Who's the winner ??

[Jarro]

Ok OzGolf ..... help me settle a bet.

.. our good buddy Scotttt and i had a bet regarding Reni Maitua.

Scotttt said :


I guarantee he has an off field indiscretion by round 10. I'd be willing to put a case of piss on it. Now, i took this bet on ... but the question remains .... who won ?

I maintain that Maitua's indiscretion was on onfield issue ( the drug he took was designed to help his performance) wheras Scotttt implied he would screw up with an off field incident ( rec drugs/drunken behaviour/gangbanging)

So, who won the bet ?

[sms316]

Jarro wins. Stood down because of what amounts to cheating.

[jaybam]

This poll is more of a popularity contest i think. And if so will be a waste of time.
Can i vote 100 times please??

[Jarro]

This poll is more of a popularity contest i think.


Not at all mate.

Who do you think won the bet ? And why ?

[sms316]

Can i vote 100 times please??
You hate jarro that much?

[Sydney Hacker]

performance enhancing drug = on field

Jarro wins.

[3oneday]

Off field discretion is pissed, getting blown by some bloke/chick, killing/maiming a member of the public.

Performance enhancing drugs doesn't fit into the scheme of things, and I love you both like brothers.






No, seriously.

[goughy]

Sorry Scott, but this was an issue directly related to his on field performance. It's an on field offence.

Now coke, that would have been different!!

[Jarro]

Off field discretion is pissed, getting blown by some bloke/chick, killing/maiming a member of the public.


Well that's what i thought too :?

I can't see how taking horse tablets is an off-field infringement :-s

[jaybam]

Jarro wins. Is done to improve his chances on the field. Didnt work real well did it.

[BrisWesty]

It was the urine test that found him out, so provided the test didn't happen on field it's herefore an off-field indiscretion.
Don't care who wins, just stirring the pot.

[Jarro]

It was the urine test that found him out, so provided the test didn't happen on field it's herefore an off-field indiscretion.
Don't care who wins, just stirring the pot.

Trust you to get 'technical' :roll:

[3oneday]

Was it an out of competition test ? He may have you there bro.

[Fishman Dan]

performance enhancing drug = on field

Jarro wins.

But the drug taking has been happening for some time (you would imagine), and therefore is effectively an off-field incident - or atleast is an issue that surrounds the sport.

Pay up Jarro...

[Jarro]

But the drug taking has been happening for some time (you would imagine), and therefore is effectively an off-field incident - or atleast is an issue that surrounds the sport.

Pay up Jarro...


What the hell are you on about ?

How many other players have you read about recently that have been banned from the game for taking these prohibited substances ? Not too many i'd imagine :roll:

Drug-taking for the purpose of enhancing your on-field performance hardly qualifies as bad off-field behaviour does it ?

[Johnny Canuck]

An on-field offense is something that happens during the course of a game.

Off-field is something that happens away from the field.

This off-field incident directly related to his on-field performance, but the fact of the matter is that it occurred off-field.

I would argue that either Scottt wins the bet, or it is null and void. There is no way that Jarro wins the bet, unless his was sticking needles in his ass during a break in the play.

[Scottt]

My point exactly, JC, if they want to show us Ch9 footage of Maitua hitting the ball up with a needle hanging out of his arse cheek, Jarro wins.

To me the line in the sand is black and white:

On field incident - happens on the field ie. high tackle etc - a judiciary offence.
Off field incident - anything else - DUI, drugs, glassing your missus, fighting at Northies

This whole thing reminds me of Homer and Ned's bet over Bart and Rod/Todd's putt-putt game :lol:

[CobraSS]

Pay up Jarho, Scottt wins

[markTHEblake]

This poll is more of a popularity contest i think. And if so will be a waste of time.

exactly, nevertheless i cant decide who to vote for cos I dont like either of them.

[Yossarian]

I think the bet is null and void, but otherwise maybe Scottt... You don't take the drugs on the field. Was Ben Cousins and off field incident?
Did this situation crop up in framing the parameters of the bet?

[LarryLong]

I think golf is the winner.

[adlo]

An on-field offense is something that happens during the course of a game.

Off-field is something that happens away from the field.

This off-field incident directly related to his on-field performance, but the fact of the matter is that it occurred off-field.

I would argue that either Scottt wins the bet, or it is null and void. There is no way that Jarro wins the bet, unless his was sticking needles in his ass during a break in the play.

I agree with this view.

[adlo]

I think golf is the winner.

:smt038

[Eag's]

No Jarro wins purely because Scottt a wanker.

[adlo]

No Jarro wins purely because Scottt a wanker.

Let it go Eag's, bitterness eats you up from the inside out

[Johnny Canuck]

There should not have been any names mentioned when the poll was posted.

Ben Cousins was the first thing that came to mind. He was coked up. Rumoured to have been during games and even the grand final. Did it help his performance? It could have.

Did he consume the drugs on the field?

Interesting link: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_league_incidents) It is Wikipedia, but it lists all off-field incidents in rugby and there are examples of performance enhancing drug use...

[Yossarian]

Ice, which is what cousins was on, makes you run like a mad (insert appropriate adjective)

[PeteyD]

Hmm, I think the Off field incident does not include performance enhancing drugs tested for on match day.

In terms of the original bet, off field incident is one involving the public, a Matty Johns/Craig Gower/Wendell Sailor if you will.

[Scottt]

So DUI isn't an off-field incident?
SBW and Candice in the dunnies isn't an off-field incident?
Willie and Nate Myles being stood down for breaking alcohol policy isn't an off-field incident?

The poll's flawed anyway. No stipulated timeframe. No agreed % required to claim a win. No way of ensuring alters aren't voting. Names being named - especially in my case - mean there is no chance of people playing the ball rather than the man.

"In terms of the original bet", this counts. Jarro knows that deep down. He has my bank details if he wants to use them.

[Eag's]

Let it go Eag's, bitterness eats you up from the inside out

No bitterness here dude just stating the obvious.

[zigwah]

scott wins he took the drugs off field

[Scottt]

No bitterness here dude just stating the obvious.

Yep, not obsessed at all this past five days...


Jono, nobody on here is supprised by the actions of this clown, he seems to love to stir shit constantly :roll:
Scottt, do us all a favour and give yourself a swift uppercut :smt075

Scottt, ever thought about running for politics?? you can spin bullshit like no other. You don't give a flying shit about Zigwah's situation so give it a rest :roll:

No Jarro wins purely because Scottt a wanker.

Scottt - Is a Knob jockey.

[Eag's]

Hey, I call it as I see it. Do you think I am the only person on here with this opinon of you?? I don't tolerate fools as well as others.

[Jarro]

The poll's flawed anyway. No stipulated timeframe. No agreed % required to claim a win. No way of ensuring alters aren't voting. Names being named - especially in my case - mean there is no chance of people playing the ball rather than the man.

"In terms of the original bet", this counts. Jarro knows that deep down. He has my bank details if he wants to use them.

The poll isn't flawed mate, everyone can only vote once (if they indeed want to )

You should know me well enough to know that if i thought you won fair and square that i'd pay up no questions asked .... obviously there is a lot of grey area here.

I still believe that i won the bet .... taking a muscle regulating drug is hardly an off-field incident.

[zigwah]

so did he take it on the field?

[jaybam]

No Jarro wins purely because Scottt a wanker.

First post to make me laugh since i got home. Thanks eags :)

[u8ergolfer]

Not sure that Matua gives a f*** about football anymore anyway... Maybe he took it like Warnie took the diuretic to "look goood on Telly"...

[zigwah]

it was his mums fault

[PeteyD]

So DUI isn't an off-field incident?
SBW and Candice in the dunnies isn't an off-field incident?
Willie and Nate Myles being stood down for breaking alcohol policy isn't an off-field incident?



None of those have anything to do with playing the game. Steroids does.

You are claiming an event you can't claim, in my opinion, under the spirit of the bet. Mind you the bet itself was stupid, and should have been much better clarified earlier. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the Father of the boy that does not win has to mow the lawn in a dress.

[Scottt]

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the Father of the boy that does not win has to mow the lawn in a dress.

Me too :lol: (http://ozgolf.net/forums/showpost.php?p=320272&postcount=18)

[Johnny Canuck]

The poll isn't flawed mate, everyone can only vote once (if they indeed want to )

You should know me well enough to know that if i thought you won fair and square that i'd pay up no questions asked .... obviously there is a lot of grey area here.

I still believe that i won the bet .... taking a muscle regulating drug is hardly an off-field incident.

Come on Jarro. Be honest here.

What is an on course incident? Something that happens on the course.

If I took performance enhancing drugs to help my golf, it definately didn't happen on the course. Same thing goes for on-field incidents. It is something that happens during game play.

Hypothetical situation:
Jarro and I are playing rugby. He punches upwards and hits me in the nuts with a cheap shot. I let it go.

Later that night, I see Jarro at the bar, punch downwards, and hit him in the head.

It is in direct reference to what happened on the field. Is it an on-field incident? I think not.

[dc68]

Ahhh Snottttty you lose I have to vote for Frodo on this one.

[markTHEblake]

What is an on course incident? Something that happens on the course..

off field incident - obviously it means an incident unrelated to the game.

[Scottt]

No, Blake, it means an incident that takes place off the field.

I'm also pretty sure not knowing that Steve Price and Ray Price are different people should void your right to a vote :lol:

[Johnny Canuck]

Come on Blakey, you're a bright guy. On-field means, on the field, when the game is being played, or immediately before or after.

Off-field means away from the pitch, field, course, etc...

It is pretty black and white when you look at it that way.

If two Rugby players get into a fight in a nightclub because of something that happened earlier in the night during a game, you cannot call it an on-field incident.

[markTHEblake]

No, Blake, it means an incident that takes place off the field.

You should have drawn the line before you made the bet - too late now.

[zigwah]

You should have drawn the line before you made the bet - too late now.

I agree too much abiguity

[Jarro]

18 - 13 to the good guy so far :)

[3oneday]

Really, Scottt in front ??? damn, you must be disappointed :(

[just]

I googled it:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=who%27s+the+winner+%3F%3F&btnG=Search&meta=

Neither of your names appeared. You both lost. The real winner was the game.

[TheNuclearOne]

Jarro wins. For me performance enhancing = on field, recreational = off field.

There always seems to be a big onus on labelling them one or the other in the media.

[Daves]

I have seen some bet weasels in my time but Jarro's takes the cake for me.


I guarantee he has an off field indiscretion by round 10.

His indiscretion was he failed a drug test i.e. he got caught. Never seen a drug test carried out on field. Can only be one winner here in my mind, either the bet is void on a technicality or Jarro's loses.

[PeteyD]

A drug test taken after / before / during a game is still on field. Player sitting on the bench is still on field. Eg: Player punches referee after the game but in the referees change room. This would still be an on field indiscretion.

You have to take 'Off Field indiscretion' as meaning something unsavoury away from the game.

[markTHEblake]

You have to take 'Off Field indiscretion' as meaning something unsavoury away from the game.

I said that and a tonne of bricks fell on me.

On Field means the 'game'

[adlo]

Come on Blakey, you're a bright guy. On-field means, on the field, when the game is being played, or immediately before or after.

Off-field means away from the pitch, field, course, etc...

It is pretty black and white when you look at it that way.

If two Rugby players get into a fight in a nightclub because of something that happened earlier in the night during a game, you cannot call it an on-field incident.

It pains me to say it, but the canadian is right.

I struggle to see how you other guys are getting your definition of on-field.

http://modmycomments.com/x/celeb-quotes/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg

[Johnny Canuck]

It pains me to say it, but the canadian is right.

I struggle to see how you other guys are getting your definition of on-field.

http://modmycomments.com/x/celeb-quotes/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg

Boo-yaa!

[PeteyD]

Nah it is Off Field Indiscretion that is in question. On field has nothing to do with it.

[Scottt]

So Jarro, where do we stand with this. At first I thought this thread was an amusing joke, given I'd already received two PMs from you that I read pretty clearly as admissions that you'd lost. I know posting the contents of PMs is against the rules, so I won't be doing that without your permission.

But Jesus, man, are you seriously refusing to pay up?

[Jarro]

So Jarro, where do we stand with this. At first I thought this thread was an amusing joke, given I'd already received two PMs from you that I read pretty clearly as admissions that you'd lost. I know posting the contents of PMs is against the rules, so I won't be doing that without your permission.

But Jesus, man, are you seriously refusing to pay up?

That's correct.

Although i admit i didn't win, i don't think you did either.

I still don't believe the offence fit your criteria.

It's been fun debating it though :mrgreen:

[Jarro]

So Jarro, where do we stand with this. At first I thought this thread was an amusing joke, given I'd already received two PMs from you that I read pretty clearly as admissions that you'd lost. I know posting the contents of PMs is against the rules, so I won't be doing that without your permission.

But Jesus, man, are you seriously refusing to pay up?

Oh, and nice work making public the theme of a private PM.

That should constitute a banning i think.

[markTHEblake]

Jarro, you know you want to.

[henno]

I think a good ol' fashioned round of Roshambo would sort this out.

[Jarro]

Jarro, you know you want to.

Yes, yes i do :twisted:

[Scottt]

So you send those PMs, then about face and say you dispute the result, start a poll where a bunch of people openly say they voted for you because they don't like me - yet it's still neck-and-neck - and I'm not supposed to be pissed that you're refusing to pay?

[markTHEblake]

You are not being objective Scottt.

Jarro is probably pissed that you are refusing to pay.

[Jarro]

I sent those PM's in response to your PM stating that (in your opinion) i'd lost the bet. I told you that i had indeed not won the bet, but that i didn't believe that you had won it either.

Most of the replies in my thread seemed to indicate that i had indeed won, or at worst neither of us had won.

Two words buddy ...

.. get over it !!!

And with regards to the aforementioned poll, you're lucky i didn't start up one that most people wanted !

[Tongueboy]

yeah your bet scottt. pretty clear I think. old mate must be doing it hard...

[Scottt]

Jarro, the PMs were clear. I can't honestly believe you are trying to back out of this.

[PeteyD]

I can;t believe you think you won Scottt. No off field transgression has occured.

[Johnny Canuck]

While I techinically think Scottt won, if I had to pick a winner, I also think that the off the field indescretions that were alluded to would have been relating to sex, drugs and rock and roll and not riods.

When you return, you should play for it. If Jarro wins, he gets nothing, but if you win, you get the case.

[Eag's]

I sent those PM's in response to your PM stating that (in your opinion) i'd lost the bet. I told you that i had indeed not won the bet, but that i didn't believe that you had won it either.

Most of the replies in my thread seemed to indicate that i had indeed won, or at worst neither of us had won.

Two words buddy ...

.. get over it !!!

And with regards to the aforementioned poll, you're lucky i didn't start up one that most people wanted !

Oh please do :razz:

[Scottt]

Yep, it will shift the earth to hear that you and DC and co don't like me, Eag's. I'll have to see Dr Katz if that happens...

[Eag's]

Yep, it will shift the earth to hear that you and DC and co don't like me, Eag's. I'll have to see Dr Katz if that happens...

Why single out me & DC Scottt there are heaps of people ahead of us in the line who like stir you up. Can't imagine why that is though :smt102

[henno]

There are too many grown up feelings on ozgolf.

Scottt's a wanker, I'm a wanker, zigwah's a wanker.

Secretly, we're all wankers!

[Scottt]

Eag's, you appear to be operating under the assumption - and it's an easy mistake to make - that I give a f**k. That I give even a second's thought or a furrowed brow of concern to know that. Genuinely. People I don't know don't like my posts on an internet forum. Forgive me for not losing sleep.

Henno is right: a moment spent worrying what people you've never met think of you is a moment you're never getting back to spend more wisely.

[Yossarian]

Can I post that picture again?:mrgreen:

[Scottt]

The irony of that picture, Yosser, was that it was your own little way of running in the race. ;)

[Yossarian]

I know, I was hoping no one would be sharp enough to pick up on that...8-)

[PeteyD]

Wankers

[Tomo]

There are too many grown up feelings on ozgolf.

Scottt's a wanker, I'm a wanker, zigwah's a wanker.

Secretly, we're all wankers!

Yeah but we need more pics of Mrs Henno

[23Rounder]

I don't know either of you so am not biased either way, but an arguement could be made for both sides and I don't think either of you thought of the possibility of him testing positive to performance enhancing drugs. It is hardly an off-field incident when it is effectively him being found guilty of cheating at Rugby League but I certainly don't think Scott should be paying Jaro either. The obvious answer is to void the bet but I doubt that is what either of you want.

[Sydney Hacker]

I don't know either of you so am not biased either way, but an arguement could be made for both sides and I don't think either of you thought of the possibility of him testing positive to performance enhancing drugs. It is hardly an off-field incident when it is effectively him being found guilty of cheating at Rugby League but I certainly don't think Scott should be paying Jaro either. The obvious answer is to void the bet but I doubt that is what either of you want.

Where is the fun in that ?

[LarryLong]

This won yet?

[Scottt]

Yep. Jarro still hasn't paid though...

[Tomo]

Nor have you

[Scottt]

The difference being that I didn't send him two PMs conceding I had lost.

[zigwah]

just for future reference any bets i have made here are null and void, 2 i think.

It's a sad day when 2 men can't settle a bet they made together online, and if u ask me the outcome is clear.

[henno]

and if u ask me the outcome is clear.

No-one asked you. And according to grandmasterb, you have to be asked in order to comment. ;)

[Yossarian]

:lol:

[zigwah]

:(

[CobraSS]

That's correct.

Although i admit i didn't win, i don't think you did either.

I still don't believe the offence fit your criteria.

It's been fun debating it though :mrgreen:


Bet Welcher

[goughy]

Wots replacing this??

[3oneday]

Why hasn't someone asked for this thread to be closed, it's clearly going nowhere and will only end in tears. I think it's disgraceful that something like this has to happen on a public forum, I think you should all grow up.








Wankers :lol:

[Scottt]

Wots replacing this??

A poll asking whether OzGolfers like me or not, apparently...

[Tomo]

Get the hint then.

[Jarro]

All those that think this thread should be closed ....

... say so !!

[just]

Can we have a poll?

[Jarro]

If you really think we need to have one ?

[AndyP]

I haven't read the thread, but do either of you want to buy my vote for this poll?

[3oneday]

Oh, you hate both of them ? Or just the world in general ?


:lol:

[sms316]

Can I change my vote?

[AndyP]

I haven't read the thread, but do either of you want to buy my vote for this poll?
Actually I've got three votes for sale (AndyP, TestAndyP, OZgolfMod). Or I can just fudge the numbers of the poll.

Let me know.

[markTHEblake]

I havent voted with any of my aliases yet either.

[Grunt]

Hey Scottt, with that new avatar you may need more than $50 considering it is a Federal Offence to scan currency!

[Scottt]

Hey Scottt, with that new avatar you may need more than $50 considering it is a Federal Offence to scan currency!

How about google image searching "$50note"?

Tell the rozzers to come over and arrest me, but give me some notice to I can get them to bring that Dymo PeteyD is selling.

[Tomo]

He is a cheat so he wont mind

[PeteyD]

Who is a cheat?

[sms316]

I think OzGolf is the winner.

[goonie]

The field is clearly defined by a white line, if it happened inside the line then it's on field, if it happened outside of the line then it's off field, it seems pretty simple. If the bet was NRL or game related then it would be a different story, but since the only defining comments are "on field" and "off field" you have to go the simpilist definition and take out any personal opinions and believes, likes or dislikes, and then it is quite simple to see that is an off field offenese.

[goonie]

I don't know what drug he took, can't be bothered looking it up at work, but someone told me that they didn't see it giving him an advantage, what performance enhancement related to footy does the drug give him? if anyone can be bothered that is :-)

[mike]

I find post #114 most helpful.

[PeteyD]

The field is clearly defined by a white line, if it happened inside the line then it's on field, if it happened outside of the line then it's off field, it seems pretty simple. If the bet was NRL or game related then it would be a different story, but since the only defining comments are "on field" and "off field" you have to go the simpilist definition and take out any personal opinions and believes, likes or dislikes, and then it is quite simple to see that is an off field offenese.


On field is irrelevant. Argument is a definition of off field indiscretion. In the context of the time when the bet was made, off field refers to stuff away from the sport, ala booze and female types. Pretty simple in my books.

[Scottt]

Petey, you have dreamed this context up yourself to suit your little mate's argument. The bet was worded very simply, and goonie is right: the white lines around the field are the line between on field and off field.

But I won't be getting the cash, I don't reckon, which is a pity, but some people are willing to go back on their word when it suits them.

[Jarro]

Scottttttt, i pay up on my bets when i lose.

I didn't win this one, but neither did you.

Get over it !!!

[PeteyD]

Umm nope. and being a journo wanker you surprise me by your definition.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/03/21/greatest-ever-off-field-indiscretions/

[Scottt]

Scottttttt, i pay up on my bets when i lose.

I didn't win this one, but neither did you.

Get over it !!!

Jarro, that is frogshit. You PMd me to admit you lost. Twice.

[Sydney Hacker]

Jarro, that is frogshit. You PMd me to admit you lost. Twice.

Your whole arguement is that he PM'd you twice ???

He could of sat back afterwards and easily thought "hang on, that is frog s%^t" was there any further pm's to say he didn't think he had lost ?

[Webster]

I think you are both losers, Scott slightly more loserish than Jarro if that matters (note: comments not intended as a personal insult, merely an observation in answer of the title of the thread)

Peace.

Jack.

[PeteyD]

I actually think Jarro has won it. No of field indiscretion. Anywya, opinions as they say et al.

[Scottt]

Your whole arguement is that he PM'd you twice ???

He could of sat back afterwards and easily thought "hang on, that is frog s%^t" was there any further pm's to say he didn't think he had lost ?

No, the final words of the final PM were saying he would pay up.

My argument is that Maitua had an off field indiscretion by rd. 10 as wagered. It happened. Jaro admitted as much and said he would pay.

At that point, all was rosey. Jarro knows this happened or he would have arked up more when it was brought up. He knows he has dudded me and doesn't give a shit.

[Sydney Hacker]

No, the final words of the final PM were saying he would pay up.

My argument is that Maitua had an off field indiscretion by rd. 10 as wagered. It happened. Jaro admitted as much and said he would pay.

At that point, all was rosey. Jarro knows this happened or he would have arked up more when it was brought up. He knows he has dudded me and doesn't give a shit.

And as plenty of others have said they don't think it is classed as an off field issue. I am one of those.

You seem too interested/determined to believe everyone is out to get you or against you to actually listen to someothers opinion.

Granted others think it is an off-field decision, but not a clear majority.

[Jarro]

Scottt, you're full of shit ... although i don't really need to tell anybody here that now do i.

I'm not paying you 'cos you didn't win. I didn't win either, as i alluded to in my PM.

Get over it !!

[Scottt]

Then you won't mind me posting the PM publicly then, Jarro?

SH - plenty have said they voted for Jarro because they dislike me, but I'm sure he would have found a way not to pay even if I was ahead in his poll.

[Jarro]

Then you won't mind me posting the PM publicly then, Jarro?


Posting PM's is poor form ... so something you'd probably do anyway.

I know that i didn't win the bet (although now that i think about it i believe i have seeing as though it's after round 10) as i said in my PM, but i also know that you didn't win, as i've said previously.

We obviously disagree on what "off-field' means .... probably should've clarified that prior to accepting the bet shouldn't we :roll:

[Scottt]

You probably should have thought about it prior to twice conceding you'd lost the bet.

[AndyP]

SH - plenty have said they voted for Jarro because they dislike me, but I'm sure he would have found a way not to pay even if I was ahead in his poll.All 26?

[Scottt]

No Andy, but let's say it was five? That would leave me in front at the moment, which would leave Jarro searching for a new reason why he shouldn't have to pay out.

[Sydney Hacker]

And maybe some of yours voted against Jarro just to stir him ???

[Jarro]

And maybe some of yours voted against Jarro just to stir him ???

Noooo :shock:

I feel so victimised !!!

[Scottt]

And maybe some of yours voted against Jarro just to stir him ???

Which is why - as I pointed out on page 1 or 2 - this poll was a waste of time from the beginning. All Jarro was going to achieve was making himself feel better about welching on our bet.

[Johnny Canuck]

There was a case a few years back of a UFC fighter that was taking steriods to tone up his physique so that he was more marketable to potential sponsors.

Maybe that's what this guy was doing... The articles on the drug test state that the substance is normally taken in conjuction with roids to give a "cut look" and burn fat.

I think this bet needs to be settled with another bet.

In regards to posting the PM, it's not really poor form if he clears it first, especially if it contains some wording that can end this stupid argument. It's not like it is anything personal like Jarro admitting that he wears boosters in his shoes to make him taller.

[Jarro]

There was a case a few years back of a UFC fighter that was taking steriods to tone up his physique so that he was more marketable to potential sponsors.

Maybe that's what this guy was doing... The articles on the drug test state that the substance is normally taken in conjuction with roids to give a "cut look" and burn fat.



Yeah, that's it ... he took the gear to look good for his audition for dancing with the stars :roll:

What does every athlete take a banned substance for ? To improve their onfield performance.

[jaybam]

I voted for Jarro cause your a dickhead scotttttttttttt. Just telling it how it is like you do mate sorry.

[sms316]

Was the test conducted after a match?

If so, he is guilty of cheating on the field.

Either way, I don't give a stuff anymore - but I enjoy watching 2 people having a shitfight nonetheless.

[Peter]

It appears that the content of the PM's has already been disclosed (poor form in my humble opinion).

The poll is irrelevant - all that matters is the mutual interpretation of 'off field indiscretion' by Scottt and Jarro when the bet was entered into. If it wasn't defined (which appears to be the case), then you need to rely on the integrity of each party to state how they would have categorised the offence if asked at the time (off field indiscretion or otherwise).

Personally, I wouldn't include the taking of a performance enhancing drug in my interpretation of 'off field indiscretion', but each to their own.

[Scottt]

I seem to be making something of a resurgence 27-25 and closing.

[Eag's]

It looks like a draw to me so rather than having to go through another 10 pages of crap, how about you let the money carry over into another bet??
State clearly what the bet will be on and go from there.
Maybe the Origin result or Broncos V Bulldogs end of season ladder position?

[Scottt]

I'd rather Jarro just honour his word now and pay up like he said he would.

[adlo]

Agree with Eags. Roll the bet over.

[Iain]

But wasn't he only outed for taking the drugs after rd 10? And the bet was and indiscretion by round 10?

[mike]

28 all.

Extra time?

[Scottt]

Iain, he tested positive three weeks or so earlier.

When was it broken that he was positive anyway? Wasn't it before the Monday Night game in rd 10?

[sms316]

Jarro really should have made this a public poll, so we could see who voted for whom.

[AndyP]

I'm about to delete the fake members that some **** created. Hmmm, who should I suspect...... Thanks.

[Iain]

Iain, he tested positive three weeks or so earlier.

When was it broken that he was positive anyway? Wasn't it before the Monday Night game in rd 10?

News reports are about the 20th of May. http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/20/1242498802273.html

[Jarro]

News reports are about the 20th of May. http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/20/1242498802273.html

Oh dear, that seems to be a few days after the end of round 10 :shock:

Does that mean i win the bet ?

[henno]

Oooh, this has more twists than a bag of pretzels.

[Jarro]

Oooh, this has more twists than a bag of pretzels.

Indeed :-s

[Scottt]

Yawn. He tested positive weeks earlier. The day the press reported it is completely moot. It had already happened well before rd10.

[Yossarian]

When does it become an incident though?


How long is a piece of string?

[AndyP]

How's that poll looking now with Scott's fake accounts removed?

How sad!

[henno]

Make the poll public dammit!

[markTHEblake]

The Poll is obviously seriously flawed. As it was stated over and over by Scottt this is merely a popularity vote, yet there is no way that there are 19 people that like Scottt.

[Scottt]

Nine fake accounts? Bullshit. There were two. The last vote by me was last week sometime. The IP addresses will tell you that if you bother to look Andy. Which you either didn't do and flew off half cocked, or did do and decided not to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Now how about the other users' alters? And the openly "I hate Scottt" votes?

[markTHEblake]

How's that poll looking now with Scott's fake accounts removed?

How sad!

If you are not joking (so hard to tell) then that is a deliberate attempt to mislead Ozgolfers for financial gain. I dunno what it takes to get banned for life but that has got to be close.

[Yossarian]

How about

http://i39.tinypic.com/2h3q8fa.jpg

[Scottt]

Much as Ari Gold is the motherf**king man, no.

[Yossarian]

How's that poll looking now with Scott's fake accounts removed?

How sad!


Whose IP address?

[Iain]

Yawn. He tested positive weeks earlier. The day the press reported it is completely moot. It had already happened well before rd10.

Does it though?? Like others have said, the bet terms weren't clearly defined when accepted, so maybe you should just move on.

And with you continuously mentioning Jarro's PM stating he lost, isn't he allowed to reconsider his position after thinking about it??

[AndyP]

Nine fake accounts? Bullshit. There were two. The last vote by me was last week sometime. The IP addresses will tell you that if you bother to look Andy. Which you either didn't do and flew off half cocked, or did do and decided not to let the truth get in the way of a good story.Nice rant at the admin.

There were 9 fake accounts that I just removed.
Why would I bother spending time to check the IP addresses of them all? I spent enough time deleting them. I don't really care who created them, it was a pisspoor thing to do.


Now how about the other users' alters? And the openly "I hate Scottt" votes?What other alters? Am I expected to adjust the poll after determining who likes you and who doesn't? **** that, I haven't even voted myself.

[BrisVegas]

I haven't voted. What's the point? The wager is too ambiguous.

Why don't you both chip in a 6-pack of Rum & Coke and I'll drink them on Saturday at the champs. 8-)

[Scottt]

Nice rant at the admin.

There were 9 fake accounts that I just removed.
Why would I bother spending time to check the IP addresses of them all? I spent enough time deleting them. I don't really care who created them

Fair enough. You didn't bother to check, but decided to post that they were mine all the same.


How's that poll looking now with Scott's fake accounts removed?

Remember when Bart told Homer "your half-arsed under parenting was a lot better than your half-arsed over parenting"...

[AndyP]

Hang on, you've just admitted that you created two extra accounts, yet arguing that my statement is wrong at the same time? You're unbelievable.

[just]

Your surprised?

[Scottt]

Hang on, you've just admitted that you created two extra accounts, yet arguing that my statement is wrong at the same time? You're unbelievable.

I wondered if it might make Jarro sweat if his poll turned on him. But then I decided a) it wasn't worth the effort and b) that was kinda sad anyway. He would squirm out of paying no matter what.

But you were wrong to attribute as mine the nine accounts you deleted.

But if you're going to bother investigating and deleting accounts/votes, the least you could do is see whose they were (given an IP or email addy check would be the only surefire way to see it was an alter and not a newb who decided to vote) and not just ignorantly say they were all mine.

[Jarro]

I wondered if it might make Jarro sweat if his poll turned on him. But then I decided a) it wasn't worth the effort and b) that was kinda sad anyway. He would squirm out of paying no matter what.

But you were wrong to attribute as mine the nine accounts you deleted.

But if you're going to bother investigating and deleting accounts/votes, the least you could do is see whose they were (given an IP or email addy check would be the only surefire way to see it was an alter and not a newb who decided to vote) and not just ignorantly say they were all mine.

I don't need to pay Champ, i won the bet.

I'll send you my account details.

[Scottt]

You're scum Jarro.

[Johnny Canuck]

Yeah, that's it ... he took the gear to look good for his audition for dancing with the stars :roll:

What does every athlete take a banned substance for ? To improve their onfield performance.

[/quote]
Not saying it was the case, just providing another example of how this bet is too subjective to one person's views.

Roll the bet over. Make it public.

As much as I support the definition of off field, which is where it occurred, it really is too grey of an area, that wasn't covered at the start.

Speaking of Bets:

I have a $100 free bet that I have to lay tonight. Anybody have any good tips out there for me? There aren't any half decent AFL odds this week and the upcoming UFC fights are too heavily skewed. How about this State of Orgy thing that is happening?

Who is going to win the upcoming Cricket 20's?

[Scottt]

JC, why not just take a sure thing bet with minimal odds to convert the bet into cash?

[Jarro]

You're scum Jarro.

You're a dickhead Scottttt.

[Johnny Canuck]

With it being a Free Bet, you don't get to keep the initial $100, only winnings. I thought that same way at the start.

[henno]

JC, why not just take a sure thing bet with minimal odds to convert the bet into cash?

What he said.

EDIT: Post #174 noted.

[Scottt]

Bugger. What's Qld paying to win Origin? As close to a sure thing as you could get with decent odds probably?

[Fishman Dan]

Scottt should pay up, because he shouldn't be eligible for the $900 bonus while living abroad. At least that way some of that free cash gets put back into our economy, not into the land of the Soap Dodgers.

[BrisVegas]

i get nervous when QLD is favourite to win Origin. It just doesn't feel right.

[Fishman Dan]

Both of them should set up creatures at MyBrute.com and fight each other. The winner takes all (though both have lost all respect).

[markTHEblake]

Impossible, you have to have respect in the first place to lose it.

[Yossarian]

Henno, priceless :lol:

Oh and I think we could use some

http://i41.tinypic.com/2005zqv.jpg

[Eag's]

You feeling the love Scottt :lol:
I have to say, setting up dodgy accounts just to win a lousy $50 is piss weak [-X
Before you ask how many accounts I have Scottt, the answer is one, AP can confirm that.

[Scottt]

Eag's, I had already won the $50. The poll and the accounts that voted mean nothing. Jarro had already lost the bet, conceded he lost the bet and said in as many words that he would pay up.

[jaybam]

dickhead :)

[Jarro]

this poll was a waste of time from the beginning.


I seem to be making something of a resurgence 27-25 and closing.


The poll and the accounts that voted mean nothing.

:-s

[TheNuclearOne]

Nine fake accounts? Bullshit. There were two.

That's a shocker Scott.

[Fishman Dan]

This thread is 200 posts old... shouldn't Ziggy now fire up a thread redirecting the attention his way?

[Scottt]

Yep, TNO, because I am the only one who has alters. MTB already admitted he has some, so did someone else.

There are seven deleted votes unaccounted for, as well as any that were cast for Jarro.

[adlo]

Canuck, what are The Cavs paying to come back and win the NBA East Finals?

[Scottt]

This thread is 200 posts old... shouldn't Ziggy now fire up a thread redirecting the attention his way?

I'm not sure if I am the only one who picked up on it, but I did notice this.


scott wins he took the drugs off field


I agree too much abiguity

:lol:

[Scottt]

Canuck, what are The Cavs paying to come back and win the NBA East Finals?

They better not. Magic ftw baby!

[Ned]

Has "Dwayne" been unfrozen ?????????:shock:

[TheNuclearOne]

Yep, TNO, because I am the only one who has alters.

The thing is, you tried to use them in deceitful for financial gain, however small. You also go the moral speech whenever the football hooligans etc get into trouble.

Just seems a trifle contradictory to me.

[Webster]

Jeez Scott, you are having a really bad day on the internet today.....copping a smashing all over the place..

[Scottt]

:lol: TNO, the bet was conceded long before this poll was started. It means nothing, which was what I was seeking to prove by f**king with the numbers.

[Sydney Hacker]

Yep, TNO, because I am the only one who has alters. MTB already admitted he has some, so did someone else.

There are seven deleted votes unaccounted for, as well as any that were cast for Jarro.

There is a big difference between joking about voting with fake alias and then going ahead and doing it. It is poor form especially from someone who the poll concerns.

I thought originally the banter was light hearted, but you seem intent on taking it to another level and alienating yourself from even more people.

Do you mind if I ask what actual enjoyment you get from posting on here ? Or do you actually get off on causing conflict ?

[Scottt]

Jeez Scott, you are having a really bad day on the internet today.....copping a smashing all over the place..

Yep, you and AndyA can really dribble ;) What position are you fellas in that you can both type while you're into it? Him over the PC desk and you with a laptop on his back?

[TheNuclearOne]

:lol: TNO, the bet was conceded long before this poll was started. It means nothing, which was what I was seeking to prove by f**king with the numbers.

Jarro seems to be saying otherwise. Or did you concede it?

:smt038

[Scottt]

Do you mind if I ask what actual enjoyment you get from posting on here ? Or do you actually get off on causing conflict ?

I enjoy talking golf and having a bit of banter. I never cause shit for the sheer fun of it.

I genuinely feel robbed here, SH. We had a bet, he admitted he lost and is now refusing to pay. I feel genuionely aggrieved, and the joy he is taking in being a c**t about it royally shits me.

[Scottt]

Jarro seems to be saying otherwise. Or did you concede it?

:smt038

Jarro is full of shit. If he isn't, he will permit me to publish his final PM on the open forum.

[TheNuclearOne]

Jarro is full of shit. If he isn't, he will permit me to publish his final PM on the open forum.

Regardless, things seem to have changed a bit since then.

[Scottt]

What has changed?

The offence remains the same.
Ther terms of our bet are unchanged.

All that changed is that Jarro decided he didn't feel like manning up and honouring his word.

[Sydney Hacker]

Jarro is full of shit. If he isn't, he will permit me to publish his final PM on the open forum.

Again a lot of people think he isn't full of shite. I for one think he has a very good arguement that he won the bet.

And even if he does say to publish his final PM it doesn't matter, everyone has the right to sit back and think about something and realise they may of erred in quickly agreeing to something.

[Scottt]

SH, put yourself in my shoes. You wouldn't be filthy?

[Jono]

There are seven deleted votes unaccounted for, as well as any that were cast for Jarro.

So are you saying that you didn't open those accounts from your neighbour's internet account?

[TheNuclearOne]

Again a lot of people think he isn't full of shite. I for one think he has a very good arguement that he won the bet.

And even if he does say to publish his final PM it doesn't matter, everyone has the right to sit back and think about something and realise they may of erred in quickly agreeing to something.

Perfectly spoken.

[TheNuclearOne]

SH, put yourself in my shoes. You wouldn't be filthy?

He simply would have paid up, i gather.

[Sydney Hacker]

SH, put yourself in my shoes. You wouldn't be filthy?

No I would not of been filthy about a bet I made on a website half in jest, without defining conditions etc. has fallen apart on a matter that not many people can agree on.

I would also not be filthy that the person said you won, and then came back to me and said "hang on a minute"

Jarro has already said he feels no-one has one the bet.

You have got nothing to gain by beating the matter up more and more. The only result that can come from this will be you will no longer be welcome here.

Jarro rightly or wrongly (:lol:) has a lot of friends on here so calling him all sort of names is never going to work.

If you feel as offended as you say you are I suggest you not log on for a few days and think if losing a place you obviously enjoy posting at is worth losing over $50!

[Scottt]

The bet was not made in jest. I have other wagers in here that I will honour should I lose. You do not bet another bloke in jest. These are people you may have met, or bought and sold gear with, it is far from some anonymous identity.

[Sydney Hacker]

The bet was not made in jest. I have other wagers in here that I will honour should I lose. You do not bet another bloke in jest. These are people you may have met, or bought and sold gear with, it is far from some anonymous identity.

So what if he (or someone else for that matter) comes to you know and says I will pay you the $50 but piss off and never come back here again ?

From what I can gather, and this is purely a personal observation, people are sick of the baggage you are bringing. Every slanging match in here seems to have you involved at some point.

Again if losing a place you like posting at is worth losing for $50 keep going. But if it was me I would say the matter is now dead, never bet on here again with anyone, and move on.

[Sydney Hacker]

I can't believe I wasted my milestone 500th post in here :)

[Webster]

Jarro, give him his $50 just to shut him the **** up!

[AndyP]

I wondered if it might make Jarro sweat if his poll turned on him. But then I decided a) it wasn't worth the effort and b) that was kinda sad anyway. He would squirm out of paying no matter what.Creating two more accounts is perfectly normal.


But you were wrong to attribute as mine the nine accounts you deleted. Did I? I made a statement knowing very well that it wasn't false, regardless of whether you created 2, 5 or 9 accounts.


But if you're going to bother investigating and deleting accounts/votes, the least you could do is see whose they were (given an IP or email addy check would be the only surefire way to see it was an alter and not a newb who decided to vote) and not just ignorantly say they were all mine.I didn't realise I had to justify my administration to you, but to the detriment of your argument, it was investigated. Most of the accounts were created with similar email addresses (from a generic mail host), and were obviously made by the same person, yet had different IP addresses attributed to them. So it's not really a "surefire" way of determining aliases at all, despite your apparent expertise on the subject. And there is absolutely no way that it was a newb who decided to vote.


There are seven deleted votes unaccounted for, as well as any that were cast for Jarro.No false user votes for jarro. I recognised every username there.

I'm not paying you $10 (or whatever the bet is), so let it go.

[Scottt]

So what if he (or someone else for that matter) comes to you know and says I will pay you the $50 but piss off and never come back here again ?

From what I can gather, and this is purely a personal observation, people are sick of the baggage you are bringing. Every slanging match in here seems to have you involved at some point.

Again if losing a place you like posting at is worth losing for $50 keep going. But if it was me I would say the matter is now dead, never bet on here again with anyone, and move on.

Zig perhaps wisely absolved himself of any bets made on OzGolf a few pages ago...

There are plenty of people here who end up in arguments regularly. The tension seems to come and go in waves. A healthy debate is a good thing, and those who don't like them can exercise their right not to read them.

It has been spicy recently...

[Yossarian]

http://i40.tinypic.com/j5dmpl.jpg

[Ned]

I didn't realise I had to justify my administration to you, but to the detriment of your argument, it was investigated. Most of the accounts were created with similar email addresses (from a generic mail host), and were obviously made by the same person, yet had different IP addresses attributed to them. So it's not really a "surefire" way of determining aliases at all, despite your apparent expertise on the subject. And there is absolutely no way that it was a newb who decided to vote.


Turn your Modem/Router off and turn back on reloads a new IP doesnt it ?


It has been spicy recently...

With a few very common attendees!

[jaybam]

And some how you always seem to be in there somewhere trying to add the "spice" .
Why dont you give Jarro 50 bucks and why doesnt Jarro give you 50 bucks then you can both feel like you won without actually losing. At least shutup about it for a bit anyway.

[Scottt]

Anyway. This is my last word on the matter. I think it's bullshit to make a bet you don't intend to honour or welch on a bet you have agreed you lost.

Jarro knows what was said in the PMs and he can make his own decision. He has my bank details, and either my account will be $50 better off this weekend or it won't.

But at this point I genuinely feel robbed of $50 and disappointed that Jarro would act this way towards me. The banter from the other clowns doesn't bother me. But Jarro and I have traded gear in the past, I even threw in something extra for him once as a goodwill gesture for slow postage, and I didn't expect this from him.

That's it from me on this.

[Sydney Hacker]

Zig perhaps wisely absolved himself of any bets made on OzGolf a few pages ago...

There are plenty of people here who end up in arguments regularly. The tension seems to come and go in waves. A healthy debate is a good thing, and those who don't like them can exercise their right not to read them.

It has been spicy recently...

Healthy debate is one thing Scottt, but this has disolved to name calling and carrying on like children, and sorry but you are the main culprit there.

You are not going to achieve anything from carrying on a like a tool, no-one will want to play golf with you, it will get to a point where most people have you on ignore etc etc etc.

You are not the only antagonist on here, but you sure as hell stand out like dog balls whenever a arguement or "heated debate" begins.

[Ned]

Anyway. This is my last word on the matter. I think it's bullshit to make a bet you don't intend to honour or welch on a bet you have agreed you lost.

Jarro knows what was said in the PMs and he can make his own decision. He has my bank details, and either my account will be $50 better off this weekend or it won't.

But at this point I genuinely feel robbed of $50 and disappointed that Jarro would act this way towards me. The banter from the other clowns doesn't bother me. But Jarro and I have traded gear in the past, I even threw in something extra for him once as a goodwill gesture for slow postage, and I didn't expect this from him.

That's it from me on this.

Is it the same account that krudds money went into ?

:smt022:smt039

[Webster]

Well said SH. Nobody likes a bully.

[Johnny Canuck]

Canuck, what are The Cavs paying to come back and win the NBA East Finals?

I like that bet. I still don't believe the Magic are a finals team. I'll see if that is an option.

I think I have met my match, the unjackable thread.

While we are on debt collecting, SHANEO, WHERE'S MY $10, BITCH?

[Yossarian]

They keep going back on topic....

http://i39.tinypic.com/15q3sde.jpg

[Johnny Canuck]

Aldo, only $2.85. That is crap to win 3 straight! I'd get better odds betting 3 separate times. Two Cleveland home games, where they seldom lose, I guess.

[henno]

They keep going back on topic....

http://i39.tinypic.com/15q3sde.jpg

A post to make any seasoned threadjacker proud.

[adlo]

Aldo, only $2.85. That is crap to win 3 straight! I'd get better odds betting 3 separate times. Two Cleveland home games, where they seldom lose, I guess.
Agreed, thought it would be much better. Cavs could have so easily swept the series, they keep handing games to the Magic. Magic will get flogged if they make the finals.

A post to make any seasoned threadjacker proud.
:lol:

[Johnny Canuck]

I want a Kobe/LeBron final.

[Yossarian]

You are an inspiration to us all henno:D

[adlo]

I want a Kobe/LeBron final.
Agreed. Lebron is a much better player than Kobe though.

[Scottt]

Agreed, thought it would be much better. Cavs could have so easily swept the series, they keep handing games to the Magic. Magic will get flogged if they make the finals.

:lol:

They said we'd get flogged against The Cavs and Celtics, too. It's like the Wests Tigers in 2005!

[adlo]

Magic are a decent team, but not a championship team Scottt.

Bet you $50 they don't win the championship.

[Yossarian]

Magic are a decent team, but not a championship team Scottt.

Bet you $50 they don't win the championship.

http://i39.tinypic.com/f3xi0l.jpg

[adlo]

Oh no she deeeeeeeeeeeeed-n't

[Yossarian]

:mrgreen:

[Scottt]

Adlo, while I do believe you would pay up, if I'm throwing $50 at the Magic to win, I'll take the odds on offer at one of the bookies.

[adlo]

Fair call

[mike]

They keep going back on topic....

http://i39.tinypic.com/15q3sde.jpg
Yossarian, you legend.
I've been searching for that pic for ages.
Classic Python.

[Yossarian]

Happy to be of assistance

[mike]

Just last week I googled "Naked Terry Jones piano". My wife saw what I typed. Took some explaining.

[Eag's]

Sorry couldn't help it ;)

[Yossarian]

:lol:

[Johnny Canuck]

In the end, the $100 free bet went on Carlton -24.5 @ $1.80. It's getting a little too close for comfort!