The final myth busted

[Hamster Huey]

You answer my question first!

I thought I did....in a round about kinda way.

---

Hopelessly stuck in a fixed position Hamster?

You're not even trying now, are you Rex.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

SER, where do you think the real problem stems from and did the release put the focus on where the higher concentrations of performance enhancing/recreational drug use are?

I forget. 'The release' itself is becoming ancient history. The gist, from memory, is that there is a significant issue with PEDs in pro sport in this country, including AFL & NRL, and there are real concerns over links with organised crime and the potential for match fixing.

So that's where I think the real problem stems from.

If you are saying that Brad Williams's allegations have nothing to do with the price of eggs, then all I can say is your argument has gone way over my head. :idea:

 

[Hamster Huey]

I'm saying the Williams' comments paint clearly where the major problems are on the matter. Kids get hooked early (either in the drug cycle or to those with 'influence') and it then spirals further out of their control as they graduate to the top level.

The shear numbers of kids affected is as scary 20 years ago (speaking with a cousin involved with the junior Raiders reps and now this story) as they are now.

The clubs could have been dealt with without the bells and alarms, and if they really wanted to get public, aim at the focus squarly on those junior levels. They're at an age where they think they're bullet-proof and that release focusing on the top grade isn't likely to do anything across the board to shift their attitude or scare them into cleaning up their act.

 

[Rex]

So the proposition is:

1. Kids get hooked on a drug cycle & it spirals out of control as they graduate to the top level. This is no different to "20 years ago".

2. A current star has gone into drug rehab, evidenced because he had a tattoo. Drug testing didn't pick anything up, and there is nothing provable.

3. The ACC are wrong to say that there is a problem unless they first prove it through drug testing and the courts.

4. The gov't somehow forced the ACC to say this, for political gain, even though the ACC will very soon have a new gov't.

5. The ACC should have only focused on identifying a junior problem, though you think the problem spirals out of control as the kids go to the top level.

Is that the key points?

 

[manlyfan76]

And stevie Danks is innocent.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Article in Sun-Herald today

BRAD WILLIAMS, the Parramatta winger who admitted in 1983 that he gained 20 kilograms of muscle via a course of steroids and intense weight training, believes the junior league ranks have a serious drug problem.

Were they sure it was muscle ? I have it on good authority that fat weighs the same as muscle.

 

[manlyfan76]

Article in Sun-Herald today

BRAD WILLIAMS, the Parramatta winger who admitted in 1983 that he gained 20 kilograms of muscle via a course of steroids and intense weight training, believes the junior league ranks have a serious drug problem.

Were they sure it was muscle ? I have it on good authority that fat weighs the same as muscle.

Tattooed fat carries less weight than tattooed muscle.

 

[Hamster Huey]

So the proposition is:

1. Kids get hooked on a drug cycle & it spirals out of control as they graduate to the top level. This is no different to "20 years ago".

2. A current star has gone into drug rehab, evidenced because he had a tattoo. Drug testing didn't pick anything up, and there is nothing provable.

3. The ACC are wrong to say that there is a problem unless they first prove it through drug testing and the courts.

4. The gov't somehow forced the ACC to say this, for political gain, even though the ACC will very soon have a new gov't.

5. The ACC should have only focused on identifying a junior problem, though you think the problem spirals out of control as the kids go to the top level.

Is that the key points?

Stop building a strawman argument, Rex. IMO, it is a weak go-to tactic for those planted too firmly to their own 'side'. If you continue to add elements that are not mine, then you are doing our discussion no favours.

If you see no value in my view on the poor release of the investigation (timing, content, focus and purpose), then let it go. Neither of us appear prepared to move over the crux of the matter.