manlyfan76
There is no A.I. Just better computers
Fox sports had an interview with a doctor, was pretty good. Doc said it would be very silly to give someone in remission what is being said was given to Manor.
Three players set to be targeted by ASADA over use of banned peptide CJC-1295
- Thread starter Rusty
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
-
We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
How sad is it that a good man like Tim Mannah has to issue a statement defending his dead brother and asking for privacy because of some scungy paper
Rex
Bencher
MissKate said:
The way it reads, News Ltd are saying that Cronulla's own report makes the claim:
"A leaked extract from the 60-plus page report warns: "Based on the chronology it appears Mannah was administered with substances including CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 during the period from March to May in 2011."
If their report did say this, no wonder Irvine and the Cronulla board got nervous and reactive. The potential personal liability from this could be bankrupting? Not to mention reputations.
Curious that Cronulla's report says "Based on the chronology ...". This seems to conclude that he was drugged based on a timeline? What did the rest of the report say to draw this conclusion?
If he had been given these drugs, with or without his knowledge, IMO this would be irresponsible beyond belief. Irrespective of any scientific evidence establishing any link, to give a growth hormone to a sufferer of cancer would seem to be inconceivably irresponsible.
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
Just a friendly reminder everyone that you need to be very careful about what you post when identifying people by name.
http://www.silvertails.net/articles/site-information/5605-forum-terms-of-service
http://www.silvertails.net/articles/site-information/5605-forum-terms-of-service
Congrats to the Eels, very impressed by that statement and the 1 Mannah put out earlier this evening
Slamming the media is a time-honoured pastime, but it is missing the real point here. Slowly (very slowly) more information is coming to light about the fact that athletes have been given cutting edge performance enhancing substances, and not all of them are approved as safe or legal.
I confess I don't quite understand the preoccupation with how the news gets out, or how it was all announced in the first place, as opposed to the actual issue at hand, namely drugs in sport.
I confess I don't quite understand the preoccupation with how the news gets out, or how it was all announced in the first place, as opposed to the actual issue at hand, namely drugs in sport.
Please don't try and tell me that you think it is fine for a newspaper to publish the stuff they did yesterday, and visit the family of the guy that has passed away ?
Especially not if you are trying to make a point that it is fine to visit a grieving family over unsubstantiated reports that "maybe" some drugs hastened his demise, a claim which the cancer council and doctors have said is rubbish anyway
Especially not if you are trying to make a point that it is fine to visit a grieving family over unsubstantiated reports that "maybe" some drugs hastened his demise, a claim which the cancer council and doctors have said is rubbish anyway
Haha, yes! Publish. Visit. Publish. Visit. And don't forget the telephoto lens.
I'm finally exposed as a staunch defender of gutter journalism.
Or… maybe you just made the whole thing up for dramatic effect.
I'm finally exposed as a staunch defender of gutter journalism.
Or… maybe you just made the whole thing up for dramatic effect.
Brissie Kid
Bencher
No matter what business or sport people are in the best are all at the "cutting edge". Who doesn't drive their car at the speed limit or maybe a k/p/h over.
What we seem to have here is a group of drugs that were right on the border or being ok or not being ok. No one seems able to 100% say one way or the other.
It's as if WADA adding a drug to its list in 2013 somehow implies retrospective guilt if you were at the "cutting edge" and used the drug in 2012 or earlier.
That's a frackin' squillion miles from being evidence of major illegal drug problem in sport.
What we seem to have here is a group of drugs that were right on the border or being ok or not being ok. No one seems able to 100% say one way or the other.
It's as if WADA adding a drug to its list in 2013 somehow implies retrospective guilt if you were at the "cutting edge" and used the drug in 2012 or earlier.
That's a frackin' squillion miles from being evidence of major illegal drug problem in sport.
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Well your post could have implied you were a defender of their efforts on this one
On the contrary KE, I have been a stern critic for so long that I am scarcely surprised at each new journalistic atrocity.
As to the actual drugs issue, we have 3 camps. One believes there is no major issue at all, at least not in NRL, it is just blown up by media and politicians. Another is that we already know enough to strongly suspect a serious issue. I'm in that camp. The last is those who haven't made up their mind either way, yet.
Each position has some degree of credence, however I happen to consider the first is the weakest and I'm surprised how many people have adopted that position.
As to the actual drugs issue, we have 3 camps. One believes there is no major issue at all, at least not in NRL, it is just blown up by media and politicians. Another is that we already know enough to strongly suspect a serious issue. I'm in that camp. The last is those who haven't made up their mind either way, yet.
Each position has some degree of credence, however I happen to consider the first is the weakest and I'm surprised how many people have adopted that position.
Relax, I'm not implying any inside knowledge. And I hope I'm wrong.
No I said 'we' do. That is my suspicion. Are you asking me to re-hash everything already published on this topic??
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
9 | 8 | 1 | 116 | 18 |
|
9 | 7 | 2 | 72 | 16 |
|
9 | 7 | 2 | 49 | 16 |
|
9 | 6 | 3 | 57 | 14 |
|
10 | 6 | 4 | 115 | 12 |
|
10 | 6 | 4 | 58 | 12 |
|
9 | 5 | 4 | -14 | 12 |
|
10 | 5 | 4 | 31 | 11 |
|
9 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 10 |
|
10 | 5 | 5 | -13 | 10 |
|
10 | 5 | 5 | -56 | 10 |
|
10 | 4 | 6 | -18 | 8 |
|
9 | 3 | 6 | -71 | 8 |
|
10 | 3 | 6 | -9 | 7 |
|
9 | 2 | 7 | -69 | 6 |
|
9 | 2 | 7 | -87 | 6 |
|
9 | 1 | 8 | -180 | 4 |
