Three players set to be targeted by ASADA over use of banned peptide CJC-1295

[Hamster Huey]

Every form of debating is flawed when some participants use obfuscation (and we are all guilty at times).

Instead of a 250 word essay complaining about previous posts, let's just deal with one point at a time.

HH claimed "I've concentrated on the fallout the process resulted in; a factor you are both keen to avoid."

So I ask again: Do you disagree that the "fallout" included an almost overnight reduction in Australian sportspersons using substances they know little or nothing about?

It is a yes or no question. If you do answer it, I'll repay the favour and answer a point of yours.

Maybe we will make progress that way?

Are you talking the professional sphere or across the board? Is there any evidence out yet that there has been such a reduction of use has occured? I don't know, as I haven't seen any information myself. Perhaps you have some general evidence of this.

By your post, you're keen to state an alleged outcome of the release as a positive to support the manner in which it was conducted.

But your outcome actually is seperate to what the release was about. Throughout the entire release there was no mention of 'player welfare' or 'health concerns' surrounding the issue of drugs in sport...not one single reference.

The risks discussed were all about integrity in sport and criminal influence on players and results. Never about going public to stop somebody killing themselves. That was an afterthought in the blowback to the release as people digested the content and questioned 'why' it was made public at that time.

So the questions remained;

Why did the Govt push to make the release earlier than the investigating bodies were prepared for?

Why, if player welfare was an immediate concern, did this single point not get raised by any member on the dias during that release?

Why, if no interviews or interregations were yet conducted, did this serious rhetoric get raised publically, giving those that may have had something to hide an opportunity to disappear evidence?

Did the ministers err in appreciating the impact this release would have through the media and the public, including the increase in speculation and rumour that was bound to tarnish individuals and clubs unnecessarily?

Do you think the positive that you believe to be an outcome, excuse all the negativity that has since played out across the board?

In hindsight, do you think the release could have been far better managed and/or timed at a more appropriate point of the investigation?

But don't confuse this post as some washing of my hands on there being potentially problems with drugs in sport. I'm not naive as some posters would suggest.

I just feel strongly that this whole episode should have been better managed when you consider the talk of that day is struggling to play out in reality.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Er ... You don't know?? But I was simply asking for your opinion!

By the way, do you realise you have an unfortunate habit of not giving a straight answer when asked a question, instead posing many questions yourself? In this case 8.

Why don't you all just agree to disagree and move on.

Yep, OK Jethro, got it now

 

[Clint]

opcorn:

 

[mickqld]

opcorn:

I prefer :bash:

 

[Jethro]

opcorn:

opcorn:
and just for Jatz -->

 

[Hamster Huey]

Er ... You don't know?? But I was simply asking for your opinion!

By the way, do you realise you have an unfortunate habit of not giving a straight answer when asked a question, instead posing many questions yourself? In this case 8.

You sound like you do know but you've not made clear which group you were talking about. Why is that important...?

Which is the most at risk group for the unregulated use of drugs in sport?

The professionals? Seeing the 100% emphasis on the top levels of our sports during the release, you'd have thought that point about athlete welfare would have been clear. It wasn't. You do agree that the 'dangerous' angle was a late inclusion to the debate?

I would think then that the most vulnerable group are the gym junkies and bodybuilders. Problem is that there has been nothing associated with this release to target those guys (or girls) on dangers that they don't already flirt with willingly every time they try a new product.

That community is well aware of the dangers but for them they've always used their forums/contacts to steer people away from bad products and to those assumed safe (for now). No matter how this investigation presents it, those groups will continue to use and test what's out there, and feedback into their group on success, or otherwise.

Have a read on those forums and tell me if you're seeing a 'huge' number of users reassess whether to put anything into their bodies. It's a conversation point but they aren't running scared or getting off the stuff.

So to answer your question as best I can, I would suggest 'NO' is my response to whether large-scale reductions of chems/peptides has occured by athletes across the board, on the back of this release.

Now, back to The Eight. That was the basis of my initial discussions and ones neither yourself or Rex care to address, without writing it off as bias, loony or bias-loony.

Feel free to answer as you see fit.

 

[Clint]

opcorn:

opcorn:
and just for Jatz -->

How about this one?

 

[Stevo]

Fark i wish this thread would disappear

 

[Clint]

Fark i wish this thread would disappear

Just don't go into it then stevo. :idea:

 

[Stevo]

It's not the reading of it part. It's the fact it's been at the top of the thread count for about 12 months now and it's full of more **** than the muscle vs fat thread and i have to keep seeing it.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Thank you Jethro. Its quite disturbing when I put down those knitting needles and then cant find them.

Back to that 3 legged trouser peter warmer thingo.

 

[voicefromthehill]

It's not the reading of it part. It's the fact it's been at the top of the thread count for about 12 months now and it's full of more s**t than the muscle vs fat thread and i have to keep seeing it.

I think **** weighs more than muscle

 

[Jatz Crackers]

I think s**t weighs more than muscle

You are correct. That was proven in the 1960s when they coined the phrase "heavy s**t"

 

[lsz]

I just want to know is there a god or not?

 

[Rex]

Fark i wish this thread would disappear

Then put @Daniel onto it so he can decide whether this thread goes where political discussions belong - and other political discussions have ended up - in the general discussion forum. Realistically, that is the only way it could stop - if Daniel decided it would stop.

This thread would belong firmly in this footy section if certain persons didn't want to turn a footy discussion into an opportunity to ram their political views down our collective throats.

---

Sadly your agenda blinds you

(f) AFL has a strong and proactive leadership

Rex - your sweeping generalisations are not only offensive, they show you to be an arrogant self righteous prick

Calling names doesn't change that ugly truth, and deep down you know that. Even you don't believe option (f) that you put forward is a credible explanation for this absolute discrepancy in reporting.

As for your "offence", options (b) and (d) are totally irrelevant to us. So there are only two ways to take personal offence at the posting:
1) To find option (a ) offensive. Unless you are the Telegossip, then you could only take offence at this option if you blindly let Telegossip opinions decide your worth. Do you?
2) To find option (c ) offensive. This would involve imagining option (c ) applies to you. Do you?

Only the person who sees he is being taken for a fool is no fool.
Puppet strings seen become puppet strings cut.

 

[StuBoot]

I just want to know is there a god or not?

Cliffy retired years ago

 

[Hamster Huey]

This thread would belong firmly in this footy section if certain persons didn't want to turn a footy discussion into an opportunity to ram their political views down our collective throats.

Finally, we agree. Now if you can address the points without relying on presuming the political leaning of me in the response, we'll get somewhere.

 

[Brissie Kid]

More than a little bit of truthful insight in this satirical piece I think.

ASADA’s CEO Aurora Andruska Writes to all Sport Fans
Posted April 17, 2013 by Titus
http://the-flack.com/2013/04/asadas-ceo-aurora-andruska-writes-to-all-sport-fans/

 

[Ralphie]

More than a little bit of truthful insight in this satirical piece I think.

ASADA’s CEO Aurora Andruska Writes to all Sport Fans
Posted April 17, 2013 by Titus
http://the-flack.com/2013/04/asadas-ceo-aurora-andruska-writes-to-all-sport-fans/

I think that article is a little bit closer to the truth than she would like to admit, but I repeat, I won't prejudge this, rather I will wait a few more years for this to run it's course. Just remember it's not even close to the length of the Craig Thompson investigation and I suspect it must be horribly tempting for them to try and break that outstanding record.

 

[Slide]

More than a little bit of truthful insight in this satirical piece I think.

ASADA’s CEO Aurora Andruska Writes to all Sport Fans
Posted April 17, 2013 by Titus
http://the-flack.com/2013/04/asadas-ceo-aurora-andruska-writes-to-all-sport-fans/

She is bound to go far. Future PM