In reply to Post #379
Quote... After thoroughly investigating this matter, it was commenced by one individual Mr Stephen White through a podcast making false allegations and which he has now admitted doing and has withdrawn his allegations and the podcast has been removed. Unfortunately, a number of others added and spread these unfounded claims for their own gratification.
This part here is simply not true. Long before the podcast, in fact all year long these rumours have been flying around on the bank of carp pits. I've never heard of Stephen White, and I've never listened to any podcast. Although no names whatsoever were mentioned, I was being told about this hormone supposedly being used in carp matches and then apparently taken to big fish syndicates as early as spring this year. It was a whisper going around all year.
All that podcast done was put the matter into the wider public's knowledge.
I am guessing that this is the first post ever put onto this forum from Brazil 🇧🇷 😂
Quote... After thoroughly investigating this matter, it was commenced by one individual Mr Stephen White through a podcast making false allegations and which he has now admitted doing and has withdrawn his allegations and the podcast has been removed. Unfortunately, a number of others added and spread these unfounded claims for their own gratification.
This part here is simply not true. Long before the podcast, in fact all year long these rumours have been flying around on the bank of carp pits. I've never heard of Stephen White, and I've never listened to any podcast. Although no names whatsoever were mentioned, I was being told about this hormone supposedly being used in carp matches and then apparently taken to big fish syndicates as early as spring this year. It was a whisper going around all year.
All that podcast done was put the matter into the wider public's knowledge.
I am guessing that this is the first post ever put onto this forum from Brazil 🇧🇷 😂
In reply to Post #409
That from Ian is probably the most damning thing I've personally heard so far.
When was that podcast broadcast Chuffy?
That from Ian is probably the most damning thing I've personally heard so far.
When was that podcast broadcast Chuffy?
And another thing.... How do you sue people... When it was yourself who put this information out there in the first place via that Nash podcast? A podcast they now say was preplanned and staged?
That Nash podcast where he first talks about it... Let's have it right... He fans the flames that he lit himself. It would be very hard to sue people after that I'd imagine.
I'm probably just jet lagged... But none of it makes no sense to me.
That Nash podcast where he first talks about it... Let's have it right... He fans the flames that he lit himself. It would be very hard to sue people after that I'd imagine.
I'm probably just jet lagged... But none of it makes no sense to me.
In reply to Post #414
Are any of them Nash sponsored? If not it was a nice bit of ambushing asking him about it on a Nash podcast 😂
Are any of them Nash sponsored? If not it was a nice bit of ambushing asking him about it on a Nash podcast 😂
In reply to Post #413
When was that podcast broadcast Chuffy?
26/09/21
I am guessing that this is the first post ever put onto this forum from Brazil 🇧🇷 😂
I may have beaten you to that one
When was that podcast broadcast Chuffy?
26/09/21
I am guessing that this is the first post ever put onto this forum from Brazil 🇧🇷 😂
I may have beaten you to that one
In reply to Post #409
Just watched this. Ian 100% knows what's going on.
Speaks volumes by saying next to nothing.
Just watched this. Ian 100% knows what's going on.
Speaks volumes by saying next to nothing.
In reply to Post #417
I've met Ian at the club lakes I fish. Sat and had a brew with Ian and Ron Buss many times, genuine bloke, thoughtful and fishes away from everyone quietly, absolute gentleman. As you say Andy, those comments from Ian are the most poignant of this whole saga.
I've met Ian at the club lakes I fish. Sat and had a brew with Ian and Ron Buss many times, genuine bloke, thoughtful and fishes away from everyone quietly, absolute gentleman. As you say Andy, those comments from Ian are the most poignant of this whole saga.
In reply to Post #371
It´s " Hor-Munga ... turns Red Letter days into Red Letter hours "
It´s " Hor-Munga ... turns Red Letter days into Red Letter hours "
Be very interested to hear what Stephen White thinks of this now; afterall the podcast CLEARLY stated that no names would be mentioned, AND THEY WERE NOT. My view is that the podcast by Sam and Pete had every right to discuss this, and I applaud them for doing so, Baitworks also covered it recently and went closer to the names suggested mainly due to the attention the subject has gained in the last month or so.
Legal proceedings would not stand any chance of success, so these can simply be considered tactics to reduce online finger pointing etc. No lawyer would even consider taking this on I'd imagine..
Legal proceedings would not stand any chance of success, so these can simply be considered tactics to reduce online finger pointing etc. No lawyer would even consider taking this on I'd imagine..
In reply to Post #416
What Ian said suggests to me he knows exactly what has been going on.The fact he does not do the bcac,he's got mates and does not want to upset anyone.How many have been doing this and for how long,it is not looking good
What Ian said suggests to me he knows exactly what has been going on.The fact he does not do the bcac,he's got mates and does not want to upset anyone.How many have been doing this and for how long,it is not looking good
In reply to Post #420
Gonna listen to CCPodcast again, to hear if any indirect clues are stated, that directly pinpoint said individuals, to get a better understanding.
Funny thing though, the first podcast with Bill C wasn´t aired, due to possible legal implications, so that interview was "put on hold", presumably after Sam & Pete sought legal advice before airing said podcast. So, i assume they should´ve done the same, with the more touchy subject regarding the issue of hormones ? Aren´t these podcasts edited before going online, to remove any "possible" incriminating evidence, which could lead to legal issues ???
Gonna listen to CCPodcast again, to hear if any indirect clues are stated, that directly pinpoint said individuals, to get a better understanding.
Funny thing though, the first podcast with Bill C wasn´t aired, due to possible legal implications, so that interview was "put on hold", presumably after Sam & Pete sought legal advice before airing said podcast. So, i assume they should´ve done the same, with the more touchy subject regarding the issue of hormones ? Aren´t these podcasts edited before going online, to remove any "possible" incriminating evidence, which could lead to legal issues ???
In reply to Post #422
The biggest mistake was made when they removed the podcast.. they lost all credibility by doing that in my book but even without any they are still way above "other" side, whoever that is.
The biggest mistake was made when they removed the podcast.. they lost all credibility by doing that in my book but even without any they are still way above "other" side, whoever that is.
In reply to Post #414
The original podcast when a certain angler look stunned by the question is now said to be ‘plotted' for reach and clicks. I would say the said angler and interviewer have a awful lot to answer for and have certainly risked theirs and their sponsors reputations.
So if we believe the above, and we should as it is verbatim from the angler, then we have to assume that certainly one individual courted this controversy and has spent the last few weeks, backpedaling and retro fitting some answers... all for clicks and attention.
When the attention is full on, then we get the “mental health, it's not fair” line. I'd say that is very self-indulgent and rather than go on the attack, maybe the public statement should be about apologising for the sht storm HE caused. The same from the Nash podcast team who has half the idiots searching through the worlds chemicals!
If I brought my employers into disrepute then I would have a high price to pay, they would also respond to protect their reputation. What they would not allow me to do is to take the moral high ground and go all out attack. If this was a couple of two Bob firms I could understand, but for the industry to stay silent when they are fully aware of the noise is shameful.
You then get to the actual point that Chemo refers to in the pod cast, if it is impossible to win, then the insurers of match events better check the policies, as that is 100s of £1000s, that wouldn't need highly paid lawyers once the first case is settled. Entry money, expenses and interest.
This is unlikely to ever come out, and the only chance a certain anglers has is surely to ignore the backslapping, and say “I read this all wrong, and am sorry to the fishing world, not for what I haven't used but the storm and possible damage I caused in pursuit of clicks”. Pod casts, and the trade and all of fishing should be discussing this, auditing the supply chain to prove angling is clean as it can be, not be hushed by some bedroom written post on the exact platform certain anglers are complaining about
The original podcast when a certain angler look stunned by the question is now said to be ‘plotted' for reach and clicks. I would say the said angler and interviewer have a awful lot to answer for and have certainly risked theirs and their sponsors reputations.
So if we believe the above, and we should as it is verbatim from the angler, then we have to assume that certainly one individual courted this controversy and has spent the last few weeks, backpedaling and retro fitting some answers... all for clicks and attention.
When the attention is full on, then we get the “mental health, it's not fair” line. I'd say that is very self-indulgent and rather than go on the attack, maybe the public statement should be about apologising for the sht storm HE caused. The same from the Nash podcast team who has half the idiots searching through the worlds chemicals!
If I brought my employers into disrepute then I would have a high price to pay, they would also respond to protect their reputation. What they would not allow me to do is to take the moral high ground and go all out attack. If this was a couple of two Bob firms I could understand, but for the industry to stay silent when they are fully aware of the noise is shameful.
You then get to the actual point that Chemo refers to in the pod cast, if it is impossible to win, then the insurers of match events better check the policies, as that is 100s of £1000s, that wouldn't need highly paid lawyers once the first case is settled. Entry money, expenses and interest.
This is unlikely to ever come out, and the only chance a certain anglers has is surely to ignore the backslapping, and say “I read this all wrong, and am sorry to the fishing world, not for what I haven't used but the storm and possible damage I caused in pursuit of clicks”. Pod casts, and the trade and all of fishing should be discussing this, auditing the supply chain to prove angling is clean as it can be, not be hushed by some bedroom written post on the exact platform certain anglers are complaining about
In reply to Post #411
Whole thing is embarrassing. Bloody fools using this stuff think we are all idiots. Think some stupid legal statement written by joey essex is going to take heat off. Me thinks not. What I would be doing is random testing throughout the bcac of mixes. By an unknown person. Don't let them know and catch them red handed. That's if they will still be using it. Very risky.
Whole thing is embarrassing. Bloody fools using this stuff think we are all idiots. Think some stupid legal statement written by joey essex is going to take heat off. Me thinks not. What I would be doing is random testing throughout the bcac of mixes. By an unknown person. Don't let them know and catch them red handed. That's if they will still be using it. Very risky.
In reply to Post #422
Just to clarify, Bill's first episode was published and then removed due to Bill himself requesting it whilst he sorted a few things out. We had no need to seek legal advice re the Bill episode. There was nothing sinister going on there.
This is all new territory for us, and I admit that we should have been more vigilant in editing the recent podcast. I stand by what I stated in the intro- I really did not want unfounded finger pointing to ensue. Unfortunately it seems as though I was nieve to think that it wouldn't.
Just to clarify, Bill's first episode was published and then removed due to Bill himself requesting it whilst he sorted a few things out. We had no need to seek legal advice re the Bill episode. There was nothing sinister going on there.
This is all new territory for us, and I admit that we should have been more vigilant in editing the recent podcast. I stand by what I stated in the intro- I really did not want unfounded finger pointing to ensue. Unfortunately it seems as though I was nieve to think that it wouldn't.