Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Essendon Drug Saga

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kalgoorlie WA
    Posts
    5,546
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bob10 View Post
    I agree, I can not imagine any fair dinkum player from any sport would willingly allow themselves to be injected by any substance, without at least a written guarantee that it was not in any way an illegal substance. I find it hard to imagine any player agreeing to injections at all, period. Even pain killing ones. That is another area of concern, IMO. When big money controls the sport, ethics go out the window. Bob
    You've hit the nail on the head Bob ....................... way too much money involved in this and many other sports these days. There are those who will do anything for a quick buck.
    Cheers .........

    BMKAL


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic
    Posts
    281
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bob10 View Post
    This may help, denial will not make it go away, in the AFL, or the NRL, Bob. FromTHE AGE ;

    EXCLUSIVE
    The report states that players were largely unwitting victims of a high-risk and poorly governed program.
    Some Essendon players were given WADA-banned substances AOD9604 and Thymosin Beta 4 under the direction of sports scientist Stephen Dank, according to circumstantial evidence detailed in the confidential ASADA report into the AFL club's 2012 supplements program.
    Basic records about what drugs were given to specific players were not kept. Photo: Pat Scala

    Multiple sources aware of the contents of the report told Fairfax Media that it detailed the strong faith that Essendon coaching and management staff , including James Hird, placed in Dank and his assurance the program complied with the rules – a claim he maintains.

    ASADA has also found that Essendon staff failed to implement basic governance, management and medical practices to ensure players were not exposed to health and doping risks. It found that the club failed to follow its own protocols around the use of drugs suggested by Dank. Basic records about what drugs were given to specific players were not kept.
    This failure has made it more difficult for anti-doping investigators to build a prima facie case that could enable doping infraction notices to be issued to individual players.
    A source who has read the ASADA report said the circumstantial evidence was very strong that Thymosin Beta 4 - a drug deemed by the World Anti-Doping Agency to be performance enhancing - was given to several players at the club.
    Eleven players have told ASADA that they were given what they were told was Thymosin, although they could not say what sort of Thymosin it was.
    ASADA has confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that AOD9604 - a failed anti-obesity drug banned by WADA under its S0 category because it is not approved for human use - was used at the club.
    The report states that players were largely unwitting victims of a high-risk and poorly governed program.
    The ASADA investigation into Essendon is ongoing and the prospect of infraction notices for doping violations being issued to individual players or the wider team remains open.
    However, any such decision would be weighed against the evidence showing that the players acted in good faith and were given poor advice and directions by Dank - who has refused to be interviewed by ASADA - and others at the club.
    Separate to ASADA's deliberations, the AFL is weighing whether to punish the club or its officials, including Hird, under the code's own rules on exposing players to risky practices. Punishment could include the loss of premiership points or the suspension of staff.
    The report will relieve Hird to the extent that the evidence gathered portrays him as a person who never sought to break anti-doping rules or knowingly expose his players to harm.
    However, it is understood that Hird is one of several officials identified as having failed to ensure proper practices were implemented and followed, exposing players to an unsafe workplace.
    The circumstantial evidence gathered by ASADA about the use of Thymosin Beta 4 is corroborated by an interview Dank gave to Fairfax Media in April in which he repeatedly talked about giving Thymosin Beta 4 to players.
    Hours before publication of a story on April 12, Essendon told Fairfax Media that it would dispute reports about Thymosin Beta 4 being used because player consent forms only referred to "Thymosin" and it was possible a version of the drug not banned by WADA had been used.
    When contacted for clarification by Fairfax Media prior to publication, Dank said he was mistaken in his original on-the-record interview and that his references to Thymosin Beta 4 in fact related to a drug called thymomodulin.
    In his earlier on-the-record interview, Dank confirmed he had used Thymosin Beta 4 and did so because he said there was "good data, very good data, that supports Thymosin Beta 4 in the immune system".
    When questioned about ASADA's decision in April 2013 to publicly list Thymosin Beta 4 as "prohibited", Dank responded: "Well, that must have just only come in this year and I will get someone to speak to ASADA about that. That's just mind-blowing."
    ASADA has previously confirmed that Thymosin Beta 4 has been banned since 2011 under a catch-all provision of the doping code.
    The circumstantial evidence detailed in the report to build a case that Thymosin Beta 4 was used includes:
    ■ Witness testimony and documentary evidence, included that provided by fitness adviser and convicted drug offender Shane Charter, regarding his provision of Thymosin Beta 4 to Dank and advice on how to administer it.
    ■ Player consent forms reflecting Charter's advice to Dank regarding dosages of Thymosin Beta 4.
    ■ Documents and communications, including invoices, text messages and emails, referring to the use of a Thymosin peptide at Essendon.
    Player consent forms, public assertions by Dank, text messages and an admission by Essendon skipper Jobe Watson strongly suggest that AOD9604 was given to players.







    Read more: Essendon players given banned drugs
    Yep, I read that too. Most of that can be found in the Switkowski (apologies for the spelling) report. Any further information must have been made up or leaked. So if the "leak" didn't come from the AFL (AFL & Wilson have denied this) or from Essendon (I'm fairly certain that EFC wouldn't be feeding info to Caroline Wilson) then who? ASADA? They insist on confidetiality don't they? So who are the "multiple sources"?
    I still think a lot is rumour and gossip made up on flimsy "evidence" and used to sell newspapers.
    I've heard reports that the ASADA interim report clears the players of taking anything banned (not sure where that info comes from either!)
    Time will tell. I may be proved wrong.
    In the meantime Ahmed Saad would have to be the happiest player in the AFL, tested positive ('A' sample so far) to a banned (in competition anyway) stimulant and barely gets a mention!
    When all of this is finalised I may open my other eye. Until then. GO BOMBERS!!!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RIVERLAND, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    6,740
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Essendon drug defence hangs on whether AOD-9604 is an illegal substance

    Al Paton •
    Herald Sun•
    June 25, 201312:47PM

    JOBE Watson admits he took AOD9604. ASADA says the drug is banned. But Bombers say they did nothing wrong. What gives?

    Watson admitted on Fox Footy's On the Couch last night that he took a substance he believed to be anti-obesity peptide AOD9604.

    While AOD9604 is not banned under category S2 of the WADA code - which lists specific substances - it is prohibited under category S0, which states substances not approved for human use are prohibited at all times.

    But Essendon has repeatedly said it is confident its players did nothing illegal.

    The club has not spelled out its defence to possible drugs charges, but examining statements by Bombers figures over the past two months creates a picture of their argument: AOD9604 wasn't banned, or shouldn't have been, or at least we were told it wasn't, when the supplements program began two summers ago.

    Meanwhile, statements from drug authorities give an indication of how that defence might fare.

    Here's a recap of who said what in the AOD9604 saga.

    FEBRUARY

    Australian Crime Commission report on drugs and crime in sport states AOD9604 "is not currently a WADA prohibited substance".

    APRIL 22

    Metabolic Pharmaceuticals chief executive David Kenley, whose company holds the rights to AOD, said he understood about half a dozen Essendon players used AOD-9604 "purely to assist in soft tissue injury and to aid ... the recovery so that the players that were injured could get back on to the ... pitch quicker''.

    APRIL 25

    The Herald Sun reveals AOD9604 was on consent forms signed by Essendon players who took part in the club's controversial supplements program.

    The Bombers say they relied on a document purported to have been issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency approving use of the substance.

    Job: I took the drug

    APRIL 25

    Former ASADA head Richard Ings says the rules are clear - if the drug is illegal, Essendon players are in big trouble, even if they didn't intentionally take a banned substance.

    "My understanding is the Essendon players were given a form to sign which listed the types of substances they were taking ... but either way, athletes are responsible for what they are taking and if they did take banned substances, they will pay consequences," Ings warned

    "The point here is that multi-million dollar professional elite athletes have a duty of care to their club, their code and their fans ... to check and double-check on exactly what they're taking.

    The former ASADA boss said a no-fault clause exists under the WADA code, but it most likely wouldn't apply to the Essendon scandal.

    "It only applies if the player has absolutely no fault, absolutely no way of knowing they knew what they were taking was a prohibited substance. I doubt they'll get the benefit of doubt of having no fault. In this case, it sounds like they have some degree of fault."

    MAY 1

    WADA confirms it had correspondence with sacked Bombers sports scientist Stephen Dank about AOD-9604 but denies it gave permission to use the drug.

    "Please be advised that a Steve Dank, from the University of Sydney, contacted our science department inquiring about a substance,'' a WADA spokesperson said. "As per policy, he was asked to contact the relevant national anti-doping agency (ASADA) for consultation.''

    Non-users guide: What is AOD9604?

    MAY 6

    Ziggy Switkowski releases his report into Essendon's governance last season which labels supplements program "a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documentent''.

    MAY 7

    Bombers CEO David Evans maintains his stance: "I am not prepared to concede our players have taken any banned substances."

    Watson admits to taking banned drug

    MAY 9

    WADA and ASADA appear to put a huge hole in Essendon's planned defence, declaring the anti-obesity substance off limits for athletes in any circumstances.

    The Therapeutic Drugs Administration confirms it has not given approval for AOD-9604, but says "several other exemptions exist that could allow legal supply of AOD-9604''.

    But both ASADA and WADA tell the Herald Sun there are no loopholes, justifications or ways around the use of AOD-9604, officially banned in January 2011.

    "It is prohibited in all circumstances,'' WADA communications director Julie Masse said. "AOD-9604 is a prohibited substance that falls under the S0 category of the Prohibited List.''

    ASADA said while therapeutic-use exemptions for athletes were available in limited cases, AOD-9604 was not one.

    "Substances falling under the S0 category are prohibited at all times (in and out of competition),'' it stated. "Given substances under S0 do not have current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use, no TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) would be granted under any circumstances.''

    MAY 23

    Essendon Assistant coach Mark Thompson tells a 1993 premiership reunion: "When we get through this, people won't see Essendon as the big monsters who don't know what we are doing

    JUNE 24

    Quizzed on Fox Footy's On the Couch, Essendon captain Jobe Watson says: "My understanding after it being given through (Essendon doctor) Bruce Reid and the club (was) that I was receiving AOD. (I believed) that it was legal at the time and that's what I was told I was being given."

    "The understanding that we had through the advice that we'd got was it was a legal substance,'' Watson said.

    "I still to this day believe that we've done nothing wrong.''

    JUNE 25


    Jobe's father, and Bombers great, Tim Watson, supports his son on SEN:

    "They were given this as part of their supplement program ... but they (Essendon) and the players are certain that they haven't taken a banned substance," Watson says.

    "I guess the contentious thing here will be whether or not it's a banned substance and whether or not the information they were given at the time about it being a banned substance and the properties of AOD."

    Responding to Jobe Watson's admission, WADA president John Fahey says its stance on AOD-6904 hasn't changed.

    "There's strict liability here, there are no ifs or buts - if it's in your system, you take the consequences," Fahey told the Herald Sun.

    "The moment it's in your system, you're gone, full stop.''

    Late this afternoon Essendon released a statement making no admissions about the use of banned drugs.

    "This is a complex and difficult area, but our club considers that our players have acted reasonably during the 2012 season," the statement says.

    "The club notes that it is yet to be determined whether any of our players in the 2012 season were given prohibited or performance enhancing substances.

    "We look forward to the finalisation of the ASADA investigation, and we thank our members for their ongoing support of our club and our players."




    Maybe we need to find out if it was or was not a banned substance at the time... One lot of their (AFL) papers says banned another says OK ????
    How the heck can that be right??

    And an investigation that shouldve been sorted and finished 6 months ago
    so dragging it on and then threatening to take all of the premiership points
    to now is crap...

    what about the players that transferred to other clubs (so now their clubs should also be stripped of premiership points because they played a player who has been doped previously??)

    What about new players to the club ??

    This whole thing is a debarcle and does also show that the system that informs about what is and isnt banned also needs a huge overhaul..

    I believe that previously the AFL or ASADA have admitted this drug isnt a performance enhancing drug but a weight control drug... (I cant find that right now though)

    Its also a pity that this thing is continuing on for so long as its being reported on overseas and giving the impression that AFL can be played without guards etc as the players are all doped up... Something else to "damage the brand".

    No matter what, sort the bloody thing out now!!

    Im not a bombers supporter in any way but do feel this is just stretching it out.
    (REMLR 235/MVCA 9) 80" -'49.(RUST), -'50 & '52. (53-parts) 88" -57 s1, -'63 -s2a -GS x 2-"Horrie"-112-769, "Vet"-112-429(-Vietnam-PRE 1ATF '65) ('66, s2a-as UN CIVPOL), Hans '73- s3 109" '56 s1 x2 77- s3 van (gone)& '12- 110

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    brighton, brisbane
    Posts
    33,853
    Total Downloaded
    0
    According to the ACC AOD9604 is not approved for human consumption. My information is that players were taking it to hasten recovery time after injury, not really performance Inhancing. Bob [ however, google it and see the adds for the cream for use in gyms]


    Australian Crime Commission
    UNITE THE FIGHT AGAINST NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CRIME


    Search this site:
    Close



    HomePublicationsOther publicationsOrganised Crime and Drugs in Sport › Appendix One - Overview of Peptides
    Appendix One - Overview of Peptides

    Peptides is a generic name given to any group of amino acids that are linked together to form a chain. Essentially, they are similar to proteins, though in much shorter lengths (less than 50 units long). In the world of sport, peptides generally refer to one of two things: either broken protein fragments from hydrolysed proteins; or peptide hormones and related compounds.
    Protein peptides are whole proteins that are broken down into smaller peptide fragments by a process of hydrolysis. Hydrolysed proteins are absorbed much faster than other forms of protein and are commonly found in supplements that contain hydrolysed whey protein.
    A peptide hormone is a protein which is released in the blood stream. Usually, the peptide hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland. Peptide hormones include growth hormone and insulin. The substances involved in this case stimulate the production of peptide hormones, which is different to substances that mimic the effects of peptide hormones such as somatropin (a synthetic human growth hormone).
    The substances identified as being used in Australia are GHRP-2, GHRP-6, CJC-1295, AOD-9604 and hexarelin. An overview summary of these substances is provided below:
    GHRP-2 and GHRP-6

    GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 are growth hormone-releasing factors and are therefore prohibited S2 Hormones and Related Substances according to the WADA Prohibited List. They are part of the growth hormone-releasing peptide (GHRP) family, which includes GHRP-1, GHRP-2, GHRP-4, GHRP-6, alexamorelin, ipamorelin and hexarelin. GHRPs are used to stimulate the release of Growth Hormone (GH) by the pituitary gland. They also promote food intake by stimulating hunger and aid in energy metabolism.
    Purported benefits of using GHRPs include bone mineral density, increased lean muscle mass, improved strength, rejuvenation and strengthening of joints and improved recovery from injury such as bone fractures. Side effects from the use of GHRP may include hot flushes, loud stomach rumbling, white blood cell count increase, sweating and increased appetite.
    GHRP-2 and 6 are administered by subcutaneous injection. GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 are detectable in urine.
    CJC-1295

    CJC-1295 is considered a growth hormone-releasing factor and is therefore considered to be prohibited according to the WADA Prohibited List in the S2 category (Peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances). CJC-1295 is a synthetic peptide hormone, similar in structure to GHRH, which stimulates the release of growth hormone, and subsequently IGF-1, from the pituitary gland. CJC-1295 was initially developed to treat those suffering from growth disorders, muscle wasting diseases or burns victims. However, CJC-1295 is not approved for human use.
    CJC-1295’s purported anabolic effects may increase lean muscle mass, reduce fat and improve performance. In addition, CJC-1295 has anti-inflammatory properties if administered directly to the related area soon after injury, can reduce pain and swelling and also assist in the repair of injured tissue. It is also purported to promote slow wave sleep (SWS) which is responsible for the highest level of muscle growth and memory retention. Further benefits include reduced body fat, increased energy and vitality, increased endurance, accelerated healing, and strengthening of the heart.
    CJC-1295 is administered by subcutaneous injection, usually in the abdomen. It is also available as a cream.
    AOD-9604

    AOD-9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List.
    AOD-9604 works by mimicking the way natural GH regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD-9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the ‘differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells’. Other purported benefits of AOD-9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is not approved for human use.
    Hexarelin

    Hexarelin is considered a growth hormone releasing factor and is therefore prohibited under category S2, Hormones and Related Substances, according to the WADA Prohibited List. As with GHRP-6, hexarelin stimulates the release of GH, with effects similar to those experienced when using a synthetic growth hormone.
    Purported beneficial effects of hexarelin use include increased strength, growth of new muscle fibres and increases in the size of existing muscle fibres, joint rejuvenation and assistance in healing. Hexarelin may also be beneficial in fat reduction. Unlike GHRP-6, there is no effect on appetite as it does not increase ghrelin levels responsible for increased hunger and gastric emptying.
    Hexarelin can be administered orally in tablet form or via subcutaneous injection.
    I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food

    A bookshop is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    brighton, brisbane
    Posts
    33,853
    Total Downloaded
    0
    If you want to be confused further, check this out. Bob

    Welcome to the List | Wada Prohibited List


    list.wada-ama.org/‎



    Jan 1, 2013 - The official text of the Prohibited Substances and Methods List shall be maintained by WADA in English, French and Spanish. In the event of ...Prohibited At All times - ‎By Substance - ‎Prohibited In-Competition - ‎Legal Statement

    This might be the clincher, players must check with their organisation themselves if there is any doubt, AOD-9604 is not cleared for human consumption. But where does that leave the cream? Is it being consumed? ;

    " If a Substance or Method is not found, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization to ensure that this Substance or Method is not prohibited as a related Substance or Method that falls under an existing category.
    In accordance with Article 4.2.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code, all Prohibited Substances shall be considered as “Specified Substances” except Substances in classes S1, S2, S4.4, S4.5, S6.a, and Prohibited Methods M1, M2 and M3."
    I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food

    A bookshop is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic
    Posts
    281
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Sounds to me like they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. Apparently if you'd phoned WADA last year to clarify something, they tell you to phone the ruling body in your country (ASADA), phone ASADA and they'd have told you AOD9604 is not currently on the banned substance list
    I'm sure after all this is done, it will become much, much easier for players, of any code, to pick up the phone and talk to someone that can give them a straight answer!

    The biggest casualty in all this may not end up being Essendon after all.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    wetherill park
    Posts
    2,600
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I don't follow AFL but it seems pretty clear this drug was/is not approved for human consumption that means use by eating, injecting or rubbing on your skin and is covered by the SO category of drugs and has been for some time.
    Essendon have it listed on the players consent form so not much chance of saying they didn't use it maybe the question they needed to ask was not if it was banned but was it legal

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Adelaide Hills
    Posts
    13,383
    Total Downloaded
    0
    looks like the afl has given the green light on drugs

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Melb. Vic.
    Posts
    6,045
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Disgrace .
    Can't wait for Lance Armstrong 's return to cycling. Using the EFC defence," I didn't know what was in those needles!" Perhaps we could reinstate Ben Johnson's gold medal while we're at it.
    WADA would be shaking their heads in disbelief !

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    brighton, brisbane
    Posts
    33,853
    Total Downloaded
    0
    This makes sense to me, Bob

    Please Explain: Why Essendon should do a deal with the AFL now




    • By Glenn McFarlane
    • Herald Sun
    • August 15, 2013 2:59PM









    Essendon chairman Paul Little faces the media outside Windy Hill. Picture: Michael Klein Source: Michael Klein / HeraldSun


    DEAR Paul Little and the Essendon board,

    We appreciate how hard you are fighting to protect the club that you love, but the cold, hard reality is that it is time to negotiate a deal with the AFL before it is too late.
    Your passion for your club is admirable, but the way you are articulating it is not.
    Your aggressive attitude and inability to acknowledge any fault by your club is putting Essendon at risk of being whacked even harder.
    The time is right to sit down and sort out a settlement that is in the best long-term interest of the club, however unpalatable that might be.
    There is no time to waste. The clock is ticking.
    Right now, you don’t seem to be willing to cop anything – from the potential loss of premiership points, to the loss of future draft picks, to a crippling fine, to the possible suspension of the four key officials charged on Tuesday with bringing the game into disrepute.



    Forget about the premiership points. They should be the least of your issues. You can’t win this year’s flag anyway. Your players have been incredibly resilient, but the signs of the past three weeks prove they are cooked.
    By all means, you are well within your rights to fight for the protection of the reputations of James Hird, Mark Thompson, Dr Bruce Reid and Danny Corcoran.
    And if you believe in them, as you clearly do, you should be prepared to back your men, who have undoubtedly made a great contribution to the game over many, many years.
    But the best way to do that is through a negotiated settlement rather than arming yourselves with lawyers and threatening to take the AFL – and the game – to court.
    That would create a runaway train impossible to stop. It would lead to a protracted, messy and financially crippling legal dispute unprecedented in our great game.
    And it would drive a wedge between one of the most famous clubs in Australian sport and its governing body, not to mention the other 17 clubs of the competition.
    As Leigh Matthews will attest, you can’t beat City Hall. The AFL will always get you in the end.
    For the sake of this club that has been in existence since 1871 and has played such a significant and proud role in our game, take a big whack now - not a bigger one later.
    A negotiated resolution – something that happens in courts every day – is your best option.
    The thing that cannot be forgotten is that whoever was at fault – we get it that it is still debatable where the true culpability lies – your football club failed its players.
    That is clear from your own club’s internal report, conducted by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, that found a “pharmacologically experimental” program that pushed boundaries and potentially put the club's most important assets - the players - at risk.
    That’s why you have lost your chairman, your chief executive and a number of other staff members already this season.
    You cannot escape that. You never will. And that’s why the AFL will whack you now, or later, depending on your next move.
    Regardless of what might happen in court, a penalty is going to happen at some stage, and it is better for you to have a say in the punishment.
    If you do play finals this season – something the AFL would clearly prefer not to happen – your form says you are unlikely to go past week one.
    So here's my tip. Offer to sacrifice this year’s finals premiership points. Give up on the finals. Start afresh in Round 1 next season with a group that Jobe Watson maintains has been galvanised by the experience of 2013.
    Take the fine that might come your way. Chances are, it will be less than the legal fees that you will need if you want to take the AFL to court.
    Then there is the matter of draft picks. This looms as the biggie.
    If the AFL finds the club guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, you can forget about any meaningful draft selections over the next three years.
    If you do a deal now, you could try to wipe out this year’s national draft, which won’t kill you as a footy club.
    The 2013 national draft is a solid one, but loses its depth after the top 10 or so selections. But next year’s draft is reportedly a cracker.
    So it might be wise to try to gain some access to the next year’s draft and even more access to the 2015 selections.
    As distasteful as a deal with the AFL might look to those at the club right now, and as much as the fans are prepared for the fight, you must know the club's best option is to do a deal before August 26 – and return to the fold as a chastened club still on reasonably solid footing rather than one that has been stripped of everything.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Glenn McFarlane
    I’m pretty sure the dinosaurs died out when they stopped gathering food and started having meetings to discuss gathering food

    A bookshop is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!