Triple Moron is such a shitcunt station.
13 Likes
Gees you have a filthy mouth!! 
Hilarious!
9 Likes
It’s a bit pricy, but Bomba (aka Bomber) has a talk coming up…
Here is a good topic for an academic paper.
Remember, CAS adjudicators were prominent QCs and lawyers. This strand was included to justify the outcome.
At CAS, when questioned three years later, several players could not remember Stephen Dank being present at interstate games. Change rooms are generally full of staff, supporters and sponsors and players are focused on their preparations, not on who is present. The doctor stated Dank was present at interstate games.
WADA used this as tenuous evidence to challenge a players’ credibility or lack thereof.
Exactly what bearing and value does this ‘evidence’ have on any sort of legal case, let alone a anti doping matter?
5 Likes
So which aged care home do you live in?
1 Like
Re evidence, WADA now claiming that, along with IOC, positive testing for clenbuterol by some Jamaican sprinters was not proceeded with because of low thresholds. According to some reports, the low threshold justification is scientifically spurious and in any event, there is no such clause in the WADA code. It is also contended that the contaminated meat justification would be unlikely, as the Jamaican team did not source their meat from China.
So much for WADA investigative powers as it cannot trace clenbuterol supply to athletes.
At the same time it can virtually rub out a whole team for a year because the team may have accidentally taken TB4.
More to come now that the IAAF TUE exemptions have been cyber hacked. Why should TUE exemptions be confidential?
5 Likes
O Bomber Girl…you always remind me of angels and spring flowers…keep it up. Love ya…
2 Likes
5 Likes
Yeah, I dunno.
I don’t read newspapers - I have an online subscription to BBC, and gather my news from various sources - but not msm. I have a FB account - which I haven’t visited for over 4 years. I’m not on twitter. I do just fine, personally, socially, and business-wise.
3 Likes
Lets paint the full facts instead of cherry-picking to suit an agenda - It was a range of athletes from a range of countries who had low levels of clenbuterol in their system - I am happy this has passed through to the keeper because clenbuterol positives has been an ongoing issue due to contamination of meat - It’s no surprise the IOC or WADA will not proceed with these cases seeing the retesting of the 2008 samples came from the Beijing Olympics - Seeing that China and Mexico have issues issues with clenbuterol being added to meat - It’s a potential minefield for the IOC/WADA to pursue these cases and obtain a successful prosecution - Not pursuing low threshold clenbuterol is not new - For example in cycling in 2014 there was 4 or 5 positives to clenbuterol after the Tour of Beijing which were not actioned - Back in Mexico 4 or 5 years ago at a FIFA Under 20 World Cup there were over 100 positives for clenbuterol which were never actioned.
I can explain, but alas I’d have to kill everyone.
6 Likes
Clenbuterol is a prohibited substance, I assume.
Notwithstanding the quantity, athletes displaying Clenbuterol in their system have breached the WADA rules. This seems like a black and white case for anti doping? No, not quite.
WADA rules exist, but WADA bureaucrats are charged with applying them. WADA bureaucrats can decide not to prosecute. Why? How?
WADA bureaucrats who decide which athletes to target and who not to target. WADA are chronically underfunded so they can’t target everybody. So, WADA bureaucrats have decided they don’t necessarily have to follow their own rules. These bureaucrats have awarded themselves a special privilege that enables them to look the other way if they so wish.
I may be mistaken, but I sincerely doubt the formal process of how WADA makes such decision (ie. do we prosecute or do we look the other way ) is NOT formalised in the WADA Articles of Association. WADA bureaucrats are making this up as they go along. These bureaucrats need to tell all athletes and sponsors how these rules work and how they are applied.
I dont really need to raise the issue of country sponsorship and how that could be used to influence WADA bureaucrats thinking about prosecuting that countries athletes.
WADA bureaucrats are crooks and WADA is a crock.
12 Likes
WADA is not chronically underfunded for their role in the Anti-Doping Movement - WADA effectively oversee all the rules and regulations that underpin the system - The actual prosecution of cases is done by NADO’s and Sporting Organisations - WADA does have the option to appeal decisions by other tribunals as in the EFC 34 case - The latest clenbuterol cases were never going far, because they fit in with minute amounts of the substance which in the past has been proven to come from meat - Prosecuting would have wasted unnecessary dollars, as well as putting athletes under financial pressure.
WADA do not need any more money - I would in fact cut their funding and redirect it towards NADO’s - Especially in countries where NADO’s have little presence in their countries.
From a recent the science of sport article:
"Given the set of facts around this, including historical Jamaican anti-doping laxity, that is a difficult concept to swallow at face value. Why are they innocent, but not the kayaker? It’s even more ridiculous when you discover the lengths that the IOC and Jamaica went to in the Beijing Olympic Village precisely to avoid clenbuterol contamination!
Jamaica, for instance, flew in its own meat, prepared by its own cooks. The IOC had rigorous quality controls in place, because it was known that clenbuterol contamination was possible."
4 Likes
Further, if not chronically underfunded, for what purpose did we, the Australian public, give WADA US $100,000 to prosecute Essendon players?
“THE Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority will stump as much as US$100,000 towards WADA’s prosecution of the Essendon 34”.
7 Likes
Imagine if the police force chose which cases to prosecute based on third party funding arrangements.
There’d be a Royal Commission…
5 Likes
So, why did the NADOs not act? Why did ASADA fund WADA’'s case to pursue a team from a wholly domestic sport? Why did the government give ASADA special funding to cover its pursuit of the Essendon players? Perhaps Mr Hunt’s public servants could hand over their information. . So far they have refused to do so to the public , notwithstanding their FOI obligations.
It is not enough for the Health Department to tell Hunt there is nothing new… It may not be new to them, but I bet a lot would be new to him as well as to us.
5 Likes
None of us live in an aged care homes, we’re just all ignorant.
What the eyes don’t see the heart don’t grieve about.
1 Like
Stabby
I reckon you are on the money. WADA picks off those athletes that are easy to get. And with the Australian government’s backing through Ley and with our money and our ASADA lawyers they got a result to justify themselves. Meanwhile the real cheats with real positive tests went their merry way.
9 Likes
It might be difficult to understand at face value, but WADA and NADO’s have been burnt with cases of minute qualities of clenbuterol in an athletes system, being unsuccessfully prosecuted - Unless you have a large quantity in your system it will be let through to the keeper.
And of course like Big Allan you are cherry picking to suit an agenda - Could have sworn you two are journalists - And you are doing exactly what you accuses WADA,CAS and ASADA of doing - Doubt that Jamaica was the only country who flew in their own cooks and food stuffs - And the report we are discussing mentions athletes from other countries having clenbuterol in their system - But let’s continue only discussing Jamaica