Masters has a good source

[bad boy bubby]

Well I know who it was now :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5420741883/

Just to add a little more colour to the story

Who are the dopes?
The NRL doping scandal has produced one of the most bizarre cases of mistaken identity since former Warriors forward Tony Tatupu was given a cheque for signing with Super League meant for teammate Tony Tuimavave, after a player received a phone call from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority last week. The player was contacted to arrange an interview over the allegations of drugs use among players at his club and despite advising the caller he was playing elsewhere he was told ASADA still wanted to speak to him. An ASADA representative later phoned him back to apologise and said: ''Sorry, same christian name but different surname.'' The incident reminds Sin Bin of a great story from the Super League war when News Ltd representatives travelled to Auckland to sign Warriors players for the breakaway competition. They had a sliding scale of sign-on payments depending on the player's standing and a list of what each player was worth. Tatupu, who was only a fringe player at the time, was among the first players to speak with the negotiators and after asking who he was the News Ltd representative mistakenly crossed off Tuimavave's name and wrote him a $100,000 cheque. When Tuimavave saw the negotiator soon after, he said, ''We've already signed you'' before realising his error and frantically trying to convince Tatupu to swap his cheque for one worth considerably less.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-into-play-20130328-2gx90.html#ixzz2Oqibhfsx

 

[Since 73]

That was like when we thought we were signing a halfback butgot Noddy.

 

[Surely]

Same christian name lol

 

[Coastal Shark]

That was like when we thought we were signing a halfback butgot Noddy.

:lol::lol:

 

[Frenzy.]

Well I know who it was now :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5420741883/

Obvious, yet still guessed! :lol:

That's classic. Good on Rossy

Just to add a little more colour to the story

Who are the dopes?
The NRL doping scandal has produced one of the most bizarre cases of mistaken identity since former Warriors forward Tony Tatupu was given a cheque for signing with Super League meant for teammate Tony Tuimavave, after a player received a phone call from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority last week. The player was contacted to arrange an interview over the allegations of drugs use among players at his club and despite advising the caller he was playing elsewhere he was told ASADA still wanted to speak to him. An ASADA representative later phoned him back to apologise and said: ''Sorry, same christian name but different surname.'' The incident reminds Sin Bin of a great story from the Super League war when News Ltd representatives travelled to Auckland to sign Warriors players for the breakaway competition. They had a sliding scale of sign-on payments depending on the player's standing and a list of what each player was worth. Tatupu, who was only a fringe player at the time, was among the first players to speak with the negotiators and after asking who he was the News Ltd representative mistakenly crossed off Tuimavave's name and wrote him a $100,000 cheque. When Tuimavave saw the negotiator soon after, he said, ''We've already signed you'' before realising his error and frantically trying to convince Tatupu to swap his cheque for one worth considerably less.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-into-play-20130328-2gx90.html#ixzz2Oqibhfsx

So who were the other Bens at the club at the time? That's assuming it was even a Sharks player as neither this nor the original snippet says it was.

 

[Frenzy.]

Mate.
The ACC can't pass on information to any organisation, that is devoid of illegality. Therefore, if ACC passes on information about any players taking legal peptides or cheating on their wives, its game over. no bannings. Tapped phone calls. Receipts. Video evidence. interview evidence. ASADA cannot go near that stuff if it contains no illegality.
Can the state police or federal police? Well they have to find an illegality? GST avoidance on purcahase perhaps? In correct importation declaration? That is the level of straws they will be clutching at.

Yes, you've pointed this out ad nauseum. It's assumptive though. Question remains though does anyone have evidence that ASADA has no evidence. That's a closed question. Only needs a yes or no answer

Here's another closed question. Does anyone know if ACC passed on information to ASADA.

Speculative answers, assumptions, guesses, wishful thinking and pure waffle don't count as answers to these questions.

Next ASADA
ASADA cannot force interview anybody. The nrl integrity commision is the only one that can enforce co-operation. No current player contracts containb clauses for the integrity commission. REmember all players contracts are ratified by the NRL & must include NRL clauses for participation in the NRL . No Clause for integrity commission. It was not ratified by the players association if they say its there, so , its not.

Not relevant to the question.

Essendon
Obvifously the NRL got wind of what was happeing with the prime ministers beards favourite sport. The NRL are seething with all of this. This is a business run by business minded people not opportiunistic lefties. They are seething.

When the good guys worth $15 grand a day get a hold of this, we will be fine.

Not relevant to the question.

 

[Frenzy.]

It's like saying can you prove there's no Santa.

Don't have to.

The other side have to prove there IS.

That's the hard part.

Yes, they have to prove there is. Do you know if they have proof or not? Just because we don't see it in the paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Does a tree in the forest make a noise when it falls down even if there is no one there to hear it?

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Yes, you've pointed this out ad nauseum. It's assumptive though. Question remains though does anyone have evidence that ASADA has no evidence. That's a closed question. Only needs a yes or no answer

Here's another closed question. Does anyone know if ACC passed on information to ASADA.

Speculative answers, assumptions, guesses, wishful thinking and pure waffle don't count as answers to these questions.



Not relevant to the question.



Not relevant to the question.

What im saying is, either way ASADA turns, unless there is some illegality found, the investigation is finished. its poisoned by illegal departmentmental methods & press leaks.

 

[Mr Angry]

That was like when we thought we were signing a halfback butgot Noddy.

rofl

 

[Windy70]

This is also my belief. The investigation has been dragged so far off the rails I think it will collapse around them for the most part.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

On the side of proof, ASADA has already admitted they have none. They have no positive urine or blood test results.
Their other method of conviction relies upon analytical evidence. ie. a whistleblower(s). That will be torn apart by the good guys.

 

[Madsharkie]

Not trying to be a smart ass... how do they have any proof other than 'analytical evidence' if we've already been told the substance doesn't show up in urine tests? (Doesn't count out that the stuff is still illegal.) Which means they base their whole case for these substances on such 'analytical evidence'. Surely that means they have at least 'some' proof...

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Not trying to be a smart ass... how do they have any proof other than 'analytical evidence' if we've already been told the substance doesn't show up in urine tests? (Doesn't count out that the stuff is still illegal.) Which means they base their whole case for these substances on such 'analytical evidence'. Surely that means they have at least 'some' proof...

Analytical evidence cna be a simple as Elkins information. He can say he watched such & such, do such & such, to such & such. The onus is then on the player to prove his innocence, the exact opposite to our legal system.
The ability of 1 persons word to go against the word of 14 people, is an unwinnable position in a court of law, where it will end up. The important part will be what injunctions the players can get in place to over rule the standing down of players until the court ultimately proves they are innocent.

 

[millersnose]

On the side of proof, ASADA has already admitted they have none. They have no positive urine or blood test results.
Their other method of conviction relies upon analytical evidence. ie. a whistleblower(s). That will be torn apart by the good guys.

Well no asada have not "admitted they have none" rather they haven't disclosed what it is

It is clear they don't yet have a strong enough case to act decisively and are on the hunt for squeelers

It is not impossible for someone to fold

 

[Card Shark]

Simply ASADA don't need a positive test to convict someone & stand them down.

But if they don't have a positive test, surely it becomes ten times harder to convict them. Hence the slow nature of this investigation I suppose.

 

[Frenzy.]

Can anyone recall when or where ASADA themselves actually said there were no positive tests?

Analytical evidence comes from testing not interviews or whistle blowers. That would be anecdotal evidence I believe.

Samples can be stored for 8 years.

http://www.asada.gov.au/testing/results_management.html

 

[Since 73]

ASADA have openly admitted they don't have one positive blood test.
They have stated their case will be built upon phone taps and credit card receipts.

These will apparently be receipts for buying something in 2011 that was not on a banned list - and which you will deny putting into your body, as there is not one positive test which says you did.

Kicked out of the game on that hunch?.....

A bloke like Chris Murphy would shut ASADA down if they start expelling our professional sportsman in such a manner.

ASADA are in a precarious position.

They and the government have made enough statements to the press that they will be left red-faced if nobody is caught.

But they are proceeding with their whole case involving blokes giving themsleves up in 'interviews' where blokes aren't obliogated to say anything.

And, when desparate and they start threatening guys who have never failed a drug test they run the risk of coming off looking like bullies.

This has Ian Schubert written all over it.

 

[Frenzy.]

Where? When?

They can't say that without shooting themselves in the foot.

All that has been reported in the papers. The ever reliable papers.

There is a new page on the ASADA website worth reading. It states categorically that legislation prevents them from saying anything.

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html

 

[Diesel]

I would be surprised if nothing happens until a month out from the election for Labor to high five themselves and everyone else tells them to f@@k off for ruining the finals

 

[Since 73]

Can anyone recall when or where ASADA themselves actually said there were no positive tests?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...erview-by-asada/story-e6frexnr-1226601961384#
NRL players, not clubs in ASADA's sights

ASADA has turned its investigation from NRL clubs to players, with 31 individuals to be issued notices.


ASADA has elected to go through the NRL because players and clubs are compelled to co-operate under the game's code of conduct. Those who don't co-operate face automatic suspensions, with clubs vulnerable to a four-year ban.






Club officials have already been made aware of these obligations.
Interestingly, players contacted directly can't be forced to undergo an interview.
THE FOCUS
APART from Cronulla, all clubs - including the five others implicated in the Australian Crime Commission report - are in the clear.
And with the exception of those who played at Cronulla in 2011, the investigation is concentrating on individuals or groups of players suspected of buying, possessing or taking banned peptides via their own means.
Although ASADA has no positive tests, it's understood phone taps and internet or credit card records have been used to build a strong case.
Sports scientist Stephen Dank, who worked at the Sharks during the period in question, is believed to be the central figure.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...terview-by-asada/story-e6frexnr-1226601961384