Search results for query: *

Nothing like bringing an eight year old thread back from the dead... Clearly I was seeing the future of umpiring, if only I used my skills for something more worthwhile like lotto.

What right does anyone have to that money? Why do people believe they are entitled to decide what happens with someone else's earned money? The deceased earned the money, the deceased should have the right to pass it on to whomever they see fit. What makes you think you get the right to share...

Speak all you want. I see far more on the left trying to shut down others speech than the other way round...

Why not protest without the violence, and without labelling everyone who disagrees as a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic nazi. I know that actually talking with people to try change minds with reasoned arguments and plans that can actually be achieved rather than just abusing them seems...

So what you're saying is the left believe that if democracy doesn't go their way, they're justified to commit violence.

The clock stops on a score the moment the goal umpire indicates the score with 1 or 2 fingers. Clock stops on OOB when the Boundary Umpire blows his whistle. All in 10.5.1 of the Laws.

News just in, China's population hits 600 Billion...

Seems perfectly reasonable when you put it that way.

Charters was going to be a whistleblower- Gatto arrived and he changed his tune. Robinson had a lot to say - got a nice little pay day. A person claiming to be a player's mother started talking, got shut up real quick. Hal Hunter ended up with a confidential settlement. Dank has been...

Who'd have thought that cheaters are lying pricks.

Except for the guy that injected the players who told a reporter that TB4 was the cornerstone of his program. Oh, until he was told that TB4 was banned. That was when he changed his mind.

They admitted to taking part in a supplement program that has since been found to use prohibited substances.

Nope, it's nowhere near enough. The anti doping code they agreed to makes it very clear, that an athlete is responsible for what enters their own body. Even bad advice is covered under the code to avoid the "I just did what my coach said" excuse. It's written this way to help protect not...

I was led to believe that this whole saga was nothing but a storm in a teacup, that would be thrown out at every level of scrutiny in the first five minutes... Hahahaha!

If there was ANY chance of them being legit, there is NO way he would destroy anything to prove it. Risk management - how stupid would you have to be to believe that...

At the same time, Reid's lack of follow up on his hand written letter left on a desk on such a critical matter is just as unforgivable. This man not only had a duty to his employer, he also swore an oath as part of his profession, and when players health was in jeopardy, wrote a letter, left it...

Now, ask yourself a question. Why would David Evans have information destroyed that would clear the players? The only answer is that he wouldn't. The destroyed information clearly must have proven the case of PED use.

You have become a farce. As has been explained to you multiple times, they can force him to attend an interview, but can't force him to say anything. He made it very clear to them that he would not answer questions. ASADA attempted court action to force him to speak, and were rejected. Yep...

What would happen if Dank actually duped EFC like they claimed? There would actually be some sort of paper trail for Thymomodulin (or something else). There would have been entries for whatever acceptable drugs were claimed on the DCF's whenever players were tested. Doc Reid would have known...

The actions of him and the others involved in the program have massively impacted the reputation and credibility of the entire code throughout the world. Downplay it as much as you want as just a little local issue for local people, but since this happened, Australian Rules Football has been...

It's only insulting when the opinion is stupid and contrary to the available information. This whole garbage of saying anyone who disagrees with you is a bully is a joke. Everyone has been given the opportunity to make a point over the years this has happened. People who have a point have been...

Can't argue that point, but unlike some others accept it's on both sides. Unsurprisingly though, you throw an insult at other posters instead of addressing a point, you bully.

Bruce is an unhinged lunatic who believes his interpretation of law is more valid than a judges, who then applies his incorrect interpretation to incomplete, one sided information. He then throws his toys from the cot when questioned and adds the questioners name to his mailing list of rants...

Now if only the players were actually able to provide a single ounce of evidence to support the scatter-gun doubt they were trying to introduce. There was plenty of information shown in the tribunal that supported doping. The only evidence to support the non-doping option was proven...

Then you have two choices - check yourself through the many methods as you are supposed to, or accept the risk that "good bloke Dank" is right and deal with the punishment under the terms you agreed to for your employment if he wasn't.

Anyone would think that if Essendon's woes were all caused by the lone wolf Dank, that someone at Essendon just might try threatening him with legal action, yet crickets are all we hear...

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Reid "blew the whistle on Essendon" by reporting use of a non prohibited substance didn't he? What were they supposed to do? Why didn't he blow the whistle when the prohibited stuff was being used rather than write an internal letter he didn't follow up?

You mean like the AFL that covered it up until their hand was forced by the ACC and had to act, but even then their first reaction was to warn the club they knew were doping so they could destroy the evidence and obfuscate rather than address the allegations... Where is there a tiny bit of...

Isn't it amazing the difference between IAAF and AFL. One is now showing that it's important to be clean, the other just that the image of being clean is important (as long as it doesn't lose too much money and doesn't affect "good blokes".