Dr John Dee

I presume you've got a rowing background, Rusty?

You begin a post with the first person singular pronoun and then want to claim that anything following it is 'entirely general'. It's a strange language you speak, but it's obviously not English. If pointing things like that out is pursuing an 'agenda' I plead guilty.

This is what you said: "I'm sick of being labelled a racist because I don't like Adam Goodes" You weren't talking generally. You were making claims about something said about you. You said it on this thread. If it referred to specific accusations made elsewhere it was your obligation to say so, otherwise any reader was entitled to assume from the context that you were talking about an accusation made on this or some related Demonland thread. As for the Clark point, go back and read your first reference to him. Gratuitous and irrelevant. I was being diplomatic calling it bizarre.

What is it about the word 'you' that escapes your understanding? You made a claim about being called a racist. You weren't, not by anyone on this thread anyway. Appropriating the allegation is in fact attempting the same posturing that you're accusing Goodes of (and, bizarrely, Mitch Clark. How the hell did he get into the conversation?)

Who said you were? Must've missed that post.

I presume that with Carlton performing as badly as they are there will be talk somewhere inside the AFL about a priority pick, but it won't concern us.

Nah, new strategy: the eighteen man midfield (borrowed from that most enlightening rugby union technique, the rolling maul).

Known to everyone as the Pr-cks

If the hird-mentality view is that the absence of witnesses is somehow going to be decisive (like they've been braying about the absence of records ... just where do things disappear to out there? Is Windy Hill an extension of the Bermuda Triangle?) it would be useful if one of the legal fraternity here can confirm that CAS proceedings will allow WADA to subpoena Charter, Alavi and Dank. Of course I expect Dank to be announcing soon that he's going to sue WADA as well.

Whoops. Where's the troll who threatened to come back here and gloat when WADA didn't appeal?

People getting exercised about Kane's article as if it represents some sort of measured analysis of the tribunal's decision probably need to look at his by-line ('Advocatus diaboli'). Apart from anything else I wouldn't trust anyone who tries to co-opt 'Hotel California' as a metaphor for anything. But not only does Kane shove the evidence all over the place, he even claims to know the tribunal's discussions ('fierce debate' indeed). If you go to the article deefrag has linked, you'll find another link to more articles by Kane. Just reading the titles should be enough.

One suggested cure for insomnia: use the advanced search function to find Picket Fence + Toumpas and begin reading his collected posts.

Stop messing about with my hard earned qualifications.

We seem to have drifted far enough from the initial discussion point, which had something to do with some television programme, to suggest there's not much more to be gained from keeping it going.

Now, now ManDee, Mr Leg has been feeling a little upset by some of the crueler remarks of late about lawyers. But I'm happy to offer this counterweight to your slight upon the profession, from the Bard himself (Henry VI Part II): All: God save your majesty! Cade: I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord. D-ck: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Cade: Nay, that I mean to do.

"Hird said he wasn’t certain what was given to Essendon players in 2012 but he was confident they never received a banned substance." (April 1 2015 ... by some small coincidence, April Fool's Day)

Sorry ManDee. Great minds etc ...

No wonder my wife keeps on complaining about the fishy smell.

I'd be interested to hear what the lawyers say, but since it was only the one body (the ACC) that gave him immunity I'd assume that it's only immunity from prosecution by them. (My 'Honest Steve Dank', by the way, was meant suggest something about his posturing at credibility, not my belief that you believed him.)

When do we get the chance to do that? Where do I join the queue? Bishop Brennan all over again ... but twice the fun.

Well, I suppose one angle would be that it might persuade people to think the way you're thinking ('Honest Steve Dank'). Somewhere in the dim past of this thread there are references to opinions about the 'Thymomodulin' issue suggesting that it could not have had any therapeutic effect and the claimed reasons for its use were exactly those that TB4 provides. If that's true then Dank's 'swearing' that Thymomodulin was administered would also be an attempt to add to the veracity-effect, which might be another angle. With Dank, I suspect that there would always be more than one, two, three ... angles involved at any one time.

Well, doubts maybe rjay, but about what? Why would Dank need immunity from prosecution to provide a statement that he administered a perfectly legal substance?

Some parts of your conversation with ManDee won't necessarily make all that much sense anymore since the original offending post has now disappeared. I apologise for any residual impression that you're both talking like a pair of astrologers.

I think we might also need to take into account the precedent set not so long ago by the tribunal: these incidents might have looked like blows to the head, might have felt like blows to the head, might even have sounded like blows to the head, but did anyone do a blood test?

You may be right, Daisy, but I thought there was some suggestion that blood samples already exist, so it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of testing 3-5 years after the event. As for all those medical breakthroughs that don't eventuate, often it's the case that they do eventuate but only after rigorous testing has occurred and when everyone has forgotten the original hoopla ... of course it's that sort of testing that people like Dank don't necessarily believe in.