Three players set to be targeted by ASADA over use of banned peptide CJC-1295

[The Royal Soup]

I would be interested to know how you define proof
WADA have said that out of their 8 indicators only 1 is a positive drug test - which means there is far more in play than drug test results

Exactly right. They dont have to have a positive test for someone to go down. If they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that PEDs were used then the player is done, 2 years.

All it would take is credit card transactions from buying GHRP2 & CJC 1295 from online suppliers (which is the standard way of getting them these days) and a text message from the player commenting to a friend who also takes PEDs about the effects of the PEDs he's taken. Thats all they would need. Players wouldnt give sending a text message a second thought, especially a few years ago when none of this was known about.

I dont like speculating about my own teams players but i have a strong STRONG feeling about 1 player. I would put money down on him being 1 player ASADA know of. Of course i hope its all not true

And who would that player be a d why the strong feeling about them?

 

[mosto]

If you know you are guilty then you can take a gamble and say, 'prove it'. But bear in mind you would probably be stood down anyway while you embark on a lengthy and costly court challenge.

On what basis would you be stood down if they have no proof? You can't be stood down for being under suspicion.

Any thing's possible with the NRL, Brett Stewart ring any bells???

 

[Utility Player]

The Gazelle? Deer oh deer oh deer...

The buck stops with the Gazelle.

Its the Dik-dik, breed of antelope that i am more wary of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dik-dik

He sounds like a bit of a bounder.

He would have to be nicknamed the "Sloth" for ASADA to have any chance of catching him.

 

[RL Gronk]

The Gazelle? Deer oh deer oh deer...

Some one poked out the gazelles eyes and give it to the federal govt along time a go.
No eye dear

 

[Peter C]

Can someone please answer me how a government organisation and ASADA that plays their hand out in the media before charging anyone.

It like a police going the media without any evidence and saying we know who did this crime but if you come forward now we will give you a lighter sentence. Other words we dont have a clue but if you come forward we can say if you point fingers heads will roll. NFI

Sounds like the Bizarro World

 

[Jethro]

Is it a coincidence that ASADA have started with Cronulla (liberal) and Manly ( liberal) to be the first two targets and Essendon (labour) have been left out when Essendon broke the story before the ASADA news conference.

 

[globaleagle]

The Gazelle? Deer oh deer oh deer...

The buck stops with the Gazelle.

Its the Dik-dik, breed of antelope that i am more wary of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dik-dik

He sounds like a bit of a bounder.

I just Gnu you guys were going to do this.

 

[tookey]

Gazelles are able to reach speeds of up to 97 kmph due to their diet of pastures full of naturally occuring peptides and steriods.

 

[Peter C]

The Gazelle? Deer oh deer oh deer...

The buck stops with the Gazelle.

Who has all the doe?

 

[Ralphie]

Just like there was scant evidence against Lance Armstrong?

Wrong, there was strong evidence against Armstrong. He just fought it tooth and nail for some years until he couldn't dispute it any longer.

You seem very keen to believe the DT gossip column.

 

[HappilyManly]

The Gazelle? Deer oh deer oh deer...

The buck stops with the Gazelle.

Unleash the Wolf to hunt down this Gazelle

If the senior Player is on his last year of Contract, would it not be in his interest to not admit anything?

The case could take all year and the 2 year suspension would mean diddlysquat in retirement:dodgy:

All the ASADA evidence seems to stem from phone taps by the ACC.
Why the f..ck would you not use a phone card if you are intent on breaking rules:huh:

Manly are presenting their usual composed selves in the Media - must have really pissed off the Journos when 2V said 'Bring it on!'

 

[mosto]

Can someone please answer me how a government organisation and ASADA that plays their hand out in the media before charging anyone.

It like a police going the media without any evidence and saying we know who did this crime but if you come forward now we will give you a lighter sentence. Other words we dont have a clue but if you come forward we can say if you point fingers heads will roll. NFI

From what I understand, Kate Lundy made the call to go public when Essendon blew the whistle on themselves. Other government officials and ASADA apparently didn't want to go public at that point because investigations hadn't unveiled sufficient evidence. Hence why some government officials are starting to distance themselves from the whole thing.

If this is the case, the fact they were investigating at all would indicate they have some very strong suspicions, but, without solid evidence, have been forced to use this bluff call of getting guilty parties to confess and spill the beans.

However, the fact that they have gone public means they need to name names soon, as the implication of guilt is hanging over everyone. As it is, you go to work, or the pub, and all you hear is "Well, 'Player X' would be a drug taker, and 'Player Y' looks like he's on the gear". One way or another, it needs to be resolved soon.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Personally, I abhor the progressive infringement of personal rights that a long succession of governments, state and federal, have inflicted on us under the guise of fighting terrorism and organised crime.

However, we can't seriously suggest cheating is not cheating if it is by Manly players. I certainly recall how I felt when those Knights players were busted after they won the '97 comp.

I'm sure there is some evidence to an extent, but why go public before you have your case built solidly?

This question has been answered ad nauseum, it doesn't seem very complicated to me, but maybe that is just me…

This is classic McCarthyism and it is an utter disgrace.:dodgy:

You will have to spell out how this is the same as McCarthyism.

McCarthyism of course was an obscene anti-working class campaign where people were denounced as communists or sympathisers, often accused by acquaintances who were acting out of fear of persecution themselves. It was a communist witch hunt.
Care to join the dots?

 

[Ralphie]

Personally, I abhor the progressive infringement of personal rights that a long succession of governments, state and federal, have inflicted on us under the guise of fighting terrorism and organised crime.

However, we can't seriously suggest cheating is not cheating if it is by Manly players. I certainly recall how I felt when those Knights players were busted after they won the '97 comp.

I'm sure there is some evidence to an extent, but why go public before you have your case built solidly?

This question has been answered ad nauseum, it doesn't seem very complicated to me, but maybe that is just me…

This is classic McCarthyism and it is an utter disgrace.:dodgy:

You will have to spell out how this is the same as McCarthyism.

McCarthyism of course was an obscene anti-working class campaign where people were denounced as communists or sympathisers, often accused by acquaintances who were acting out of fear of persecution themselves. It was a communist witch hunt.
Care to join the dots?

I think you just did. This is a witch hunt, with ASADA trying to convince fellow players (read acquantances or neighbors) to dob in others under the threat of a 2 year ban. I would have thought it was pretty damn obvious.

 

[1947]

Look in simple terms there is "something" there for ASADA to consider.

Perry has advised all we rank low - medium risk. If there was nothing we would be low risk. But we aint.

Now we just need to hurry it up - charge us or clear us and move on with the 2013 season of football.

 

[MadMarcus]

If you know you are guilty then you can take a gamble and say, 'prove it'. But bear in mind you would probably be stood down anyway while you embark on a lengthy and costly court challenge.

On what basis would you be stood down if they have no proof? You can't be stood down for being under suspicion.

Any thing's possible with the NRL, Brett Stewart ring any bells???

Although the NRL would never admit it, I believe they learnt their lesson from how they mishandled Brett's case. You just have to look at how they handled subsequent cases, even under Gallop. They have not made the same mistake again and hopefully never will (although it is worth noting that they never actually admitted to standing him down on suspicion, presumably because they know very well that it would be improper grounds for a suspension).

The NRL's position on this is clear from its press release:

“Earlier this week we asked ASADA to provide us with the names of any player it currently has sufficient evidence to request the NRL issue an infraction notice under our anti-doping code.

“The response we received back from ASADA was that its investigation continues and will for a number of weeks.

“ASADA indicated it is not currently in a position to request the NRL to issue any infraction notices. Without an infraction notice, the NRL will not stand down any player.

The meaning of "sufficient evidence" is obviously a bit of a grey area. It is clear that it does not mean a positive drugs test, but on any construction those words must mean more than a mere "suspicion".

 

[HappilyManly]

Even when a Player is charged, the charge has to be proven in a Court of Law, then a possible Appeal process must elapse.

So no short term standing downs possible by the NRL.

Must be why ASADA just wants those with weak will to take the 6 months and save them the time and cost of a trial.

Hard to imagine a testosterone riddled person falling on his sword though.
If they were egotistical enough to take banned substances in contravention of their Club's directives, why would they give a flying f..ck about their Team now :huh:

 

[The Royal Soup]

Can anyone actually think anyone of the first grade squad would purposely take banned substances???? Is it possible that it may be 3 lower graders if any?

 

[patorick2010]

Can anyone actually think anyone of the first grade squad would purposely take banned substances???? Is it possible that it may be 3 lower graders if any?

I'd need a bargepole to touch that...

No one who can speak publically about it knows whether it's three first graders or three rookies. I think.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The Gazelle? Deer oh deer oh deer...

Some one poked out the gazelles eyes and give it to the federal govt along time a go.
No eye dear

Then they chopped off his legs.

Still no eye deer.

Then they chopped off his d**k.

Still no f**king eye deer.