Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL MediaZone, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL Opinion – The Drugs in Sport Scandal – it’s not about the DRUGS – it never was …

EYE-BALL Opinion – The Drugs in Sport Scandal – it’s not about the DRUGS – it never was …


Latest ‘EYE-BALL Opinion’ Posts:

– 5th May – Free-to-Air TV and NRL Broadcasts – it’s definitely not about pleasing the fans –

– 4th May – Truth and Clarity of facts count – the real cost of Gillards asylum seeker policy –

– 27th Apr – Gillard’s long walk of shame is almost nigh – her past is about to catch up with her …

– 25th Apr – Prime Minister “JEZEBEL” – Does she deserve the Respect of the People? –

– 24th Apr – The Australian’s Hedley Thomas & Friends – Still hunting down Gillard over the AWU Scandal –

– 24th Apr – Our Higher Education System – Universities fudging research for Higher Funding –

– 20th Apr – Gillard’s Hubris – YUCK – has nothing but contempt for the Disabled and Education –

– 3rd Apr – Gillard v Nth Korea
– Gillard off to China to fix the problem –
– talk about an overreach –

– 2nd Apr – Gillard – twisting and turning on the spit – there are no fools like old fools –

– 30th – Be careful what you wish for
– A vote for Gillard and her supporters … … is a choice for  Unionised Socialism and Class Warfare …

– 28th Mar – Apathy – Australian’s have it in spades and deservedly so –

– 23rd Mar – Legitimacy
– Australia demands it – Gillard does not have it –

– 19th Mar – A downside of Democracy – and the ease in which past Leaders move on –

– 16th Mar – The UNION’s – someone needs to tell them – about high labour costs –

– 15th Mar – Gillard decides to jump off the cliff – she would like us to all to accept her invitation to follow – her desperation is obvious and her judgement is becoming suicidal –

– 14th Mar – Conroy’s Proposed Media Overlord
– If the Government lifted its game – then perhaps the media have an incentive to do the same –

– 12th Mar – The Speaker of the House Fails all Australians – Question time is a farce, avoiding accountability –

– 11th Mar – On Education – ‘The Munsters’ style – Bowen and Garrett put on a show –

– 10th Mar – The Nation is Slipping Away – can you feel it? –

– 9th Mar – The Dribble … it’s just so exhausting

– 6th Mar Journalist’s – the perils of Slow News Days –

– 5th Mar – Gillard and Rooty Hill – why not Gillard helping the WA Election Campaign –

– To see more EYE-BALL ‘Opinion’ posts:

click here …

– The Drugs in Sport Scandal –
– it’s not about the DRUGS – it never was –
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 4th May 2013 |
There is only so much bullshit a person can take when it comes to understanding what motivates the media and how they ply their profession.

The Australian Crime Authority report into the ‘Drugs in Sport’ inquiry was the largest sports story in many a year – or so the Government would have us believe.

The timing of the Government’s release of the report was sceptical and as the weeks have rolled on by – that scepticism has escalated and now the media are reporting on the lack of real evidence to back up the report.  The real story here is not the report itself – but the reason’s the Government released the report – right smack in the middle of the ICAC Obeid exposure, and the Craig Thompson arrest media cycle.

At the time the Gillard’s and the ALP poll numbers were plummeting and another Rudd challenge beckoned.  The ACC report was released on the 7th Feb 2013 – a Thursday and we had just come off the previous week’s poll numbers that had Gillard’s preferred and 1st preferences numbers in free fall.

To see the Newspoll results for the week ending the 3rd Feb 2013, the next poll taken on the 25th Feb, and the trend for the preceding weeks – use this link …

To see the poll results since please use this link …

The ALP brand at the time of the ACC report release was as dirty as a three-month old’s nappy, and the stench hanging over the ALP at the time was no better no matter how you dished it up.

The Obeid inquiry was in full exposure with Tony Burke, Stephen Conroy being named with other senior ALP members as having availed themselves to Obeid’s hospitality.

The previous week arrest of Thompson – see SMH story here – was a double whammy of bad news for Gillard and the pressure of both stories was building.  If she was to survive – the Government had to get the media off the ALP hunt scent, and on to a different story.

It had to be big to shift the focus and Gillard being true to form – through Australian sport under the bus to save her own ass.  This was a major story and as usual the media fell hook line and sinker for the mis-direction.  Some three months later – the sports doping story has egg all over ASADA and the ACC.

To sell the story at the time Gillard sent out two freshman Ministers in Jason Clare and Kate Lundy.  When was the last time a major announcement was made when Gillard did not do the honours … these were ALP Ministers eager to cut their teeth with the media, and they sold the media a ‘dump’ they are still stewing over.

The media had to be ALP supporters for them to have so easily been distracted – that says so much about why Gillard has survived for as long as she has.

In the three months since where is the evidence to support the ACC claims – they want witness;s to come forward and confess and volunteer to dob in other athletes.

As Phil Gould wrote in his column last week – he is convinced the ACC’s release of the report in the manner it was done has harmed sport in this Nation – and he asks who should wear the responsibility for that?  Read Goulds story here …

In my opinion the ACC report was nothing more than a desperate attempt by Gillard and her minders to get the Obeid and Thompson stories off the front pages.

It was the cheapest and nastiest bit of politicking in my life time. How dare they use Sport to cover their collective arse’s.

To background this story further – links to various documents and other resources are provide below:

  1. Link to ASADA website[Australian Sports and Anti Doping Agency]
  2. Link to ASADA’s media releases since the ACC report was released
  3. Link to ACC website[Australian Crime Authority]
  4. Link to the ACC media release history
  5. Link to Joint Press Conference transcript – given by Kate Lundy and Jason Clare on the 7th Feb 2013
  6. Link to Statement by the ACC CEO – re the Drugs in Sport announcement

The media have failed again to make the Government accountable for their actions in releasing the ACC report in the way it did.   Included in Phil Gould’s story he pasted the following text:

… Have our players’ rights been protected?

In a lengthy discussion, I raised my concerns with Judge Paul Conlon, a man who has worked for the past thirty years in criminal law, 20 of those years as one of the state’s leading Crown Prosecutors and the past seven years served as a Judge in the District Court.

Judge Conlon also serves on the NRL judiciary and has been instrumental in developing the game’s judicial processes, with particular attention to the issue of fairness to the players with regards to prosecution, evidence and suspensions. He has been a tremendous asset to our game.

Over now to the Judge – who unlike myself, does have an educated mind and is well versed in dealing with fact, rather than getting carried away with emotion. However, he said he too had serious concerns about the process. He said he was happy to have the discussion as it was important that rights of individuals were not disregarded in the process.

When asked if he could detail some of those concerns, he said: “That was quite a performance in Canberra in early March. Everyone witnessing it could be forgiven for thinking that there was reliable and credible ‘evidence’ to support the sensational allegations labelled as the ‘blackest day in sport’ and that charges would follow based on that ‘evidence’. The findings of the ACC were handed to ASADA and to date very little has happened.

“For those who have had years of experience in criminal law and dealing with crime commissions they would know that crime commissions do not call press conferences to talk about investigation findings prior to charges being laid. It is difficult to put a ‘spin’ on it to legitimise what took place. That is not to say there were not legitimate concerns, however, clearly there are better ways of addressing those concerns with the codes. The CEOs had to take on face value the validity of the allegations relating to their sport. David Smith and the NRL have acted in good faith and they continue to do so. However, I have real concerns over whether ASADA have so acted.

“One example of ASADA apparently not acting in good faith is that initially they addressed club officials, who were informed of the discounts for players who came forward to assist. Six NRL clubs were named. However, at a later stage it was acknowledged that in respect of five of those clubs there was no evidence of systemic doping. Why were they named in the first place? Damage to the reputation of those clubs would be considerable. Alarm bells should have been ringing at that point.?

… continues …

Gould did not pushed the envelope far enough – that week of the 7th Feb had the ALP’s and Gillard’s long neck laid bare ready for the axemen’s chop … that is the way it should have gone down all things being equal.

The ALP desperately needed to change the media focus before the weekend else the poll taken that next weekend would have been all over red-rover for Gillard with Rudd’s camp primed at the ready.

It would seem that nobody thinks about motives any more.  The Government had everything to lose with the Obeid and Thompson stories running amuck – why is there no investigation into ASADA, the ACC, and the Government in the way the ACC report was released, and for the damage it has caused countless thousands of Australian athletes, Clubs, and Administrations by association.

How many lives does Gillard have left … surely they must be all done …

The EYE-BALL Opinion plea for action:

A Note:  This site is dedicated to having Gillard as Prime Minster removed by all legal means in the shortest timeframe possible.

Gillard’s Government is poison to this Nation … how do we get rid of her now?

The message has to be sent – there are some 14 million registered voters represented by 150 MP’s – 72 of which are ALP.    If each of these 72 ALP MP’s received an e-mail, a fax, a phone call, or a letter from all the people who want her gone with a simple message like the one below –  :

This is a protest message …

… do you think it might motivate caucus …

Please – send this message to as many and as often as you can – bombard the Caucus Members with a message so clear and with weight of numbers that it will force them to act.

You could also think about sending it to the Independents, Oakeshott, Windsor, Wilkie, and Brandt,  as well … Katter already votes with the Coalition, and Slipper and Thompson are a lost cause and their fate already sealed.

Links to every MP e-mail can be found using the Australian Parliamentary Website Members and Senator links below … pick your ALP MP or Senator, or send it to all – voice your opinion now.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please use/click on your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.  Thankyou.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

  1. Barry M
    May 6, 2013 at 12:11 am

    I don’t know if footballers are taking banned medications/drugs, either knowingly or unwittingly by relying on the word of the clubs medical staff and/or sports scientists that the ‘stuff’ they are given is approved.
    What makes me think this is purely a political manipulation is the fact the Govt, through ASADA and WADA are going after the players and NOT the sports scientists and the club medical staff.
    Yes, I understand that it is the responsibility of the individual player to ensure he knows what he is taking.
    But if a player is assured by the sports scientist or club medico’s that it is all above board and legal and not a banned substance, surely the player has met his responsibility.
    How many players are chemists, medical doctors or sport scientists, not many I would think.
    Why do I ask that question?
    Well, a very senior executive of WADA, stated on Sky TV that WADA do not list individual drugs that are banned. Instead they list the technical name of that the drug is made from. So how the hell can a unqualified person (footballer) be expected to make an informed decision on whether a product is banned or not. Not even the smart arsed journalists who a looking for a cheap n easy story or the politically motivated journalist could make a qualified decision.
    So why aren’t ASADA and WADA going after the sports scientists? Would it be because the sports scientist is as knowledgable as they are and they know they can’t baffle and threaten them into submission as they think they can with the players?
    Who stands to get the most out of footballers taking these medications/drugs?
    The players get over their injuries quicker and therefore are back on the field quicker, but they get paid if they are playing or out with an injury.
    If the sports scientist is able to produce a drug that ‘works’ and proves it by using the players as guinea pigs then he stands to make plenty of money selling it to all the other player who get injured.
    The only thing that gets ‘enhanced’ is the sports scientists bank balance.
    Why aren’t the journalists who are pushing the ASADA bandwagon being more inquisitive about the sports scientists? Are they allowing their political allegiances cloud their reporting?
    And for the Govt, ASADA, WADA and journalists to think/expect that footballers who operate in a tight team environment are going to DOB in another player let alone themselves, then they are naive in the extreme. If they played their game as individuals maybe.
    OH, and what happened to the head oF ASADA, the lady that was wheeled out to all the TV stations to tell all the fans that we should all be really really concerned. Her shrieking performances and dodgy examples of the numbers involved must have frightened the Govt lawyers.

  2. May 6, 2013 at 6:43 am

    Granted – the players taking drugs under advice of so-called experts is a story worth pursuing – and yes the performance enhancing aspect has criminal overtones,

    However – if the player risks their life and their future by taking these drugs knowing the dangers involved, and for the purpose of fame and fortune – what is so different to the millions of others out there chasing the same dream doing somethinhg else …

    I think of is as similar to the motor racing industry – all trial and error to find out what works to help improve engine performance – in sports athletes are the guinea pigs and they do it with full disclosure … and knowing the consequences if they get caught.

    It’s the nature of humanity – people take risks with their lives – extreme sports challenges like big wave surfing, alpine sking, caving, space bungie jumping, you name it … the video of these types of events are always in demand and go viral and make heaps of money …

    To me it’s a ‘storm in a teacup’ and a bit like using a finger to plug a dyke … also like accountants always able to beat new Tax legislation … the regulatory bodies hire mugs and those with blinkered perspectives – the criminals hire those prepared to think outside the box to find new ways to get around the rules to continue to beat the system …

    For me – and until the regulators get ahead of the curve, all we are doing is spending large amounts of taxpayer money with little or nothing to really show for it other than media noise …

  3. Barry M
    May 6, 2013 at 8:32 am

    From what I have read from both sides, the drugs being used/trialled are not even performance enhancing but rather ones that quicken the repairing process of damaged muscles, tendons, bones etc, so whats the problem anyway.

  4. May 6, 2013 at 8:46 am

    So true …

  5. May 6, 2013 at 11:15 am

    Hi Eyeball. This may not be the most appropriate place for my post but do with it what you will.

    From day one of gaining their licence to practise, every ethical solicitor tries to adhere to the basics of their profession, some of the principal ones being:
    (a) avoid conflict of interest;
    (b) keep meticulous records of all dealings with all clients;
    (c) keep their clients informed;
    (d) if in a partnership, comply with their own fiduciary obligations to be of utmost good faith and make timely disclosure to their partners. particularly of all matters which could affect them in terms of Professional Indemnity.
    (e) in giving advice to clients, act with competence and care.

    To do otherwise would be wrong.

    Julia Eileen Gillard constantly claims that as a solicitor, she did no wrong.
    Following are the substantive facts to which she has either admitted, or which history and the factual documented evidence has shown to be true. Judge for yourselves!


    1. She deliberately chose to begin an illicit longterm relationship with AWU employee Bruce Wilson – immediately creating a potential conflict of interest.
    2. She made it a definite conflict of interest by deliberately not disclosing the relationship to her employing partners at Slater & Gordon
    3. She exacerbated the conflict of interest by deliberately not disclosing the relationship to the firm’s main AWU client, for whom she and her industrial section supervisor, Bernard Murphy were acting
    4. She confirmed the deliberate nature of her decision to fail to dislose it to any.affected parties, by failing to disqualify herself from representing either her AWU lover or the firm’s AWU client in any future legal dealings

    The whole Wilson/Blewitt/Gillard AWU Fraud Scandal resulted from those first deliberate, critical decisions by Gillard to enter the illicit relationship with Wilson and keep it secret.

    The motives of Gillard and Wilson were obvious; to further the driving political ambitions they both held at that time. To achieve those ambitions, their relationship had to remain secret and that was why Gillard sacrificed any integrity or principles she may have once held, and went to such extraordinary lengths breaching so many rules of her profession, her client and her partnership, to do so.

    The gross conflicts of interest are also obvious, but with Unions controlling over 50% of the votes at Labor Party conferences and also able to have a profound influence on parliamentary candidate pre-selecion, the potential of such a liaison between a powerful Labor Right-wing Union Secretary and an unprincipled Labor Left-wing lawyer was unlimited, particularly when Gillard had the power to enable her lover to access huge amounts of money.

    This is exactly what she did in 1992, breaching every relevant rule of the AWU and the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 and the W.A Associations Incorporations Act 1987, by assisting him to set up, register and incorporate the sham entity she personally, in her own handwriting on the Application to Incorporate, unlawfully named the ‘Australian Workers Union – Workplace Reform Association’, enabling Wilson to open and operate the unauthorised bank accounts he used to implement the fraud.

    The rest, as “they” say, is history.

    Those who like to contact their politicians, particularly those in electorates represented by Labor lawyers, might wish to use this post to put a question or two! If Eyeball agrees, you certainly have my full permission to use it in any way you see fit.

    Cheers H/B

  6. May 6, 2013 at 11:21 am

    Wonderful expose Hillbilly and just so you know – you have complete license to say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it.

    In fact if you don’t mind I want to make this comment a separate post with the appropriate accreditations …

  7. May 6, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    Go for it Eyeball. I have plenty more to back up what I write if you want it ,and am more than happy to answer or discuss any queries.

    There have been many great investigations; by Michael Smith (to whom I’m very much indebted for the work he and his posters have done , the documentation he’s amassed and the space he has given me),Hedley Thomas, Mark Baker and many others, but all seem to be missing, or not highlighting the point that it is the original deliberate decisions and motives of Gillard that I outlined, which are the key to exploding her incredible lying claim that she “did nothing wrong”, and indeed, destroying any credibility she has left with anyone with at least half a brain!

    Sheer brazen lying, bullying, bluff and abuse of the office of prime minister and the powers that go with it, by this person who has been manipulated into the position by a gerrymandered system of corrupt union conrol of Labor politics, peopled by some equally corrupt union officials, cannot be allowed to permanently poison our culture , our way of life and the future for all our children, grandchildren and all generations to come.

    The Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry with wide-ranging powers originally called for by Ian Cambridge in 1996 to investigate the AWU, must go ahead and be widened to include all unions. Enough is more than enough!!.

  8. david the pragmatist
    May 6, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    Back to the drugs in sport exercise, I fully agree with Barry M and I think it is somwhat unfair to interact Hillbilly with her stuff over the top of the good sense being made.

    Hillbilly might be right with what she has said but it needs to be taken away from this blog and let acted on its own. Just to get Hillbilly thinking outside of the square I would ask her this question. “when your opinion is obviously one sided do you think you could ever be objective about Julia and therefore make some new reading?”
    A society that does not look at things objectively is just as totaliarian as what you picture from the left side of Australian politics. You could start by complimenting the people within her own (Julia’s) party and the labour movement that have gone after her and raise the questions they have. I am sure you would realise the effectiveness of a viable alternative to the incoming Abbott government so that we can have an effective alternative opposition.
    We are already concerned that Abbott will win by default rather than effective opposition.
    Whilst I am a conservative supporter I am still horrified of a Abbott/Bishop led government.
    If Abbott has an accident, then we could have a Julie Prime Minister which is frighteningly to close to a Julia Prime Minister.
    Finally I am all for integrity, after all political correctness is the name of the game these days, but I would swap integrity for effectiveness every day of the week. Effectiveness seems to feed more mouths, create more jobs and have lesser deficits than integrity.

    That my Dear Hillbilly is why lawyers are not good examples to quote when talking about integrity. Thats why people say “what is 1200 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?” Answer “A good start”.!!!!! Try a new way of attacking Julia, there’s too many lawyers that are parliamentarians to use them as the “good example”.

    Nothing personaI as I suspect you could be an old lawyer that didn’t make it to the bottom of the sea!…..don’t worry not everyone goes to hell!

  9. May 6, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    Out of line David the Prag … and again so much like you and your history to try and be the ‘woodpecker’ on the outer trying to get noticed …

  10. May 6, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Hi David. A friendly tip. It doesn’t pay to make assumptions about anyone you know nothing about. You have no idea who I am or what I stand for, which makes you so wrong in your assumptions about me it’s laughable. If you can be bothered to find out more about what makes me tick, rather than presume to lecture me on how and on what I choose to post , I suggest you go to the Michael Smith News site link provided by Eyeball and enter hillbilly33 in the search box. You still may not like what I say, but at least you’ll be better informed!

    If you have any documented evidence to dispute what my research and that of many others has found about the actions of Julia Gillard, please feel free to present it and add to our knowledge.

    If the people “within her own (Julia’s) party and the labour movement that have gone after her and raise the questions they have” had been successful, I’d be more than happy to compliment them. But where are they now, how hard did they pursue it and how far did they get?

    She’s still the PM with her gaggle of self-serving sycophantic supporters feathering their own nests, continuing to plunge us into further debt for future generations to pay, and wreaking more havoc in a “slash and burn” approach to make it as difficult as possible for any incoming government to rectify.

    Finally, it’s up to Eyeball how he chooses to run his blog and he has been kind enough to base his next post on my contribution, so you have your wish that “it needs to be taken away from this blog and let acted on its own.” Happy?

    Cheers. to all H/B

  11. May 6, 2013 at 10:22 pm

    You called our pragmatic mate a woodpecker, try hypodermic syringe. ie a little prick that gets under the skin.

  12. david the pragmatist
    May 7, 2013 at 8:54 am

    I am so glad to be able to offer alternative views on your site and to use Hillbillys terms “self serving sycophant supporters” is not the sole domain of the Prime Minister.
    It is interesting to note that Hillbilly was very quick to protect her own (it is a her isn’t) integrity but failed to comment on integrity and lawyers in general as an example or the alternatives being discussed..

    Hillbilly is right in the points she/he makes and I do not need to join the Sycophants on this blog site, to aknowlege that.
    My points bear some discussion, other than to aknowlege what a “prick” I am, is little a negative or is big a positive?
    For a site to be as hippocritical of me being sanctioned for my obtuseness, I find it quite interesting for some of the names I have been called.

    To me these sites are “fun” and should be laced with humour and never taken too seriously.
    I accept my humour may not be everyones cup of tea, but I receive quiet a few private texts and calls from people that know me, saying that I am the only thing that makes it interesting.
    Now I do not accept those compliments from my sycophant friends, as I realise they are only trying to make me feel better, knowing how “sensitive a little prick” I am, but just the same I feel it is not just one way traffic.

    I challenge readers of this site to become more involved and opinionated and make more comments. Quiet often it is the same people over and over again. I wonder if there is any editing going on ?.

    Surely this is not a facist site is it Hillbilly?.

    If these comments get published then we know there’s not, I will not be the only one to know if they aren’t.

  13. Julia
    May 7, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Oh David the P I sighed with delight after reading your outstanding views, my only concern is your reference to your slimy little p___k i supose size is not important

  14. May 7, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    There is a word used to describe human responses – ‘a turnip’ … it is often used in the human context to describe degenerative behaviour, and in response to the borderline paranoia contained in your comments – the ‘turnip’ analogy is appropriate.

    Nobody has ever been banned from this site – some gentle nudges have been issued but largely it is an unedited commentary site.

    David – you show very little respect whatsoever – and as a result all you draw is ‘yuck’ overtones. Surely you can express yourself without the personal attacks aimed at other contributors … use levity by all means … comment on the post … but direct confrontation with other contributors is a personality weakness you espouse on a regular basis … it is a character weakness.

    Most people here are anonymous – yet you and I have known each other for 30 years … please … your continued contribution is welcome on the basis you be less disrespectful to others. If you want challenging banter to appease what I believe is your Monday withdrawal symptoms over another thumping of the Parramatta Eels, by all means tear strips of the post or the subject matter if you agree …


  15. May 7, 2013 at 10:06 pm

    David. Just what is your point? You say “Hillbilly is right in the points he makes and I do not need to join the Sycophants on this blog site, to acknowlege that”. My assessment of Gillard’s actions was based on fact, so just what is your alternate view ?

    My whole post highlights the lack of integrity of some lawyers, particularly those Labor ones prepared not only to stay silent and see their profession trashed by a person unfit to ever act as a lawyer again, but for their own interests, to serve under her and actively encourage her sociopathic self-delusion that she “did no wrong”.

    Every Australian should be deeply offended that such a person can make laws, set up bodies like FWA which seem to protect ex-union hacks caught with their hands in the till. like HSU’s Craig Thomson, make judicial appointments of former cronies, appoint the highest law officer in the land etc, etc.,

    Hundreds of thousands of dollars was misappropriated by her ex-lover by means of a sham association she unlawfully helped him set up. No one has ever been brought to justice nor any funds recovered. Law firms, lawyers, Union officials, politicians and many others have been involved in a massive cover-up. Doesn’t any of that bother you?

    I don’t have time to waste if you are just being deliberately obtuse but if you have a legitimate question to which an answer would help more people understand the fraud, I’m happy to answer it.

  16. Gerry Hatrick
    May 8, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Dear Hillybilly,
    Tonight on the ABC there is a program on about internet trolls. I am looking forward to it. It is claimed that this type of bullying causes all type of trauma. I know for certain that due to long term relationships David’s behaviours are vey trying on the efforts of the editor to present alternative views to mainstream media.

    Over time, our Pragmatic mate insists on playing the player rather than playing the ball. No amount of yellow and red cards seem to get the point across. There is a pattern to these behaviours, the most offensive posts are always just after the weekend. When sufficiently chastised he go quiet for awhile and comes back sheepishly and after a further elapse of time, goes feral again. You can only wonder what causes that mental state, the need to be cruel. He calls it being obtuse. Others perceive it as acuminate, far too pointed, and far too often not substantiated.

    The editor wants to attempt to broaden news analysis. In a respect he is playing devil’s advocate. The government is unable to state the absolute truth (that is the nature of simpleton politics – maintaining popularity), always veneering the truth, and the editor wants to state the truth hard and fast. Therefore David the pragmatist feels it is good to attack the editor, and doesn’t need to maintain either decorum or rationality. He sees all other subscribers as play things of the editor rather than heart felt opinion. He calls them sycophants, ie arse lickers or brown noses.

    Throughout my time I too have had my skirmishes with the legal fraternity, and while I enjoy a good solicitor joke, I absolutely agree with your above point that “one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch” and in this instance should not be allowed to spoil the whole lot. If our Prime Minister has done what she is alleged to have done, then how can she make good laws, oversee the legal system and set up the likes of Fairwork to protect Craig Thomson? This and this alone is what all can see that leads to consistent polls saying the ALP is ashamed of what they have become. Yet a group of hand picked elite, can not effect change for the better.

    Last night the editor called me seeking reassurance that his latest position towards his old friend David was right. Naturally my response is somewhat sugar coated. Is that sycophancy?
    The editor is seeking reassurance. I also often divert his thought patterns. In the 3 decades the three of us have shared a relationship you come to obverse traits, about one another.

    I have known of you less than 1 year. I truly appreciate your contribution. My advice to the editor is always seek quality over quantity. I believe your work is very high quality. I often scan comments wanting to catch what I deem an enlightened opinion. David often quotes, you simply don’t understand what you don’t understand. For mine that is the psychological concept of projecting. You project onto others the way you think.

    Keep on keeping on. I could go on, but I think the point is made sufficiently. After the troll program tonight I might have a different point, because I like to keep an enlightened disposition!

  17. david the pragmatist or sensitive little prick
    May 8, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    Geez, I just read the latest comments and before I wrote this I had to think if any of my football teams had been thrashed or damaged that could effect my phsyc.
    It amazing how I have polarised opinion in such a way.
    Hillbilly me thinks you take yourself too seriously, as does the editor and his sycophant followers, yes Gerry you get a mention.
    Easing Hillbilly’s insecurity about her blog is that we have heard it all before……yes Hillbilly it is sub judice now. Facts you say are there in Black and White. I have seem more hysterics and rumours, than facts in many of the instances of the past 18 months. Never letting the facts spoil the story most certainly is an adage of the get Gillard campaign. I do not particularly like her and I hope that justice is served but whilst there is a lot of inuendo on non accountable blog sites, if she is guilty of 10% of what she is accused of then she will go to jail.
    In the meantime unless new information is coming forward then rehashing the “same ol” is akin to you and the other sycophants becoming a lynch mob, with a mentality to match.

    I have particularly gone about baiting some of the contributors to see if I could get an alternative opinion. I specifically noted the leadership of Abbott and Bishop drew no comment. Do you actually look at alternatives or is the bile and poison all for one?

    I look at the hippocracy from some contributors including the Editor who sees no problems in any disparagement relating to or supporting his feelings. I note the comment from Julia who has no compunction in calling me a slimy little prick or friends for 30 years who will refer to aspects of my persona, as a way of attacking me. Frankly I do not really care.
    I could talk about both of those individuals mentioned during this discussion and analyse their reasoning and life, but I do not consider that appropriate.

    When the inmates are running the asylum there are not many places to go. I would let it be known that I do not inhabit an asylum and do not have the illnesses to qualify.
    In the interim I will continue to give opinions, liked or unliked until I am banned for presenting views that are not in the eyes of the editor appropriate for what he wants to achieve with his blogsite. It’s his blogsite and he can play with it as long as he likes. I will continue to council him in his misreading of what normal people do and how they behave. I do this through loyalty to an old friend. The other one mentioned on this discourse I recently advised in terms of balance and tactics in handling a legal matter. He thanked me for it at the time and said I put an important perspective that he had not considered. His eligability for the asylum is not effected by his bad memory.

    Now to the extent of boring Hillbilly who effectively started this discussion, I apologise for personally qualifying myself, but to upset you just once more, I am not convinced that you are not a liberal party stooge, as the physc test was orienated to you. Now you can really get upset!

    PS The other two are too naive to be stooges. They actually think this site is a serious objective commentary. Where in fact is a remarkable piece of work by Eye Ball who refuses to accept that the biases are a result of being morally right in all his opinion pieces. The honesty is unquestionable, the naivette and hippocracy rife!

  18. HissyFit
    May 8, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Tickle me, tickle me, tickle me, and I just might roll over for you David and put my legs in the air!!!

  19. david the pragmatist or sensitive little prick
    May 8, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    That says more about you, than me!……. I love dogs

  20. Julia
    May 8, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    David, its time we all woke to the fact that you are in a class of your own, I get a buz reading your fantastic reviews.

    David may i ask if your married ? not that it really matters.

  21. Jeannie
    May 9, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Any more who wish to join the pragmatist fan club can register at http://www.mushroom.com
    Only qualification required is a big head, short stork and helps to cultivate the bovine excretia.

  22. david the pragmatist or sensitive little prick
    May 9, 2013 at 10:54 am

    My apologies to Julia, the reference to loving dogs was in reply to Hissy Fit and not to herself.
    This said Julia, I am married and i am sure at times my wife feels very frustrated for the the same reason other correspondents do as well. I suspect you enjoy the fun aspects of this site and therefore don’t take it to seriously.I might add that I have had only one wife and we are still together after 39 years,can the other normal people on this site say the samething.
    I might add that she has never called me a slimy little prick, ah la your penultimate comment. Don’t be embarrassed though, she has called me much worse things.

  23. Jeannie
    May 9, 2013 at 11:17 am

    BIG head, SHORT stork and helps to cultivate the bovine excretia.

  24. david the pragmatist
    May 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm

    Jeannie, at the risk of being perceived as a chauvinist pig, I am certainly not a mysognist I find your comments as being very unflattering to the fairer sex who you would seem to be representing. Whilst Julia has obviously got her mind on other things, you would demonstrate you do not have a mind at all. Now in saying this we know it is not true but you maybe familiar with Descartes who is a very well known philosopher (I am saying that because I am not sure if you know who Descartes is or what a Philosopher is).
    Anyway Descartes was famous for saying “we exist because we think”.

    On reading your second comment I was wondering who was writing it for you. You do exist don’t you Jeannie?

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: