Sport Today

> 1) Does anyone believe this is sloppy language, or is the "doctor" lying
now
> in trying to distance himself from the ridiculous claims he made
previously?
> If he's lying now, was he lying then, deliberately inserting
misinformation
> about "fixed flexion"? And if he's an habitual liar, could he be lying
about
> his medical qualifications too?

> 2) If the post is so full of "sloppy language" that even the author now
> confesses there is no truth in what was actually written, why on earth did
> Larry promote it and describe it as "intelligent" and even "brilliant"? Is
> he that intellectually dishonest that he will deliberately promote any
> rubbish that agrees with his point of view about Murali? Was he blinded by
> the "doctor's" claimed "qualifications"? Does he genuinely know so little
> that he hadn't realised that this "fixed flexion" stuff was a load of
> cobblers?

> 3) When Rats posted two photos allegedly incriminating Murali, the
> anti-Murali brigade came out almost as one saying "His arm's NOT straight
in
> the second one - it's simply bent towards the camera." Does this sound
like
> people on a campaign founded on blind racism? Or people who evaluate
> "evidence" put before them with open minds, rejecting unsound arguments
from
> BOTH sides rather than just the one that disagrees with them?

> Wog

>Since there's been a bit of revisionism going on about who said what, let's
>just recap what this "doctor" actually said the second time around, and the
>response from his cheer squad:

>"Message 1 in thread

>Subject: A post from a doctor....

>View this article only
>Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
>Date: 2004-02-18 16:38:41 PST

>With all this Murali bullshit, it is nice to get an intelligent post on rsc
>on this subject written by someone who actually KNOWS what he is talking
>about. Educate yourselves, Murali haters. This is from "hello", taken from
>another rsc thread.
>This is a brilliant post I reproduce below.

>Laz
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Well I am a doctor, and my qualifications are MBBS BSc MRCOphth (I am an
>ophthalmic surgeon)

>And in my training I worked as an Orthopaedic resident to a specialist in
>sports medicine, so I know a bit more than you do about medicine

>Fixed flexion means exactly what it says, his elbow joint is fixed in a
>position of permanent flexion, ie bent, it does not extend or straighten."

>We're now being told by the "doctor" (after days of merciless flaming) that
>"fixed flexion" was actually sloppy language. That he didn't really mean
>that. That he meant "flexion deformity."

> >Since there's been a bit of revisionism going on about who said what,
let's
> >just recap what this "doctor" actually said the second time around, and
the
> >response from his cheer squad:

> >"Message 1 in thread

> >Subject: A post from a doctor....

> >View this article only
> >Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
> >Date: 2004-02-18 16:38:41 PST

> >With all this Murali bullshit, it is nice to get an intelligent post on
rsc
> >on this subject written by someone who actually KNOWS what he is talking
> >about. Educate yourselves, Murali haters. This is from "hello", taken
from
> >another rsc thread.
> >This is a brilliant post I reproduce below.

> >Laz

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

> >Well I am a doctor, and my qualifications are MBBS BSc MRCOphth (I am an
> >ophthalmic surgeon)

> >And in my training I worked as an Orthopaedic resident to a specialist in
> >sports medicine, so I know a bit more than you do about medicine

> >Fixed flexion means exactly what it says, his elbow joint is fixed in a
> >position of permanent flexion, ie bent, it does not extend or
straighten."

> >We're now being told by the "doctor" (after days of merciless flaming)
that
> >"fixed flexion" was actually sloppy language. That he didn't really mean
> >that. That he meant "flexion deformity."

> The "doctor" was right in calling it a "fixed flexion deformity" but he
didn't
> seem to know what the "fixed" part actually meant. It is a confusing term,
but
> the "fixed" part means that the person with the deformity cannot extend
the
> joint in question past a "fixed" point. If you think about it a bit, the
term
> does make sense, as the joint in question is in a state of "fixed flexion"
(ie,
> it is always bent or flexed a bit). It does not mean it is permanently
fixed at
> one point.

> Murali DOES have a fixed flexion deformity.

> org

>>>Since there's been a bit of revisionism going on about who said what,

> let's

>>>just recap what this "doctor" actually said the second time around, and

> the

>>>response from his cheer squad:

>>>"Message 1 in thread

>>>Subject: A post from a doctor....

>>>View this article only
>>>Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
>>>Date: 2004-02-18 16:38:41 PST

>>>With all this Murali bullshit, it is nice to get an intelligent post on

> rsc

>>>on this subject written by someone who actually KNOWS what he is talking
>>>about. Educate yourselves, Murali haters. This is from "hello", taken

> from

>>>another rsc thread.
>>>This is a brilliant post I reproduce below.

>>>Laz

>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -

>>>Well I am a doctor, and my qualifications are MBBS BSc MRCOphth (I am an
>>>ophthalmic surgeon)

>>>And in my training I worked as an Orthopaedic resident to a specialist in
>>>sports medicine, so I know a bit more than you do about medicine

>>>Fixed flexion means exactly what it says, his elbow joint is fixed in a
>>>position of permanent flexion, ie bent, it does not extend or

> straighten."

>>>We're now being told by the "doctor" (after days of merciless flaming)

> that

>>>"fixed flexion" was actually sloppy language. That he didn't really mean
>>>that. That he meant "flexion deformity."

>>The "doctor" was right in calling it a "fixed flexion deformity" but he

> didn't

>>seem to know what the "fixed" part actually meant. It is a confusing term,

> but

>>the "fixed" part means that the person with the deformity cannot extend

> the

>>joint in question past a "fixed" point. If you think about it a bit, the

> term

>>does make sense, as the joint in question is in a state of "fixed flexion"

> (ie,

>>it is always bent or flexed a bit). It does not mean it is permanently

> fixed at

>>one point.

>>Murali DOES have a fixed flexion deformity.

> PLEASE tell that to Colin, dechucka, Rats, Wog and all the other Murali
> bashers here dude. As usual they are wrong and out of their depth with this
> issue.

> Laz

<[my

> > org

> >>>Since there's been a bit of revisionism going on about who said what,

> > let's

> >>>just recap what this "doctor" actually said the second time around, and

> > the

> >>>response from his cheer squad:

> >>>"Message 1 in thread

> >>>Subject: A post from a doctor....

> >>>View this article only
> >>>Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
> >>>Date: 2004-02-18 16:38:41 PST

> >>>With all this Murali bullshit, it is nice to get an intelligent post on

> > rsc

> >>>on this subject written by someone who actually KNOWS what he is
talking
> >>>about. Educate yourselves, Murali haters. This is from "hello", taken

> > from

> >>>another rsc thread.
> >>>This is a brilliant post I reproduce below.

> >>>Laz

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

> > -

> >>>Well I am a doctor, and my qualifications are MBBS BSc MRCOphth (I am
an
> >>>ophthalmic surgeon)

> >>>And in my training I worked as an Orthopaedic resident to a specialist
in
> >>>sports medicine, so I know a bit more than you do about medicine

> >>>Fixed flexion means exactly what it says, his elbow joint is fixed in a
> >>>position of permanent flexion, ie bent, it does not extend or

> > straighten."

> >>>We're now being told by the "doctor" (after days of merciless flaming)

> > that

> >>>"fixed flexion" was actually sloppy language. That he didn't really
mean
> >>>that. That he meant "flexion deformity."

> >>The "doctor" was right in calling it a "fixed flexion deformity" but he

> > didn't

> >>seem to know what the "fixed" part actually meant. It is a confusing
term,

> > but

> >>the "fixed" part means that the person with the deformity cannot extend

> > the

> >>joint in question past a "fixed" point. If you think about it a bit, the

> > term

> >>does make sense, as the joint in question is in a state of "fixed
flexion"

> > (ie,

> >>it is always bent or flexed a bit). It does not mean it is permanently

> > fixed at

> >>one point.

> >>Murali DOES have a fixed flexion deformity.

> > PLEASE tell that to Colin, dechucka, Rats, Wog and all the other Murali
> > bashers here dude. As usual they are wrong and out of their depth with
this
> > issue.

> Laz unfortunately Dr. hello could not clarify his own point, which
> indicates that he was talking through his arse, which he amply calrified
> with some later gems. He fully deserved the flames he got.

> > Laz

> <[my

>>>org

>>>>>Since there's been a bit of revisionism going on about who said what,

>>>let's

>>>>>just recap what this "doctor" actually said the second time around, and

>>>the

>>>>>response from his cheer squad:

>>>>>"Message 1 in thread

>>>>>Subject: A post from a doctor....

>>>>>View this article only
>>>>>Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
>>>>>Date: 2004-02-18 16:38:41 PST

>>>>>With all this Murali bullshit, it is nice to get an intelligent post on

>>>rsc

>>>>>on this subject written by someone who actually KNOWS what he is

> talking

>>>>>about. Educate yourselves, Murali haters. This is from "hello", taken

>>>from

>>>>>another rsc thread.
>>>>>This is a brilliant post I reproduce below.

>>>>>Laz

>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -

>>>-

>>>>>Well I am a doctor, and my qualifications are MBBS BSc MRCOphth (I am

> an

>>>>>ophthalmic surgeon)

>>>>>And in my training I worked as an Orthopaedic resident to a specialist

> in

>>>>>sports medicine, so I know a bit more than you do about medicine

>>>>>Fixed flexion means exactly what it says, his elbow joint is fixed in a
>>>>>position of permanent flexion, ie bent, it does not extend or

>>>straighten."

>>>>>We're now being told by the "doctor" (after days of merciless flaming)

>>>that

>>>>>"fixed flexion" was actually sloppy language. That he didn't really

> mean

>>>>>that. That he meant "flexion deformity."

>>>>The "doctor" was right in calling it a "fixed flexion deformity" but he

>>>didn't

>>>>seem to know what the "fixed" part actually meant. It is a confusing

> term,

>>>but

>>>>the "fixed" part means that the person with the deformity cannot extend

>>>the

>>>>joint in question past a "fixed" point. If you think about it a bit, the

>>>term

>>>>does make sense, as the joint in question is in a state of "fixed

> flexion"

>>>(ie,

>>>>it is always bent or flexed a bit). It does not mean it is permanently

>>>fixed at

>>>>one point.

>>>>Murali DOES have a fixed flexion deformity.

>>>PLEASE tell that to Colin, dechucka, Rats, Wog and all the other Murali
>>>bashers here dude. As usual they are wrong and out of their depth with

> this

>>>issue.

>>Laz unfortunately Dr. hello could not clarify his own point, which
>>indicates that he was talking through his arse, which he amply calrified
>>with some later gems. He fully deserved the flames he got.

> But YOU are accusing SL players of taking *** without any evidence too.
> Should YOU be deservedly flamed also?? YOU wouldnt be talking out of your
> arse too, would you? Or is it ONLY the SL supporters who do this according
> to you Shats?

> Laz

>>>Laz

> <[my

> > > org

> > >>>Since there's been a bit of revisionism going on about who said what,

> > > let's

> > >>>just recap what this "doctor" actually said the second time around,
and

> > > the

> > >>>response from his cheer squad:

> > >>>"Message 1 in thread

> > >>>Subject: A post from a doctor....

> > >>>View this article only
> > >>>Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
> > >>>Date: 2004-02-18 16:38:41 PST

> > >>>With all this Murali bullshit, it is nice to get an intelligent post
on

> > > rsc

> > >>>on this subject written by someone who actually KNOWS what he is
> talking
> > >>>about. Educate yourselves, Murali haters. This is from "hello", taken

> > > from

> > >>>another rsc thread.
> > >>>This is a brilliant post I reproduce below.

> > >>>Laz

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -

> > > -

> > >>>Well I am a doctor, and my qualifications are MBBS BSc MRCOphth (I am
> an
> > >>>ophthalmic surgeon)

> > >>>And in my training I worked as an Orthopaedic resident to a
specialist
> in
> > >>>sports medicine, so I know a bit more than you do about medicine

> > >>>Fixed flexion means exactly what it says, his elbow joint is fixed in
a
> > >>>position of permanent flexion, ie bent, it does not extend or

> > > straighten."

> > >>>We're now being told by the "doctor" (after days of merciless
flaming)

> > > that

> > >>>"fixed flexion" was actually sloppy language. That he didn't really
> mean
> > >>>that. That he meant "flexion deformity."

> > >>The "doctor" was right in calling it a "fixed flexion deformity" but
he

> > > didn't

> > >>seem to know what the "fixed" part actually meant. It is a confusing
> term,

> > > but

> > >>the "fixed" part means that the person with the deformity cannot
extend

> > > the

> > >>joint in question past a "fixed" point. If you think about it a bit,
the

> > > term

> > >>does make sense, as the joint in question is in a state of "fixed
> flexion"

> > > (ie,

> > >>it is always bent or flexed a bit). It does not mean it is permanently

> > > fixed at

> > >>one point.

> > >>Murali DOES have a fixed flexion deformity.

> > > PLEASE tell that to Colin, dechucka, Rats, Wog and all the other
Murali
> > > bashers here dude. As usual they are wrong and out of their depth with
> this
> > > issue.

> > Laz unfortunately Dr. hello could not clarify his own point, which
> > indicates that he was talking through his arse, which he amply calrified
> > with some later gems. He fully deserved the flames he got.

> But YOU are accusing SL players of taking *** without any evidence too.

> Nope.  He is not.  It is clear as day that what he said was that since SL
> does not have any drug-testing policy, it does not care enough to determine
> if its players take *** or not.  CA on the other hand *does* have a
> policy, and they have even found their best bowler of the last decade of two
> guilty of it.

> > snip

> > Nope.  He is not.  It is clear as day that what he said was that since
SL
> > does not have any drug-testing policy, it does not care enough to
determine
> > if its players take *** or not.  CA on the other hand *does* have a
> > policy, and they have even found their best bowler of the last decade of
two
> > guilty of it.

> As I understand it, Australia is the only country with some sort of drug
testing
> policy in place (though it has been criticised by some International
bodies as
> being too lenient), so I guess you'd have to conclude that no other
country
> cares enough to determine if its players take *** or not, so why the
> speculation about SL.

> The ICC would seem to care enough about *** to instigate a system of
testing
> at the WC.
> No players from SL fell foul of this system.
> No players from NZ, or any othe rnation, fell foul of it either.
> So what's with all this suspicion being cast on the SLankans?

> Is it a coincidence that SL just happen to be Australia's current

> > Higgle