plugger66 wrote:
I dont do quoting so I really couldnt be bothered.
I do and do it very well
plugger66 wrote:you win what ever you are trying to win.
No winners in this P66. I am not trying to win anything, just attempting to have you see the simple facts of the case.
plugger66 wrote: I answered the questions as honestly as i could.
Thanks
plugger66 wrote: I will try and answer the one about the cyclists. They told the Armstrong enquiry before the tour that they used drus with Armstrong. they were stood down for 6 months after the tour.
OK thanks. Do you have any idea why cycling wouldn't stand them down before the Tour?
plugger66 wrote:And I have no idea what your last comment on cycling has to do with anything. They suspend probably more people than any other sport. I suppose you had to put a rider on it because it didnt suit an agenda of yours that i dont understand
I was not trying to put a rider on it or have an agenda P66, however the fact that cycling didn't ban admitted drug users show that their credibility isn't very good. The AFL would seem now to be on a par with cycling. IMO that is a pretty sad state of affairs.
plugger66 wrote:. And yes Watson is the only one who admitted using.
Thats correct - the only one on record.
plugger66 wrote:Do you live in fantasy land because i can only come to that conclusion if you dont think others told the enquiry they also used.
I dont know what they have said. Maybe you are correct, but at the moment only one player has PUBLICY admitted to taking WADA banned drugs. And that is Jobe Watson.
So simply whatever the other players may or may not have said is supposition on all our parts. What Jobe Watson said is a public admission of guilt.
plugger66 wrote: Stand them all down or none not just watson.
If they are dumb enough to admit it publicy, i agree. However only one has. His presumption of innocence has been negated because he has admitted to taking a banned WADA drug.
plugger66 wrote:No idea why the AFL CEO hasnt spoken. I aint involved in the enquiry.
But you claim to know what the other players have said. have you a link to their testomony, or is it just supposition on your part?
plugger66 wrote: No idea of the second point. think our club stood Milne down though.
Yes you are correct, the STKFC stood down Milne, but after being lent on by the AFL. That was reported at the time.
plugger66 wrote: No idea about double standards as I havent heard all the evidence of either case.
One vigourously denies any wrongdoing. One publicy admits to what he is accused of. I would think this is a HUGE difference.
So why is the AFL leaning on one club when Milne deserves the presumption of innocence, but lets someone who has admitted to illegally taking a banned drug, therefore no presumption as he has virtually pled guilty, allowed to play.
You dont think that is a double standard? Strange
plugger66 wrote: I dont care who plays now. Sorry if that upsets you.
Why would that upset me?
plugger66 wrote: I may get upset after i know all the facts.
But you dont need the facts, you ahve made claims you know what the other Essendon players have said in their interviews and thats the reason you think people are unfair in asking only for Watson to be stood down.
The only facts are - Watson has admitted guilt publicy that he broke WAD rules with drug taking. the other players deserve the presumption of innocence until they also publicy admit their guilt like Watson.
plugger66 wrote:No i dont think its a farce. Sorry again to upset you.
You must think i get upset very easily. So you would call this scandal of illegal drug taking and public confessions well handled?
Fair enough. Even with all the current known facts laid out for you, you think the AFL have covered themselves in glory.
Praise the lord. Oh sorry if that upsets you
plugger66 wrote:Now go ahead and do you quotes again. makes it very nice looking. Im sure you will quote that as well.
You seem a bit upset because someone has deconstructed you poorly put together argument.
Sorry P66, I am just trying to get to the bottom of your argument and it seems very confused and poorly thought out.
Just thought the forum deserved for it to be laid bare.
Would think after reading our discussion forumites can make up their own minds on what is more likely.
Cherrs and dont get too upset that someone has challenged you. This is really about you or me P66
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)