coolumsharkie
Referee
- Messages
- 27,115
That is f**king unbelievable.
Makes me sick the f**king vultures.
So do we believe this wiedler article or not?
Well, the first bit El D quoted is just bits and pieces from everything we have read/heard over the past two days.
The 2nd one, any knumbskull could make up.
Typical Weedler shit.
Suity
That's my point.
Everybody here will believe an article if it supports their viewpoint, no matter who wrote the bloody thing.
So we're the one's who are out of touch, lol :crazy:
Jon Mannah touched all our hearts
James Hooper
The Sunday Telegraph
April 28, 2013 12:00AM
THE last thing I wanted to do by detailing elements of the Cronulla Sharks' independent report into the club's 2011 supplement program was disrespect or upset the wonderful legacy of NRL star Jon Mannah.
But the reaction has been out of touch with what was actually written and I'm sorry that it has upset so many people.
Although I understand it is a highly emotive issue, it's as if people have read only half the story. We did not accuse Mannah of cheating. Not for one minute would I ever try to suggest Mannah would have knowingly broken a rule. Ever, in relation to anything.
But revelations the Cronulla Sharks have also written to ASADA raising concerns over whether Jon Mannah's Hodgkin's lymphoma might have been accelerated due to this supplement program was of major concern. And in the public interest.
Sports scientist Stephen Dank has since confirmed he sought the advice of an oncologist in relation to Mannah's condition and the prop was part of Cronulla's supplement program in 2011.
Dank has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
The contents of the independent report compiled by Dr Trish Kavanagh was deeply concerning in relation to Mannah.
Let's remember the warning from Australian Crime Commission boss John Lawler when he announced the reasoning behind why they had chosen to go public with their report in February.
Lawler told a rival media organisation in March that he believed players' lives were in jeopardy.
"There were three reasons we went public," Lawler said on March 19.
"Firstly, someone could have died. There were injections given to players by non-qualified people of substances not meant for human use, where the doctor didn't know anything about it.
"The second reason was to put a shot across the bows of the criminals regarding the sale of performance-enhancing drugs to professional athletes.
"These are organised criminals supplying WADA-prohibited substances. It is not a criminal offence, but it is putting the lives of players in jeopardy."
How many other players might have been considering the same path?
Again, never, ever, was it my intention to suggest Jon Mannah would have ever knowingly been involved in breaking any sort of rules or done anything wrong.
The reality is he never, ever would have been. Rugby League Players Association president Clint Newton yesterday released a statement absolutely giving it to myself and my colleague Josh Massoud. With respect to Newton, who I spoke to after he released the statement, some of the detail included was simply untrue.
The Mannah family are truly one of the nicest families I have ever had the privilege of meeting. Anyone who has met them has been touched by the way they live.
In the past 24 hours myself and Massoud have come under heavy fire for allegedly misrepresenting ourselves at the Mannah family home in western Sydney last Thursday.
Again - and I stress this is with all due respect to the Mannah family during what must be an extremely difficult time - I feel this is wrong.
Anyone who had the pleasure of meeting Jon understands his wonderful legacy and the way he touched people. I accept the Parramatta club - players, officials, coaches - are all furious with the report and released a statement last Friday condemning it.
There is still an element of the medical fraternity who have been prepared to go on record warning of the dangers of anyone who has been through cancer being administered with any sort of growth-stimulant.
They just don't get it's not what they reported but how they reported it. Yes it is big news, yes they had the right to make a big story of it but no they did not have the moral right to sensationalise it without clear evidence that a) he took stuff and b) there is a medical link to cause and effect. But then moral compass is hardly strong in these scumbags.
That's my point.
Everybody here will believe an article if it supports their viewpoint, no matter who wrote the bloody thing.
Would be a cool article if they spelt his name right...
...but no they did not have the moral right to sensationalise it without clear evidence that a) he took stuff and b) there is a medical link to cause and effect. But then moral compass is hardly strong in these scumbags.