|
Sports » rec.sport.rugby.union » IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts
| IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025714] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 09:36 |
|
Australian cheating and ARU cover-ups has finally forced international
intervention. This is a great first step towards the goal of cleaning up
the Australian game;
"The International Rugby Board is poised to appeal against any decision in
the Wendell Sailor drug case that shows leniency towards the Waratahs
winger.
Under the World Anti-Doping Agency code, Sailor, 31, faces a mandatory
two-year ban for testing positive to the banned stimulant cocaine.
Last night IRB spokesman Greg Thomas said the board would review any
sentence handed down to Sailor from a disciplinary hearing.
"If the WADA sanctions are not applied, then we will revisit the hearing
and appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport," Thomas
said."
Translation: "The international rugby community is sick and tired with you
cheating Convicts handing down lenient sentences to your cheating players.
This scumbag is getting banned from the game whether you like it or not."
http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/05/16/114754 5328194.html
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025718 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 10:00 |
|
|
Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025724 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 11:18 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
my misses thinks so
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025725 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 11:25 |
|
"Martyn W" <ukhamlet [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147852854.946757.178340 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
Put it this way, if there was no cocaine, there'd be no porn.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025727 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 11:53 |
|
Uncle Bully wrote:
> "Martyn W" <ukhamlet [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147852854.946757.178340 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>
> Put it this way, if there was no cocaine, there'd be no porn.
can just imagine Wendall giving it the "hi, I've come to fix the
washing machine"
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025739 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 12:32 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>
Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
Either he tested positive or he didn't.
If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025740 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 12:34 |
|
oob wrote:
> Australian cheating and ARU cover-ups has finally forced international
> intervention. This is a great first step towards the goal of cleaning up
> the Australian game;
>
> "The International Rugby Board is poised to appeal against any decision in
> the Wendell Sailor drug case that shows leniency towards the Waratahs
> winger.
>
> Under the World Anti-Doping Agency code, Sailor, 31, faces a mandatory
> two-year ban for testing positive to the banned stimulant cocaine.
>
> Last night IRB spokesman Greg Thomas said the board would review any
> sentence handed down to Sailor from a disciplinary hearing.
>
> "If the WADA sanctions are not applied, then we will revisit the hearing
> and appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport," Thomas
> said."
>
> Translation: "The international rugby community is sick and tired with you
> cheating Convicts handing down lenient sentences to your cheating players.
> This scumbag is getting banned from the game whether you like it or not."
>
> http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/05/16/114754 5328194.html
>
>
Whilst i don't feel as strongly as oob on this one my mind does wander
back to the Ben Tune case (ir was Ben?) where it was kept under wraps.
He was kept away from rugby until his sample was clean
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025743 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 13:01 |
|
In article <pan.2006.05.17.07.36.44.305955 [at] spam.no>, oobapalula [at] spam.no
says...
>
>Translation: "The international rugby community is sick and tired with you
>cheating Convicts handing down lenient sentences to your cheating players.
>This scumbag is getting banned from the game whether you like it or not."
>
> http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2006/05/16/114754 5328194.html
>
We've heard the nominees, now for the announcement.
And the Award for Most Imaginative RSRU post of the year goes to ...
<opens envelope>
oobapalula [at] spam.no !!!!
Congratulations Mr. Oob. Mr. Oob is not here to collect his award this
evening, as he is currently engaged in his next project, as creative
writing consultant for an upcoming RSRU production. We'll accept this award
on his behalf here this evening.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025752 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 13:37 |
|
Dave (SA) wrote:
> Martyn W wrote:
> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> >
>
> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>
> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>
> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025760 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 13:58 |
|
In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>Dave (SA) wrote:
>> Martyn W wrote:
>> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> >
>>
>> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>
>> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>
>> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>
>That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>
>No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>
Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
banned because they are harmful to one's health.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025761 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 13:58 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Dave (SA) wrote:
>
>>Martyn W wrote:
>>
>>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>>
>>
>>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>
>>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>
>>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>
>
> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>
> No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research suggesting
it impairs performance, it's banned.
Later,
Sean
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025762 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:04 |
|
Dave wrote:
> In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Dave (SA) wrote:
> >> Martyn W wrote:
> >> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
> >>
> >> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
> >>
> >> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
> >
> >That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> >a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> >what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
> >
> >No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> >players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> >totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
> >
>
> Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
> banned because they are harmful to one's health.
No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025764 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:01 |
|
"simon s-b" <simon.stovin-bradford [at] cern.ch> writes:
> Uncle Bully wrote:
>> "Martyn W" <ukhamlet [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147852854.946757.178340 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>
>> Put it this way, if there was no cocaine, there'd be no porn.
>
> can just imagine Wendall giving it the "hi, I've come to fix the
> washing machine"
>
And your wife told you about that?!??!
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025765 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:05 |
|
"Martyn W" <ukhamlet [at] gmail.com> writes:
> Dave (SA) wrote:
>> Martyn W wrote:
>> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> >
>>
>> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>
>> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>
>> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>
> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>
> No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>
Its banned because its an addictive personality changing drug. Not that
most people actually get any : its usually talcum powder, domestos
crystals and aspirin at about 50 quid a gramme. If you want to see some
nasty pictures google up something like "east enders cocaine shame" -
have a look at Daniella Westbrook's nose.
Oh, and get Layer Cake out on DVD.
That Daniel Craig will be a kick ass Bond.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025767 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:26 |
|
In article <1147867471.859766.163260 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>Dave wrote:
>> In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Dave (SA) wrote:
>> >> Martyn W wrote:
>> >> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>> >>
>> >> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>> >>
>> >> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>> >
>> >That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>> >a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>> >what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>> >
>> >No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>> >players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>> >totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>> >
>>
>> Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
>> banned because they are harmful to one's health.
>
>No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
>different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
>smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
Cocaine is banned in rugby. Legally controlled ? Huh ?
'Course there are lots of stuff that is horrible for our health that aint
banned - alcohol is obvious. The double standard doesn't change the fact
that drugs are banned because they are dangerous.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025768 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:37 |
|
Dave wrote:
> In article <1147867471.859766.163260 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Dave wrote:
> >> In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dave (SA) wrote:
> >> >> Martyn W wrote:
> >> >> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
> >> >>
> >> >> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
> >> >
> >> >That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> >> >a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> >> >what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
> >> >
> >> >No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> >> >players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> >> >totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
> >> banned because they are harmful to one's health.
> >
> >No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
> >different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
> >smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
>
> Cocaine is banned in rugby. Legally controlled ? Huh ?
>
Yeah, it's legally controlled. In certain circumstances it's perfectly
permissable to have said substance in your bloodstream. Ergo, it's
legally controlled. Control implies that there degrees of allowance,
for example, in the UK you aren't allowed to smoke tobacco until you
are sixteen. It is controlled. Banning means that no-one is allowed to
use it. Cocaine is banned in some sports (possibly all, but I don't
know), which means there is no excuse for knowingly metabolising the
chemical.
If there is evidence that cocaine aids performance, then it falls
within the remit of the game's law-makers. If it isn't, then I cannot
see any way they have the legal jurisdiction to rule on it.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025770 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:42 |
|
Dave wrote:
> In article <1147867471.859766.163260 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>
>>
>>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dave (SA) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Martyn W wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>>>>
>>>>>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>>>>
>>>>That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>>>>a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>>>>what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>>>>
>>>>No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>>>>players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>>>>totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
>>>banned because they are harmful to one's health.
>>
>>No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
>>different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
>>smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
>
>
> Cocaine is banned in rugby. Legally controlled ? Huh ?
>
> 'Course there are lots of stuff that is horrible for our health that aint
> banned - alcohol is obvious. The double standard doesn't change the fact
> that drugs are banned because they are dangerous.
>
No they're not. They're banned in sports because they're performance
enhancing.
They're illegal because they're supposedly dangerous and apparently
people can't be trusted with what they put in their bodies.
Later,
Sean
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025771 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 14:59 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave (SA) wrote:
>>>> Martyn W wrote:
>>>>> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>>>>
>>>> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>>>
>>>> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>>>
>>>> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>>> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>>> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>>> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>>>
>>> No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>>> players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>>> totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>>>
>> Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
>> banned because they are harmful to one's health.
>
> No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
> different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
> smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
>
Clearly if you smoked you wouldn't be able to compete anyway, and I
think you'll find that if you turn up for a match under the influence of
booze, you're unlikely to get a start....
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025775 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 15:07 |
|
didgerman wrote:
> Clearly if you smoked you wouldn't be able to compete anyway, and I
> think you'll find that if you turn up for a match under the influence of
> booze, you're unlikely to get a start....
Try telling that to a certain Llanelli lock.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025776 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 15:11 |
|
In article <e4f5n4$6nu$1$8302bc10 [at] news.demon.co.uk>,
byrne_sean_spamtrap [at] hotmail.com says...
>
>
>Dave wrote:
>> In article <1147867471.859766.163260 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave (SA) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Martyn W wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>>>>>
>>>>>That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>>>>>a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>>>>>what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>>>>>players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>>>>>totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
>>>>banned because they are harmful to one's health.
>>>
>>>No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
>>>different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
>>>smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
>>
>>
>> Cocaine is banned in rugby. Legally controlled ? Huh ?
>>
>> 'Course there are lots of stuff that is horrible for our health that aint
>> banned - alcohol is obvious. The double standard doesn't change the fact
>> that drugs are banned because they are dangerous.
>>
>
>No they're not. They're banned in sports because they're performance
>enhancing.
No. Water is performance enhancing. You will underperform without using it
before and during sport.
They are banned because they are considered *dangerous*.
>
>They're illegal because they're supposedly dangerous and apparently
>people can't be trusted with what they put in their bodies.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025777 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 15:18 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Dave (SA) wrote:
> > Martyn W wrote:
> > > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> > >
> >
> > Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
> >
> > Either he tested positive or he didn't.
> >
> > If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>
> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
It's performance enhancing for about 30 minutes. In fact coke is the
crappest drug ever imo. The only drug where actually preparing it
(chopping it up) is more fun, and lasts longer, than the actual high.
If you want to experiment, but don't want to part with 50 quid, you'll
get the same feeling if you get a group of mates together, drink 10
redbulls, pop several sudafeds, then all talk the most complete
bollocks ever. Loudly and over the top of one another. The instant the
redbulls are gone, scratch your nose and scarper. You might feel like a
shag, but bear in mind you'll be keen as mustard at first, then 20
minutes in you'll suddenly feel like shopping is a better idea and
you'll nip out for some more redbull.
Richard Bridgman
> No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025778 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 15:21 |
|
"Richard Bridgman" <rhb919 [at] hotmail.com> writes:
> Martyn W wrote:
>> Dave (SA) wrote:
>> > Martyn W wrote:
>> > > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>> >
>> > Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>> >
>> > If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>>
>> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>
> It's performance enhancing for about 30 minutes. In fact coke is the
> crappest drug ever imo. The only drug where actually preparing it
> (chopping it up) is more fun, and lasts longer, than the actual high.
Sounds like you'd be better off washing your socks with it. You need a
new dealer 'bro. Do you know any Aussie players?
> If you want to experiment, but don't want to part with 50 quid, you'll
> get the same feeling if you get a group of mates together, drink 10
> redbulls, pop several sudafeds, then all talk the most complete
> bollocks ever. Loudly and over the top of one another. The instant the
> redbulls are gone, scratch your nose and scarper. You might feel like a
> shag, but bear in mind you'll be keen as mustard at first, then 20
> minutes in you'll suddenly feel like shopping is a better idea and
> you'll nip out for some more redbull.
Only in your scenario your liver explodes,
your teeth drop out and your poohs smell of candy.
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025781 ] |
Wed, 17 May 2006 15:35 |
|
Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Cocaine is banned in rugby. Legally controlled ? Huh ?
>>>
>>>'Course there are lots of stuff that is horrible for our health that aint
>>>banned - alcohol is obvious. The double standard doesn't change the fact
>>>that drugs are banned because they are dangerous.
>>>
>>
>>No they're not. They're banned in sports because they're performance
>>enhancing.
>
>
> No. Water is performance enhancing. You will underperform without using it
> before and during sport.
Water is not a performance enhancing drug. No more so than air.
There's a reason they call it a 'drug test'.
Leaving aside the fact it's not a drug, sports organizations such as the
International Olympic Committee define performance-enhancing substances
as those that create an unfair competitive advantage.
Drinking water does not create an unfair competitive advantage.
>
> They are banned because they are considered *dangerous*.
>
>
Psuedo-ephredrine is *dangerous*?
Later,
Sean
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025799 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 00:19 |
|
"Martyn W" <ukhamlet [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147852854.946757.178340 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
Not in this case.
cheers,
calvin
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025803 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 01:16 |
|
Martyn W wrote:
> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>
It could be. It might lead Wendy to the delusion that he can catch a
high ball, or kick a long touch finder, or make a clever lateral tackle.
It might just be enough for him to actually do it. That would be
performance enhancing.
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025804 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 01:17 |
|
Sean Byrne wrote:
> They're illegal because they're supposedly dangerous and apparently
> people can't be trusted with what they put in their bodies.
Are we back to Simon's wife again?
-- rick boyd
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025808 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 01:41 |
|
Sean Byrne wrote:
> Martyn W wrote:
> > Dave (SA) wrote:
> >
> >>Martyn W wrote:
> >>
> >>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
> >>
> >>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
> >>
> >>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
> >
> >
> > That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> > a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> > what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
> >
> > No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> > players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> > totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>
> See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
>
Just did.
I don't think you made a very good case. The NIH says it decreases
fatigue, you say it gives people the impression that they aren't
fatigued.
That's simply not the case. There's plenty of medical evidence to show
it decreases fatigue and loads of anecdotal stuff. You ever been to
Bolivia? Loads of people DO chew the leaves and walk up amazingly steep
inclines, carrying large loads for long periods of time in thin air. It
isn't all in their head, they genuinely DO keep going.
Leaves are also less harmful than refined powder.
> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
> cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research suggesting
> it impairs performance, it's banned.
>
> Later,
> Sean
As many people have pointed out, prolonged use would certainly have a
detrimental affect on the body of a sportsman. But the odd line before
the odd game would certainly have an initial +ve effect.
I doubt that anyone has done studies into sportsmen and their
performance on the field after taking coke, but I'd doubt the +ve
effects would last all game.
Perhaps sub them at half time?
Higgs
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025814 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 02:21 |
|
<kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147909278.805650.30890 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean Byrne wrote:
>> Martyn W wrote:
>> > Dave (SA) wrote:
>> >
>> >>Martyn W wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>> >>
>> >>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>> >>
>> >>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>> >
>> >
>> > That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>> > a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>> > what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>> >
>> > No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>> > players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>> > totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>>
>> See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
>>
>
> Just did.
>
> I don't think you made a very good case. The NIH says it decreases
> fatigue, you say it gives people the impression that they aren't
> fatigued.
>
> That's simply not the case. There's plenty of medical evidence to show
> it decreases fatigue and loads of anecdotal stuff. You ever been to
> Bolivia? Loads of people DO chew the leaves and walk up amazingly steep
> inclines, carrying large loads for long periods of time in thin air. It
> isn't all in their head, they genuinely DO keep going.
>
> Leaves are also less harmful than refined powder.
>
>> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
>> cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research suggesting
>> it impairs performance, it's banned.
>>
>> Later,
>> Sean
>
> As many people have pointed out, prolonged use would certainly have a
> detrimental affect on the body of a sportsman. But the odd line before
> the odd game would certainly have an initial +ve effect.
>
> I doubt that anyone has done studies into sportsmen and their
> performance on the field after taking coke, but I'd doubt the +ve
> effects would last all game.
>
> Perhaps sub them at half time?
>
> Higgs
Huggies great that this topic has bought you back to RSRU after such a long
absence. I am surprised that you haven't posted anything about your team
since the beginning of the SH season because as you say you love rugby and
go out to all the Tahs S14 ( even though you don't support them) games no
matter who is playing, you do follow a team don't you Huggies? you don't
just come here as an anti Australian troll do you?
>
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025815 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 02:21 |
|
"didgerman" <didgerman [at] rfu.com> wrote in message
news:x6Fag.214$ll.107 [at] newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Martyn W wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> In article <1147865825.565226.41980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> ukhamlet [at] gmail.com says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave (SA) wrote:
>>>>> Martyn W wrote:
>>>>>> Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>>>> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>>>> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>>>> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>>>>
>>>> No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>>>> players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>>>> totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>>>>
>>> Drugs are not banned because they are "performance enhancing", they are
>>> banned because they are harmful to one's health.
>>
>> No, that's the reason they are legally controlled. Banning is
>> different. There are lots of things that harfmul to your health -
>> smoking and drinking to name two - but they aren't banned.
>>
>
> Clearly if you smoked you wouldn't be able to compete anyway, and I think
> you'll find that if you turn up for a match under the influence of booze,
> you're unlikely to get a start....
In another sport Shane Warne seems to go OK even when he is on the fags (
should I have expressed that differently Matau is getting excited )
PS IMHO it amazes me how many top class players actually smoke
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1025816 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 02:21 |
|
"Walter Mitty" <mitticus [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87mzdgkgap.fsf [at] news.europe.ch...
> "Martyn W" <ukhamlet [at] gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Dave (SA) wrote:
>>> Martyn W wrote:
>>> > Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>>>
>>> Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>>>
>>> If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>>
>> That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
>> a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>> what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>>
>> No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
>> players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>> totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>>
>
> Its banned because its an addictive personality changing drug. Not that
> most people actually get any : its usually talcum powder, domestos
> crystals and aspirin at about 50 quid a gramme.
thanks for the advice from an expert, no wonder you live in a fantasy land
snip
|
|
|
| OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) [message #1036025 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 04:21 |
|
dechucka wrote:
> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147909278.805650.30890 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sean Byrne wrote:
> >> Martyn W wrote:
> >> > Dave (SA) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Martyn W wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
> >> >>
> >> >>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
> >> >>
> >> >>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it is
> >> > a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> >> > what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
> >> >
> >> > No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they scared
> >> > players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> >> > totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
> >>
> >> See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
> >>
> >
> > Just did.
> >
> > I don't think you made a very good case. The NIH says it decreases
> > fatigue, you say it gives people the impression that they aren't
> > fatigued.
> >
> > That's simply not the case. There's plenty of medical evidence to show
> > it decreases fatigue and loads of anecdotal stuff. You ever been to
> > Bolivia? Loads of people DO chew the leaves and walk up amazingly steep
> > inclines, carrying large loads for long periods of time in thin air. It
> > isn't all in their head, they genuinely DO keep going.
> >
> > Leaves are also less harmful than refined powder.
> >
> >> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
> >> cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research suggesting
> >> it impairs performance, it's banned.
> >>
> >> Later,
> >> Sean
> >
> > As many people have pointed out, prolonged use would certainly have a
> > detrimental affect on the body of a sportsman. But the odd line before
> > the odd game would certainly have an initial +ve effect.
> >
> > I doubt that anyone has done studies into sportsmen and their
> > performance on the field after taking coke, but I'd doubt the +ve
> > effects would last all game.
> >
> > Perhaps sub them at half time?
> >
> > Higgs
>
> Huggies great that this topic has bought you back to RSRU after such a long
> absence. I am surprised that you haven't posted anything about your team
> since the beginning of the SH season because as you say you love rugby and
> go out to all the Tahs S14 ( even though you don't support them) games no
> matter who is playing, you do follow a team don't you Huggies? you don't
> just come here as an anti Australian troll do you?
You're a nutcase.
Why not address my comments about cocaine, rather than accusing me of
being an anti Australian troll because I don't support what Sailor did?
I never said I went to all the Tahs S14 games, I said I go to some of
them; which I did again this year. Allegedly if I went to one of the
bars and mentioned your name, you'd be there and would buy me a beer. I
didn't see you this year (FYI, I went to 2 games), yet again.
Supposedly you'd be the one drinking with the ex-Wallaby skipper.
No, I don't support the Tahs, but they are my local team, so I go along
when I have the time/think it should be a good game.
I've mentioned this to you on several occasions, but you seem unable to
comprehend that
a) I don't go to all the games, therefore whenever you're there, I
should be there too, otherwise I must be lying
and
b) I must be an anti-Australian troll for going to Tahs games when I
don't support them.
FYI, I went to several RWC games where I suported neither side. It just
so happened that I could get tickets/thought it would be a good game.
Do you only watch games where 'your' team is playing?
Higgs
|
|
|
| Re: OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) [message #1036026 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 04:27 |
|
<kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147918905.779523.81400 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> dechucka wrote:
>> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147909278.805650.30890 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Sean Byrne wrote:
>> >> Martyn W wrote:
>> >> > Dave (SA) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Martyn W wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it
>> >> > is
>> >> > a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>> >> > what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they
>> >> > scared
>> >> > players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>> >> > totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>> >>
>> >> See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Just did.
>> >
>> > I don't think you made a very good case. The NIH says it decreases
>> > fatigue, you say it gives people the impression that they aren't
>> > fatigued.
>> >
>> > That's simply not the case. There's plenty of medical evidence to show
>> > it decreases fatigue and loads of anecdotal stuff. You ever been to
>> > Bolivia? Loads of people DO chew the leaves and walk up amazingly steep
>> > inclines, carrying large loads for long periods of time in thin air. It
>> > isn't all in their head, they genuinely DO keep going.
>> >
>> > Leaves are also less harmful than refined powder.
>> >
>> >> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
>> >> cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research
>> >> suggesting
>> >> it impairs performance, it's banned.
>> >>
>> >> Later,
>> >> Sean
>> >
>> > As many people have pointed out, prolonged use would certainly have a
>> > detrimental affect on the body of a sportsman. But the odd line before
>> > the odd game would certainly have an initial +ve effect.
>> >
>> > I doubt that anyone has done studies into sportsmen and their
>> > performance on the field after taking coke, but I'd doubt the +ve
>> > effects would last all game.
>> >
>> > Perhaps sub them at half time?
>> >
>> > Higgs
>>
>> Huggies great that this topic has bought you back to RSRU after such a
>> long
>> absence. I am surprised that you haven't posted anything about your team
>> since the beginning of the SH season because as you say you love rugby
>> and
>> go out to all the Tahs S14 ( even though you don't support them) games no
>> matter who is playing, you do follow a team don't you Huggies? you don't
>> just come here as an anti Australian troll do you?
>
> You're a nutcase.
>
> Why not address my comments about cocaine, rather than accusing me of
> being an anti Australian troll because I don't support what Sailor did?
who does?
>
> I never said I went to all the Tahs S14 games, I said I go to some of
> them; which I did again this year. Allegedly if I went to one of the
> bars and mentioned your name, you'd be there and would buy me a beer. I
> didn't see you this year (FYI, I went to 2 games), yet again.
> Supposedly you'd be the one drinking with the ex-Wallaby skipper.
should have asked for me the offer still stand, an offer you never took up
>
> No, I don't support the Tahs, but they are my local team, so I go along
> when I have the time/think it should be a good game.
and you support what team in rugby and cricket? or are you a totally neutral
supporter who only bothers to post to get stuck into Australians
>
> I've mentioned this to you on several occasions, but you seem unable to
> comprehend that
> a) I don't go to all the games, therefore whenever you're there, I
> should be there too, otherwise I must be lying
> and
> b) I must be an anti-Australian troll for going to Tahs games when I
> don't support them.
> FYI, I went to several RWC games where I suported neither side. It just
> so happened that I could get tickets/thought it would be a good game.
> Do you only watch games where 'your' team is playing?
come on Huggies what team do you support AND why have you suddenly started
posting on rsru again after all this time
Hint you are an anti Aus troll
good to c u back on rsru after all this time and you seem to have forgotten
your promise never to reply to me again
|
|
|
| Re: OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) [message #1036028 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 04:44 |
|
dechucka wrote:
> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
>
> Hint you are an anti Aus troll
>
> good to c u back on rsru after all this time and you seem to have forgotten
> your promise never to reply to me again
I said that I no longer wanted to get involved with you because you are
a liar and a hypocrite and our exchanges simply end up as pointless OT
slanging matches.
Geoff Muldoon has pointed this out to you too.
So, no, I never made a promise never to reply to you, I simply said it
was a waste of time.
I still believe it is, you've made the post OT, started lying again and
now you simply want to exchange insults.
You are the weakest link.
Goodbye.
Higgs
|
|
|
| Re: OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) [message #1036029 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 04:53 |
|
<kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147920246.895349.210000 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dechucka wrote:
>> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> snip
Noticed you snipped the bits where you have to make a substantive argument
because you can't
>
>>
>> Hint you are an anti Aus troll
>>
>> good to c u back on rsru after all this time and you seem to have
>> forgotten
>> your promise never to reply to me again
>
> I said that I no longer wanted to get involved with you because you are
> a liar and a hypocrite and our exchanges simply end up as pointless OT
> slanging matches.
actually our exchanges result in me pointing out the facts and you
deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting my posts
> Geoff Muldoon has pointed this out to you too.
actually he pointed out that very occasionally you are ON T but don't let
the facts get in the way of your post
>
> So, no, I never made a promise never to reply to you, I simply said it
> was a waste of time.
> I still believe it is, you've made the post OT, started lying again and
> now you simply want to exchange insults.
hopefully rugby lovers will keep posting ( that excludes you obviously)
>
> You are the weakest link.
did you think that up all by yourself?
> Goodbye.
and huggies disappears until he can do some more anti aus trolling or he may
stay but not face the FACTS
tfe
>
> Higgs
>
|
|
|
| Re: OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) [message #1036030 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 05:48 |
|
dechucka [at] vomithotmail.com.au says...
> > I said that I no longer wanted to get involved with you because you are
> > a liar and a hypocrite and our exchanges simply end up as pointless OT
> > slanging matches.
> > Geoff Muldoon has pointed this out to you too.
>
> actually he pointed out that very occasionally you are ON T but don't let
> the facts get in the way of your post
Actually I posted debunking your assertion that Huggsie is purely an anti-
Australian troll and accusing you (correctly it appears) of being no more
than an inveterate flamer.
But I'd rather just stay clear of your cat-fight, girls.
Geoff M
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1036032 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 05:49 |
|
"Sean Byrne" <byrne_sean_spamtrap [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4f33l$kpg$2$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed cocoa
> leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research suggesting it
> impairs performance, it's banned.
Mmm chocolate. :)
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1036034 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 05:50 |
|
"dechucka" <dechucka [at] vomithotmail.com.au> wrote in message
news:446bcd5a$0$26945$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1147909278.805650.30890 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sean Byrne wrote:
> >> Martyn W wrote:
> >> > Dave (SA) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Martyn W wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
> >> >>
> >> >>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
> >> >>
> >> >>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it
is
> >> > a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
> >> > what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
> >> >
> >> > No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they
scared
> >> > players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
> >> > totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
> >>
> >> See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
> >>
> >
> > Just did.
> >
> > I don't think you made a very good case. The NIH says it decreases
> > fatigue, you say it gives people the impression that they aren't
> > fatigued.
> >
> > That's simply not the case. There's plenty of medical evidence to show
> > it decreases fatigue and loads of anecdotal stuff. You ever been to
> > Bolivia? Loads of people DO chew the leaves and walk up amazingly steep
> > inclines, carrying large loads for long periods of time in thin air. It
> > isn't all in their head, they genuinely DO keep going.
> >
> > Leaves are also less harmful than refined powder.
> >
> >> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
> >> cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research
suggesting
> >> it impairs performance, it's banned.
> >>
> >> Later,
> >> Sean
> >
> > As many people have pointed out, prolonged use would certainly have a
> > detrimental affect on the body of a sportsman. But the odd line before
> > the odd game would certainly have an initial +ve effect.
> >
> > I doubt that anyone has done studies into sportsmen and their
> > performance on the field after taking coke, but I'd doubt the +ve
> > effects would last all game.
> >
> > Perhaps sub them at half time?
> >
> > Higgs
>
> Huggies great that this topic has bought you back to RSRU after such a
long
> absence.
Not so great that you are still following him around like a lost puppy who
has nothing much else to say.
<snip>
Andrew
|
|
|
| Re: OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) [message #1036037 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 06:21 |
|
"Geoff Muldoon" <geoff.muldoon [at] trap.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ed69971a19454c69897dc [at] news.readfreenews.net...
> dechucka [at] vomithotmail.com.au says...
>
>> > I said that I no longer wanted to get involved with you because you are
>> > a liar and a hypocrite and our exchanges simply end up as pointless OT
>> > slanging matches.
>
>> > Geoff Muldoon has pointed this out to you too.
>>
>> actually he pointed out that very occasionally you are ON T but don't
>> let
>> the facts get in the way of your post
>
> Actually I posted debunking your assertion that Huggsie is purely an anti-
> Australian troll and accusing you (correctly it appears) of being no more
> than an inveterate flamer.
I know that Huggies can discuss sport :-) pity he doesn't do it more often
:-( Than he could join me in discussing the games I love cricket and
rugby, as i do on the appropriate ngs. We could even discuss the teams we
follow ( Huggies could surprise the world by disclosing which team he
follows ) and when ( if ) he comes to the S14 he could have a beer with me
>
> But I'd rather just stay clear of your cat-fight, girls.
good go off and clean your nails
>
> Geoff M
|
|
|
| Re: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts [message #1036038 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 06:24 |
|
"Andrew Dunford" <adunford [at] artifax.net> wrote in message
news:4d298qF17s9cfU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "dechucka" <dechucka [at] vomithotmail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:446bcd5a$0$26945$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147909278.805650.30890 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Sean Byrne wrote:
>> >> Martyn W wrote:
>> >> > Dave (SA) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Martyn W wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Is cocaine a performance enhancing drug?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Its on the banned list that requires a 2 year ban.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Either he tested positive or he didn't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If he did => 2 years minimum. No discretion
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > That wasn't the substance (ahem) of my question. I was asking if it
> is
>> >> > a performance enhancing drug. I've never taken it, so I have no idea
>> >> > what Simon is alluding to. Anyway, when you've reached perfection...
>> >> >
>> >> > No, I was just wondering WHY it is on the banned list. Are they
> scared
>> >> > players are going to go around shagging the pants off every bit of
>> >> > totty that wanders into the ground? Errr...
>> >>
>> >> See thread: Bye Bye Sailor.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Just did.
>> >
>> > I don't think you made a very good case. The NIH says it decreases
>> > fatigue, you say it gives people the impression that they aren't
>> > fatigued.
>> >
>> > That's simply not the case. There's plenty of medical evidence to show
>> > it decreases fatigue and loads of anecdotal stuff. You ever been to
>> > Bolivia? Loads of people DO chew the leaves and walk up amazingly steep
>> > inclines, carrying large loads for long periods of time in thin air. It
>> > isn't all in their head, they genuinely DO keep going.
>> >
>> > Leaves are also less harmful than refined powder.
>> >
>> >> Short answer is that because people felt less tired when they chewed
>> >> cocoa leaves, although there's a mountain of medical research
> suggesting
>> >> it impairs performance, it's banned.
>> >>
>> >> Later,
>> >> Sean
>> >
>> > As many people have pointed out, prolonged use would certainly have a
>> > detrimental affect on the body of a sportsman. But the odd line before
>> > the odd game would certainly have an initial +ve effect.
>> >
>> > I doubt that anyone has done studies into sportsmen and their
>> > performance on the field after taking coke, but I'd doubt the +ve
>> > effects would last all game.
>> >
>> > Perhaps sub them at half time?
>> >
>> > Higgs
>>
>> Huggies great that this topic has bought you back to RSRU after such a
> long
>> absence.
>
> Not so great that you are still following him around like a lost puppy who
> has nothing much else to say.
actually who has been posting on this ng and who hasn't. Huggiies seems to
followed disgraced Australians around from ng to ng a bit like a ram chasing
a ewe
Don't let the facts etc etc
|
|
|
| Re: OT now Chuckwit is here (wasRe: IRB preparing to over-rule cheating Convicts) and now posted to [message #1036039 ] |
Thu, 18 May 2006 06:34 |
|
<kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147920246.895349.210000 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> dechucka wrote:
>> <kenhiggs8 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> snip
>
>>
>> Hint you are an anti Aus troll
>>
>> good to c u back on rsru after all this time and you seem to have
>> forgotten
>> your promise never to reply to me again
>
> I said that I no longer wanted to get involved with you because you are
> a liar and a hypocrite and our exchanges simply end up as pointless OT
> slanging matches.
> Geoff Muldoon has pointed this out to you too.
>
> So, no, I never made a promise never to reply to you, I simply said it
> was a waste of time.
> I still believe it is, you've made the post OT, started lying again and
> now you simply want to exchange insults.
>
> You are the weakest link.
> Goodbye.
>
> Higgs
Huggies I think that I have shown you up to be such a deliberate
misinterpreting and misrepresenting anti Australian trolling liar again that
you should admit defeat pack up your bat and ball, hold your breath, crack a
tizzy and not post to me again. Oh that right you did that before but
couldn't help making an anti Aus post when the Sailor matter came up even
though you hadn't posted to the rugby nag fo 5 months
>
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fri Jan 9 02:29:24 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.15605 Sekunden |
