|
Post by kustokie on Apr 25, 2016 12:57:10 GMT
One thing is certain - there are plenty of drug takers in football, as there are in virtually every other sport with big money rewards. It is a huge leap to say that, because Leicester and Spurs are doing well, they are on PEDs. The pre-season odds were 5000-1 - if it's too good to be true...
|
|
|
Post by burge2u on Apr 25, 2016 13:20:56 GMT
The problem here is that we don't know just how much we don't know.
It is highly likely that there are innocent players shrouded by suspicion, just as there are likely to be cheats who are getting away with it.
Perhaps it's time that the football authorities were more 'open' in providing details of their testing methods and frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2016 13:31:46 GMT
The problem here is that we don't know just how much we don't know. It is highly likely that there are innocent players shrouded by suspicion, just as there are likely to be cheats who are getting away with it. Perhaps it's time that the football authorities were more 'open' in providing details of their testing methods and frequencies. Publishing the results would be good.
I know many people want to see Leicester win it as it shows the small teams can still compete and are not just there to make up the numbers in a "Big 5/6" media wank fest. But something stinks in football at the moment, it's like waiting to be hit round the head with a baseball bat, you know it's coming but there is no way to avoid it.
Weather it's a drug scandal or betting fraud, maybe top to bottom corruption from FIFA and UEFA which will impact our football, I don't know. But I feel it coming and I'm sure many more do too.
Whatever it is I wish it would just get out so we can sort it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 25, 2016 13:50:02 GMT
One thing is certain - there are plenty of drug takers in football, as there are in virtually every other sport with big money rewards. It is a huge leap to say that, because Leicester and Spurs are doing well, they are on PEDs. The pre-season odds were 5000-1 - if it's too good to be true... ku, the stuff you've posted is interesting and gives food for thought, but posts like this aren't doing your case any favours. It just seems like your mind is made up and you're not looking at it rationally if you're including Vardy getting angry and Leicester's betting odds as evidence of foul play.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Apr 25, 2016 14:16:18 GMT
The pre-season odds were 5000-1 - if it's too good to be true... ku, the stuff you've posted is interesting and gives food for thought, but posts like this aren't doing your case any favours. It just seems like your mind is made up and you're not looking at it rationally if you're including Vardy getting angry and Leicester's betting odds as evidence of foul play. I agree that the evidence is highly circumstantial and I would be absolutely delighted to know that the sport is clean. However, where's the evidence that this is much ado about nothing? Certainly it's difficult to prove the negative; however, it would be very helpful if the FIFA, UEFA or the FA could make public the details of the testing program and the results (confidentially of course). Unfortunately, right now the silence is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 25, 2016 14:23:18 GMT
ku, the stuff you've posted is interesting and gives food for thought, but posts like this aren't doing your case any favours. It just seems like your mind is made up and you're not looking at it rationally if you're including Vardy getting angry and Leicester's betting odds as evidence of foul play. I agree that the evidence is highly circumstantial and I would be absolutely delighted to know that the sport is clean. However, where's the evidence that this is much ado about nothing? Certainly it's difficult to prove the negative; however, it would be very helpful if the FIFA, UEFA or the FA could make public the details of the testing program and the results (confidentially of course). Unfortunately, right now the silence is deafening. That's more like it
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 25, 2016 14:25:33 GMT
I don't do conspiracy theories as in nearly all cases they are the result of people not being able to comprehend the reality. I too want any team (Stoke preferably) to smash through the top four ceiling but it is difficult to comprehend quite how Leicester have gone from relegation survivors to champions elect. Maybe it's as simple as the squad remaining remarkably injury free and a brutally simply game plan which seems to be a mix of smash and grab counter attacking football played at serious pace and a little bit of Wimbledon route one thrown in for good measure. Whether its corrupt is no more than cynical conjecture but it is undoubtedly weird.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Apr 25, 2016 15:29:30 GMT
My brother use to get football books bought for him by the mum of his girlfriend of the time as birthday/Christmas presents. One he got was Harry Redknapp’s from around 2000 when he was still manager of West Ham and not yet the media darling of Sky Sports. In it he categorically states Wenger brought Nandrolone to the Premiership and players were on it during the Invincible campaign.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 25, 2016 16:04:20 GMT
but he looked like that when I used to see him play at Stocksbridge in the Evo-Stik 6 years ago....so what drugs do you think he was on then??? Was he any good then? He was fairly lethal and it was a successful period for Stocksbridge. He scored 66 goals in 100 games, and that was while working full time in a strenuous job where he was doing on average 50-60 hour weeks. He also got into trouble with the law while playing there and was not allowed to play in night games because of a curfew order. He had taken time out the game before joining Stockbridge too, so he was playing catch up. Ive seen him win quite a few penalties there with his speed and he would have scored more if he would have been the penalty taker. I also remember him being quite an unselfish player set up loads of goals for other players. Off the pitch he was known has having a bit of attitude, but cut a very frustrated figure after being rejected by Wednesday.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Apr 25, 2016 16:18:26 GMT
Vardy is on something.... Nevermind Vardy, that guy behind him should be banned from appearing in any place where he might scare the public with his glowing eyes. What? oh.... it's just a bad picture? If you see some of the pictures of their opponents that politicians in America put out, you'd swear that the zombie apocalypse is real!
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 25, 2016 16:24:52 GMT
ku, the stuff you've posted is interesting and gives food for thought, but posts like this aren't doing your case any favours. It just seems like your mind is made up and you're not looking at it rationally if you're including Vardy getting angry and Leicester's betting odds as evidence of foul play. I agree that the evidence is highly circumstantial and I would be absolutely delighted to know that the sport is clean. However, where's the evidence that this is much ado about nothing? Certainly it's difficult to prove the negative; however, it would be very helpful if the FIFA, UEFA or the FA could make public the details of the testing program and the results (confidentially of course). Unfortunately, right now the silence is deafening. the point is though is that there is a huge difference between being suspicious of the sport and it's "cleanliness" as a whole (that's one thing that i agree we could do with finding out more FACTS about rather than what it is at the moment..speculation nothing more) and actually singling out individuals and specific teams when you have literally NO evidence whatsoever. that's just irresponsible (and as i said earlier, highly dangerous to just throw out there so flippantly) for someone who is apparently using his own professional expertise and background.
|
|
|
Post by richardparker on Apr 25, 2016 18:22:27 GMT
Vardy is on something.... Whizzing his tits off, I think is the expression!
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Apr 25, 2016 19:27:33 GMT
It was only recently a certain pundit commented on the physical make up / stature of Vardy in particular, describing him as similar to a wild cat, insomuch the leanness, lack of bulk and muscle, just pace. Obviously the guy can finish as well but.... but he looked like that when I used to see him play at Stocksbridge in the Evo-Stik 6 years ago....so what drugs do you think he was on then??? Point taken. I have nothing to make a comparison by so I trust yours. And of course it is possible to have less fat on you than a chip and be a powerful specimen. Chris Froome comes to mind. Clean as a whistle and the rest is of course history. Until anything or anyone can be proven conclusively then conspiracy theories they will remain.
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on Apr 25, 2016 21:53:49 GMT
Vardy's eyes and manner say it all for me plus the likes of Morgan are suddenly world beaters? Come on........ Morgan has always been a good defender and now he has a decent partner besides him it shows. Its a absolute insult how people are even questioning Leicester. The difference with Leicester and spurs is simple really, teamwork. There players would run through brick walls for each other, and they both do the basics well. Wish we had team spirit like either Leicester or spurs. Its amazing how much playing together well as a team counts for the "lack" or quality or skill. Look all through history there is teams who have won things through working well as a team. One which sticks in my mind is Greece winning the Euros. If it only it were that simple! Teamwork and fighting spirit will only get you so far. How do you explain the level of injuries other teams have had compared to Leicester for example? Just put it down to luck? Better training regimes? What Leicester have done is, we are told, not possible and will certainly never happen again. Sorry, I don't buy this and to hell with 'absolute insult', why should football be free of PED use when we have seen it in so many other sports and for so many years? As I get older I get more cynical sure, but you are not telling me that it is unreasonable to question the run Leicester embarked upon shortly after Huthy joined them. As for Greece, they got away with it with attritional football, Leicester and Tottenham appear to have pace to burn for the full 90 mins, I would like some of whatever they are on.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 25, 2016 22:22:47 GMT
So what drugs were West Brom on in that second half? and maybe Chelsea and Man City decided to have a year off the drugs this season? & Ronnie Radford was definitely on something here
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Apr 25, 2016 22:33:40 GMT
I agree that the evidence is highly circumstantial and I would be absolutely delighted to know that the sport is clean. However, where's the evidence that this is much ado about nothing? Certainly it's difficult to prove the negative; however, it would be very helpful if the FIFA, UEFA or the FA could make public the details of the testing program and the results (confidentially of course). Unfortunately, right now the silence is deafening. the point is though is that there is a huge difference between being suspicious of the sport and it's "cleanliness" as a whole (that's one thing that i agree we could do with finding out more FACTS about rather than what it is at the moment..speculation nothing more) and actually singling out individuals and specific teams when you have literally NO evidence whatsoever. that's just irresponsible (and as i said earlier, highly dangerous to just throw out there so flippantly) for someone who is apparently using his own professional expertise and background. Actually there's more than enough circumstantial, factual evidence to raise suspicion. There was a very interesting discussion on this subject on Talk Sport this afternoon, which basically restated what is being said in this thread about stimulants and diuretics. They also provided a good summary of the FA/UEFA blood and urine collection process. In particular, they explaned how the split sampling system works: samples of urine and blood are taken and each split into A and B containers, which are then sealed. The atheletes signs the labels to guard against tampering. Blood and urine samples A are tested and samples B are retained in a secure location. If one or both A samples test positive, the retained samples B are then tested. The atheletes and his representative have the right to be present during the retest to ensure that the analysis is done correctly. It is imprtant to note that retesting does not involve taking new specimens from the atheletes. It is done to confirm the initial positive results and to rule out any laboratory error. This is a standard procedure in any antidoping program.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 25, 2016 22:37:42 GMT
the point is though is that there is a huge difference between being suspicious of the sport and it's "cleanliness" as a whole (that's one thing that i agree we could do with finding out more FACTS about rather than what it is at the moment..speculation nothing more) and actually singling out individuals and specific teams when you have literally NO evidence whatsoever. that's just irresponsible (and as i said earlier, highly dangerous to just throw out there so flippantly) for someone who is apparently using his own professional expertise and background. Actually there's more than enough circumstantial, factual evidence to raise suspicion. There was a very interesting discussion on this subject on Talk Sport this afternoon, which basically restated what is being said in this thread about stimulants and diuretics. They also provided a good summary of the FA/UEFA blood and urine collection process. In particular, they explaned how the split sampling system works: samples of urine and blood are taken and each split into A and B containers, which are then sealed. The atheletes signs the labels to guard against tampering. Blood and urine samples A are tested and samples B are retained in a secure location. If one or both A samples test positive, the retained samples B are then tested. The atheletes and his representative have the right to be present during the retest to ensure that the analysis is done correctly. It is imprtant to note that retesting does not involve taking new specimens from the atheletes. It is done to confirm the initial positive results and to rule out any laboratory error. This is a standard procedure in any antidoping program. Giving a lecture on how they work is all well and good but what factual evidence is there for you to throw leicester and vardy into the mix? None whatsoever And fyi...it' either factual evidence or it's circumstantial evidence. It can't be both..what you mean is "complete speculation"
|
|
|
Post by shinosbro on Apr 26, 2016 0:41:23 GMT
the point is though is that there is a huge difference between being suspicious of the sport and it's "cleanliness" as a whole (that's one thing that i agree we could do with finding out more FACTS about rather than what it is at the moment..speculation nothing more) and actually singling out individuals and specific teams when you have literally NO evidence whatsoever. that's just irresponsible (and as i said earlier, highly dangerous to just throw out there so flippantly) for someone who is apparently using his own professional expertise and background. Actually there's more than enough circumstantial, factual evidence to raise suspicion. There was a very interesting discussion on this subject on Talk Sport this afternoon, which basically restated what is being said in this thread about stimulants and diuretics. They also provided a good summary of the FA/UEFA blood and urine collection process. In particular, they explaned how the split sampling system works: samples of urine and blood are taken and each split into A and B containers, which are then sealed. The atheletes signs the labels to guard against tampering. Blood and urine samples A are tested and samples B are retained in a secure location. If one or both A samples test positive, the retained samples B are then tested. The atheletes and his representative have the right to be present during the retest to ensure that the analysis is done correctly. It is imprtant to note that retesting does not involve taking new specimens from the atheletes. It is done to confirm the initial positive results and to rule out any laboratory error. This is a standard procedure in any antidoping program. I agree there's plenty of suspicion about the sport. But also agree with others that there's no particular evidence to suspect leicester. How could a less-well resourced team get access to the best drugs? Why assume a level playing field here? Doping done right is expensive, you'd expect the best paid players, best resourced clubs to get the best drugs
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Apr 26, 2016 1:34:52 GMT
soccer's history of dopinghave a wee read. cycling and athletics show the authorities will turn a blind eye for as long as humanly possible. and the rewards in soccer are that much higher (monetarily) there is much more for them to lose if they actually addressed the problem. I find this subject quite fascinating, that's a hell of a read if factual.
|
|
|
Post by shinosbro on Apr 26, 2016 3:31:08 GMT
soccer's history of dopinghave a wee read. cycling and athletics show the authorities will turn a blind eye for as long as humanly possible. and the rewards in soccer are that much higher (monetarily) there is much more for them to lose if they actually addressed the problem. I find this subject quite fascinating, that's a hell of a read if factual. I'd actually missed the bit there about Stanley Matthews and amphetamine when I posted that. But seems to be sourced from anautobiography
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Apr 26, 2016 4:34:06 GMT
I find this subject quite fascinating, that's a hell of a read if factual. I'd actually missed the bit there about Stanley Matthews and amphetamine when I posted that. But seems to be sourced from anautobiography Matthews, Beckenbauer & the 70's German team, the recent Spanish teams, Guardiola & Juve. Like I said, hell of a read. The more you think about, it would be amazing if there wasn't doping. Redknapp saying Wenger giving drugs to the invincibles. FIFA has been proven corrupt, UEFA must be tainted too. Wouldn't be hard to imagine corruption on the drugs front?
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Apr 26, 2016 4:38:51 GMT
Actually there's more than enough circumstantial, factual evidence to raise suspicion. There was a very interesting discussion on this subject on Talk Sport this afternoon, which basically restated what is being said in this thread about stimulants and diuretics. They also provided a good summary of the FA/UEFA blood and urine collection process. In particular, they explaned how the split sampling system works: samples of urine and blood are taken and each split into A and B containers, which are then sealed. The atheletes signs the labels to guard against tampering. Blood and urine samples A are tested and samples B are retained in a secure location. If one or both A samples test positive, the retained samples B are then tested. The atheletes and his representative have the right to be present during the retest to ensure that the analysis is done correctly. It is imprtant to note that retesting does not involve taking new specimens from the atheletes. It is done to confirm the initial positive results and to rule out any laboratory error. This is a standard procedure in any antidoping program. Giving a lecture on how they work is all well and good but what factual evidence is there for you to throw leicester and vardy into the mix? None whatsoever And fyi...it' either factual evidence or it's circumstantial evidence. It can't be both..what you mean is "complete speculation" This may result in another lecture, but here goes: It's an indisputable fact that a certain player was seen ranting and raving at a referee and waving a menacing finger in his face. There were millions of witnesses that saw it live or on TV and could testify to that effect. That fact is circumstantial evidence that the player's behavior MIGHT be indicative of substance abuse. A qualified expert witness could testify in support of that explanation. It could just as well be argued that the player simply lost his temper in the heat of the moment. A so-called "reasonable person" is left to draw their own conclusions because such behavior by itself doesn't prove anything. It simply raises suspicions and leads to the question is there any other evidence including a precedent for such behavior. For example, it is a fact that a very good baseball player, regularly hitting around 35 home runs a season suddenly started hitting over 60 home runs and broke the all time record. That's circumstantial evidence, based on fact, that this player was taking banned substances, which was supported by further circumstantial evidence based on the fact that he had bulked up significantly over that same period of time. An alternative explanation for this improved performance and increased muscle mass is that he worked out intensively in the off-season and subjected himself to very strict diet, which included health foods and legal nutritional supplements. This explanation is possible but not very probable. So there was enough circumstantial evidence that this player was taking performance enhancing drugs to justify an investigation. This investigation ultimately led to the uncovering of irrefutable evidence that he was using performance enhancing drugs in very large quantities. It's a crying shame because he was a hero and a role model for many young people and would have certainly made the hall of fame without cheating. Unfortunately he couldn't bare the thought that he would not be considered the greatest of all time. As a result he was disgraced, his records and statistics were expunged and he was banned for life. The initial investigation uncovered a hornets nest of drug abuse in baseball that led to several stars being banned (or suddenly retiring) - people involved in the production and distribution of the drugs went to prison. A classic feature of someone using elicit drugs is a sudden change in behavior or improvement in performance. All parents should be on the look-out for sudden changes in mood especially isolation and aggressive or erratic behavior (they are classic symptoms of drug abuse). The same is true for atheletes who show abrupt, unexpected improvement in performance, which at the very least a reason to ask questions. I am sorry for another lecture but you did ask for facts. Please let me know if you would any additional information and I will try to help.
|
|
|
Post by potterinleeds on Apr 26, 2016 8:01:10 GMT
This may result in another lecture, but here goes: It's an indisputable fact that a certain player was seen ranting and raving at a referee and waving a menacing finger in his face. There were millions of witnesses that saw it live or on TV and could testify to that effect. That fact is circumstantial evidence that the player's behavior MIGHT be indicative of substance abuse. A qualified expert witness could testify in support of that explanation. It could just as well be argued that the player simply lost his temper in the heat of the moment. A so-called "reasonable person" is left to draw their own conclusions because such behavior by itself doesn't prove anything. It simply raises suspicions and leads to the question is there any other evidence including a precedent for such behavior. For example, it is a fact that a very good baseball player, regularly hitting around 35 home runs a season suddenly started hitting over 60 home runs and broke the all time record. That's circumstantial evidence, based on fact, that this player was taking banned substances, which was supported by further circumstantial evidence based on the fact that he had bulked up significantly over that same period of time. An alternative explanation for this improved performance and increased muscle mass is that he worked out intensively in the off-season and subjected himself to very strict diet, which included health foods and legal nutritional supplements. This explanation is possible but not very probable. So there was enough circumstantial evidence that this player was taking performance enhancing drugs to justify an investigation. This investigation ultimately led to the uncovering of irrefutable evidence that he was using performance enhancing drugs in very large quantities. It's a crying shame because he was a hero and a role model for many young people and would have certainly made the hall of fame without cheating. Unfortunately he couldn't bare the thought that he would not be considered the greatest of all time. As a result he was disgraced, his records and statistics were expunged and he was banned for life. The initial investigation uncovered a hornets nest of drug abuse in baseball that led to several stars being banned (or suddenly retiring) - people involved in the production and distribution of the drugs went to prison. A classic feature of someone using elicit drugs is a sudden change in behavior or improvement in performance. All parents should be on the look-out for sudden changes in mood especially isolation and aggressive or erratic behavior (they are classic symptoms of drug abuse). The same is true for atheletes who show abrupt, unexpected improvement in performance, which at the very least a reason to ask questions. I am sorry for another lecture but you did ask for facts. Please let me know if you would any additional information and I will try to help.
Kustokie, I have found much of what you have posted on this thread about possible use of PEDs in football very interesting, but I'm afraid in this last post for me you have gone too far down the 'nudge nudge wink wink', 'no smoke without fire' etc road. By choosing to place the possible explanation that the behaviour of 'a certain player' might be due to substance abuse before the equally possible explanation that he just lost his rag, are you not placing a suggestive emphasis on the former? I don't doubt what you say about the baseball player and baseball is true, or your expertise in the field of drug testing, but I agree with mickmills that when you venture from general discussion of PEDs in football to raising more specific questions about certain players / teams, it might be considered unwise on a public forum. As I said though, interesting thread.
|
|
shino
Youth Player
Football & Hardman. Two contradictory terms.
Posts: 290
|
Post by shino on Apr 26, 2016 8:18:28 GMT
I find this subject quite fascinating, that's a hell of a read if factual. I'd actually missed the bit there about Stanley Matthews and amphetamine when I posted that. But seems to be sourced from anautobiography (Hello Bro!) Backing up this (and being an avid cycling follower) just read more into the Operation Puerto scandal. The Spanish government just buried the evidence relating to most other sports other than cycling in a legal hole. Much conjecture about Real Madrid, Barcelona, Rafael Nadal and other such luminaries and their 'special' medical assistance.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Apr 26, 2016 9:10:02 GMT
With regards to Vardy going mental when he was sent off, it could easily be a case of cognitive dissonance on his part. He has spent the whole season running at full tilt and going down in the box and winning penalties and all of a sudden he gets a yellow card for the same behaviour causing him to question the very idea of the card. It was as much an outburst against the rules of the game as much as the card itself.
|
|
|
Post by wozzerthepotter on Apr 26, 2016 9:34:06 GMT
I think anyone who thinks that drug use is just restricted to Athletes is just burying their head in the sand any mathematician will tell you that the chances of anything happening in one area of endeavour and not another are nil especially given the rewards available to everybody in Football. Any way don't we all take Shisha pipes out with us one a Saturday night as a fashion accessory! About 12 - 15 yrs ago I was involved in a sport other than Football at a level just below professional and in that Team sport there seemed to be prior knowledge of when a drug tester would be attending a match and certain players would pull up with an injury in the warm up plus if a tester were female and asked for a sample from say number 8 she was obviously unable to enter the dressing room a person other than the selected athlete would often give samples. In that sport only 2 people have ever been banned for drug taking and that was on their own admission not as a result of a failed drug test. Top athletes get tested 30 - 50 times a year I bet most footballers get tested once or twice.
Without getting myself in trouble I would say that most football club owners other than ours obviously spend their business lives walking a very narrow path between legal and illegal so a bit of doping that could never come back to them why not?
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Apr 26, 2016 9:48:17 GMT
I've found this a fascinating discussion, particularly kustokie's insights into drug abuse.
Now, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that PED's could well be being abused in Football. Possibly it's endemic.
I could be persuaded that Leicester may well be abusing PEDs.
I'd find it less credible that ONLY Leicester are involved, or that they've found some unique "better" way of doping than anyone else. To me, it's plausible that ALL teams are involved systematically in some way, -OR- it's limited to individual players and their personal medical advisers. It's one or t'other. Either way, to my mind PED abuse doesn't make a very convincing reason for Leicester's improvement.
As for evidence of enhanced performance - wasn't there an analysis earlier in the season (around christmas?) which showed there was nothing exceptional about the physical aspects of Leicester's game? I'm sure Spoz and Bournemouth were the teams that ran the most, Leicester were towards the top but there wasn't a lot between most of the teams. Also, I don't think there's any evidence of them running more since April 2015 (when there results suddenly improved) than they did prior to that. I know a lot of people keep saying they do, but is there any evidence?
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Apr 26, 2016 11:35:43 GMT
I'm no legal eagle but I can't help thinking that some of the more fanciful notions on here, particularly as pertaining to named individuals, want reigning in, if the good admins of the Oatcake are to retain their liberty.
|
|
|
Post by maliciousdamage on Apr 26, 2016 11:40:23 GMT
Is it possible Stoke players have recently been subjected to performance Dehancing drugs!!!! So which one of our star players will be chosen to dance with anton dubec on this year's strictly come dehancing ??? John Sergeant and Anne Widdecombe as centre halves against Sunderland, "you aren't getting through Mr Defoe"!!!
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Apr 26, 2016 13:29:15 GMT
I'm no legal eagle but I can't help thinking that some of the more fanciful notions on here, particularly as pertaining to named individuals, want reigning in, if the good admins of the Oatcake are to retain their liberty. I'm not even sure what a legal eagle is, but I may be one! I'd imagine a few "allegedly" and "possibly" type words would be helpful in many of the above posts! Quite a few potentially libelous accusations being thrown around without a shred of proof to back them up.
|
|