SeaEagleRock8 said:
SeaEagleRock8 said:
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.
Hamster Huey said:
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.
You know full well that wasn't my question. It has come to light that many footballers (for example) simply stand in the queue and take what they are given. Tallis and others said this on TV. I was obviously referring to the fact that pretty much everyone involved in professional sport in Australia now has a raised awareness about their personal responsibility for what they take. As a result many who previously had little or no knowledge of what they were being given would either get some knowledge or stop taking stuff they didn't properly understand. If you concede that even one sportsperson did that then the honest answer to my question is 'No, I don't disagree with the proposition'. And common sense dictates it is substantially more than one.
My question was about drugs in sport, not politics. (sorry)
However if you are determined to talk politics, let's go to your question
Hamster Huey said:
Why did the Govt push to make the release earlier than the investigating bodies were prepared for?
I don't know. Did they? If they did I too would be interested in the reason.
And how many of those players were given something illegal? So far, none. The Dank issue detracts from where the real problem is with drugs in sport; the unregulated intake by athletes across many levels.
But again the question about why release and focus only on the top level of our premier sporting codes, and mention NOT ONCE during that conference, the danger to those most at risk?
You asked me whether the release resulted in,
"...an almost overnight reduction in Australian sportspersons using substances they know little or nothing about?" I think may answer is clear that I don't believe that this is the case across the board, particularly when you did not mention any specific competition level or type of athlete.
Answering 'yes' on the assumed context of 'even one person' when you framed a question that indicated a far larger percentage, is counter to your context and mischievious on your behalf.
Rex loved to point to my opinion being based on the likes of the DT or Hadley, yet we see even his beloved Fairfax openly noting;
But while it named no names, the ACC’s report abounded with clues suggesting it was largely built around a single figure and the clubs and officials he had worked with...
ASADA had only just begun its own inquiry when the press conference was called.
‘‘To release their report before ASADA has some blood on the sword was nuts,’’ says one well-placed source.
The ACC has defended its decision to go public to saying that if it didn’t, a player might have injected themselves with something fatal. But the ACC first interviewed Dank in May 2012, six months before he departed Essendon.
‘‘If they were so concerned about player health, why didn’t they tell us about him when they knew he was injecting our players week after week?’’ says one Essendon source.
Former ACC staff also point out that the agency has never publicly released information it holds about a range of organised crime activities posing a daily threat to Australians’ lives. For instance, ACC intelligence collected in 2009 identified a doctor illegally prescribing steroids to an outlaw bikie trafficking network. That doctor’s practice is still flourishing.
In response, crime commission chief Lawler said on Friday the relevant codes were alerted about potentially dangerous practices as soon it was legally and practicably possible.
The consensus, however, from the law enforcement and anti-doping and sporting community is that the federal government pushed the ACC to go too early and too hard."
Not a great look.
