Manly's Sports Science Unit To Be Audited

[Rex]

Having a bet each way now I see, Rex?

IMO, you're heading to pretty low territory if you need to compare this with Brett's case. The two are nothing alike.
There's not even an allegation levelled at any individual for a start and most importantly, there have been no charges laid, not even a player identified.

Your post above is the first I've read where you actually concede this could have been politically motivated, but you lose credibility when you suggest there's no evidence to support this.
What you are stating is that all the reasons that were given about why the Govt would be more than happy to have had their woes off the front pages at the time, are a bunch of lies.

I think you show your true colours when you become defensive, Rex.
I'd say there are more reasons why this could be politically motivated, than reasons for it not being politically motivated.

But we'll continue to agree to disagree.

Life must be tough at the moment for you rusted on Labor fans.

Shows exactly how you jump to false conclusions based on faulty logic and no real evidence WAMF.

I have voted Labor, yes. AND I have voted Liberal.

And I've voted Liberal more than Labor.

You know sh&t. And you think you know all.

 

[Chip and Chase]

All I saw in that gus Gould/Penrith get together was a lot of shirts with Oak prominently displayed. Someone more cynical than me might think exposure and pr stunt.......

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

'Organised crime'. A modern phenomenon which consists of people on the dole trying to hatch schemes. Often with the help of a few businessmen, and maybe some labourers, process workers, lawyers, and accountants. All putting in the hours, drawing their wages, salaries (or dole) while waiting for their dastardly schemes to come to fruition.

Of course, as soon as they try to implement one of their harebrained schemes, they are immediately caught and sent to jail.

Frustrating. However, like Wiley Coyote and Sylvester the Cat, they keep trying, and failing, and trying, and failing.

This is what the conspiracy theorists among us would have you believe. There is no crime. Otherwise there would be evidence, convictions – and names!

Rugby League has been unfairly accused. Let's sue the ACC etc etc. (and no, no, we have no political agenda).

lol

 

[Hamster Huey]

Hi Hamster. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Your careful separation of the issues, suggests emotional maturity and credibility, in my eyes at least.

You said:
"It looks very much like the ACC/ASADA were pushed to a very public microphone in an untimely and unorganised manner"

This is appearances. Maybe true, maybe not. And if true, we could only speculate on the reasons. And speculation is not truth. Let's assume it was true, what reasons could there be?

eg A scenario may be that Essendon got whiff of the threat, confessed, and this pushed the button for a hasty announcement.

Another possible scenario is that the authorities saw the threat as too great to wait. That it would be irresponsible and negligent to hold off on an announcement. And part of the reason for the announcement was to immediately break the perceived links between the criminal element and the sportspeople. And no doubt this would be a result of what has been done if links existed. People at risk would have backed right off.

Another possible scenario is that the announcement was politically motivated. And there is light years of difference between seeing this as a possibility and stating it as fact - which has been a consistent thread on these discussion forums and in the media since it started. To jump to rash conclusions like this, based on inadequate evidence, is the exact same flaw as caused what was done to Brett Stewart. 2 plus 2 does not equal guilty, no matter what media shock jocks say.

The situation faced by the authorities is a very difficult one. Peptides are not found in urine tests, most drugs tests are urine tests, and even the blood tests will be lucky to detect them. Not being able to prove it in court does not mean it is not a major problem. Al Capone would never have been caught for his worst crimes without creativity. Similarly Lance Armstrong and drug tests. Calls for proof beyond doubt as the only basis for any action are simplistic and unrealistic.

What damage would have been done to anyone if the public wasn't insanely emotionally reactive? None. Zero. Zip. People would wait and see what happens, and would not prejudge.

And who most feeds and cultivates this insane emotional reactivity in the public? Until we see, we are their puppets. Mere hamsters on a spinning wheel.

I recall discussions in the recent past here, whereby some suggested that those with influence through the media, set the agenda and lead us 'sheep' to their point of view.

Focus on that point was along the lines of the owners of those outlets, but IMO it misses one of the biggest organisations in this country and their need to control the news cycle.

It is strange to see those happy to rip fans for following the general media comment, but not make that little step further and see who may have been using the media for their own purpose.

And it is extraordinary that we have people support an idea that it is better to scare off the (potential) crims from the sports scene by widely broadcasting non-specific cases with emotive slurs suggesting bad eggs in professional sport, on the back of a report that never spoke with a single governing body in sport, or potential wrongdoer at club or player level.

So now we have an ACC report which can't provide any basis for a current criminal investigation, and the release of which in a public manner will see those that potentially had cause for concern with further investigation heading to ground, likely leaving anybody at ASADA and/or ACC nowhere to go for the time being.

Meanwhile we've had a vast array of people and organisations slurred by innuendo, but for what benefit? Was it really our 'darkest days' as a sporting culture, as announced so loudly that day?

Going back to the Snake case, I would suggest that Gallop's willingness to make a vocal case against Brett, without the allowing of due process or consideration to the ongoing implications it would generate, would compare him to what the Ministers who drove that press conference did, ie. throw something under the bus to get the spotlight of themselves.

 

[Rex]

Hamster, it is clear you have 100% certainty that your version of what happened is true. And that you cannnot conceive of any different scenario. No possibility at all. Zero. Zilch. You are believing your thoughts without challenge, which is exactly what happened to most people when the Brett Stewart news emerged. They are only thoughts, not reality! You do not have perfect knowledge of everything.

Your stance puts you in the exact same space as WAMF. That is what I have been pointing out.

Once fixed into a position, you interpret everything to fit that predetermined scenario. eg You say 'darkest days' as a sporting culture, was announced so loudly that day". Do you even know by whom?

 

[Hamster Huey]

Hamster, it is clear you have 100% certainty that your version of what happened is true. And that you cannnot conceive of any different scenario. No possibility at all. Zero. Zilch. You are believing your thoughts without challenge, which is exactly what happened to most people when the Brett Stewart news emerged. They are only thoughts, not reality! You do not have perfect knowledge of everything.

Your stance puts you in the exact same space as WAMF. That is what I have been pointing out.

Once fixed into a position, you interpret everything to fit that predetermined scenario. eg You say 'darkest days' as a sporting culture, was announced so loudly that day". Do you even know by whom?

Incorrect. On the basis of the information provided publicly, the manner in which it was done and in light of interesting comments made by the major players since, I have formed a strong opinion as to why the handling of the release was flawed.

It was comments like, ''Don't underestimate how much we know and, if you are involved in this, come forward before you get a knock at the door,'' and "The findings are shocking and will disgust Australian sports fans," which very quickly had the previous head of ASADA state, "'This is not a black day in Australian sport, this is the blackest day.''

(You'll note my careful use to not use direct quotes and instead focus on the implications as taken up by others.)

I can appreciate that people will read Clare's comments and think, 'wow, these guys are ready to act,' but it is the vacuum since and less reported comments of the day which says more to me;

"John Lawler, said on Thursday he was hopeful criminal charges would be laid but refused to be drawn on which individuals, clubs or codes were being investigated or when inquiries by state and federal police would be completed." Fairfax, Feb 8.

"Confronted by Liberal senator George Brandis about the use of the terms ''suspected'' and ''possibility'' in the report, Mr Lawler replied: "With all due respect, Senator, what we have here is an intelligence report about risks and vulnerabilities. The whole point of intelligence is that it is not evidence...

...no intelligence assembled by the ACC justified any investigatory follow-up by any national or state law enforcement agency nor prompted the ACC to use its telephone interception powers to nab anybody before the public forewarning implicit in the public release of its report.'' Fairfax, Feb 18​

Say, what?!?!?

There is a mismatch here between what we were told (which formed strong opinions of those spoken with, but not involved in the report) to what the stance is now.

Has the tactic then done anything significant, long-term and sustainable to prevent the implied issues affecting professional sport? Perhaps, but given that the report is at best talking about potential 'risks' or 'vulnerabilities', was the manner in which its broadcast immediately had innocent clubs and players in the crosshairs a fair result? That's where we disagree..

 

[Rex]

"I have formed a strong opinion as to why the handling of the release was flawed."

Finally! The truth of the matter.

You have an opinion. Not the facts. Not the final truth.

So to be absolutely dogmatic as to what has happened would be ... well, ridiculous?

If you said "my opinion is that ..." OR " it seems to me that ... " then you wouldn't be acting like a Hadley or a Kent or a Wilson.

The ACC made clear they had intelligence, they never said convictable evidence. Yes? So the people who went off half cocked in hysteria were the media. Yes? Closely followed by the WAMF, and ... well, you. Yes? or No?

If the ACC, with all of their extensive investigations and intelligence should not be making any commentary in your world until they have convictable evidence, then (in your thinking) does the same standard apply to you? Or are you a special case?

 

[Hamster Huey]

"I have formed a strong opinion as to why the handling of the release was flawed."

Finally! The truth of the matter.

You have an opinion. Not the facts. Not the final truth.

So to be absolutely dogmatic as to what has happened would be ... well, ridiculous?

If you said "my opinion is that ..." OR " it seems to me that ... " then you wouldn't be acting like a Hadley or a Kent or a Wilson.

The ACC made clear they had intelligence, they never said convictable evidence. Yes? So the people who went off half cocked in hysteria were the media. Yes? Closely followed by the WAMF, and ... well, you. Yes? or No?

If the ACC, with all of their extensive investigations and intelligence should not be making any commentary in your world until they have convictable evidence, then (in your thinking) does the same standard apply to you? Or are you a special case?

I never suggested it was anything but an opinion; I simply didn't worry about 'reading between the lines' delivered on that day, and concerned myself more about what the impacts were and how those that spoke, changed their language in the days after.

I would suggest that your own opinion is just as transfixed on what you perceived out of the day, but you'll note I don't choose to try and frame that thought process against others. I would suggest you offer me the same respect.

Your last couple of paras again touches on the point I made. Go back and read the quotes from the conference and their responses to specific questions on what is being investigated. Tell me how some of those comments from the dias that day line up with the reality of (a) who actually was involved in preparing the information of the report, (b) what was specifically found beyond 'risk' to justify the broad allegations left to fall on Australian sport, and (c) what actions were immediately in place to support and deal with the issues, beyond the rushed audits.

Now try and play the ball and not the man in your next response. Labelling others is no different a tactic than those in the media you've used as the basis for questioning my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Frogz]

If it isnt, wasnt, and will be political...What is it then...

.....NRL
Chairman John Grant's startling assertion as ARL Commission celebrates first anniversary by: Andrew Webster
From: The Daily Telegraph
February 22, 2013 12:00AM


ARL Commission chairman John Grant has made the astonishing claim that the "pall" of the peptide doping scandal that has rocked rugby league is no longer a concern for NRL clubs.
As he and his fellow commissioners celebrated the governing body's first anniversary, Grant said he was comfortable with how the allegations were being handled.

Tony Whitlam QC - who has been charged with setting up the game's integrity unit - again briefed club bosses about the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into alleged doping, which came to light over a fortnight ago with the public release of an explosive Australian Crime Commission report.

There is deep anger residing within officials, coaches and players about the damage that's been done to their reputations, yet Grant believes that has now subsided.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

There is deep anger residing within officials, coaches and players

roid rage?

 

[Hamster Huey]

If it isnt, wasnt, and will be political...What is it then...

.....NRL
Chairman John Grant's startling assertion as ARL Commission celebrates first anniversary by: Andrew Webster
From: The Daily Telegraph
February 22, 2013 12:00AM


ARL Commission chairman John Grant has made the astonishing claim that the "pall" of the peptide doping scandal that has rocked rugby league is no longer a concern for NRL clubs.

As he and his fellow commissioners celebrated the governing body's first anniversary, Grant said he was comfortable with how the allegations were being handled.

Tony Whitlam QC - who has been charged with setting up the game's integrity unit - again briefed club bosses about the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into alleged doping, which came to light over a fortnight ago with the public release of an explosive Australian Crime Commission report.

There is deep anger residing within officials, coaches and players about the damage that's been done to their reputations, yet Grant believes that has now subsided.

Does that now mean a reduction in the 'educated guess' of 150 people to be interviewed on the matter?

 

[Masked Eagle]

If it isnt, wasnt, and will be political...What is it then...

.....NRL
Chairman John Grant's startling assertion as ARL Commission celebrates first anniversary by: Andrew Webster
From: The Daily Telegraph
February 22, 2013 12:00AM


ARL Commission chairman John Grant has made the astonishing claim that the "pall" of the peptide doping scandal that has rocked rugby league is no longer a concern for NRL clubs.
As he and his fellow commissioners celebrated the governing body's first anniversary, Grant said he was comfortable with how the allegations were being handled.

Tony Whitlam QC - who has been charged with setting up the game's integrity unit - again briefed club bosses about the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into alleged doping, which came to light over a fortnight ago with the public release of an explosive Australian Crime Commission report.

There is deep anger residing within officials, coaches and players about the damage that's been done to their reputations, yet Grant believes that has now subsided.

Is that the full article? No direct quotes from Grant. Also what does Grant believe has subsided? The damage to reputations or the clubs anger about it?

 

[MadMarcus]

That article just doesn't make any sense.

Oh, it's from the telegraph... carry on...

 

[Hamster Huey]

If it isnt, wasnt, and will be political...What is it then...

.....NRL
Chairman John Grant's startling assertion as ARL Commission celebrates first anniversary by: Andrew Webster
From: The Daily Telegraph
February 22, 2013 12:00AM


ARL Commission chairman John Grant has made the astonishing claim that the "pall" of the peptide doping scandal that has rocked rugby league is no longer a concern for NRL clubs.
As he and his fellow commissioners celebrated the governing body's first anniversary, Grant said he was comfortable with how the allegations were being handled.

Tony Whitlam QC - who has been charged with setting up the game's integrity unit - again briefed club bosses about the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into alleged doping, which came to light over a fortnight ago with the public release of an explosive Australian Crime Commission report.

There is deep anger residing within officials, coaches and players about the damage that's been done to their reputations, yet Grant believes that has now subsided.

Is that the full article? No direct quotes from Grant. Also what does Grant believe has subsided? The damage to reputations or the clubs anger about it?

"There's no doubt that there is a general feeling in some quarters that this has cast a pall over the whole game, and that's not what we're dealing with now - I think that's passed," Grant told The Daily Telegraph. "I think people (club chief executives and chairmen) understand more. There has been a lack of common understanding about how we got here, and what the rights are for an organisation like the ACC."

Asked specifically if he was comfortable with the public manner in which the game had been accused of wrongdoing, Grant said: "I can't comment on that. The ACC and ASADA act under very specific legislation and under their own statutes. You and I can't question that.

"There's no doubt that I sense a lot of frustration (from clubs), which is understandable. There's an inevitability of unfortunate process and rights that these organisations have, which is they have the right to disclose information to parties but those parties don't have the right to pass it on. Immediately, you have to stop the conversation." Grant also said he had been in contact with the office of federal Sports Minister Kate Lundy, who has been accused of dodging criticism by failing to attend next Wednesday's NRL season launch at The Star"

In bold is the point I get back to. Why the massive lead-in for something that essentially can't be talked about? Why parade sports heads who could not respond on their sports behalf there and then?

Surely nobody involved in the release were naïve to think that it wouldn't create a vacuum and subsequent speculation, especially given they knew how little was discussable publicly?

 

[Rex]

I never suggested it was anything but an opinion; I simply didn't worry about 'reading between the lines' delivered on that day, and concerned myself more about what the impacts were and how those that spoke, changed their language in the days after.

I would suggest that your own opinion is just as transfixed on what you perceived out of the day, but you'll note I don't choose to try and frame that thought process against others. I would suggest you offer me the same respect.

Your last couple of paras again touches on the point I made. Go back and read the quotes from the conference and their responses to specific questions on what is being investigated. Tell me how some of those comments from the dias that day line up with the reality of (a) who actually was involved in preparing the information of the report, (b) what was specifically found beyond 'risk' to justify the broad allegations left to fall on Australian sport, and (c) what actions were immediately in place to support and deal with the issues, beyond the rushed audits.

Now try and play the ball and not the man in your next response. Labelling others is no different a tactic than those in the media you've used as the basis for questioning my thoughts on the matter.

Now you're playing WAMF's victim card too? If you choose to find offence in having your thoughts challenged, then that is what you choose. Challenges to thoughts are just challenges to thoughts. Nothing personal Hamster.

The avoidance of the question means that you DO think you are a special case then? You should be allowed to freely and publicly denounce and judge named people based on mere thought without convictable evidence without challenge? But if the ACC says there is a problem, without specifically naming the people, then you cry foul & defamation of reputations? Really? Seriously?

The conspiracy theory you seem fixed on is a tad far-fetched for my liking. Not to say anything is impossible, but this seems really far-fetched. First you say that Labor had political motives in the announcement. Shocking news? When has a political party ever acted without political motives? Then you suggest they were able to get the ACC & ASADA to do their bidding - despite them knowing that they will be under a Liberal Gov't in a few short months. That seems ludicrous to me. Why would they do that? It doesn't make any sense. Then you suggest that a comment made by a former head of ASADA was done at the bidding of the Labor party. WTF?

Is your concern "image" or reality? If there is drug use, criminal involvement, etc, would you rather this be detected and acted on? And if the ACC determine that, for the greater good, this is the best approach given the well known practical difficulties, then do you have any patience to just let them play their hand and to see what comes of it?

 

[Hamster Huey]

I never suggested it was anything but an opinion; I simply didn't worry about 'reading between the lines' delivered on that day, and concerned myself more about what the impacts were and how those that spoke, changed their language in the days after.

I would suggest that your own opinion is just as transfixed on what you perceived out of the day, but you'll note I don't choose to try and frame that thought process against others. I would suggest you offer me the same respect.

Your last couple of paras again touches on the point I made. Go back and read the quotes from the conference and their responses to specific questions on what is being investigated. Tell me how some of those comments from the dias that day line up with the reality of (a) who actually was involved in preparing the information of the report, (b) what was specifically found beyond 'risk' to justify the broad allegations left to fall on Australian sport, and (c) what actions were immediately in place to support and deal with the issues, beyond the rushed audits.

Now try and play the ball and not the man in your next response. Labelling others is no different a tactic than those in the media you've used as the basis for questioning my thoughts on the matter.

Now you're playing WAMF's victim card too? If you choose to find offence in having your thoughts challenged, then that is what you choose. Challenges to thoughts are just challenges to thoughts. Nothing personal Hamster.

The avoidance of the question means that you DO think you are a special case then? You should be allowed to freely and publicly denounce and judge named people based on mere thought without convictable evidence without challenge? But if the ACC says there is a problem, without specifically naming the people, then you cry foul & defamation of reputations? Really? Seriously?

The conspiracy theory you seem fixed on is a tad far-fetched for my liking. Not to say anything is impossible, but this seems really far-fetched. First you say that Labor had political motives in the announcement. Shocking news? When has a political party ever acted without political motives? Then you suggest they were able to get the ACC & ASADA to do their bidding - despite them knowing that they will be under a Liberal Gov't in a few short months. That seems ludicrous to me. Why would they do that? It doesn't make any sense. Then you suggest that a comment made by a former head of ASADA was done at the bidding of the Labor party. WTF?

Is your concern "image" or reality? If there is drug use, criminal involvement, etc, would you rather this be detected and acted on? And if the ACC determine that, for the greater good, this is the best approach given the well known practical difficulties, then do you have any patience to just let them play their hand and to see what comes of it?

"Victim Card"? 'Conspiracy Theory' is a not so subtle way to suggest 'kooky' when debating a point.

Do you want to debate the issue at play or continue to try and move the goalposts. Seems you're more interested in labelling people to dismiss their opinions, as you are to make any comment on what I've been talking about.

You don't see the point in why parties could have made the release in the manner that they did, fine. If you don't wish to note the disruption to those affected by this, relative to the lack of definitive cases against them, so be it.

You think we should be more patient but my point was always that we didn't have to know any of it until somebody had something specific to label the sports with; not risk, suspicious and innuendo.

The point here is that people can at least share ideas and opinions without being jumped on as holding them only because somebody else said it or painting it as a point of view from a particular 'side'. That you waste as much space making those assertions would indicate to me that perhaps it isn't me that has a view tainted by the 'personal'.

 

[Rex]

"Victim Card"? 'Conspiracy Theory' is a not so subtle way to suggest 'kooky' when debating a point.

Do you want to debate the issue at play or continue to try and move the goalposts. Seems you're more interested in labelling people to dismiss their opinions, as you are to make any comment on what I've been talking about.

You don't see the point in why parties could have made the release in the manner that they did, fine. If you don't wish to note the disruption to those affected by this, relative to the lack of definitive cases against them, so be it.

You think we should be more patient but my point was always that we didn't have to know any of it until somebody had something specific to label the sports with; not risk, suspicious and innuendo.

The point here is that people can at least share ideas and opinions without being jumped on as holding them only because somebody else said it or painting it as a point of view from a particular 'side'. That you waste as much space making those assertions would indicate to me that perhaps it isn't me that has a view tainted by the 'personal'.

You can't see that you are playing the victim card when you complain that I am supposedly playing the man by challenging your thoughts? And you don't perceive that you are doing exactly what you say is unfair - playing the man - when you make that accusation? OK

You can't see that when you make up a far-fetched story that every man and his dog is somehow a puppet to the Labor Government - and hold it as unchallengeable fact - that it is a wild conspiracy theory? OK

The real point here is that emotions drive perceptions. When activated, we see in line with what we want to see. Strong emotions create strong blindness. Nothing personal to you or me. It is just human nature.

And the more forceful we are in pushing a viewpoint, the more we should look at the play of our emotions. Religious zealots and political zealots, for example, sit in the exact same boat.

 

[bones]

Note to self: avoid the 'Manly sports science' thread in future. It's boring.

 

[Hamster Huey]

"Victim Card"? 'Conspiracy Theory' is a not so subtle way to suggest 'kooky' when debating a point.

Do you want to debate the issue at play or continue to try and move the goalposts. Seems you're more interested in labelling people to dismiss their opinions, as you are to make any comment on what I've been talking about.

You don't see the point in why parties could have made the release in the manner that they did, fine. If you don't wish to note the disruption to those affected by this, relative to the lack of definitive cases against them, so be it.

You think we should be more patient but my point was always that we didn't have to know any of it until somebody had something specific to label the sports with; not risk, suspicious and innuendo.

The point here is that people can at least share ideas and opinions without being jumped on as holding them only because somebody else said it or painting it as a point of view from a particular 'side'. That you waste as much space making those assertions would indicate to me that perhaps it isn't me that has a view tainted by the 'personal'.

You can't see that you are playing the victim card when you complain that I am supposedly playing the man by challenging your thoughts? And you don't perceive that you are doing exactly what you say is unfair - playing the man - when you make that accusation? OK

You can't see that when you make up a far-fetched story that every man and his dog is somehow a puppet to the Labor Government - and hold it as unchallengeable fact - that it is a wild conspiracy theory? OK

The real point here is that emotions drive perceptions. When activated, we see in line with what we want to see. Strong emotions create strong blindness. Nothing personal to you or me. It is just human nature.

And the more forceful we are in pushing a viewpoint, the more we should look at the play of our emotions. Religious zealots and political zealots, for example, sit in the exact same boat.

In all your posts you have failed to provide anything to counter how I feel about the situation. You've guessed at how I came to my own opinion and it pretty much involves trying to anchor my views to others you wish to disparage for any number of reasons.

It is a waste of time now to both read your latest analysis on how I think and draw conclusions, or respond from this point to any of your future posts, until such time as you can focus on the points I've raised and deal with those specifically.

Peace.

 

[Rex]

Fair enough Hamster. And yes, you are right, in rereading your posts, my perception of WAMF's extremist political stance did unfairly colour my responses to you.

I don't know what might come out of all this, and I'm prepared to wait before making judgements. In answer to your points, I agree there has been some damage to reputations. I say that damage is only in the minds of those who unreasonably prejudge the players, officials, sports, etc. Within my mind there is no damage at all to anyone's reputation, just as there wasn't any damage to Brett Stewart's reputation in my mind when Gallop did his thing. IMO, all fair-minded people will take a wait and see approach to this like they did to Brett Stewart. Kneejerking sponsors reacting to kneejerking public are the biggest risk, there is little evidence of big losses here so far. No positive change comes without some risks and costs.

The reason for this announcement if they didn't have convictable evidence? It seems it is because they had sufficient intelligence to show that there is a significant problem requiring immediate action. Annersley's response was significant, as were the responses of the sports leaders. They supported the actions being taken. One clear objective was to seek confessions and dob-ins. Another was to break believed connections between the criminal element and sports people. Both of those objectives are aiming at immediate results, and are not something that would be achieved now without the announcement. There is a real push now for changes like blood passports that would have previously had stronger forces resisting them. The damage to Aussie reputations? Really it doesn't matter. A mere puff in the dark.

If ultimately it is perceived that the head of ACC, ASADA etc have shot from the hip, then that is something their careers are likely to suffer for. (Quite different to the media shockjocks who get rewarded for the same.) It is just way too early to make that call simply on the basis of a lack of public or convictable evidence.

Peace x 2