Midfielder Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 If you're planning to take something that is on the list to treat a problem' date=' you have to inform the authorities before you take it.[/quote'] Exactly.
Midfielder Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 You seriously have reading disabilities. It clearly says when "administered systematically". DO you know what that means? There is absolutely no current evidence that Tharanga systematically took that drug for performance enhancement. Yet you go running around screaming like a mad man that his record should be expunged etc. Are you insane? I do have reading disability when it comes to your posts. I would still not have pulled the crap Tharanga did. All athletes who cheat have the most stupid of excuses. He tested positive. What is that you dont understand Stephen Hawking?
Guest Gunner Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 I do have reading disability when it comes to your posts. I would still not have pulled the crap Tharanga did. All athletes who cheat have the most stupid of excuses. He tested positive. What is that you dont understand Stephen Hawking? You are a nutcase, I am done. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems to be unknown to you, so I don't have anymore time to waste on you Stephen Hawking.
Guest Gunner Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 No he is guilty. The drug was in his system so quit apologising for him :hysterical::hysterical: Ok. :cantstop::cantstop:
kabira Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 WhichI agree is probably where Tharanga went wrong. Either he was unaware or just plain stupid but until there is evidence that he did it on putpose he should be presumed to be innocent. No Rules are pretty clear, even if he did not do it purposely, he should know what he is taking. Does not matter if took it purposely or not.
Guest Gunner Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 No Rules are pretty clear' date=' even if he did not do it purposely, he should know what he is taking. Does not matter if took it purposely or not.[/quote'] That is not what I am saying. It is possible that he was unaware of the nature of the substance he was taking or was simply unclear about the rules. Why can't we wait to condemn him? It is silly to just assume he is absolutely guilty without knowing what are the full facts.
Midfielder Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 That is not what I am saying. It is possible that he was unaware of the nature of the substance he was taking or was simply unclear about the rules. Why can't we wait to condemn him? It is silly to just assume he is absolutely guilty without knowing what are the full facts. My dog ate my home work.So far I have been civil to you. You have crossed the limit multiple times. Go duck off you $%^.
kabira Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 ^yes, but rules clearly say you should be aware. No other excuse is allowed.
Midfielder Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 No Rules are pretty clear' date=' even if he did not do it purposely, he should know what he is taking. Does not matter if took it purposely or not.[/quote'] That is exactly what the rule is. If you are unaware of the rule that is not a defnse in any court of law.
Cricket Tragic Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 I never knew that Tharanga could evoke such passionate responses from both sides. :cantstop:
Guest Gunner Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 My dog ate my home work.So far I have been civil to you. You have crossed the limit multiple times. Go duck off you $%^. Run out of arguments so resort to personal attacks? Dude you have mental issues.
Guest Gunner Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 I never knew that Tharanga could evoke such passionate responses from both sides. :cantstop: :cantstop::cantstop: I am only taking objection to the Lord ******* midfielder playing judge here.
Stuge Posted May 29, 2011 Posted May 29, 2011 I never knew that Tharanga could evoke such passionate responses from both sides. :cantstop: This is the first time Padosis have been given a chance to mock others lol.They don't want to miss it:cantstop:
Cricket Tragic Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 This is the first time Padosis have been given a chance to mock others lol.They don't want to miss it:cantstop: They were the ones who started the rumour about Dilshan during the WC. :hysterical:
Stuge Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 They were the ones who started the rumour about Dilshan during the WC. :hysterical: oh yeah that time missile went to hit the wrong player ,otherwise padosis would have said that rumor wasn't a rumor .:hysterical::hysterical:
Tigerbait Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 You are a nutcase, I am done. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems to be unknown to you, so I don't have anymore time to waste on you Stephen Hawking. I think you're the laughing stock in this thread. It doesn't matter if the drugs were ingested deliberately or not. If they are in his system then he is guilty. Intent does not matter.
Midfielder Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I think you're the laughing stock in this thread. It doesn't matter if the drugs were ingested deliberately or not. If they are in his system then he is guilty. Intent does not matter. So true. There are multiple steroids he could have taken but why the banned one. If this is my career I would be aware of this rule. Except for Baseball no other sport allows the use of this drug. Gunner has lost it trying to defend this drug cheat and accusing Gambhir without any proof. This character needs to know Indian players like Gambhir are professional enough to know not to do it.
Ponka Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Ponka demands that this thread to be locked until proofs are shared by the ICC to the SLC board. Until then it should be considered as Masala News.
ganeshran Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I agree that the punishment would have to be meted out regardless of his intention for taking the substance. a suspension would be in order if the B-sample is tested positive. But making allegations of cheating, without having proof that it is a performance enhancing steroid and asking for records to be expunged is too extreme.
Midfielder Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I agree that the punishment would have to be meted out regardless of his intention for taking the substance. a suspension would be in order if the B-sample is tested positive. But making allegations of cheating, without having proof that it is a performance enhancing steroid and asking for records to be expunged is too extreme. The only problem I have with him is if his inning had a positive effect for SL. If confirmed 100% (which I think it would be) then as a minimum he should be suspended as Football does to their players.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now