ABEFC hypocrisy once again rears its ugly head...

Remove this Banner Ad

Reality Check! said:
Now let's compare this to Jobe Watson's admission of being administered drug AOD-9604 back in 2013.

- It was not prohibited at the time it was administered.
Click to expand...
Yes it ****ing was.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Reality Check! said:
citation needed
Click to expand...
WADA statement has been linked many, many times and I believe one or two news articles might have mentioned it at the time.

#inb4wadaislying
 
Chief said:
WADA statement has been linked many, many times and I believe one or two news articles might have mentioned it at the time.

#inb4wadaislying
Click to expand...
Classic ABEFC hypocrisy right here. Apparently it's good enough to rely on something WADA says and allow them not to have comprehensive records of periods in qwhich a drug was classified as prohibited, and yet when it comes to Essendon failing to provide any evidence that they took Thymosin B it's all YUH PAPER SHREDDER!
 
Reality Check! said:
Classic ABEFC hypocrisy right here. Apparently it's good enough to rely on something WADA says and allow them not to have comprehensive records of periods in qwhich a drug was classified as prohibited, and yet when it comes to Essendon failing to provide any evidence that they took Thymosin B it's all YUH PAPER SHREDDER!
Click to expand...

Are you for real? If it hasn't been passed fit for human consumption, then it is banned for WADA-compliant sports. AOD-9604 has not been passed fit for human consumption. Therefore AOD-9604 is banned, and has always been banned. The various inductive arguments that it wasn't banned in 2012 aren't without merit, but none of them counter the above deductive argument that it was.
 
Reality rules said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...layers-secretly-passed-on-20130729-2qu51.html
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...layers-secretly-passed-on-20130729-2qu51.html
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/why-did-dank-use-aod-on-the-essendon-players-20130828-2sqxe.html
Click to expand...

I know critical thinking probably isn't your greatest strength, so I'll let you in on a little secret. The Age is an ABEFC organization. The article actually goes on to explain (in a very roundabout way I must admit) that Dank was fully entitled to order the drug, but I'm tipping you're some naïve 15 year old so I'll let you off.

Lance Uppercut said:
No it's a complete false equivocation. Two entirely different actions will result in two entirely different reactions. The only reason you are arguing they should be the same is this completely bullshit theory that both are "morally repugnant", which is just utter shit, as a cover for your own victim complex agenda.

People quite rightly take a different view of a young man having a few lines to a potential team wide doping scenario. One is maybe a poor decision, the other if true is not only cheating, but it brings up massive integrity and health issues, writ large.

That's quite aside from the separate argument that moralising wowsers who think they have the right to judge what someone does to their own body in the off season in the privacy of their own hotel room should stick their moral righteousness up their own arse.

Bit this is more than that. This is you not only moralising like you have some kind of right, which in reality you don't, but also using this to fuel your own victim complex and having the audacity to berate others for some imagined hypocrisy, and you can't even see it.

I can, and do, criticise the posters of this board for a lot of things, but this is just unwarranted, unfair, churlish, embarrassing and, I'm sorry, downright stupid
Click to expand...


So many ad hominems in this one post. In fact I'm going to call your post an ad Eminem for the amount of bullshit you threw out there.
 
Reality Check! said:
the age explain ..that Dank was fully entitled to order the drug.
Click to expand...

And the tribunal found that as an EFC employee he agreed not to purchase those substances and follow the WADA code.. Go and read the leaked transcript of his sentencing hearing, this was crystal clear.

So whose right? The age or the tribunal?
 
Reality Check! said:
I know critical thinking probably isn't your greatest strength, so I'll let you in on a little secret. The Age is an ABEFC organization. The article actually goes on to explain (in a very roundabout way I must admit) that Dank was fully entitled to order the drug, but I'm tipping you're some naïve 15 year old so I'll let you off.




So many ad hominems in this one post. In fact I'm going to call your post an ad Eminem for the amount of bullshit you threw out there.
Click to expand...
so many ad hominems? O rly? Why don't you list them? Or do you just think anyone who disagrees with you is playing the man? lol
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
The only reason you are arguing they should be the same is this completely bullshit theory that both are "morally repugnant", which is just utter shit, as a cover for your own victim complex agenda.

Bit this is more than that. This is you not only moralising like you have some kind of right, which in reality you don't, but also using this to fuel your own victim complex and having the audacity to berate others for some imagined hypocrisy, and you can't even see it.
Click to expand...

"literally" half of your post was an ad hominem, and the rest was just a straw man argument.
 
QUOTE="Lance Uppercut, post: 39599268, member: 15630"]Clearly you don't know what any of those terms mean[/QUOTE]
Clearly you don't. I think it's about time you gave yourself an uppercut... with a book.
 
Reality Check!" said:
Clearly you don't. I think it's about time you gave yourself an uppercut... with a book.
Click to expand...
ok if you're not going to or can't actually rebut the points then I won't bother responding again and we can let this sad little thread sink without a trace to where it belongs eh?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
No it's a complete false equivocation. Two entirely different actions will result in two entirely different reactions. The only reason you are arguing they should be the same is this completely bullshit theory that both are "morally repugnant", which is just utter shit, as a cover for your own victim complex agenda.

People quite rightly take a different view of a young man having a few lines to a potential team wide doping scenario. One is maybe a poor decision, the other if true is not only cheating, but it brings up massive integrity and health issues, writ large.

That's quite aside from the separate argument that moralising wowsers who think they have the right to judge what someone does to their own body in the off season in the privacy of their own hotel room should stick their moral righteousness up their own arse.

Bit this is more than that. This is you not only moralising like you have some kind of right, which in reality you don't, but also using this to fuel your own victim complex and having the audacity to berate others for some imagined hypocrisy, and you can't even see it.

I can, and do, criticise the posters of this board for a lot of things, but this is just unwarranted, unfair, churlish, embarrassing and, I'm sorry, downright stupid
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
ok if you're not going to or can't actually rebut the points then I won't bother responding again and we can let this sad little thread sink without a trace to where it belongs eh?
Click to expand...

what's the point? You already proved yourself an idiot when you said I didn't know what an ad hominem was. You didn't make any arguments, it was all just 'blah blah you have a victim complex, you're a moral righteous ******'. Then to top it all off you just berated me with more insults. I won't stand for this kind of crap. Go do what you do best and fight with the ABEFC bogans in the other threads.
 
Reality Check! said:
what's the point? You already proved yourself an idiot when you said I didn't know what an ad hominem was. You didn't make any arguments, it was all just 'blah blah you have a victim complex, you're a moral righteous ******'. Then to top it all off you just berated me with more insults. I won't stand for this kind of crap. Go do what you do best and fight with the ABEFC bogans in the other threads.
Click to expand...
lol I said I wouldn't reply but this is top good. Have a look at the team I support genius. I've done a lot more heavy lifting on this board that you have princess
 
Lance Uppercut said:
lol I said I wouldn't reply but this is top good. Have a look at the team I support genius. I've done a lot more heavy lifting on this board that you have princess
Click to expand...
What the actual ****, I just gave you a ****ing compliment and I never claimed to be some general of rhe anti-ABEFC campaign. I think you have some narcissistic issues mate and not in a good way.
 
Reality Check! said:
Classic ABEFC hypocrisy right here. Apparently it's good enough to rely on something WADA says and allow them not to have comprehensive records of periods in qwhich a drug was classified as prohibited,
Click to expand...
It falls under a category of banned substances. That category was brought in on a particular date.

Ta dah! Records!
 
Chief said:
It falls under a category of banned substances. That category was brought in on a particular date.

Ta dah! Records!
Click to expand...
After 3 years they still don't understand what the S0 and S2 classifications are. It's a bit like the dumb kid in class. Ideologically the teacher wants the poor kid to survive and thrive.practically speaking you can't **** the rest of the class over for the kid who can't remember anything from the first lesson, doesn't want to do his homework, and has his middle finger stuck right up at you.
 
DERIBERATE said:
After 3 years they still don't understand what the S0 and S2 classifications are. It's a bit like the dumb kid in class. Ideologically the teacher wants the poor kid to survive and thrive.practically speaking you can't **** the rest of the class over for the kid who can't remember anything from the first lesson, doesn't want to do his homework, and has his middle finger stuck right up at you.
Click to expand...
Yes, many people are still struggling with the concepts. ASADA answered me with a clear and concise explanation when I asked them directly.
 
Chief said:
Yes, many people are still struggling with the concepts. ASADA answered me with a clear and concise explanation when I asked them directly.
Click to expand...
Peter! Hi!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

ABEFC hypocrisy once again rears its ugly head...

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top