Wellington v Hawkes (RS)
-
@MN5 said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
We managed to keep the Shield in one piece
We broke it, you lost it. Guess neither of us is great at keeping it.
-
@Hooroo Own what?
They have admitted to breaking the Shield and regret that they've not treated the Shield with the care as they should have. That doesn't make them pricks and certainly not the whole team or province. They have not been more "disrespectful" to the Shield than other provinces. We all know the stories. It's just unlucky that the Shield broke, but is accidentally dropping the Shield worse than taking a bath with the Shield and causing the wood to rot (the final reason why they had to replace the original Shield with a new one)?
This is, however, about the snorting of illicit substances off the Shield and it has now been proven that that hasn't happened. Why should they own something they haven't done?
-
@Hooroo Own what?
They have admitted to breaking the Shield and regret that they've not treated the Shield with the care as they should have. That doesn't make them pricks and certainly not the whole team or province. They have not been more "disrespectful" to the Shield than other provinces. We all know the stories. It's just unlucky that the Shield broke, but is accidentally dropping the Shield worse than taking a bath with the Shield and causing the wood to rot (the final reason why they had to replace the original Shield with a new one)?
This is, however, about the snorting of illicit substances off the Shield and it has now been proven that that hasn't happened. Why should they own something they haven't done?
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
This is, however, about the snorting of illicit substances off the Shield and it has now been proven that that hasn't happened
Just because an investigation wasn't able to substantiate that it happened is not the same thing as it being proven that it didn't happen.
-
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
This is, however, about the snorting of illicit substances off the Shield and it has now been proven that that hasn't happened
Just because an investigation wasn't able to substantiate that it happened is not the same thing as it being proven that it didn't happen.
@KiwiMurph If there had been illicit substances on the Shield, it would have been detected. Those tests are very sensitive and can pick up even small traces.
-
@KiwiMurph If there had been illicit substances on the Shield, it would have been detected. Those tests are very sensitive and can pick up even small traces.
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph If there had been illicit substances on the Shield, it would have been detected. Those tests are very sensitive and can pick up even small traces.
CSI Stargazer has spoken !!!!
-
it's very easy to not find stuff if you decide not to look in the first place
-
@KiwiMurph If there had been illicit substances on the Shield, it would have been detected. Those tests are very sensitive and can pick up even small traces.
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph If there had been illicit substances on the Shield, it would have been detected. Those tests are very sensitive and can pick up even small traces.
That's a total assumption made by you without knowing how their testing works or when they tested.
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was -
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph If there had been illicit substances on the Shield, it would have been detected. Those tests are very sensitive and can pick up even small traces.
That's a total assumption made by you without knowing how their testing works or when they tested.
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
Fuck man, snorting talcum powder is a bit desperate, even for bogans from Hawkes Bay
-
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
Fuck man, snorting talcum powder is a bit desperate, even for bogans from Hawkes Bay
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
-
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@Stargazer said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@KiwiMurph said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
Look at the very particular wording they have used.
there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was
If you test for illicit drugs (which is what they did), it will only be capable of finding illicit drugs (if traces are present).
In that case, it won't find what they aren't testing for. Maybe they didn't test for Plaster of Paris or talcum powder or whatever else. And that also doesn't really matter, as long as the substance wasn't illicit drugs.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
If OJ Simpson was a ferner he’d raise an eyebrow at this post
-
This is getting stupid, unless James O'Reilly supplied the players before they got on the bus back to the Bay there was no way it was coke. You can't find coke in the Bay.
@Nepia said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
This is getting stupid, unless James O'Reilly supplied the players before they got on the bus back to the Bay there was no way it was coke. You can't find coke in the Bay.
100% agree with this.
I always assumed it was Speed. -
@Chris-B said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/18ea9d01-4d93-4fcf-aed6-acb231268acc
Great flick.
For some reason (or two ) I distinctly recall Jamie Lee Curtis in this in amongst some outstanding 80s comedy.
I’d have to get Stargazer to confirm but if they’re testing for Heroin and didn’t find any there’s a good chance it could have been PCP or Angel Dust on the Shield.
For shame Bay, FOR SHAME.
