Organised crime and drugs in sport investigation part II

[The Elephant In The room]

That seems a REMARKABLE convenient mistake!

If that's the defence they are going with, than surely there lawsuit is doomed. Cronulla could quite rightly claim they were also mistaken by the mis-labelled bottles.

Ive got no idea, but when Danny Wielder openly advocates for one party it makes you wonder what is truth and what isnt.

I'm sure I heard that Dank's dog ate the outer label which was covering the "for equine use only" warning. Happened right after it ate his sons homework.

 

[Hooch]

The club [sharks] is paying former ASADA deputy chairwoman Tricia Kavanagh $6000 a day to guide them through the investigation while spin doctor Sue Cato and a team of lawyers are also on lucrative money.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...rescue-team-20130402-2h56b.html#ixzz2PS1FFMRX

I'm not a sharks fan and I'm still disgusted.

Imagine still paying that viper after the destruction she's caused.

 

[Parra]

You're an idiot.

 

[magpie4ever]

I'm sure I heard that Dank's dog ate the outer label which was covering the "for equine use only" warning. Happened right after it ate his sons homework.

That cant be right as Dank's dog and son are one and the same. Was not always so, that is until the young bloke began his supplements program.:lol:

 

[Parra]

If one bottle is marked equine use only, don't use it. Simple. No matter what you think is inside it. FFS. If the staff indeed knew of this they deserve to have been sacked for being stupid!

Maybe these people need to be told not to store chemicals in drink containers as well. You can't legislate against idiocy. I would expect anyone who administered something like this to a player to be sacked.

That aside, if the substance is marked for equine use only, but is not banned, the player would have no case to answer. Same scenario as eating dog food, albeit probably more dangerous.

 

[docbrown]

I think the process has been terrible but if does uncover cheats in the long run then so be it.

Sometimes though you do need to take a step back and ask yourself if your methods lose sight of the presumption of innocence.

 

[9701]

Pssst I sell Rice Bran Oil with Oryzanol in 2 different strengths at my work (1000 ppm and 5000 ppm) anyone looking I have thousand litre containers of it.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

If one bottle is marked equine use only, don't use it. Simple. No matter what you think is inside it. FFS. If the staff indeed knew of this they deserve to have been sacked for being stupid!

True, although I also look at from a slightly different angle. If one bottle is marked "equine use only", but the active ingredients on all bottles are exactly the same, wouldn't the alarm bells be ringing that maybe you should be stearing clear of the stuff totally, "equine only" labelling or not.

Say you were a doctor/high performance manager at a club and you ordered 2 bottles of suppliments. According to the ingredients, bottle 1 and bottle 2 contain the exact same thing, but one of them (bottle 1) is marked "Equine use only". Do you:

a) Not use bottle 1 because it says "equine use only";
b) Not use bottle 1 because if there is a "dispatch" issue, so who really knows what is in it;
c) Not use either bottle and stop using the suppliments because the suppliers proceedures are stuffed and there is obviously a grey area as to whether the stuff is for for human consumption or not.
d) Say f**k it, the manufacturer says its ok, and I don't care about ethics.

 

[Tommax25]

True, although I also look at from a slightly different angle. If one bottle is marked "equine use only", but the active ingredients on all bottles are exactly the same, wouldn't the alarm bells be ringing that maybe you should be stearing clear of the stuff totally, "equine only" labelling or not.

Say you were a doctor/high performance manager at a club and you ordered 2 bottles of suppliments. According to the ingredients, bottle 1 and bottle 2 contain the exact same thing, but one of them (bottle 1) is marked "Equine use only". Do you:

a) Not use bottle 1 because it says "equine use only";
b) Not use bottle 1 because if there is a "dispatch" issue, so who really knows what is in it;
c) Not use either bottle and stop using the suppliments because the suppliers proceedures are stuffed and there is obviously a grey area as to whether the stuff is for for human consumption or not.
d) Say f**k it, the manufacturer says its ok, and I don't care about ethics.

All of the above.

 

[Perth Red]

Sometimes though you do need to take a step back and ask yourself if your methods lose sight of the presumption of innocence.

Investigators come from a presumption of guilt, otherwise they wouldn't be investigating!

If it ever came to arbitration or a court of law then the presumption of innocence becomes relevant.

 

[Perth Red]

Been cooking in this stuff for ages, explains why I can now hurdle the fence and have grown 14 inches long!

 

[El Diablo]

if only there was something that could make you shower

 

[magpie4ever]

Been cooking in this stuff for ages, explains why I can now hurdle the fence and have grown 14 inches long!

John Holmes' magic formula.

 

[bellyache]

John Holmes' magic formula.

gotta love Johnny..

 

[Hooch]

You're an idiot.

Since you don't have the brains to elucidate your point, it's fair to assume you think what she's done has benefited the sharks.

You're dumb as dogshit.

 

[9701]

Been cooking in this stuff for ages, explains why I can now hurdle the fence and have grown 14 inches long!

The people that own that brand (Hansells food group) is where we buy our bulk rice bran from. It is horrendous the markup the supermarkets put on oils.

 

[Parra]

Since you don't have the brains to elucidate your point, it's fair to assume you think what she's done has benefited the sharks.

You're dumb as dogshit.

Settle down.

 

[Hooch]

Idiot.

 

[Parra]

Just so you know, the comment was for magpie4ever, but his post was deleted.

 

[docbrown]

Sometimes though you do need to take a step back and ask yourself if your methods lose sight of the presumption of innocence.

Investigators come from a presumption of guilt, otherwise they wouldn't be investigating

There's an important distinction between a POSSIBILITY and a PRESUMPTION.

Investigators come at the case from a POSSIBILITY of guilt - that the suspect COULD be guilty, not (as you claim) a presumption that they are guilty.

All Australian citizens via the constitution are presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise i.e. it is assumed to be true that based on all reasonable evidence to date that the person is innocent.

The burden of proof is therefore on the investigator to gather evidence to prove not just the charge but also to overcome all reasonable defenses.

Until that reasonable evidence is presented to overcome the burden then by logic, by legal context and by the very definition of the word itself - no - there is no presumption of guilt.