Do we know when Hunt is due to front Senate Estimates?
As I read Deckamās posts his issue is with presentation , not content. Nothing wrong with that. If he wants to take issue with accuracy and relevance, also nothing wrong with that.
I am used to writing research briefing papers and would use a different style from Bruce. Bruce may see his work as intended for a different purpose.
Wow. Get back on track folks. I'm going to claim the fault here for making a fairly uneducated comment about one of Bruce's more acerbic letters. I've since been educated. Little Bomber you need to read Deckham's largely pro Bruce comments a little harder, no need to start lining our own up.
I agree leave Little Bomber alone. His instincts are right. Bruce has been and will be invaluable.
Wow. Get back on track folks. Iām going to claim the fault here for making a fairly uneducated comment about one of Bruceās more acerbic letters. Iāve since been educated. Little Bomber you need to read Deckhamās largely pro Bruce comments a little harder, no need to start lining our own up.
Oh boy, Senate Estimates.
My favourite.
I have posted this a few times because we need to point out that people like Deckham are the people that have allowed our Essendon executive to get away with what they have done to our players. Weak, dumb. It seems to be symptom afflicting so many Essendon supporters. So here it is Deckham, you disloyal Essendon tool. Hand in your membership at the door as your leave, I am sure Liz will give you a new one somewhere else. You are either part of this team or you're not, and you have proven you're are not. As Bruce, and others, would say, better to stay silent and let people think you are a dill, or should that be a Gill, then to open your mouth and prove it. It's a pity we don't know you're real identity so that we could let the players and others know where your real loyalties lie, has Liz got her arm up your back? We know she is here, watching:When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
You know what?
That should earn you a ban.
I actually agree mate. I thought you explained your point of view succinctly. It may be that LB26 didnāt read your response but that diatribe was a little excessive.
I have posted this a few times because we need to point out that people like Deckham are the people that have allowed our Essendon executive to get away with what they have done to our players. Weak, dumb. It seems to be symptom afflicting so many Essendon supporters. So here it is Deckham, you disloyal Essendon tool. Hand in your membership at the door as your leave, I am sure Liz will give you a new one somewhere else. You are either part of this team or you're not, and you have proven you're are not. As Bruce, and others, would say, better to stay silent and let people think you are a dill, or should that be a Gill, then to open your mouth and prove it. It's a pity we don't know you're real identity so that we could let the players and others know where your real loyalties lie, has Liz got her arm up your back? We know she is here, watching:When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
You know what?
That should earn you a ban.
Ease up, lb26.
I read and like most of your posts, but that last one is really uncalled for. You should delete it and the penultimate post of yours.
1. It is incomprehensible that you(SWMNBN)would be so stupid to raise the issue of leaks. It is my understanding that because you received more leaks than the urinals at the G on a hot Boxing Day Test between Australia and England that you had to revert to wearing gum boots.Haha classic Bruce
Funny and incisive and all, but neither of the intended recipients would have read past the first insult if they started in at all. So whatās the point? His more temperate letters are the model he ought to stick to. With respect.
I am sure that Bruce knows that Ms Wilson, Patrick Smith and Gillon McLachlan wouldnāt read a single word. He is obviously not writing for them. They wonāt change their attitudes. He is writing to inform us of their mistakes. He is writing to amuse us. We love to see them receive some of their own medicine. He is writing to amuse the other journalists who despise Wilson and Smith etc. Iāve been told Bruce gets good feedback from other journalists every time he attacks Wilson and Smith. One of his prized emails was sent by the late Rebecca Wilson over the Eddie McGuire drowning episode. Rebecca wasnāt sympathetic towards Caroline. As Bruce has provided 99% of our knowledge I donāt understand why people here attack him. Surely he knows what he is doing. He has a reason for each action he takes
Gotcha. Iāve always assumed there was an element of tilting at windmills (in lieu of the dragons paying any attention) to it. Glad to know thereās a strategy involved. Btw, wasnāt attacking him, just seemed a bit crass and self defeating this time around.
Look, Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, but farkme, I canāt get past a few of his opening lines either, so Iām not too sure how āoptimalā his style is. I find myself scrolling through to the poignant bits - and Iām a supporter.
As I have already said ā¦ they have to read Bruceās stuff because of the things he knows. As other have said, most of what has been exposed has been Bruceās work. Because they donāt know what he will come up with next, they have to read it in case they need to counter it. Remember, Bruce has just won a major with the Information Commissioner over ASADA. ASADA wanted him labelled a vexatious litigant in an attempt to stop him getting even more information. ASADA complained failed miserably, the Information Commissioner ruling in Bruceās favour 100 per cent. A day later, McDevitt re-signed. Whether itās ASADA, the AFL or the journos, they have to read Bruce because of his ability to keep coming up with more and more damaging information against them. And because Bruce targets who gets his email, someone like Caro or Patrick has to read the ones about them because they know their bosses are also getting the emails. You canāt defend yourself to your boss if you donāt know whatās in the email yourself. Journalism is a business full of back-stabbers ā¦
Well littlebomber - Iāll repeat - " Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, butā¦"
Happy to agree to disagree on the rest. I say - his style is not ideal.
Others think differently.
I am not arguing the validity of his work.Deckham, or is it Lizzie in the Skies with Diamonds.
When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
See, that just makes you sound like a nutter, now.
1. It is incomprehensible that you(SWMNBN)would be so stupid to raise the issue of leaks. It is my understanding that because you received more leaks than the urinals at the G on a hot Boxing Day Test between Australia and England that you had to revert to wearing gum boots.Haha classic Bruce
Funny and incisive and all, but neither of the intended recipients would have read past the first insult if they started in at all. So whatās the point? His more temperate letters are the model he ought to stick to. With respect.
I am sure that Bruce knows that Ms Wilson, Patrick Smith and Gillon McLachlan wouldnāt read a single word. He is obviously not writing for them. They wonāt change their attitudes. He is writing to inform us of their mistakes. He is writing to amuse us. We love to see them receive some of their own medicine. He is writing to amuse the other journalists who despise Wilson and Smith etc. Iāve been told Bruce gets good feedback from other journalists every time he attacks Wilson and Smith. One of his prized emails was sent by the late Rebecca Wilson over the Eddie McGuire drowning episode. Rebecca wasnāt sympathetic towards Caroline. As Bruce has provided 99% of our knowledge I donāt understand why people here attack him. Surely he knows what he is doing. He has a reason for each action he takes
Gotcha. Iāve always assumed there was an element of tilting at windmills (in lieu of the dragons paying any attention) to it. Glad to know thereās a strategy involved. Btw, wasnāt attacking him, just seemed a bit crass and self defeating this time around.
Look, Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, but farkme, I canāt get past a few of his opening lines either, so Iām not too sure how āoptimalā his style is. I find myself scrolling through to the poignant bits - and Iām a supporter.
When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
Iām pretty sure Iāve read everything publicly available that Bruce has written, though, as I said, I have skimmed over a few bits. The bits I think are superfluous. And he hasnāt offended me in the slightest.
This doesnāt need to go around in circles, guys. And it certainly does not have to devolve into anything less than respectful discussion. I disagree with Bruceās style of writing. I donāt like the name-calling, for amusement, or otherwise. Iām not comfortable at that level. That isnāt strange, surely? Please donāt overlook certain things Iāve said while emphasising others to make an argument stronger. We know who takes that path.
Yeah-nah.
Calm down.
I love a good burn as much (more than, actually) the next guy, but I didnāt finish his diatribe either.
And I can assure you Liz doesnāt have anything up Deckhamās or my butt.
I doubt sheās either of our types.
I have posted this a few times because we need to point out that people like Deckham are the people that have allowed our Essendon executive to get away with what they have done to our players. Weak, dumb. It seems to be symptom afflicting so many Essendon supporters. So here it is Deckham, you disloyal Essendon tool. Hand in your membership at the door as your leave, I am sure Liz will give you a new one somewhere else. You are either part of this team or youāre not, and you have proven youāre are not. As Bruce, and others, would say, better to stay silent and let people think you are a dill, or should that be a Gill, then to open your mouth and prove it. Itās a pity we donāt know youāre real identity so that we could let the players and others know where your real loyalties lie, has Liz got her arm up your back? We know she is here, watching:
When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
The Joint Investigation is the root cause of the problem. To suggest otherwise is naive.Under the ASADA Act they didnt have the power to make players answer questions. Under this scenario players couldnt be charged seeing ASADA based decisions on players stating they received injections along with the consent forms.Its also important to realise that if ASADA lost the Federal Court Case they would have dropped the case because if they had to reinterview players, it would have been a case of ā no comment.ā
Clothierā¦
1. It is incomprehensible that you(SWMNBN)would be so stupid to raise the issue of leaks. It is my understanding that because you received more leaks than the urinals at the G on a hot Boxing Day Test between Australia and England that you had to revert to wearing gum boots.Haha classic Bruce
Funny and incisive and all, but neither of the intended recipients would have read past the first insult if they started in at all. So whatās the point? His more temperate letters are the model he ought to stick to. With respect.
I am sure that Bruce knows that Ms Wilson, Patrick Smith and Gillon McLachlan wouldnāt read a single word. He is obviously not writing for them. They wonāt change their attitudes. He is writing to inform us of their mistakes. He is writing to amuse us. We love to see them receive some of their own medicine. He is writing to amuse the other journalists who despise Wilson and Smith etc. Iāve been told Bruce gets good feedback from other journalists every time he attacks Wilson and Smith. One of his prized emails was sent by the late Rebecca Wilson over the Eddie McGuire drowning episode. Rebecca wasnāt sympathetic towards Caroline. As Bruce has provided 99% of our knowledge I donāt understand why people here attack him. Surely he knows what he is doing. He has a reason for each action he takes
Gotcha. Iāve always assumed there was an element of tilting at windmills (in lieu of the dragons paying any attention) to it. Glad to know thereās a strategy involved. Btw, wasnāt attacking him, just seemed a bit crass and self defeating this time around.
Look, Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, but farkme, I canāt get past a few of his opening lines either, so Iām not too sure how āoptimalā his style is. I find myself scrolling through to the poignant bits - and Iām a supporter.
When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
When we get an inquiry, Bruceās analysis, research and persistence will have been crucial. The J34 have built on his work and have been able to get traction with the MSM and some politicians. Without Bruce and the J34 we would not be on the cusp of breaking this open. Thank God for both.
The Joint Investigation is the root cause of the problem. To suggest otherwise is naive.Under the ASADA Act they didnt have the power to make players answer questions. Under this scenario players couldnt be charged seeing ASADA based decisions on players stating they received injections along with the consent forms.Its also important to realise that if ASADA lost the Federal Court Case they would have dropped the case because if they had to reinterview players, it would have been a case of ā no comment.ā
The route of the problem was the government who pressured both ASADA and the AFL due to the blackest day in sport presser.
1. It is incomprehensible that you(SWMNBN)would be so stupid to raise the issue of leaks. It is my understanding that because you received more leaks than the urinals at the G on a hot Boxing Day Test between Australia and England that you had to revert to wearing gum boots.Haha classic Bruce
Funny and incisive and all, but neither of the intended recipients would have read past the first insult if they started in at all. So whatās the point? His more temperate letters are the model he ought to stick to. With respect.
I am sure that Bruce knows that Ms Wilson, Patrick Smith and Gillon McLachlan wouldnāt read a single word. He is obviously not writing for them. They wonāt change their attitudes. He is writing to inform us of their mistakes. He is writing to amuse us. We love to see them receive some of their own medicine. He is writing to amuse the other journalists who despise Wilson and Smith etc. Iāve been told Bruce gets good feedback from other journalists every time he attacks Wilson and Smith. One of his prized emails was sent by the late Rebecca Wilson over the Eddie McGuire drowning episode. Rebecca wasnāt sympathetic towards Caroline. As Bruce has provided 99% of our knowledge I donāt understand why people here attack him. Surely he knows what he is doing. He has a reason for each action he takes
Gotcha. Iāve always assumed there was an element of tilting at windmills (in lieu of the dragons paying any attention) to it. Glad to know thereās a strategy involved. Btw, wasnāt attacking him, just seemed a bit crass and self defeating this time around.
Look, Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, but farkme, I canāt get past a few of his opening lines either, so Iām not too sure how āoptimalā his style is. I find myself scrolling through to the poignant bits - and Iām a supporter.
As I have already said ā¦ they have to read Bruceās stuff because of the things he knows. As other have said, most of what has been exposed has been Bruceās work. Because they donāt know what he will come up with next, they have to read it in case they need to counter it. Remember, Bruce has just won a major with the Information Commissioner over ASADA. ASADA wanted him labelled a vexatious litigant in an attempt to stop him getting even more information. ASADA complained failed miserably, the Information Commissioner ruling in Bruceās favour 100 per cent. A day later, McDevitt re-signed. Whether itās ASADA, the AFL or the journos, they have to read Bruce because of his ability to keep coming up with more and more damaging information against them. And because Bruce targets who gets his email, someone like Caro or Patrick has to read the ones about them because they know their bosses are also getting the emails. You canāt defend yourself to your boss if you donāt know whatās in the email yourself. Journalism is a business full of back-stabbers ā¦
Well littlebomber - Iāll repeat - " Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, butā¦"
Happy to agree to disagree on the rest. I say - his style is not ideal.
Others think differently.
I am not arguing the validity of his work.
Deckham, or is it Lizzie in the Skies with Diamonds.
When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
1. It is incomprehensible that you(SWMNBN)would be so stupid to raise the issue of leaks. It is my understanding that because you received more leaks than the urinals at the G on a hot Boxing Day Test between Australia and England that you had to revert to wearing gum boots.Haha classic Bruce
Funny and incisive and all, but neither of the intended recipients would have read past the first insult if they started in at all. So whatās the point? His more temperate letters are the model he ought to stick to. With respect.
I am sure that Bruce knows that Ms Wilson, Patrick Smith and Gillon McLachlan wouldnāt read a single word. He is obviously not writing for them. They wonāt change their attitudes. He is writing to inform us of their mistakes. He is writing to amuse us. We love to see them receive some of their own medicine. He is writing to amuse the other journalists who despise Wilson and Smith etc. Iāve been told Bruce gets good feedback from other journalists every time he attacks Wilson and Smith. One of his prized emails was sent by the late Rebecca Wilson over the Eddie McGuire drowning episode. Rebecca wasnāt sympathetic towards Caroline. As Bruce has provided 99% of our knowledge I donāt understand why people here attack him. Surely he knows what he is doing. He has a reason for each action he takes
Gotcha. Iāve always assumed there was an element of tilting at windmills (in lieu of the dragons paying any attention) to it. Glad to know thereās a strategy involved. Btw, wasnāt attacking him, just seemed a bit crass and self defeating this time around.
Look, Iām as anti-the-world as anyone here, and I do appreciate all Bruce has done, and all he continues to do, but farkme, I canāt get past a few of his opening lines either, so Iām not too sure how āoptimalā his style is. I find myself scrolling through to the poignant bits - and Iām a supporter.
When Bruce dissects Wilson and Smith he is doing it to amuse himself and us. However, if you had bothered to read his 103-page complaint against ASADA; his 116-page demolition of the CAS decision; his 73-page defence of ASADAās attack on him with the Information Commissioner; his 180-page attack on the AFL with the VWA; his 91-page demolition of Dillonās 36-page charge sheet against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson, you would notice that the style and tone is completely different.
As Bruce is a sensitive soul I am sure that he is very apologetic for offending you Deckham. As you have put in the same amount of effort as Bruce, I think that it is only fair that Bruce be compelled to send everything he writes to you first for editing, before he distributes his work.
The big brass at Essendon are hardly likely to say anything now after all this time, they've spent denying whatever it was that was taken???http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/allan-hird-rita-panahi-finally-gets-it-about-the-afl-now-she-needs-to-do-the-same-with-asada/news-story/8fa82d0d2a783099fda49fe8ad681954Allan Hird: Focus needs to be on ASADA as wellAllan Hird, Herald Sun
18 minutes agoTHE penny has finally dropped for Rita Panahi about the AFL.
Her article reveals she now knows the AFL attempted to manipulate the process in relation to the Essendon supplements saga.
Welcome to the party Ms Panahi.
Those of us who have read Chip Le Grandās excellent book, the Straight Dope, Michael Warnerās reporting in the Herald Sun and the transcripts of the Federal Court case Hird vs. ASADA have known since 2013 that the AFL has never been interested in the truth.
Indeed, it has actively sought to hide the truth to protect its office bearers.
But as the saying goes better late than never.
All Ms Panahi has to do now, on her self-realisation quest, is to have the same revelation about ASADA under its soon to be departing CEO Ben McDevitt.
She runs the line that Mr McDevitt is some kind of white knight on his charger trying to clean up sport. Well the facts show he is quite different.
The facts show outgoing ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt is anything but a white knight, says Allan Hird. Picture: Ray Strange
Let me go through some lines she uses to pump up Mr McDevittās tyres. Ms Panahi quotes Mr McDevitt as saying: āwe know that hundreds, if not thousands, of injections were given to Essendon players during the course of 2012ā.Think about that for a minute. If Mr McDevitt knew the number of injections, why didnāt he give an exact figure? Itās either hundreds or itās thousands.
Either he knew itās hundreds or he knew itās thousands. It canāt be both.
Perhaps Mr McDevitt is confusing the number of injections with the sweet coloured sprinkles mums and dads use to make fairy bread.
Ms Panahi relies on the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport that found the players had taken Thymosin Beta 4, a substance banned under the WADA code to defend Mr McDevitt.
But how did the players get to be tried by CAS? Simply because Mr McDevitt was after convictions not justice.
The CAS decision could never have been made if Australian legal principles had applied.
That is the precise reason why Mr McDevitt did not challenge the decision of the AFL Tribunal comprising two Australian Judges and an eminent barrister that found the players had no case to answer.
The tribunal used Australian legal principles and Australian rules of evidence when it cleared the players of any wrongdoing.
ASADA had the right under the WADA architecture to appeal the AFL Tribunal decision in Australia. But Mr McDevitt knew that he would lose because the case he ran before the tribunal had been thrown out because of lack of evidence.
Thatās right, there was no evidence the players had taken TB4.
Ben McDevitt knew that he would lose because the case he ran before the tribunal had been thrown out because of lack of evidence. Picture: Ray Strange
Instead, ASADA under Mr McDevittās watch gave WADA $US100,000, use of ASADAās lawyers and the access to ASADAās failed tribunal case to have the players tried again before CAS.He knew Australian legal principles and rules of evidence would not apply and he knew the case before CAS would be a fresh trial.
So here we have a highly paid Australian public servant funding the trial of 34 Australians in a foreign court knowing they would not receive Australian justice.
Furthermore, under Australian law, there is a simple but powerful principle, double jeopardy, and this means you canāt be tried for the same crime twice.
But the Essendon players were, and Mr McDevitt engineered it that way.
Ms Panahi accepts Mr McDevittās line that the players did not reveal the injections they had as an indication of their guilt. It is simply not true the players did not tell about their injections.
Rita Panahi accepts Mr McDevittās line that the players did not reveal the injections they had as an indication of their guilt. It is simply not true.
Many did, and in any case, at the time in 2012, there was no requirement for them to do so. That statement by Mr McDevitt, besides being untrue, was an irrelevant distraction.
The players were charged with taking TB4. Yet there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that TB4 was ever mentioned in any document or conversation to the players.
In fact, the players first heard of TB4 when they were charged with taking it. So, what is the point in Mr McDevitt trying to infer the players had something to hide?
Mr McDevitt has history in making things up to justify his case. In his testimony to senate estimates on March 3, 2016, he said the players did not do any research into the substances they were given. He said all they had to do was look up the website.
Well, many people have done so, including some of the players, and the WADA banned list for 2012 does not list TB4.
So, what would be the point of the players going to the website? The substance they were charged with taking was not listed.
All of this of course calls into question Ms Panahiās attempt to portray Mr McDevitt as some sort of white knight trying to clean up sport. More likely his aim throughout was convictions, not justice.
My advice to Ms Panahi would be: before jumping in to champion someone, do your research. The corollary is also before trying to impugn the Essendon playersā reputations, do your research.
Allan Hird is a former Essendon player and father of Essendon great James Hird.
Rita Panahi accepts Mr McDevittās line that the players did not reveal the injections they had as an indication of their guilt. It is simply not true.
Is she for real? Has it ever occurred to her that maybe the players genuinely didnāt know what they were injected with.
She has a peanut for a brain.
I am so pleased A.Hird has stepped in. He writes very clearly and succinctly. He is a great figurehead for this.
the āwe donāt know what we tookā line was adopted by the club at the insistence of the AFL spin doctor Ms Lukinā¦the players know what they had it was what they agreed to have ā¦do they know it beyond any doubt ā¦no ā¦unless they had every substance checked before it was injected into themā¦they trusted they were given what they were told they were givenā¦and tests would indicate that to be the case. So this we donāt know what substances they were is crapā¦they were charged with TB4 a single substance as no evidence of anything else was ever found ā¦no TB4 or referrals to it were ever found either but I guess they had to have something to charge them with seeing as how both ASADA & AFL CEOās put such stock in the āfactā that Essendon were drug cheatsā¦well they had to be didnāt they?? Hird & the executive wanted a better supplements programā¦Dank was at the club do the mathā¦as far as ASADA were concerned 2 plus 2 did equal five ā¦it had to because they couldnāt prosecute if the answer was 4 ā¦If I were the club Iād be coming clean about the pressure to say they didnāt know what the players had because I would hazard a guess they did.
1 Like
The fact that CAS were able to restart the case a new and manipulate the evidence to get a conviction in their favour was wrong.
Corrupt bunch of ā ā ā ā heads.
1 Like
Meanwhile, in the UK Parliamentary inquiry which started off looking at blood doping, UKAD has advised that it has no objections to the Committee looking at the SKY cycling issue, notwithstanding UKAD's separate inquiry. Australian Senate Committees have a track record in covering the waterfront beyond the initial narrow scope of their inquiries, Goes to show that a Senate Committee in this case could extend its mandate beyond ASADA ethics to all relevant matters.
The reason why the committee is looking at Sky is because they share resources with British Cycling so in effect it comes under the Olympic banner. Not that there is anything wrong with this scenario.