Essendon Saga continues

[God is an Englishman]

Sorry Mr Olympic Tester I didn't know anabolic steroids were a banned substance, my coach said they were fine.

That's OK then, we'll let you off and you can keep your gold medal.

I love the extremes you use. Why not add rocket fuel as well? I said if I believe they were genuine, or maybe you missed that part.

So if you believe them that they didn't know that's fine. I'm new to this country, I did t know it wasn't allowable to kill someone.

Oh, well you know now. Don't do it again.

[Bomber]

Sorry Mr Olympic Tester I didn't know anabolic steroids were a banned substance, my coach said they were fine.

That's OK then, we'll let you off and you can keep your gold medal.

I love the extremes you use. Why not add rocket fuel as well? I said if I believe they were genuine, or maybe you missed that part.

So if you believe them that they didn't know that's fine. I'm new to this country, I did t know it wasn't allowable to kill someone.

Oh, well you know now. Don't do it again.

There are instances where you can still kill someone and not be convicted or found guilty of murder.

[God is an Englishman]

There's a legal definition of murder.

What's the legal definition of being a drug cheat?

[Bomber]

There's a legal definition of murder.

What's the legal definition of being a drug cheat?

Being proven beyond any doubt via positive drug test.

[God is an Englishman]

There's a legal definition of murder.

What's the legal definition of being a drug cheat?

Being proven beyond any doubt via positive drug test.

I'd have though an admission of guilt was even better

[Bomber]

There's a legal definition of murder.

What's the legal definition of being a drug cheat?

Being proven beyond any doubt via positive drug test.

I'd have though an admission of guilt was even better

If you knew you were guilty. You've heard of recanted statements before.

[God is an Englishman]

He admitted it, recant all you like - it's on record

[LFTWNG11]

There's a legal definition of murder.

What's the legal definition of being a drug cheat?

Being proven beyond any doubt via positive drug test.

lol ignorance is bliss isn't it Bomber?

According to your definition Lance Armstrong is not a drug cheat.

Comfortable satisfaction is all that is required. Essendon players should known this after attending WADA training every year. Did you know ignorance is not an excuse when breaking laws/rules??

[Bomber]

He admitted it, recant all you like - it's on record

He admitted injecting something, "I believe it was........" - is not definitive that he definitely took something illegal. Why didn't it show in blood sample test?

[God is an Englishman]

He admitted it, recant all you like - it's on record

He admitted injecting something, "I believe it was........" - is not definitive that he definitely took something illegal. Why didn't it show in blood sample test?

Why didn't anything show up in Armstrong's blood test?

[Bomber]

He admitted it, recant all you like - it's on record

He admitted injecting something, "I believe it was........" - is not definitive that he definitely took something illegal. Why didn't it show in blood sample test?

Why didn't anything show up in Armstrong's blood test?

Ask WADA. And then ask why bother with such tests if they don't always (supposedly) show what's in them.

Next we'll just use polygraphs and use their results as gospel over sample testing. Similarly absurd after all.

[God is an Englishman]

I'd say an admission is better than a positive test anyway

[Bomber]

Do you know for sure you're last flu injection was in fact a flu injection? What would you say if tests proved it wasn't conclusive?

[God is an Englishman]

Do you know for sure you're last flu injection was in fact a flu injection? What would you say if tests proved it wasn't conclusive?

I've never had a flu injection, so I'm fairly confident on that one

[Bomber]

Do you know for sure you're last flu injection was in fact a flu injection? What would you say if tests proved it wasn't conclusive?

I've never had a flu injection, so I'm fairly confident on that one

Your most recent injection/inoculation then.

PS - word is the 34 players appealing the decision to Swiss court.

[God is an Englishman]

Do you know for sure you're last flu injection was in fact a flu injection? What would you say if tests proved it wasn't conclusive?

I've never had a flu injection, so I'm fairly confident on that one

Your most recent injection/inoculation then.

PS - word is the 34 players appealing the decision to Swiss court.

My last injection was about 2 years ago for a damaged shoulder. Judging by the fact that my shoulder was better about 2 hours later, again I'm fairly confident.

However, facts are I am responsible for what's in my body and had I failed a drugs test because of it then that would be my fault.

No one else but mine. Not my mum's, mine.

[Bomber]

However, facts are I am responsible for what's in my body and had I failed a drugs test because of it then that would be my fault.

Pertinent point in red. Many thanks.

[God is an Englishman]

However, facts are I am responsible for what's in my body and had I failed a drugs test because of it then that would be my fault.

Pertinent point in red. Many thanks.

I wouldn't have been so stupid as to admit it

[Bomber]

However, facts are I am responsible for what's in my body and had I failed a drugs test because of it then that would be my fault.

Pertinent point in red. Many thanks.

I wouldn't have been so stupid as to admit it

Only if you sourced and self-injected would you know for sure anyway

[God is an Englishman]

The athlete is responsible for what goes into his body.

They told him what was in it, he admitted knowing what it was, it was a banned substance.

Aussies are strong on drugs in sport

My coach gave it to me is even worse than my mum gave it to me

[Bomber]

You go to hospital for an operation. Your anaethsiatist (sp?) fucks up and puts something else than what he's meant to and you die. I guess you're responsible for your own death.

[God is an Englishman]

That was put in your body against your will. Very different to sitting there and allowing it to happen.

[Bomber]

That was put in your body against your will. Very different to sitting there and allowing it to happen.

Bollocks! You authorised the operation. You therefore authorise what's injected to you, regardless of what the substance was. You're fault?

[God is an Englishman]

That was put in your body against your will. Very different to sitting there and allowing it to happen.

Bollocks! You authorised the operation. You therefore authorise what's injected to you, regardless of what the substance was. You're fault?

Yes, you authorised the operation and what that operation entails. If the surgeon does something wrong then that is not what the operation entails.

[Bomber]

That was put in your body against your will. Very different to sitting there and allowing it to happen.

Bollocks! You authorised the operation. You therefore authorise what's injected to you, regardless of what the substance was. You're fault?

Yes, you authorised the operation and what that operation entails. If the surgeon does something wrong then that is not what the operation entails.

You have heard of the occasion when anaethsatist has done wrong and injects incorrect dosage/drug etc. Patient dies (or has permanent injury). Doctor at fault gets sued and loses (insurance pays) as it's clearly their fault. Person authorising treatment (of what they believe to be above board and without harm) is therefore totally faultless. If you then ask patient (assuming they survive) did you authorise injection of such and such and are you aware of exactly what was meant to be injected plus correct dosage, 99% of population wouldn't have a clue, but still signed the consent forms. Are they responsible for what was injected in this instance? Never!
Now sit back and digest that for a while and you'll see that the world is not black and white.

[God is an Englishman]

so we're the injections now given against their consent?

Watson has even said that he knew he took a banned substance. Completely different to your scenario you have described which is people being injected without their knowledge.

[N5 1BH]

You have heard of the occasion when anaethsatist has done wrong and injects incorrect dosage/drug etc. Patient dies (or has permanent injury). Doctor at fault gets sued and loses (insurance pays) as it's clearly their fault. Person authorising treatment (of what they believe to be above board and without harm) is therefore totally faultless. If you then ask patient (assuming they survive) did you authorise injection of such and such and are you aware of exactly what was meant to be injected plus correct dosage, 99% of population wouldn't have a clue, but still signed the consent forms. Are they responsible for what was injected in this instance? Never!
Now sit back and digest that for a while and you'll see that the world is not black and white.

In the above scenario did the patient also get out of his bed, leave the hospital grounds and conspire with the anaesthetist to have injections down a back alley without the knowledge of the house doctor

[Bomber]

so we're the injections now given against their consent?

Watson has even said that he knew he took a banned substance. Completely different to your scenario you have described which is people being injected without their knowledge.

Bollocks. He said he thought he took (whatever it was) which he believed wasn't banned (and at some point it wasn't but subsequently WADA changed course). Even then he didn't test positive for it so you can go in circles all you like, means little and hardly a point that should be considered as fact.

And so now I take an extreme scenario to show a point and you (and n51bh) don't like it, but its ok to use extremes for your own argument. Hypocritical a bit?

Bottom line, I showed you how one can clearly NOT be remotely responsible for what goes into their body.

If you want to live in a world of kangaroo courts, so be it. I personally object to such a system which can show someone as guilty without hard evidence.

[God is an Englishman]

You can make all the extreme points you want.

It doesn't change the fact that they weren't injected against their will, they knew what was going in their bodies and wada confirmed it was banned.

If they had been grabbed and held down and injected then you're point might be valid.


Under your scenario of the Players having no fault then all that is now required is for every athlete to allow all injections and never ask what's in them as apparently ignorance makes it OK.

Sorry officer I didn't know I wasn't allowed to kill people

[Bomber]

You can make all the extreme points you want.

It doesn't change the fact that they weren't injected against their will, they knew what was going in their bodies and wada confirmed it was banned.

If they had been grabbed and held down and injected then you're point might be valid.


Under your scenario of the Players having no fault then all that is now required is for every athlete to allow all injections and never ask what's in them as apparently ignorance makes it OK.

Sorry officer I didn't know I wasn't allowed to kill people

WADA found them guilty on the basis of probability and nothing more. After all, they take that as being good enough. As I said, if you're happy to live in a society which that is the norm, then fine, but we may as well be under a Nazi regime as well.
Hope you or your heirs are never judged in such a way. I dare say if they were, you'd be the first to seek legal advice.