You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler
I always suspected he liked a cone or two.
I suspect the hardest thing fitness freak Mr Crouch has ever sampled is a 2 year old Mr Whippy cone that spent too long at the bottom of the ice chest.Originally posted by Sanecow
I always suspected he liked a cone or two.
Which that makes his comments all the more bewildering.
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
If you'd actually read the article, it's the leak of information he's come out against, rather than the testing itself. And rightly so the leak should be slammed - those players have every right to privacy on those test results, and some moron trying to big-note themself by leaking it does nothing to assure those taking the test that their privacy, regardless of the result, will be protected. Every player has to be tested at some point, and every player should know they are peeing into that cup with the assurance that their name, is not going to be turned to mud before there has been a chance to confirm the results and deal with it internally. With the Government forcing the AFL's hand on drug codes and testing with the WADA code debate last year, the least ASDA should be doing is ensuring that their own codes of conduct are adhered to by all who are involved in the drug testing, which clearly hasn't happened in this case.
I love replies that start with an assumption that the B party never read the article.Originally posted by swansrock4eva
If you'd actually read the article...
If you'd actually read my post...
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
I love how professional crouchy's final words on the matter is.
"yeah, it's @@@@house" .
well done darl.
I suspect its because without trust in the confidentiality, players quickly lose trust in the integrity of it all too:Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
Which that makes his comments all the more bewildering.
"In the back of my mind I'm going to be (thinking) `Is this all fair dinkum?'," Crouch said.
"I guess that's the big thing, that if it has come from there that someone has leaked something, (then) what's stopping other people from doing other things just to disrespect us, just to embarrass us."
Our Greatest Moment:
Saturday, 24th Sept, 2005 - 5:13pm
Your implication was that Crouch was speaking out against the drug testing itself, with the assumption that he'd never taken any substances so had no real basis to comment. Given that the article did not state that Crouch was saying the testing itself was inappropriate, but rather the way in which the information gained from it was being handled was inappropriate, you actually implied with your own comment that you didn't read the article.Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
I love replies that start with an assumption that the B party never read the article.
If you'd actually read my post...
Originally posted by swansrock4eva
Your implication was that Crouch was speaking out against the drug testing itself, with the assumption that he'd never taken any substances so had no real basis to comment. Given that the article did not state that Crouch was saying the testing itself was inappropriate, but rather the way in which the information gained from it was being handled was inappropriate, you actually implied with your own comment that you didn't read the article....SAID HE WAS RELUCTANT TO BE TESTED BECAUSE OF THE LEAK OF THREE NAMES WHO HAVE TWICE TESTED POSITIVE TO ILLICIT DRUGS.Sydney premiership player Jared Crouch has launched an extraordinary attack on the AFL's recreational drug program and said he was reluctant to be tested because of the leak of three names who have twice tested positive to illicit drugs.
He covers a number of topics in the article, one of which is a reluctance to be tested for drugs. If he has not taken drugs, then they cannot leak his positive results...
"In a shock leak from AFL headquarters, it has been revealed that Jared Crouch as tested negative three times for recreational drugs..." Yeah right
He had observed that people who did lie were, on the whole, more resourceful and ambitious and successful than people who did not lie.
I too found it odd he comment. Then the conspiracy theorist inside me started and perhaps he being as squeaky clean as he is protests on behalf of someone else who may not be so?
Here's my heart and you can break it
I need some release, release, release
We need
Love and peace
Surely you mean plugged? I mean if you slam a leak it frequently gets worse . . . . . sorry just channelling Bernard WoolleyOriginally posted by swansrock4eva
the leak should be slammed
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
The only reasons I can see that he has said what he did is because one of the three unnamed player is a Swans player, or a Swans player is worried he will be caught (not necessarily Crouch), or he's having a Christian righteous moment.
It's the sort of thing I would have expected Peter Bell to do as the AFLPA rep.
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks