Heaslip failed drugs test in 2006

First topic message reminder :

Aparently due to abnormally high naturally produced testosterone. Aparently his high testosterone levels explain his incredible recovery rates any why in all his years of professional rugby he has remarkably had almost no significant injuries.

He also sleeps in an oxygen tent, avoids dairy and gluten.

Spot on hammer

HammerofThunor wrote:Basically don't saying you can't back up. Even on the BBC website they were forced to hand over the details of a poster so he could be sued.  I suppose if the forum doesn't do anything to stop unsubstantiated allegations they may be done (know idea of actual legality).

My recommendation is to not say anything about any particular player that isn't publically acknowledge (so Heaslip failed a test). But don't say "He proabably...", or "I know a guy who says...". Basically just apply comment sense.

Generalisations aren't accusations though, they are opinions. So when someone says they believe drugs are in the sport of rugby, that's an opinion that doesn't libel any individual. Naming names is getting into the dangerous territory, but discussing the subject in general terms is legitimate discussion.

There's a few names mentioned on the thread already which I'm surprised has been allowed.

..and a few posts have been dropped that mentioned none.  Yes, surprised at how the sensitivity pointer is reacting to this one.

Feel free to just shut the thread down if you want. It wasnt intended to point the finger at anyone really.

I have loads of steroids, I sell them to people all the time, they use them to keep their carpet on their stairs, oops sorry I was talking about stair rods.


  

Too many of these threads that mention the subject "not to be mentioned" get closed down.  The threats hangng over the heads of people who wish to discuss a serious subject that most people believe is there at some level in the sport is just far too much like a 'big brother' clamp-down.

No, of course you can't openly accuse named players of dabbling but forums must be allowed discuss openly the subject.  No, such talk does not bring the game into disrepute.  Those who argue disrepute issues usually have something to hide and we've all been witness to it in the cycling wars, where real and serious legal pressure was brought to bear on truth seekers.  But they won out in the end because they weren't silenced, even by the cycling administrators who wanted to bully-boy the topic off the agenda.

It is right to discuss the topic and legitimate to discuss it.  Naming names is of course a no-no without genuine legally binding evidence.

SecretFly wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Basically don't saying you can't back up. Even on the BBC website they were forced to hand over the details of a poster so he could be sued.  I suppose if the forum doesn't do anything to stop unsubstantiated allegations they may be done (know idea of actual legality).

My recommendation is to not say anything about any particular player that isn't publically acknowledge (so Heaslip failed a test). But don't say "He proabably...", or "I know a guy who says...". Basically just apply comment sense.

Generalisations aren't accusations though, they are opinions.  So when someone says they believe drugs are in the sport of rugby, that's an opinion that doesn't libel any individual.  Naming names is getting into the dangerous territory, but discussing the subject in general terms is legitimate discussion.

Sorry, I meant specific mentions about people when it's not a public fact. So saying "my mate said he's seen Thunor at the gym taking all sorts of crap" is probably a no go (I would sue as I don't go to the gym). Saying I had failed a test is fine (if I did). Also I can't see anything wrong with generalised comments. If it's directed at a particular club or union or something like that perhaps a bit dodgy.

SecretFly wrote:Too many of these threads that mention the subject "not to be mentioned" get closed down.  The threats hangng over the heads of people who wish to discuss a serious subject that most people believe is there at some level in the sport is just far too much like a 'big brother' clamp-down.

No, of course you can't openly accuse named players of dabbling but forums must be allowed discuss openly the subject.  No, such talk does not bring the game into disrepute.  Those who argue disrepute issues usually have something to hide and we've all been witness to it in the cycling wars, where real and serious legal pressure was brought to bear on truth seekers.  But they won out in the end because they weren't silenced, even by the cycling administrators who wanted to bully-boy the topic off the agenda.

It is right to discuss the topic and legitimate to discuss it.  Naming names is of course a no-no without genuine legally binding evidence.

From my own (non legal) opinion I think it is fine to mention players who took on accusations in their own books and part of thus was the discuss into his reasoning i.e. the steak and egg whites... none of which we disputed but rather said was questionable in experience. We're not adding anything more than the player(s) themselves are adding.