16 minutes ago, AmDamDemon said:

Western Rome yes, Byzantine not

or maybe he meant the holy roman empire?

56 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not a bad effort since the time of the crusaders was centuries after the fall of rome

Only according to groupthink, daisy.

Ahhhh ... the off season.

4 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Ahhhh ... the off season.

lol it's the best isn't it?

Now get back onto writing up some AFL HQ scenes!

The last one with google was great :D

1 hour ago, AmDamDemon said:

Yea Seutonius was probably doing a fair propaganda job with that one.

Edit: now I'm reflecting on the similarity of track between the ancient writers and their biases and those of Afl house/scumbag media.

Reckon you're onto something there Jim

So important to get your version of the story out if you want history to favour you.

Reading a book recently about early Singapore. There were at least three people who could perhaps claim to be the "founder" of Singapore but Raffles wife wrote a "best seller" and the rest is "history."

19 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

Only according to groupthink, daisy.

i'm aware there are multiple schools of groupthink on the issue dr. in the end it does get somewhat semantic

44 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

or maybe he meant the holy roman empire?

You mean that which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire? 

(But which was dissolved in 1806)

14 minutes ago, AmDamDemon said:

You mean that which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire? 

(But which was dissolved in 1806)

correct, voltaire add, but it was contemporaneous with the crusades

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

correct, voltaire add, but it was contemporaneous with the crusades

True that. In fact it was Barbarossa who decreed it "holy".

Now how do we connect the construct and demise of the HRE to that of Lachie Whitfield?

 

love Demonland....always something new to learn 

Long weekend - public holiday, expect the AFL to make a media release around 2pm tomorrow. Back dated no penalty  with an apology to Whitfield for taking so long to find he had no case to answer.

40 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Long weekend - public holiday, expect the AFL to make a media release around 2pm tomorrow. Back dated no penalty  with an apology to Whitfield for taking so long to find he had no case to answer.

either that or backdated penalty of one year commencing 15 months ago

Did someone fail to tell Whitless that he wasn't permitted to hide from drug testers? Or was he not told the penalties associated with doing so? Were the illicit drugs forced down this mouth or up his nose? Heaps take illicit drugs in society, but not many face the same consequences as elite sportspeople.

If he were a Melbourne player I'd be annoyed and disappointed but would still expect him to get a hefty penalty. 

And as for the repeated and ignorant 'opinion' that WADA only get their man/woman when dobbed in, well I guess the more times its said the more some think it becomes fact. All pizz and wind from the outer without real fact... in my opinion, of course.

Without knowing what was written in these so called text messages, I don't believe Whitfield has actually breached the rules? I can't be bothered searching the rules now, but I thought that the player has up to 10 days to notify ASADA of new address, or where they can be tested, as long as someone from the club knows where he is? He was staying at a club officials house, so you could argue that the club knew where he was and could have told ASADA, if ASADA had turned up to test him.

Technicality I know, but that's the excuse I would use. ? 

Every way you look at it, Twitfield and GWS have buggered it up.

It all came about because Twitfield took a party drug, and he recalled what happened to those Collingwood players who got done for party drugs which also happened to contain sump oil, dried anchovies and ... performance enhancing drugs. (Two years each.) He got panicky over the thought that his party drug might have had similar gear in it.

He/GWS could have:
(1) done nothing and sweated it out, hoping ASADA don't come knocking
(2) hidden out at Lambert's place without telling ASADA. If ASADA come knocking at his expected location, he's not there! Gosh, what an oversight! Forgot all about it. Gets a strike but not a code violation.
(3) gone to ASADA and owned up and probably got a discount for "substantial assistance".
(4) owned up to the AFL and get him charged slapped with a warm lettuce leaf under the AFL's anti-drug procedures. ASADA not involved.

Instead they hid him with an side serving of text messages saying exactly what was going on and why.
And then deleted the messages.
And when caught out, came up with the "hell hath no fury" excuse.
And then embellished that with a twist of "girlfriend is crazy".

(Twitfield made a further mistake in trusting Lambert and Grubby to do the right thing by him. Poor so and so never suspected the actions they would take would land him further in it than ever.)

They did everything wrong, regardless of your ethical viewpoint, and as in the Essendon case, it shouldn't have been a problem. Dead and buried with the connivance of the AFL. If wasn't for that damned ASADA being tipped off, they would have gotten away with it too!

Meanwhile the AFL is outraged that its good name could be tarnished and has come down on them like a ton of bricks. Their retribution is swift and harsh. They are committed to clean sport. I think they even said so in the papers, so there's your proof.

2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Every way you look at it, Twitfield and GWS have buggered it up.

It all came about because Twitfield took a party drug, and he recalled what happened to those Collingwood players who got done for party drugs which also happened to contain sump oil, dried anchovies and ... performance enhancing drugs. (Two years each.) He got panicky over the thought that his party drug might have had similar gear in it.

He/GWS could have:
(1) done nothing and sweated it out, hoping ASADA don't come knocking
(2) hidden out at Lambert's place without telling ASADA. If ASADA come knocking at his expected location, he's not there! Gosh, what an oversight! Forgot all about it. Gets a strike but not a code violation.
(3) gone to ASADA and owned up and probably got a discount for "substantial assistance".
(4) owned up to the AFL and get him charged slapped with a warm lettuce leaf under the AFL's anti-drug procedures. ASADA not involved.

Instead they hid him with an side serving of text messages saying exactly what was going on and why.
And then deleted the messages.
And when caught out, came up with the "hell hath no fury" excuse.
And then embellished that with a twist of "girlfriend is crazy".

(Twitfield made a further mistake in trusting Lambert and Grubby to do the right thing by him. Poor so and so never suspected the actions they would take would land him further in it than ever.)

They did everything wrong, regardless of your ethical viewpoint, and as in the Essendon case, it shouldn't have been a problem. Dead and buried with the connivance of the AFL. If wasn't for that damned ASADA being tipped off, they would have gotten away with it too!

Meanwhile the AFL is outraged that its good name could be tarnished and has come down on them like a ton of bricks. Their retribution is swift and harsh. They are committed to clean sport. I think they even said so in the papers, so there's your proof.

When you're not posting dorky songs, I enjoy your contributions Ted.

Agree 100%

18 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Every way you look at it, Twitfield and GWS have buggered it up.

It all came about because Twitfield took a party drug, and he recalled what happened to those Collingwood players who got done for party drugs which also happened to contain sump oil, dried anchovies and ... performance enhancing drugs. (Two years each.) He got panicky over the thought that his party drug might have had similar gear in it.

He/GWS could have:
(1) done nothing and sweated it out, hoping ASADA don't come knocking
(2) hidden out at Lambert's place without telling ASADA. If ASADA come knocking at his expected location, he's not there! Gosh, what an oversight! Forgot all about it. Gets a strike but not a code violation.
(3) gone to ASADA and owned up and probably got a discount for "substantial assistance".
(4) owned up to the AFL and get him charged slapped with a warm lettuce leaf under the AFL's anti-drug procedures. ASADA not involved.

Instead they hid him with an side serving of text messages saying exactly what was going on and why.
And then deleted the messages.
And when caught out, came up with the "hell hath no fury" excuse.
And then embellished that with a twist of "girlfriend is crazy".

(Twitfield made a further mistake in trusting Lambert and Grubby to do the right thing by him. Poor so and so never suspected the actions they would take would land him further in it than ever.)

They did everything wrong, regardless of your ethical viewpoint, and as in the Essendon case, it shouldn't have been a problem. Dead and buried with the connivance of the AFL. If wasn't for that damned ASADA being tipped off, they would have gotten away with it too!

Meanwhile the AFL is outraged that its good name could be tarnished and has come down on them like a ton of bricks. Their retribution is swift and harsh. They are committed to clean sport. I think they even said so in the papers, so there's your proof.

(5) claim mental health issues and flee overseas. 

If Whitfield gets off, it means any player that hides and dodges a drug test can cite a precedent and be cleared as well.

9 hours ago, faultydet said:

When you're not posting dorky songs, I enjoy your contributions Ted.

The dorky songs are part the wonderful multifaceted package, fawlty.

I've been online forever
And I wrote the very worst song
I put the words and the parody together
I am TF, and I write the songs

I write the songs that make the whole world wince
I write the songs of drugs and special things
I write the songs that make fawltydet cry
I write the songs, I write the songs

There is a simple test as to intent (guilt)

was there an accidental oversight to requirements ? If yes theyd be hit with a stern warning and a not insignificant fine, as have many clubs.

if NO, then they conspired to evade,obfuscate, deceive, lie..etc etc.

Throw book at them if the case.

Those not bothering to read rules, should.

3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

There is a simple test as to intent (guilt)

was there an accidental oversight to requirements ? If yes theyd be hit with a stern warning and a not insignificant fine, as have many clubs.

if NO, then they conspired to evade,obfuscate, deceive, lie..etc etc.

Throw book at them if the case.

Those not bothering to read rules, should.

Not so sure that WADA rules are as accommodating as that, and anyway, how do you prove intent - ask LW if he meant to evade the test because he was concerned? "No, sir". 

As I understand WADA rules, avoidance = guilty = maximum penalty as per proven cheats. 

29 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Not so sure that WADA rules are as accommodating as that, and anyway, how do you prove intent - ask LW if he meant to evade the test because he was concerned? "No, sir". 

As I understand WADA rules, avoidance = guilty = maximum penalty as per proven cheats. 

Sorry I was viewing it more as general intent as opposed to the stricter WADA guidelines.  They  ( the naughty ones ) would have us believe it was all innocent, just a set of innocuous circumstances, nothing to see , move on  etc.

It's plainly obvious it was nothing of the sort and was a planned effort to evade the narks !!

Its a long and convoluted read but the relevant rules regarding Whereabout for Athletes ( includes AFL players ) is

Whereabouts Policy ;ASADA

Now if Lachie hadn't updated ADAMS to inform them of where he would/might be, especially providing a hour window for any testing then he is in breach. Any person(s)  helping any athlete to evade will also have breached the rules..

if ( and we know its a pack of lies )  they hadnt simply wished to avoid said GF they could have 'hidden' from her where ever they liked, they could have played test games, all they liked, but they NEEDED to have registered where he was on ADAMS.

Seems they didnt !!! oops !!!

12 hours ago, DeeZee said:

If Whitfield gets off, it means any player that hides and dodges a drug test can cite a precedent and be cleared as well.

like how the AFL cleared Essendon players who didn't tell ASADA about some of the injections ?

Thing is there's already a heap of precedent for  AFL teams being done for sloppy  'whereabouts'. Here is gets worse for GWS because there will be evidence of intent to evade for purposes of non-compliance with drug testing. Player goes  down, (ban ) those who helped go down (ban )  and team goes down ( fine )

Surprised they haven't announced the penalty while everyone is drunk.