42910_1337432023.jpg[i:5a56um9q]Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war minus the shooting.[/i:5a56um9q]
[b:5a56um9q]George Orwell [/b:5a56um9q]
[i:5a56um9q]There are none so blind as those who will not see. [/i:5a56um9q]:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_42910.jpg
Quote: DemonUK "So why was he there. Oh yes at the appeal he asked for new information to be considered. ...and what are you blathering on about CCTV. Not seen that in official documents. When this thread has been based around stated facts and people's opinion on said facts it looks like you have decided to add a 'rumour'.'"
The neighbours CCTV forms a huge part of the UKAD's case and is mentioned many times in the documents.
After reading the adjudication I can think of only one word: pigheadedness.
One or two things were, however, not dealt with to the satisfaction of my curiosity
i) The preamble to the release mentioned the need to establish whether UKAD had given sufficient warning of the test, though I can't recall mention of the establishment of that being mentioned thereafter (or indeed any definition of what "sufficient warning" amounts to)
ii) No thought was, at least reported, to have been given to the question of whether Barlow was already aware that the test had been aborted before he gave his Doolittlesque profession to be willing, waiting and wanting to be tested. If UKAD had already decided that "tampering" had occurred and that that was sufficient to warrant the mandatory ban (and to be the sole accusation at the trial) why was this even reported?
iii) I wasn't impressed by the flippancy with which the black-capped QC used the phrase "shining like a ship's beacon" in an official adjudication. Yes, I know I stand correctly accused of all too often being flippant, but it did jar.
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
