NRL Players and family members in hot water

[Big Pete]

I don't know, I was never interested in what the better report was, what I was interested in was providing members with some information that I found compelling. Information that for all intents and purposes could have been included in the report for all we know, but we don't because none of us have seen it. I thought maybe you had since I know your stance on evidence but it appears I was wrong to think you knew the facts the report had established.

It's still a very fascinating insight into the case, with oral testimonies provided by those who were much closer to the situation than anybody on this board as well as some evidence to support their investigation.

 

[Huge]

I don't know, I was never interested in what the better report was, what I was interested in was providing members with some information that I found compelling. Information that for all intents and purposes could have been included in the report for all we know, but we don't because none of us have seen it. I thought maybe you had since I know your stance on evidence but it appears I was wrong to think you knew the facts the report had established.

It's still a very fascinating insight into the case, with oral testimonies provided by those who were much closer to the situation than anybody on this board as well as some evidence to support their investigation.

If I had the report and as able to legally share it, I would even if I found the conclusions distasteful. Personally, I think the clubs management should have had their balls ( tits ?) torn off for in my opinion that is where the real failure was. When Bruno Cullen and his team were in the Broncos machinery they were a part of the Broncos but were not 'the' Broncos . In the same way the management team in the Sharks were not the Sharks, their
club, our club are much more than that. I know they represent the club but they are not the ladies in the stalls baking cakes to raise funds or any one of the dozens of others that help a club. Who is hurt when a clubs management fails are the heart and soul people and that's why I would bitterly oppose a club, any club being thrown out or crippled for the secretive actions of a few.

I would have supported a ten year ban and a huge fine for anyone who let the players down and that includes the coach if it was conclusively proven that he was part of the problem. I honestly don't believe the players had much of a clue and I don't expect of them a standard I have never been able to achieve myself. Yeah, they should have known blah blah blah, they are responsible blah blah blah. It's like the fine print 99% of us tick ' yes, I have read and understood ' etc..we do it and if it came back to **** us the fucker would say 'you should have known ', 'you are responsible' . Perfect, not I ,lazy much.

 

[Morkel]

Serious ? You're not suggesting we take Earls word for it but reject the Sharks claim they didn't know ! Can't have it both ways I'm afraid. I actually don't know what the Sharks said to investigators nor do I know what Earl said or claimed. I do know that both parties were interviewed and two bodies investigated all the available evidence. Like I wrote earlier, it's over and any anger should be directed at those that decided the penalties.

I also don't know for a fact that the Sharks were told not to tell anyone. Perhaps they were, I just don't know that. I didn't read every thing written about them as I know for a fact that we are often spoon fed information that suits and frequently relevant facts are conveniently left out or deliberately omitted because they don't suit the writers view.

On on the face of it ,it does appear Earl has been harshly treated but he has the right to have these things appealed or revisited . I think if I knew everything there is to know I could form a reasoned view and I think that's true for most of us.

What we all should remember though is that these events occurred four years ago, they have been dealt with by an independent body, ASADA and that there are only three players from that time still in the NRL. It's not a whole team or a big number.

Precisely, you can't have it both ways, which is why both Earl and the Sharks players both equally had grounds to suspect it was not above board.

As for your claim of Earl distributing and selling PEDs, you were absolutely incorrect. For someone so besotted with truth vs innuendo, it amazes me that you're arguing about something that you admit you have not researched fully, at least in terms of what's publicly available. Regardless of whether the articles are skewed towards a certain agenda, certainly someone as wise as you can cut through the BS and extract the facts?

My main bugbear remains this: The NRL made it very clear that it would show leniency with those who told the truth, and punish those who deliberately withheld information. Instead, we have Earl, who spilled his guts, cop a huge bag, and the Sharks, who puckered up, get banned for literally a handful of NRL games. For mine, the only person out of this who can hold their head high is Earl. He admitted his mistakes, he was honest, and he co-operated to his full ability. The Sharks, the players and staff included, can go get fucked.

 

[Huge]

Precisely, you can't have it both ways, which is why both Earl and the Sharks players both equally had grounds to suspect it was not above board.

As for your claim of Earl distributing and selling PEDs, you were absolutely incorrect. For someone so besotted with truth vs innuendo, it amazes me that you're arguing about something that you admit you have not researched fully, at least in terms of what's publicly available. Regardless of whether the articles are skewed towards a certain agenda, certainly someone as wise as you can cut through the BS and extract the facts?

My main bugbear remains this: The NRL made it very clear that it would show leniency with those who told the truth, and punish those who deliberately withheld information. Instead, we have Earl, who spilled his guts, cop a huge bag, and the Sharks, who puckered up, get banned for literally a handful of NRL games. For mine, the only person out of this who can hold their head high is Earl. He admitted his mistakes, he was honest, and he co-operated to his full ability. The Sharks, the players and staff included, can go get fucked.

Last first. How do you know Earl did all these things ? Admissions, honesty, cooperation?
Stunningly you laud Earl ! Admitting he was a drug cheat and you think he can hold his head high !
You might need to show me where the NRL would show leniency although I am not disputing that. It may well be the case.
I can't cut through anything without all the facts. Yes, I'm wise because I've lived a long time, am observant and well read with experience combined with
an above average intelligence. A good combination to gather some wisdom.
I didn't claim Earl distributed ped's or sold them.

The Sharks players were poorly advised and acted on instructions. Earl apparently acted on his own volition.
What's your problem with the 22 players who had nothing to do with drugs ? What sort of person does that ?

 

[Foordy]

The Sharks players were poorly advised and acted on instructions.

fine have it your way ... the Sharks players have done no wrong ...

but they should have got a two year suspension for being the stupidest, most moronic athletes on the planet.

under anti-doping rules it doesn't matter whether the players new they were taking something illegal or simply taking something given to them by their coaches/trainers etc. they are still responsible, no If's, buts or maybes. they are just fucking lucky that they never returned a positive test result, because if they did they would have gotten a 2 year suspension, and the "but sir, my coach gave it to me" defence wouldn't work

 

[Morkel]

I didn't claim Earl distributed ped's or sold them.

What has been in the media is that Earl KNOWINGLY used ped's ,sold and distributed ped's . To whom he sold them is unknown to me and if he refused to name names ( IF ) then perhaps that may be why he was given a heavier sentence.

Incredible that you refuse to believe the media reports because of deliberate bias, yet you yourself use the exact same tactics to force your agenda upon others. Yet you wonder why many posters on here treat your opinions on topics such as this as tainted and disingenuous? What is worse: Presenting the facts in such a way as to twist the truth?; Or to deliberately falsify information in order to justify your stance? In the above you insinuated that the media reported that Earl distributed and sold PEDs. Knowing you, you'll say try to weasel out of that top quote and say "I never claimed it, the media reported it", but as I've already said, no such thing was ever reported. I can only assume that you extrapolated Earl's Trafficking charge to mean he was a supplier to others. Which leads me to this:

I can't cut through anything without all the facts. Yes, I'm wise because I've lived a long time, am observant and well read with experience combined with
an above average intelligence. A good combination to gather some wisdom.

So, seeing as you refuse to watch the Earl interview, that would mean that you don't have all the facts? At least, not the ones available to us, which are the ones that the majority of us here are basing our opinions on. To deliberately avoid such information, and yet still hold such a steadfast opinion on something, that'd be considered, what, ignorant? Arrogant? Probably a bit of both. Certainly foolish. Nothing about what you've argued here comes across as wise.

Speaking of wise:

None, not one of you knows a fucking thing about what went on yet you're all so strident in your views. What's worse is you are convinced that you and your view is absolutely correct yet cannot for a single moment sit back and consider you may not know all the details and hell, maybe just maybe you could be wrong. That's the difference , you're perfect , your knowledge is complete and your view is the 'right' one. ****, if I didn't know better I'd think you were talking about religion because there are no more certain people than the indoctrinated.

...."maybe just maybe you could be wrong". Figured it out yet? Oh come on, such a learned, wise man can surely figure out what I'm suggesting to you? Or is it absolutely unfathomable in your mind to even consider that you yourself are bound by the same expectations that you hold of everyone else?

 

[Huge]

fine have it your way ... the Sharks players have done no wrong ...

but they should have got a two year suspension for being the stupidest, most moronic athletes on the planet.

under anti-doping rules it doesn't matter whether the players new they were taking something illegal or simply taking something given to them by their coaches/trainers etc. they are still responsible, no If's, buts or maybes. they are just fucking lucky that they never returned a positive test result, because if they did they would have gotten a 2 year suspension, and the "but sir, my coach gave it to me" defence wouldn't work

Why do you insist on twisting words or reading into my posts things not intended ? No one has said the Sharks players did no wrong, why make such a moronic ( your word ) statement ?

Thanks for the information about the players responsibility, who would have guessed that was the case. As if that hasn't been covered at length and you'd have to be a really stupid twat if you were unaware . Lucky for me I already knew it was the players responsibility. Amazingly, the NRL knew that too and yet they gave them a lenient penalty...mmmm. Guess that would mean you should be angry with the NRL for getting it wrong.

 

[Foordy]

Why do you insist on twisting words or reading into my posts things not intended ? No one has said the Sharks players did no wrong, why make such a moronic ( your word ) statement ?

Thanks for the information about the players responsibility, who would have guessed that was the case. As if that hasn't been covered at length and you'd have to be a really stupid twat if you were unaware . Lucky for me I already knew it was the players responsibility. Amazingly, the NRL knew that too and yet they gave them a lenient penalty...mmmm. Guess that would mean you should be angry with the NRL for getting it wrong.

you do nothing but defend the Sharks players ... continually blaming Dank and others who administered the PED program.

Of course I am fucking angry at the NRL for trying to make this go away but making a BS deal... FTR, I'm also angry with ASADA for offering the deal in the first place and WADA for not appealing the penalties, like they are reportedly doing with the AFL players.

none of the takes away from the fact that under current anti-doping rules the Sharks players were 110% in the wrong and should have been given the mandatory 2 year suspension, regardless of who gave them or injected them with the PEDs

 

[Huge]

Incredible that you refuse to believe the media reports because of deliberate bias, yet you yourself use the exact same tactics to force your agenda upon others. Yet you wonder why many posters on here treat your opinions on topics such as this as tainted and disingenuous? What is worse: Presenting the facts in such a way as to twist the truth?; Or to deliberately falsify information in order to justify your stance? In the above you insinuated that the media reported that Earl distributed and sold PEDs. Knowing you, you'll say try to weasel out of that top quote and say "I never claimed it, the media reported it", but as I've already said, no such thing was ever reported. I can only assume that you extrapolated Earl's Trafficking charge to mean he was a supplier to others. Which leads me to this:



So, seeing as you refuse to watch the Earl interview, that would mean that you don't have all the facts? At least, not the ones available to us, which are the ones that the majority of us here are basing our opinions on. To deliberately avoid such information, and yet still hold such a steadfast opinion on something, that'd be considered, what, ignorant? Arrogant? Probably a bit of both. Certainly foolish. Nothing about what you've argued here comes across as wise.

Speaking of wise:



...."maybe just maybe you could be wrong". Figured it out yet? Oh come on, such a learned, wise man can surely figure out what I'm suggesting to you? Or is it absolutely unfathomable in your mind to even consider that you yourself are bound by the same expectations that you hold of everyone else?

I've never thought that I couldn't be wrong and have always thought that way. You see, I'm not strident in my opinions and rarely am absolute about anything that I don't have all the facts on. I say rarely but really mean never.

I haven't refused to watch the Earl interview but what has that to do with facts ? Earl protesting his innocence or otherwise is not factual evidence. I didn't insinuate Earl sold ped's , I stated it was reported in the media. Do you actually know what the word 'insinuate' means ? I also freely acknowledged that the media is unreliable on the whole and even pointed out that we are often misled either through straightforward deception or omissions. What I did keep writing was that I don't know all the facts and never will. I know you don't either but only one of us has a strident view of the merits of the punishments. Me, I'd rather leave it to the entities that investigated the whole saga.

I neither believe or disbelieve media reports. I take them for what they are, that is some truth and some bullshit supposition. Quite often mere opinion is offered as news. It isn't due to bias, it's because I know the way the world works. A large dose of healthy scepticism is required. That's wisdom, get some if you can manage it.

 

[Morkel]

I've never thought that I couldn't be wrong and have always thought that way. You see, I'm not strident in my opinions and rarely am absolute about anything that I don't have all the facts on. I say rarely but really mean never.

I haven't refused to watch the Earl interview but what has that to do with facts ? Earl protesting his innocence or otherwise is not factual evidence. I didn't insinuate Earl sold ped's , I stated it was reported in the media. Do you actually know what the word 'insinuate' means ? I also freely acknowledged that the media is unreliable on the whole and even pointed out that we are often misled either through straightforward deception or omissions. What I did keep writing was that I don't know all the facts and never will. I know you don't either but only one of us has a strident view of the merits of the punishments. Me, I'd rather leave it to the entities that investigated the whole saga.

I neither believe or disbelieve media reports. I take them for what they are, that is some truth and some bullshit supposition. Quite often mere opinion is offered as news. It isn't due to bias, it's because I know the way the world works. A large dose of healthy scepticism is required. That's wisdom, get some if you can manage it.

Please find me a link to this.

 

[Kaz]

I so want to read this book.

https://www.bookdepository.com/Whatever-it-Takes-Josh-Massoud/9781863957373

But Gallen sent in the lawyers.

Also

Cronulla Sharks captain Paul Gallen says ASADA scandal prevented he and his wife from having another baby


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ing-another-baby/story-fni3fqyo-1226956548880

Did he think the peptides he took would affect the baby.

 

[Huge]

Please find me a link to this.

Just google 'drug trafficking'
That's what the media reported and what I commented on. I also said the media is untrustworthy and that I didn't know all the facts. So what's your problem or are you scrambling to find something, anything you can to find fault?

 

[Morkel]

Just google 'drug trafficking'
That's what the media reported and what I commented on. I also said the media is untrustworthy and that I didn't know all the facts. So what's your problem or are you scrambling to find something, anything you can to find fault?

No, find me a link to a single article that mentions anything about Sandor Earl supplying and selling drugs to other people.

 

[Huge]

No, find me a link to a single article that mentions anything about Sandor Earl supplying and selling drugs to other people.

Why ? What would that do ? He was charged with trafficking....

 

[Huge]

No, find me a link to a single article that mentions anything about Sandor Earl supplying and selling drugs to other people.

Also, how do you supply a link..never done that before

 

[Huge]

No, find me a link to a single article that mentions anything about Sandor Earl supplying and selling drugs to other people.

said.
"It was entirely for his own use."
ASADA believe this trip constituted one of the elements of the trafficking charges against Earl.
But the anti-doping watchdog also possessed text messages from Dank’s phone and others that implicated Earl in further trafficking activity.
The text messages suggested that Earl was the "middle man" in several transactions that do not involve other NRL players or athletes bound by the WADA code.
It’s understood those transactions involved prescription drugs, as well as WADA-banned substances, and took place for a period of time after Earl’s initial consultations with Dank and the Cabramatta clinic.
Mr Unsworth said there was no evidence suggesting Earl had distributed or sold the drugs, but the wide nature of the NRL’s Anti-Doping Policy definition of "trafficking" meant the charge could still be laid.
Earl was initially interviewed by ASADA on August 4 over allegations he had merely used banned peptides.
The trafficking accusations were first raised during that interview, but Mr Unsworth objected because the more serious claim was not raised in Earl’s initial interview notice.
He was issued with a second interview notice and re-interviewed the following day. Earl was confronted with the text messages and other evidence of trafficking during that meeting.
The above is from an article that appeared on August 30 th 2013 in the Daily Telegraph...good enough?

 

[Morkel]

said.
"It was entirely for his own use."
ASADA believe this trip constituted one of the elements of the trafficking charges against Earl.
But the anti-doping watchdog also possessed text messages from Dank’s phone and others that implicated Earl in further trafficking activity.
The text messages suggested that Earl was the "middle man" in several transactions that do not involve other NRL players or athletes bound by the WADA code.
It’s understood those transactions involved prescription drugs, as well as WADA-banned substances, and took place for a period of time after Earl’s initial consultations with Dank and the Cabramatta clinic.
Mr Unsworth said there was no evidence suggesting Earl had distributed or sold the drugs, but the wide nature of the NRL’s Anti-Doping Policy definition of "trafficking" meant the charge could still be laid.
Earl was initially interviewed by ASADA on August 4 over allegations he had merely used banned peptides.
The trafficking accusations were first raised during that interview, but Mr Unsworth objected because the more serious claim was not raised in Earl’s initial interview notice.
He was issued with a second interview notice and re-interviewed the following day. Earl was confronted with the text messages and other evidence of trafficking during that meeting.
The above is from an article that appeared on August 30 th 2013 in the Daily Telegraph...good enough?

Perfect. That's exactly what I was after:

Mr Unsworth said there was no evidence suggesting Earl had distributed or sold the drugs, but the wide nature of the NRL’s Anti-Doping Policy definition of "trafficking" meant the charge could still be laid.

Which leads me once again back to this:

What has been in the media is that Earl KNOWINGLY used ped's ,sold and distributed ped's .

Which is absolute bullshit. At best it shows that you are ignorant of certain critical elements of this argument. At worst it shows you deliberately lied in order to make it seem as if Earl was actively involved in the the supply chain, as opposed to just another end user. Regardless, it shows that you are using the same tactics that you berate others for. You claim some moral and intellectual high ground, but when it comes to the crunch, your habitual condescending attitude merely paints a picture of stubborn arrogance.

And again, you are oblivious to the irony. One thing we both agree on is that to force your ideas on others through unrelenting dogma is both dangerous and worthy of contempt. You like to use that as a main argument against organised religion, and couple it with the idea of ignoring facts and reason in order to force an ideal on others. Yet I can not recall a single moment that you have given credit to an opposing view at this site. You march in to town preaching knowledge & wisdom, demand others bend to your superior viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is accused of inferiority and a foolishness in not being able to consider opposing views. If you view religion with disdain, then by now, surely, you can see why I look at you with the same disgust and bemusement.

I feel I have made my point clear now, I'm sure I won't need to repeat myself in future.

 

[Huge]

Perfect. That's exactly what I was after:



Which leads me once again back to this:



Which is absolute bullshit. At best it shows that you are ignorant of certain critical elements of this argument. At worst it shows you deliberately lied in order to make it seem as if Earl was actively involved in the the supply chain, as opposed to just another end user. Regardless, it shows that you are using the same tactics that you berate others for. You claim some moral and intellectual high ground, but when it comes to the crunch, your habitual condescending attitude merely paints a picture of stubborn arrogance.

And again, you are oblivious to the irony. One thing we both agree on is that to force your ideas on others through unrelenting dogma is both dangerous and worthy of contempt. You like to use that as a main argument against organised religion, and couple it with the idea of ignoring facts and reason in order to force an ideal on others. Yet I can not recall a single moment that you have given credit to an opposing view at this site. You march in to town preaching knowledge & wisdom, demand others bend to your superior viewpoint, and anyone who opposes is accused of inferiority and a foolishness in not being able to consider opposing views. If you view religion with disdain, then by now, surely, you can see why I look at you with the same disgust and bemusement.

I feel I have made my point clear now, I'm sure I won't need to repeat myself in future.

Lol...silly boy. Mr Unsworth is his lawyer/ adviser! He has no standing. I left that information there totally certain you would see only that which you wanted to see. You totally glossed over the two preceding sentences ! That's why I think that you are unable to think rationally, such zeal, such enthusiasm. So little thought. Read the whole article which totally supports my contention that the media reported that Earl had sold and or distributed drugs. Over to you but please, don't fail to apologise.