TOPIC:

so clubs supporters can only boo if their club has 100 years of tradition ? in other words collingwood essendon carlton richmond hawthorn etc etc can do what they like. fremantle eagles crows power etc should be condemned. this is a national comp, isnt it ?

the logic on this subject defies belief.

jardine wrote: so clubs supporters can only boo if their club has 100 years of tradition ? in other words collingwood essendon carlton richmond hawthorn etc etc can do what they like. fremantle eagles crows power etc should be condemned. this is a national comp, isnt it ?

the logic on this subject defies belief.

You guys boo everything and everyone.

I gotta say I'm a bit over the 'Boo' myself. In other world sports you find the spectators using well scripted and often funny chants to have a crack at an opposing team's player. The Boo to me is just lazy and a reflection of our society in how happy we are to be negative towards others. If we are going to be that way then let's do it with a bit more class. Surely we are better than the 'Boo' and can display a bit more wit as supporters. Imagine how good Aussie rules could be with all the colour and wit the English Premier League supporters bring when attending their games (minus the violence of course!). We reckon we've got the world's greatest sport. Maybe we need to lift our game as supporters and prove it.

UNKA2 wrote:

jardine wrote: so clubs supporters can only boo if their club has 100 years of tradition ? in other words collingwood essendon carlton richmond hawthorn etc etc can do what they like. fremantle eagles crows power etc should be condemned. this is a national comp, isnt it ?

the logic on this subject defies belief.

You guys boo everything and everyone.

Yer right unk. I just watched the Eagles Crows replay and the Eagles supporters booed the umps, booed the Crows players, booed the Eagles players and I am led to believe they even booed the young fella selling hot dogs....it's bloody diabolical!

58shark wrote:

UNKA2 wrote:

jardine wrote: so clubs supporters can only boo if their club has 100 years of tradition ? in other words collingwood essendon carlton richmond hawthorn etc etc can do what they like. fremantle eagles crows power etc should be condemned. this is a national comp, isnt it ?

the logic on this subject defies belief.

You guys boo everything and everyone.

Yer right unk. I just watched the Eagles Crows replay and the Eagles supporters booed the umps, booed the Crows players, booed the Eagles players and I am led to believe they even booed the young fella selling hot dogs....it's bloody diabolical!

send em to BOO(T) camp i say

Bazza wrote: Meth can be peformance enhancing..FACT

They are both banned substances FACT

The eagles history certainly does them no favours and ceratinly makes them no cleaner than anyone else.

yes the cats and dockers have had problems..but so far its pure speculation that any other club had anything like the issues with a player or players that the eagles had...a full blown junkie.

Citation required. All the studies I have seen and read about say the exact opposite.

I am not arguing about west coasts history. It just gives me the shits when people start carrying on about west coasts history when their clubs are far from squeeky clean themselves.
Also, Tuck was a junkie so I guess that means there was 2 clubs eh?

UNKA2 wrote: Hmmm perhaps its cos Pies v Blues are ARCH enemies, still living here with little if any understanding of rivally which steams from 100 plus years.

WCE and the bombers also have an arch rivalry going on, so by your logic it was ok to boo Jobe! Glad you saw the light.

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Swan he said on the couch that he was injected with the banned substance.When asked by Healy he said yes I was injected with the substance.
He has admitted to it.If you are debating whether the subsatnce is banned then look at what WADA is saying.They banned it as from 1st January 2011.

A/man Jobe Watson has not admitted publicly that he has taken a banned substance. In fact on the programme in question he specifically denied taking a banned substance. I am fully cognisant of what the WADA President has said with respect to AOD9604.

However, until WADA/ASADA issue infraction notices against any of the footballers or they admit guilt it is entirely appropriate for them to continue playing. If however, they are subsequently found to have taken a banned substance then they will receive an appropriate penalty. For example, if a tennis player returns a positive test or is served with an infraction notice, then they forfeit all moneys and points from that point on. A similar result one would expect for any Essendon footballer if they are served with an infraction notice.

...and the planet you live on is called??????

58S I am in Perth WA Australia where one of the priciples within the legal system here is that one has a presumption of innocence until proved guilty. From my comments above please explain what comment or comments runs counter to that very besic tenet?

swan42 wrote:

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Swan he said on the couch that he was injected with the banned substance.When asked by Healy he said yes I was injected with the substance.
He has admitted to it.If you are debating whether the subsatnce is banned then look at what WADA is saying.They banned it as from 1st January 2011.

A/man Jobe Watson has not admitted publicly that he has taken a banned substance. In fact on the programme in question he specifically denied taking a banned substance. I am fully cognisant of what the WADA President has said with respect to AOD9604.

However, until WADA/ASADA issue infraction notices against any of the footballers or they admit guilt it is entirely appropriate for them to continue playing. If however, they are subsequently found to have taken a banned substance then they will receive an appropriate penalty. For example, if a tennis player returns a positive test or is served with an infraction notice, then they forfeit all moneys and points from that point on. A similar result one would expect for any Essendon footballer if they are served with an infraction notice.

...and the planet you live on is called??????

58S I am in Perth WA Australia where one of the priciples within the legal system here is that one has a presumption of innocence until proved guilty. From my comments above please explain what comment or comments runs counter to that very besic tenet?

Can't answer you swannie, because I've got no flamin idea what you're on about. I googled "besic tenet" and got a whole pile of crap about islam - I don't want to go there! Mate, you're talking to joe average here - I'm not into the Ruddster type of gobbledegook - sorry.

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Swan he said on the couch that he was injected with the banned substance.When asked by Healy he said yes I was injected with the substance.
He has admitted to it.If you are debating whether the subsatnce is banned then look at what WADA is saying.They banned it as from 1st January 2011.

A/man Jobe Watson has not admitted publicly that he has taken a banned substance. In fact on the programme in question he specifically denied taking a banned substance. I am fully cognisant of what the WADA President has said with respect to AOD9604.

However, until WADA/ASADA issue infraction notices against any of the footballers or they admit guilt it is entirely appropriate for them to continue playing. If however, they are subsequently found to have taken a banned substance then they will receive an appropriate penalty. For example, if a tennis player returns a positive test or is served with an infraction notice, then they forfeit all moneys and points from that point on. A similar result one would expect for any Essendon footballer if they are served with an infraction notice.

...and the planet you live on is called??????

58S I am in Perth WA Australia where one of the priciples within the legal system here is that one has a presumption of innocence until proved guilty. From my comments above please explain what comment or comments runs counter to that very besic tenet?

Can't answer you swannie, because I've got no flamin idea what you're on about. I googled "besic tenet" and got a whole pile of crap about islam - I don't want to go there! Mate, you're talking to joe average here - I'm not into the Ruddster type of gobbledegook - sorry.