You know those who complain that some of us have not entirely moved on, are not obliged to participate in this thread. If you have moved on, good luck to you. But don't slag off the ones- like myself - that have not.
out of curiosity, what do you expect to gain from not moving on, let alone coming on here and wallowing in mutual pity party for hird ?
I’m not saying don’t do it, as you’ve gotta do what best suits you in any situation, but i am generally interested in what people expect to happen by doing it ?
Hird’s not coming back as coach. Even if it’s proved 100% that he did nothing wrong, it’s not going to change the perception of him in the eyes of people who want to see him as a bad guy in this saga.
Seems like there’s only really 2 options. Either accept and move on whether you agree with it or not, or don’t accept it and stop actively supporting the club cos of this decision.
it seems counterproductive to ones own sanity to stay in a state of limbo persay of not moving on one way or the other.
What a simplistic world you live in.
You have totally misunderstood or perhaps underestimated just how much this saga has affected many supporters. As others have mentioned this is not just about James Hird. Personally Hird’s sacking was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
The list of “individuals” in this saga with the stench of guilt is a very long one. If people are prepared to admit that what the AFL, ASADA, the Labor Govt. the media, did to ruin brand Essendon, and the players, coaches and footy staff, is acceptable then, if you are happy with that, fine.
However, when the CAS result goes our way then maybe someone will ask the question WTF was the last three years all about. How much money was spent all up in the pursuit of the truth that was never the object of the exercise. How could the elected government get it so wrong (they are out of power now so good riddance)? What about the incompetencies and corruption of ASADA, the breaches of confidentiality, the lies and manipulation by the AFL, and the actions of Evans, Little and the Board.
The big question that us, who will never forgive or forget what happened, is who is going to be held accountable for what our club has endured. Those in power who abuse that power must be held to account. I think it is called justice.
because it is a simplistic world.
I haven’t underestimated anything.
I understand pretty much all sides of it.
however the main point still stands. there’s 2 options pretty much one can take.
move on while acknowledging all of what you say
or
do something about it.
So far bar scorpio, all most have done is cry poor me i’ve been wronged and i’m not gonna do anything other than repeat that stance over and over again until someone or somehow the people who wronged me are brought to justice.
If you want justice, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, other than coming on a footy site and saying how wronged you were.
like i said what do you expect to change from doing what you’re doing now ?
are you or hird or the club or anyone going to get justice by doing whatever it is you and others alike are doing right now, which is ? Again scorpio so far is the only one who’s vaguely spoken of knowing behind the scenes plans.
so again what are you and the like doing to get justice ?
other than sitting on here repeating your viewpoint that hird was wronged, the club was wronged people were out to get us.
We can all say it, hell we’ve pretty much all said the same thing for the last 3 years, what exactly has simply pointing it out changed ?
You’re almost always wrong, so much so that nobody is even moved to point it out anymore, but this time you’re quite entertaingly wrong.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Seems some of these so called informed posters who have followed the saga very closely have been doing so via the media and opinions of others who formed that opinion from guess who “the media”. You have been found out very quickly as clearly you don’t know whats has transpired. You haven’t been reading the through court documents and commentary of the court case. One of you clearly didn’t even know about the court case been formed against the AFL.
Quiet frankly some of you are embarrassing yourself by shooting your mouths of before knowing the actual facts.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
You sound like an ignorant fool who has no basic understanding of what you are talking about. On what basis do you presume to judge Dank a charlatan? This is a guy who has worked with numerous professional sports clubs & athletes for more than a decade. This is a guy who, unlike yourself has actual qualifications & experience in the field. You can choose to believe he has subverted the WADA code but FFS to call him a charlatan shows gross ignorance on your part & its a claim you have no basis for & no credible evidence to support.
BTW - I’ve heard Sheedy described as a charlatan too & his success was not built on passively waiting for success to happen. Sheedy pushed boundaries his whole career & the rules of the game were changed numerous times as a result of his influence. That’s what most success is actually built on - risk, taking a chance, pushing boundaries & breaking new ground. Your imagined manuscript is an ignorant lie you tell yourself. The club was well behind the competition & no amount of past glory was going to change that.
When did I chuck anything in? Once again you are either misinformed, deliberately obtuse or just a bit of a dill.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
You sound like an ignorant fool who has no basic understanding of what you are talking about. On what basis do you presume to judge Dank a charlatan? This is a guy who has worked with numerous professional sports clubs & athletes for more than a decade. This is a guy who, unlike yourself has actual qualifications & experience in the field. You can choose to believe he has subverted the WADA code but FFS to call him a charlatan shows gross ignorance on your part & its a claim you have no basis for & no credible evidence to support.
BTW - I’ve heard Sheedy described as a charlatan too & his success was not built on passively waiting for success to happen. Sheedy pushed boundaries his whole career & the rules of the game were changed numerous times as a result of his influence. That’s what most success is actually built on - risk, taking a chance, pushing boundaries & breaking new ground. Your imagined manuscript is an ignorant lie you tell yourself. The club was well behind the competition & no amount of past glory was going to change that.
When did I chuck anything in? Once again you are either misinformed, deliberately obtuse or just a bit of a dill.
Sheeds has nothing to do with this ■■■■■, so ■■■■ off on that score.
You sound like someone who would be cannon fodder for a charlatan.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
I honestly have no idea what your definition of a charlatan is, but it sounds like anyone recommending more than running up sand dunes and a lemsip before bed.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
I honestly have no idea what your definition of a charlatan is, but it sounds like anyone recommending more than running up sand dunes and a lemsip before bed.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
I honestly have no idea what your definition of a charlatan is, but it sounds like anyone recommending more than running up sand dunes and a lemsip before bed.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
You sound like an ignorant fool who has no basic understanding of what you are talking about. On what basis do you presume to judge Dank a charlatan? This is a guy who has worked with numerous professional sports clubs & athletes for more than a decade. This is a guy who, unlike yourself has actual qualifications & experience in the field. You can choose to believe he has subverted the WADA code but FFS to call him a charlatan shows gross ignorance on your part & its a claim you have no basis for & no credible evidence to support.
BTW - I’ve heard Sheedy described as a charlatan too & his success was not built on passively waiting for success to happen. Sheedy pushed boundaries his whole career & the rules of the game were changed numerous times as a result of his influence. That’s what most success is actually built on - risk, taking a chance, pushing boundaries & breaking new ground. Your imagined manuscript is an ignorant lie you tell yourself. The club was well behind the competition & no amount of past glory was going to change that.
When did I chuck anything in? Once again you are either misinformed, deliberately obtuse or just a bit of a dill.
Sheeds has nothing to do with this ■■■■■, so ■■■■ off on that score.
You sound like someone who would be cannon fodder for a charlatan.
You obviously are too simple to even know what a charlatan actually is. Like I said, Sheedy does have something to do with this because he pushed boundaries & it was part of his success. Anyone suggesting a conservative continuation of the club lagging behind the competition was somehow the "Essendon manuscript" is simply showing they have no understanding or appreciation of where the club was before Sheedy & what he actually did to help the club succeed. You want a conservative approach to modern sport & no boundaries approached let alone pushed then that equals failure. I get that many don't see, don't know & can't appreciate where professional sport has progressed. Its a part of sport that's not romantic, not publicised much, not even talked about openly but again I ask you a simple question - WTF do you think Dank did at GC? What do you think sports scientists actually do in all sports? Are you claiming all sports science is bunk? Do you have even a high school level science basis for your position because its certainly not 1 supported by the medical & scientific community & its certainly not 1 shared by the world sports community who spend millions on sports science programs. Got anything of any substance at all because frankly so far all you've provided is dribble.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
No, he sounds like someone who understands the reality of sport at the elite level.
It would be nice if it was still beers after the game, a smoke at half time and the coach (singular) delivering the inspiring three quarter time speech.
Those days are gone. And I’m sorry if the idea of all elite sportsmen taking supplements makes your head explode, but…you know…wake, coffee, etc.
Yep, the Tuddy days were very simple. But, he and you sound like you don’t recognize that charlatans have no place in sport.
I honestly have no idea what your definition of a charlatan is, but it sounds like anyone recommending more than running up sand dunes and a lemsip before bed.
Wouldn't it be nice if the James Hird thread was somewhere we could actually talk about, discuss and honour James Hird?
James Hird isn’t a player, or a coach anymore. Forgive the extreme examples, but they’re the simplest that come to mind, any more than Tienanmen Square is a place, or 9/11 is a date.
It didn’t have to be that way, but that’s the price of all this clean air.
Benfti likes to keep it simplje and just blame dank. Obliviously he also thinks the punishment we received was of course to much. But the fact is benfti, the matter is far more complex then that. The so called conspiracy theory's are fact.
The AFL made the EFC a scapegoat when the federal government and ASADA came knocking. Sure the EFC made some mistakes but they did no more, or no less then the rest of the competition. The EFC where isolated for brand management.
All the evidence exists the EFC where conspired against, for those of us who have followed this very closely read every minuet of the court case etc. know this.
Little has done the best he possibly thought he could, but he was between a rock and a hard place. Unfortunately he chose to suck up the the AFL and by doing this has angered many of us. I fully understand why he did it, and respect the man, but it does not mean for one second that I or many of us like it.
Absolute ■■■■■■■ rank cop out, that’s what that is.
Hird and Co wanted the program to be better than the rest of the competition and you’re content with EFC having made some mistakes.
The gate was left wide open for the scapegoaters to do their thing.
It’s been well established that the program was implemented to catch up to the rest of the comp. Fair to say other clubs already had established supplement programs.
And it’s important to put it into context: there were half a dozen other clubs with equally poorly run programs.
So don’t give us that bullshit that ours was especially bad and especially ambitious.
Bullshit.
The only context you need to be concerned about is the EFC program.
The program was earmarked to be better than “them”. Dank walking through the corridors of Windy Hill unfettered and clueless about who received an injection on any particular day is especially bad. The boundaries were pushed and that’s ambitious.
What boundaries and what exactly were we guilty of doing again?
What boundaries?
Seriously if you have to ask then you need to be better informed.
I am very well informed but I am curious as to what boundaries RE was referring to in his post. Are these the boundaries that were in place in 2012 when Clothier stated that “all peptides are banned” when asked by Hird. Or are they the boundaries that were in place when neither the AFL nor ASADA could give a straight answer on the legality of AOD9604, or what about the boundaries that were established around the WADA group of unnamed peptides of unproven efficacy that were placed in S0 during the saga period (which includes TB4). Are the boundaries defined by what is on the WADA list or what ASADA says in on the WADA list?
It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly what rules and regulations Clothier has worked under for the past 4-5 years. Could be lots of redacted stuff and updates. Then, he always has that doyen of sports medicine Harcourt to help him out.
Shouldn’t have gone even close to AOD9604. That’s what pushing the boundaries is all about.
Yeah, we should have stayed with a piece of orange at 3 qtr time, that worked in under 9’s so why look at decades of scientific advancement. Its not like Hawthorn were leading the way in injection science, its not like we got a guy who had worked with Geelong while they won flags & its not as though we got the 2 guys the AFL had chosen to develop their own expansion club. Seriously, is there anyone actually simple enough to believe that Dank & Robinson just all of a sudden discovered peptides when they came to EFC? What the absolute fark do the dullards tell themselves Dank did at Gold coast or what advice he was giving to Robinson while at Geelong?
You know what- a lot of the problems stem from us following what worked at Geelong. Hird wanted bigger players, and in a hurry. It’s some degree of indictment we didn’t go with something purely out of the Essendon manuscript.
WTF is the Essendon manuscript, hope that everything goes back to the way it was in 2000, save money in the bank while the competition invest heavily in their football dept including sports science. The Essendon manuscript was resting on laurels & a resulting decade of failure. Its just pure ignorance to believe that continuing on that path was ever going to see the club return to success. The reality that you & others need to at the very least come to grips with is that sports science is a very real part of the future of all sports & ignoring it will only guarantee failure. Getting bigger, stronger, faster & more durable athletes is what sport is about, all sports.
You sound like an East German.
The Essendon Footbal Club manuscript is success without charlatans.
BTW, didn’t you chuck it all in weeks ago?
You sound like an ignorant fool who has no basic understanding of what you are talking about. On what basis do you presume to judge Dank a charlatan? This is a guy who has worked with numerous professional sports clubs & athletes for more than a decade. This is a guy who, unlike yourself has actual qualifications & experience in the field. You can choose to believe he has subverted the WADA code but FFS to call him a charlatan shows gross ignorance on your part & its a claim you have no basis for & no credible evidence to support.
BTW - I’ve heard Sheedy described as a charlatan too & his success was not built on passively waiting for success to happen. Sheedy pushed boundaries his whole career & the rules of the game were changed numerous times as a result of his influence. That’s what most success is actually built on - risk, taking a chance, pushing boundaries & breaking new ground. Your imagined manuscript is an ignorant lie you tell yourself. The club was well behind the competition & no amount of past glory was going to change that.
When did I chuck anything in? Once again you are either misinformed, deliberately obtuse or just a bit of a dill.
Sheeds has nothing to do with this ■■■■■, so ■■■■ off on that score.
You sound like someone who would be cannon fodder for a charlatan.
You obviously are too simple to even know what a charlatan actually is. Like I said, Sheedy does have something to do with this because he pushed boundaries & it was part of his success. Anyone suggesting a conservative continuation of the club lagging behind the competition was somehow the "Essendon manuscript" is simply showing they have no understanding or appreciation of where the club was before Sheedy & what he actually did to help the club succeed. You want a conservative approach to modern sport & no boundaries approached let alone pushed then that equals failure. I get that many don't see, don't know & can't appreciate where professional sport has progressed. Its a part of sport that's not romantic, not publicised much, not even talked about openly but again I ask you a simple question - WTF do you think Dank did at GC? What do you think sports scientists actually do in all sports? Are you claiming all sports science is bunk? Do you have even a high school level science basis for your position because its certainly not 1 supported by the medical & scientific community & its certainly not 1 shared by the world sports community who spend millions on sports science programs. Got anything of any substance at all because frankly so far all you've provided is dribble.
Don’t be a dunce. Dank and his "science"wasn’t good for Essendon Football Club.
