Martin Hardie wants McDevitt in jail

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The second biggest tragedy of this saga after the players being treated by human guinea pigs, is allowing flogs of the highest order such as Hardie and Ings a soapbox to voice their ignorant opinions and the pathetic Australian media are dumb enough to keep going back to them for more.

The sooner I never hear of both of them the better my life will be
Yes, I can see that you would be happier if censorship were imposed on views with which you disagree.
 
The doping laws do not seem to be working in any meaningful way. The female winners of 5 of last 6 Chicago Marathons have now been busted.
An anti-doping scheme which only catches and bans athletes after they have won (eg Armstrong and other top cyclists) is useless. The code is clearly not creating a level playing field at the time events take place.

If a level playing field is what is wanted then scrap the code completely. Everyone will then be playing by the same rules.

This is so wrong imho, that I dont even know where to begin.

For starters there has never been a "level playing field" in doping. Those with money and access to the best doctors always get the best drugs. One of the complaints about Armstrong was he wanted to have Postal as the best doping team in the sport. btw he probably succeeded in that endeavor.

Secondly, what you are promoting is a free for all where no regard at all is paid to athletes welfare. All this for what? So that we can sit in front of the TV to watch our entertainment. Gladiators 21st century style. I find it appalling that we are so willing to encourage young healthy people to take performance enhancing drugs just for a few moments at the game or in front of the box with a beer in hand.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is so wrong imho, that I dont even know where to begin.

For starters there has never been a "level playing field" in doping. Those with money and access to the best doctors always get the best drugs. One of the complaints about Armstrong was he wanted to have Postal as the best doping team in the sport. btw he probably succeeded in that endeavor.

Secondly, what you are promoting is a free for all where no regard at all is paid to athletes welfare. All this for what? So that we can sit in front of the TV to watch our entertainment. Gladiators 21st century style. I find it appalling that we are so willing to encourage young healthy people to take performance enhancing drugs just for a few moments at the game or in front of the box with a beer in hand.

spot on. most people have not seen the long term impact on health doping has. if one is in it would be compulsory for all staring at 15 to get drafted. this is why doping is banned.
 
Secondly, what you are promoting is a free for all where no regard at all is paid to athletes welfare.
I am not promoting that. Why should there be different welfare considerations for athletes compared with other people? Surely employed athletes are entitled to the same protection from their employers on welfare matters as miners and construction workers. I have not suggested removing those welfare protections. If an athlete is self employed or an amateur his welfare is surely his own concern.
 
This is so wrong imho, that I dont even know where to begin.

For starters there has never been a "level playing field" in doping. Those with money and access to the best doctors always get the best drugs. One of the complaints about Armstrong was he wanted to have Postal as the best doping team in the sport. btw he probably succeeded in that endeavor.

Secondly, what you are promoting is a free for all where no regard at all is paid to athletes welfare. All this for what? So that we can sit in front of the TV to watch our entertainment. Gladiators 21st century style. I find it appalling that we are so willing to encourage young healthy people to take performance enhancing drugs just for a few moments at the game or in front of the box with a beer in hand.
say no to drugs.
cut your legs off and go bionics
 
The second biggest tragedy of this saga after the players being treated by human guinea pigs, is allowing flogs of the highest order such as Hardie and Ings a soapbox to voice their ignorant opinions and the pathetic Australian media are dumb enough to keep going back to them for more.

The sooner I never hear of both of them the better my life will be
Just put them on ignore. These threads read so much better.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

August 23 - The NRL announce that Stephen Dank has been banned for life from their code.
August 24 - Ben McDevitt appears on the ABC's Offsiders program.

What's the problem, it was already public knowledge?
 
August 23 - The NRL announce that Stephen Dank has been banned for life from their code.
August 24 - Ben McDevitt appears on the ABC's Offsiders program.

What's the problem, it was already public knowledge?

But, but, but.....

Martin Hardie....but

Its not fair. Essendon are the victims here...and Dank. Dank is a victim. Close ASADA and the whole problem is solved

Won't somebody think of the player's children!

Edit: Has Hardie actually got anything right in this whole saga? And Ings. Don't get me started on Ings.
 
But, but, but.....

Martin Hardie....but

Its not fair. Essendon are the victims here...and Dank. Dank is a victim. Close ASADA and the whole problem is solved

Won't somebody think of the player's children!

Edit: Has Hardie actually got anything right in this whole saga? And Ings. Don't get me started on Ings.

For one claiming not to have an agenda, he sounds very much like someone with a agenda. He is getting overly technical I think on his points of law, saying that Dank has not had a final decision handed to him by a sporting tribunal, which I think is a bit rich. He's just been banned for life FFS. I'm not sure of the NRL's technical rules, but it might be that they can't actually conduct a tribunal case around him because he no longer works in the NRL, and the events happened a few years previously. But I think a life ban handed out by the NRL commission should count as a final decision.
 
For one claiming not to have an agenda, he sounds very much like someone with a agenda. He is getting overly technical I think on his points of law, saying that Dank has not had a final decision handed to him by a sporting tribunal, which I think is a bit rich. He's just been banned for life FFS. I'm not sure of the NRL's technical rules, but it might be that they can't actually conduct a tribunal case around him because he no longer works in the NRL, and the events happened a few years previously. But I think a life ban handed out by the NRL commission should count as a final decision.

Pretty much agree but I've never heard Hardie say he hasn't got an agenda. Clearly he has and given his prior associations he shouldn't be making comments on this case while portraying himself as impartial. He's about as impartial as Paul Little on this business.
 

Yeah, thanks for the link.

My view is its a load crap. Both his claim of impartiality and his comments on the the release of the information. If the CEO of ASADA can release information he deems to be in the public interest then I don't see where there can be any problem. Either way, the AFP has written to him to confirm the referral is being evaluated and I'm willing to bet the evaluations says its all sweet.

Hardie has everything wrong so far and this will probably be further evidence to avoid his advice in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top