TOPIC:

DW

I would say that ASADA has the evidence, the players had to present documents and so on as the rules of the AFL compel players to tell the truth or face the possibility of being de-registered as a player. The whole point of the recent court case -- and I have read the judge's decision -- was designed to end the investigation. Essehdon and its coach claimed that ASADA had no right to us the AFL's 'powers' in pursuit of its anti-dopping mandate; the judge disagreed and stated that ASADA was entitled to co-operate with other parties and that this right should be interpreted as 'liberally' as possible.

In short Essendon and its coach were trying to strike down testimony where the players told the truth about the whole sordid nonsense. The best thing for Essendon and Hird to do is move aside and allow the ASADA investigation to end. Only in this manner will all the evidence come to pass.

mikeh wrote: I think that's garbage. To refer to a person in terms of their genitalia immediately demeans them and is nothing like referring to them as a Man or Woman. As I said before I don't particularly like the way she goes about things but a number of posters on here have expressed that she is usually on the money and the awards speak for themselves I guess........

How is it demeaning Mike? Please explain.
Referring to someones genitalia, unless said in a vitriolic sense (which mine wasnt), surely cant be demeaning.

anchorman wrote: I would have thought referring to her private parts would be seen as being rather sexist...wouldn't you?

How so? I didnt discriminate against her because she has a vagina.

yolo swaggins wrote:

mikeh wrote: I think that's garbage. To refer to a person in terms of their genitalia immediately demeans them and is nothing like referring to them as a Man or Woman. As I said before I don't particularly like the way she goes about things but a number of posters on here have expressed that she is usually on the money and the awards speak for themselves I guess........

How is it demeaning Mike? Please explain.
Referring to someones genitalia, unless said in a vitriolic sense (which mine wasnt), surely cant be demeaning.

OK, if you have a job why don't you go into your bosses office tomorrow and ask in a very non vitriolic way, how many people with vaginas are in management positions in the organisation as opposed to people with penises and see how far you get and in fact if you still have a job after making that statement

mikeh wrote: OK, if you have a job why don't you go into your bosses office tomorrow and ask in a very non vitriolic way, how many people with vaginas are in management positions in the organisation as opposed to people with penises and see how far you get and in fact if you still have a job after making that statement

They would just laugh at me most likely, but it wouldnt be demeaning.

this thread is a crack up if you'll excuse the pun....