No Opposition Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rumply

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
16,726
Likes
16,347
Location
Under Her Eye
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, 76ers
On that, I assume she has been listing it on all her drug test forms for years. A little 'heads-up' might have been nice.

I was thinking the same this morning. Ings said that ~2% of all WADA drug tests last year tested positive for this stuff, so I was wondering if WADA did the right thing & informed that 2% (preferably by registered mail) that the drug they had been using would now be banned from Jan 1...

That said, I would suspect she has been using it for 10 years because some smart cookie way back when told her it was a legal way to boost oxygen levels or whatever it's good for, so she had an advantage until the rest of the pack caught up recently, hence the drug's banning. She cant complain too much, it's done the job for her.
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,800
Likes
10,006
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
That said, I would suspect she has been using it for 10 years because some smart cookie way back when told her it was a legal way to boost oxygen levels or whatever it's good for, so she had an advantage until the rest of the pack caught up recently, hence the drug's banning. She cant complain too much, it's done the job for her.
Cynic.

;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,848
Likes
61,048
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Not mine. Some people will say that, obviously. But you'd think most people will apply common sense here.
what?!

You continually spout about how the players are guilty, wada are awesome, and efc need to take responsiblity; yet now you are more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt to a high profile tennis player who for some reason has been using a diabetes drug for 10 years that is now banned due to its performance enhancing qualities??

Truly remarkable. Wow.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,848
Likes
61,048
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Flogs gonna flog.

Although the more I read about it, the less sympathetic I get.
yes, you must be a flog to believe that a top line tennis player is using a performance enhancing substance to enhance performance?

What, because she's hella hot? Or a woman?
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Posts
504
Likes
387
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal, Miami Heat



*sigh* I knew it would happen and I'm stupid for falling for it but **** I'm still pissed. We're not a classy organisation you see, we're a callous, evil drug den that has no regard for decency :rolleyes: I mean, why bother wearing a top hat when it's gonna fall over from bending over to get ravaged.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Posts
58,348
Likes
47,448
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LFC, Demons, Melb City, Bears
what?!

You continually spout about how the players are guilty, wada are awesome, and efc need to take responsiblity; yet now you are more than happy to give the benefit of the doubt to a high profile tennis player who for some reason has been using a diabetes drug for 10 years that is now banned due to its performance enhancing qualities??

Truly remarkable. Wow.
Calm your ******* farm dude. Good grief.

When I posted that, it was reported as a drug that had been perfectly legal until about 3 weeks before she got done. So to that extent, I really didn't see her as a "drug cheat", no. To me, "cheat" implies a deliberate effort and desire to break the rules. Based on what had been reported at that time, it was a drug she'd been taking for an illness, which I accepted, so I personally didn't think that the case with her.

Since then, what I'm reading about the drug it seems maybe that wasn't the case. But given that post was made fairly shortly after it came out, I hadn't read any of that then.

There's a difference between "guilty" and "drug cheat". But I understand that gets in the way of your angry farm so feel free to carry on.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,848
Likes
61,048
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Calm your ******* farm dude. Good grief.

When I posted that, it was reported as a drug that had been perfectly legal until about 3 weeks before she got done. So to that extent, I really didn't see her as a "drug cheat", no. To me, "cheat" implies a deliberate effort and desire to break the rules. Based on what had been reported at that time, it was a drug she'd been taking for an illness, which I accepted, so I personally didn't think that the case with her.

Since then, what I'm reading about the drug it seems maybe that wasn't the case. But given that post was made fairly shortly after it came out, I hadn't read any of that then.

There's a difference between "guilty" and "drug cheat". But I understand that gets in the way of your angry farm so feel free to carry on.
"angry farm". Funny deflection man, there's only one of us cussing here.

I think your assumption is telling. The way you've acted to the afl players, the male ones, about taking a drug that was prohibited only recently in much the same way compares quite starkly to your reaction to hot chick getting done
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Posts
58,348
Likes
47,448
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LFC, Demons, Melb City, Bears
"angry farm". Funny deflection man, there's only one of us cussing here.

I think your assumption is telling. The way you've acted to the afl players, the male ones, about taking a drug that was prohibited only recently in much the same way compares quite starkly to your reaction to hot chick getting done
Well it wasn't a deflection, given I answered your post first. But righto.

Assumption in the absence of facts. Regarding the Essendon players, a LOT has come out. Re Sharapova at the time of my post, basically nothing had come out. To try and compare the two in that sense is ludicrous. You're basically implying I don't think Sharapova is guilty. She obviously is. I don't even get what point you're trying to make anymore actually.
 

pepsi

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Posts
10,290
Likes
9,935
Location
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd, Atlanta Hawks
Not even a fan of sharapova, but on the surface this seems rough. Plays her whole career using this medication/drug, then bang they ban it and in her first and only tournament since the drug is now banned, she tests positive for it. There is something fishy going on.

Wada have long wanted a big scalp in tennis, I just find it interesting that out of all the top make and female players of the past 10 years, it's sharapova who is the one caught out. Forget about the 3 males who can compete in 5 hour matches back to back in a grand slam with less than 2 days recovery or the 1 female who id's the size of a brick shithouse and once avoided a drug test at home.

Hopefully sharapova gets no longer than 3 months.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,848
Likes
61,048
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Well it wasn't a deflection, given I answered your post first. But righto.

Assumption in the absence of facts. Regarding the Essendon players, a LOT has come out. Re Sharapova at the time of my post, basically nothing had come out. To try and compare the two in that sense is ludicrous. You're basically implying I don't think Sharapova is guilty. She obviously is. I don't even get what point you're trying to make anymore actually.
of course it was a deflection, you were trying to classify my post in such a way that it becomes not about your post, to try to discredit my comments. It's a blatant if poor debating technique that rather falls over when someone simply points out what's going on.

The "point I was trying to make" was that I'm scrolling down a thread about EFC and drugs in which you've been very vocal and to my incredulity there you are saying common sense says she's not a cheat and that a journalist in the paper saying she is is a "flog".

That was the "point I was trying to make". Obviously. If you wish to rescind that view in light of further information that's just wonderful, doesn't change your immediate assumption #flogsaregonnaflog
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Posts
58,348
Likes
47,448
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
LFC, Demons, Melb City, Bears
of course it was a deflection, you were trying to classify my post in such a way that it becomes not about your post, to try to discredit my comments. It's a blatant if poor debating technique that rather falls over when someone simply points out what's going on.

The "point I was trying to make" was that I'm scrolling down a thread about EFC and drugs in which you've been very vocal and to my incredulity there you are saying common sense says she's not a cheat and that a journalist in the paper saying she is is a "flog".

That was the "point I was trying to make". Obviously. If you wish to rescind that view in light of further information that's just wonderful, doesn't change your immediate assumption #flogsaregonnaflog
Where did I mention journalists? When old mate said "it's started already" I assumed he meant HTB flogs. Hence "flogs gonna flog".

Common sense at the time says she's not a cheat as per how I earlier defined how I view a "cheat". Maybe you define it differently and see her as one. That's fine by me.
 

boncer34

Inaugural Steward
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Posts
40,457
Likes
40,225
Location
Baghdad
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Melbourne Storm
Where did I mention journalists? When old mate said "it's started already" I assumed he meant HTB flogs. Hence "flogs gonna flog".

Common sense at the time says she's not a cheat as per how I earlier defined how I view a "cheat". Maybe you define it differently and see her as one. That's fine by me.
Interesting you're prepared to use common sense for Maria but "officially their cheats" for the 34.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom