter for truth, just protect the AFL brand at all time.

So we have AKer - non drinker, anti drugs, favourite of little kids and grannies all over the country copping it because he dares to speak about something that hurts the AFL brand.

I tell you what, Demetriou and his sidekick Adrian Anderson have really put me off footy. They treat the fans with contempt and continually insult our intelligence by giving us transparent media spin from the PR companies. I am jack of them thinking we will lap it all up in the name of their brand.

Good on you Aker for daring to go against th AFL's cosy little hear no evil speak no evil policy.

Well said Con.

Demetriou really should show more respect to the football public. we know your agenda, and you cannot stand the fact that there could be drug cheats in football.

Wake up and smell the roses, the football public is not stupid.

Not only on the drug topic...yesterday with all your arrogance you get on TV and state that the AFL will not look at the contriversal hands in the back rule at the end of the season. Or the current first draft concept. Both have been contriversal topics this year, with many fan annoyed at the way both have been handled. May be you need to listen to the public and stop being so bloody minded.

Don't forget Deme, the bigger you are the harder you fall.

There has been one known positive case in 15 years of testing. I would say that is less than .03% of players who have been caught with performance enhancing drugs. I would say its a very minor problem.

[meher baba]

There has been one known positive case in 15 years of testing. I would say that is less than .03% of players who have been caught with performance enhancing drugs. I would say its a very minor problem.

Are you saying that players using performance enhancing drugs is a very minor problem

or

that players being caught using performance enhancing drugs is a very minor problem.

Not necessarily one and the same thing, given that the players are not tested very regularly.

[plugger66]

There has been one known positive case in 15 years of testing. I would say that is less than .03% of players who have been caught with performance enhancing drugs. I would say its a very minor problem.

Are you saying that players using performance enhancing drugs is a very minor problem

or

that players being caught using performance enhancing drugs is a very minor problem.

Not necessarily one and the same thing, given that the players are not tested very regularly.

They have about 500 a year so on average nearly every player is tested yearly. I know they could have them between tests but you can only go by the end result which is one positive in 15 years of testing.

[saintsRrising]

Well you will only catch if you test for it...

You need a blood and not a urine test to detect EPO (ie a urine test can only pick up EPO within 3 days of EPo being used)....

I am not sure how many, if any, blood tests on players have been done.....but it would be low...maybe even nil.

[congorozides]

There has been one known positive case in 15 years of testing. I would say that is less than .03% of players who have been caught with performance enhancing drugs. I would say its a very minor problem.

yep no positive tests in American football either - so no drug problem there either. FFS.
Demetriou is a tool. He is wrong on the Daft issue too. The stats in the Herald Sun this week were damning. No team has finished on 6 wins since during 2000-05. Yet Demetriou tell us tanking is not a problem. WHy? Because to change the rule would admit there is a problem and harm the brand.

If you don't think tanking is an issue, remember the simple fact that no team from 2000-05 won six games in a season.

Melbourne, way back in 1999, finished on 24 points. From then on everyone finished on 20 or under – or at least 28. The reason? Obvious.

If you won five games or fewer in a season, you were guaranteed a priority pick. Win six, and you blew it. Why waste an early pick for a meaningless win late in the season?

It might be purely coincidence, but you don't have to be a mathematician to realise there's a major anomaly. Consider these numbers, relating to games won by teams in that six-year period:

FOUR wins – five times.

FIVE wins – six times.

SIX wins – ZERO times.

SEVEN wins – six times.

EIGHT wins – four times.

[Riewoldting]

There has been one known positive case in 15 years of testing. I would say that is less than .03% of players who have been caught with performance enhancing drugs. I would say its a very minor problem.

yep no positive tests in American football either - so no drug problem there either. FFS.
Demetriou is a tool. He is wrong on the Daft issue too. The stats in the Herald Sun this week were damning. No team has finished on 6 wins since during 2000-05. Yet Demetriou tell us tanking is not a problem. WHy? Because to change the rule would admit there is a problem and harm the brand.

If you don't think tanking is an issue, remember the simple fact that no team from 2000-05 won six games in a season.

Melbourne, way back in 1999, finished on 24 points. From then on everyone finished on 20 or under – or at least 28. The reason? Obvious.

If you won five games or fewer in a season, you were guaranteed a priority pick. Win six, and you blew it. Why waste an early pick for a meaningless win late in the season?

It might be purely coincidence, but you don't have to be a mathematician to realise there's a major anomaly. Consider these numbers, relating to games won by teams in that six-year period:

FOUR wins – five times.

FIVE wins – six times.

SIX wins – ZERO times.

SEVEN wins – six times.

EIGHT wins – four times.

So why would teams ever win seven games? Not going to make the finals on that effort, and not going to pick up a priority pick either.

[Dan Warna]

I wonder if he was critcal of alistare lynch.

lynch too speed to overcome a congenital disorder CFS

I guess that would mean it would be ok for others, like those prone to hamstrings, or incapable of putting on bulk through diet and exercise or those with a predisposition to being slow to do it too

also taking steriods drugs to overcome virus's, flus and being slow should ok as well?

or is it just a one of case like headland/sewell? one rule for some, another rule for others?

why didn't the AFL test cousins while he was in rehab? surely its still in season?

[plugger66]

There has been one known positive case in 15 years of testing. I would say that is less than .03% of players who have been caught with performance enhancing drugs. I would say its a very minor problem.

yep no positive tests in American football either - so no drug problem there either. FFS.
Demetriou is a tool. He is wrong on the Daft issue too. The stats in the Herald Sun this week were damning. No team has finished on 6 wins since during 2000-05. Yet Demetriou tell us tanking is not a problem. WHy? Because to change the rule would admit there is a problem and harm the brand.

If you don't think tanking is an issue, remember the simple fact that no team from 2000-05 won six games in a season.

Melbourne, way back in 1999, finished on 24 points. From then on everyone finished on 20 or under – or at least 28. The reason? Obvious.

If you won five games or fewer in a season, you were guaranteed a priority pick. Win six, and you blew it. Why waste an early pick for a meaningless win late in the season?

It might be purely coincidence, but you don't have to be a mathematician to realise there's a major anomaly. Consider these numbers, relating to games won by teams in that six-year period:

FOUR wins – five times.

FIVE wins – six times.

SIX wins – ZERO times.

SEVEN wins – six times.

EIGHT wins – four times.

The difference between american football drug testing and ours is they didnt test and we have for 15 years. 7000 test one positive. good arguement by you saying Demetriou doesnt know anything because of the draft issue because that has alot to do with drug testing.

[congorozides]

The difference between american football drug testing and ours is they didnt test and we have for 15 years. 7000 test one positive. good arguement by you saying Demetriou doesnt know anything because of the draft issue because that has alot to do with drug testing.

Was that Justin Charles? We dont know what they test for though Plugger - Nick Bideau has come out and talked about EPO - and he would know what he is talking about.

My post was a general one about what I see as Demetriou's over-use of Public Relations resources. Im sure this expenditure can be gained from the Annual Accounts of the AFL to see if IM on the ball on this./ Id be happy to see the chnge in expenditure on PR companies since Demetriou took over. This is where I drew I drew a connection between the Draft and drugs. I also never said Demetriou "didn't know anything". I suggest he knows quite a lot!!! My issue is his preference for spin which implies contempt for the gullible fan. This generally implies arrogance and a belief that he is smarter than everyone else and all footy fans are morons. That is what Im writing about. And I stand by it. Im happy to be proven wrong on the drug issue but I'm saying IM not convinced its not a problem just because AD says so. I would be stunned and amazed if drugs were not a problem in footy. Drugs are a problem in all sports and footy should not be immune. The issue is that footy protects its brand fiercely. I would suggest fairness has become a casualty of the commercial branding objectives of the AFL. That is the premise of my post.

[congorozides]

They have about 500 a year so on average nearly every player is tested yearly. I know they could have them between tests but you can only go by the end result which is one positive in 15 years of testing.

There are 600 players on AFL Lists. So 500 tests a year isnt many. Under 1 per player per year. ALso they only do the basic test, so heaps of stuff isnt tested for and players and medical struff would all know exactly what is tested for and what is not.

[plugger66]

The difference between american football drug testing and ours is they didnt test and we have for 15 years. 7000 test one positive. good arguement by you saying Demetriou doesnt know anything because of the draft issue because that has alot to do with drug testing.

Was that Justin Charles? We dont know what they test for though Plugger - Nick Bideau has come out and talked about EPO - and he would know what he is talking about.

My post was a general one about what I see as Demetriou's over-use of Public Relations resources. Im sure this expenditure can be gained from the Annual Accounts of the AFL to see if IM on the ball on this./ Id be happy to see the chnge in expenditure on PR companies since Demetriou took over. This is where I drew I drew a connection between the Draft and drugs. I also never said Demetriou "didn't know anything". I suggest he knows quite a lot!!! My issue is his preference for spin which implies contempt for the gullible fan. This generally implies arrogance and a belief that he is smarter than everyone else and all footy fans are morons. That is what Im writing about. And I stand by it. Im happy to be proven wrong on the drug issue but I'm saying IM not convinced its not a problem just because AD says so. I would be stunned and amazed if drugs were not a problem in footy. Drugs are a problem in all sports and footy should not be immune. The issue is that footy protects its brand fiercely. I would suggest fairness has become a casualty of the commercial branding objectives of the AFL. That is the premise of my post.

Fair enough but how do I or anyone prove you wrong except for the figures which say one positve in 15 years and 7000 tests. Of course we could test more but it costs a fortune for each test and who ends up paying the public in gate fees. And what will the tests find who knows but figures suggest not much.

[congorozides]

Yep. True. But I still like bagging Demetriou and Anderson. They really annoy me. They talk like politicians.

[congorozides]

In fact I blame Demetriou for most things. Global Warming. Interest rate rises. The rash on my groin. All Demetrious fault. The guy is a liability.

[Dan Warna]

its like having laws that are unenforceable.

there are several reasons for having a drug rule:

1. its unhealthy do we really want these young men being pressured by their peers and known cheats to consume drugs themselves to keep up?

2. whether we like it or not these guys are role models, the kids copy the players, you only ahve to see the auskickers to know they want the numbers of their players, the girls want to hang out with the stars etc

3. its basically cheating if one team is consuming illegal drugs and another isnt'

4. given EPO has a time in system of 48 hours and you are likely to at worst get tested 2 times every 3 years and you get 3 strikes anyway, and EPO can give you a signficant boost in performance, it makes sense to cheat till you get caught twice!

so basically you have a bunch of kids getting by on talent and hard work, and another bunch of kids cheating to get an extra %%%% peformance.

and the rumours about worsfold date back to the early 1990s.

I just wonder what akkers has to say about lynch.

[Dan Warna]

In fact I blame Demetriou for most things. Global Warming. Interest rate rises. The rash on my groin. All Demetrious fault. The guy is a liability.

[Mr Magic]

Does it change anyone's opinion that, according to an article in today's Hun, Aker made his concerns known to ASADA 12 months ago?