The AFL would sneak away from responsibility because the decisions that were made, the ones we have already admitted were bad decisions, were our decisions to make and were removed from the AFL’s direct line of responsibility ie poor record keeping, poor oversight of Dank, insufficient pre-evaluation & approval of program by Doc Reid etc.
Drawing the line from the AFL to the program requires proof that the AFL could have and had knowledge whereby they should have stopped it. That is a helluva lot more difficult than finding us guilty of something we have already admitted to.
Didn’t we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??
Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
Wim and I *may* have been slightly extracting the urine.Pretty sure they weren't referring to Essendon players. Hi, Nathan. Hi.Riddle me this, non-conspirators. If the AFL are the players employers, and Essendon are cited by Worksafe for not knowing exactly what players were given, how. the. ■■■■. does the AFL know what the players were given?Because they target-tested us, sent the samples off for special analysis, and "retired" some of our players based on the results.Or something “kinda” close to that.
They were good bluffers, and Evans was gullible.
P.S. They’ve done a good job of covering up the others; they can shut the hell up (and get others to also do so) when it suits them.
Didn't we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
No, no, no, no, never. Hird and many others (including Dank) have said they saw a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet does not meet the AFL’s requirements for all of the detail that must be recorded.
Hird never said anybody destroyed anything. He just said the story going around that Essendon destroyed records is untrue because we gave everything to ASADA.
Didn't we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
No, no, no, no, never. Hird and many others (including Dank) have said they saw a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet does not meet the AFL’s requirements for all of the detail that must be recorded.
Hird never said anybody destroyed anything. He just said the story going around that Essendon destroyed records is untrue because we gave everything to ASADA.
Would I be wrong in asserting that the AFL didn’t actually have any established standards to meet?
Didn't we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
Computers were taken by Deloitte on behalf of the AFL.
1 Like
Still sounds as though you're hiding somethingThe consprisory things getting out of hand nowIt’s the new agenda
Didn't we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
No, no, no, no, never. Hird and many others (including Dank) have said they saw a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet does not meet the AFL’s requirements for all of the detail that must be recorded.
Hird never said anybody destroyed anything. He just said the story going around that Essendon destroyed records is untrue because we gave everything to ASADA.Would I be wrong in asserting that the AFL didn’t actually have any established standards to meet?
No, you wouldn’t.
Didn't we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
No, no, no, no, never. Hird and many others (including Dank) have said they saw a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet does not meet the AFL’s requirements for all of the detail that must be recorded.
Hird never said anybody destroyed anything. He just said the story going around that Essendon destroyed records is untrue because we gave everything to ASADA.Would I be wrong in asserting that the AFL didn’t actually have any established standards to meet?
No, you wouldn’t.
While taking on board the possibility that Bruce Francis might be fos, I’m pretty sure he disagrees.
He’s said quite a few times that the AFL had quite stringent rules on the intake of supplements, and what their role was in monitoring those rules.
They just didn’t do anything about them. At all. Ever.
1 Like
Didn't we say there were records, & they went missing after ASADA et al took the computers??Didn’t Jim hold up a spreadsheet on 360 proving, or at least asserting this?
No, no, no, no, never. Hird and many others (including Dank) have said they saw a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet does not meet the AFL’s requirements for all of the detail that must be recorded.
Hird never said anybody destroyed anything. He just said the story going around that Essendon destroyed records is untrue because we gave everything to ASADA.Would I be wrong in asserting that the AFL didn’t actually have any established standards to meet?
No, you wouldn’t.
While taking on board the possibility that Bruce Francis might be fos, I’m pretty sure he disagrees.
He’s said quite a few times that the AFL had quite stringent rules on the intake of supplements, and what their role was in monitoring those rules.
They just didn’t do anything about them. At all. Ever.
Yep, something along the lines of records, receipts and signed club doctor approval for contents and administering procedures. Which they want you to keep but clearly never check.
Of which we had one of them, kinda, and a document of the Doctor saying these bastards are by passing him that ended up someones spam folder and consent forms signed on his day off.
these are just facts.
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.
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.Don’t be a dunce. Dank and his "science"wasn’t good for Essendon Football Club.
Wasn’t it? What are you basing that on? You are the one making these defined claims but providing no substance to support them. You’re the dunce who basically is unable to give an even mildly intelligent response. Maybe Essendon football club wasn’t good enough for Dank’s science. Maybe you are too uneducated to be in position to make any claim about anything remotely scientific. Maybe you are just a troll. The evidence suggest the players were bigger & stronger. The evidence supports the position that the overall program (including Weapon’s regime) had the players performing at a better level in 2012 than they were in 2011. Its also strongly supports the position that many players were unable to maintain & sustain that level & broke down, while others (Jobe for example) had their best ever years.
Now if you are in any way capable of mounting an evidenced based scientific case to support the notion that it was Dank’s supplements & not Weapons weights program that caused the soft tissue injuries then by all means, the world is waiting to read your insights. Until that time your ignorant opinions on the validity & efficacy of Dank’s or any other sports science program is frankly as useful as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.
Do you really believe Dank could establish the validity and efficacy of his program when he couldn’t even be bothered keeping good records? You’d be a real dill to think there was anything scientific about the way Dank conducted his “business”.
His science also got the ■■■■, in case you may have forgotten.
Of course Dank kept good records. Just keeps them well hidden
Of course Dank kept good records. Just keeps them well hidden
I’ve heard this a lot. From many sources and to be honest it scares the hell out of me.
Many who know Steve Dank ( I am not one of those) have a high opinion of both his intelligence and competence. I can’t count the number of times he has said or been quoted as saying that ‘when the time is right’ he will clear both himself and our club.
Now they are simply empty words.
We made many mistakes as a football club, from ‘self reporting’ to jumping from one communications disaster to another pretty much on a daily basis. But whomever is responsible for bringing this man to our football club holds, in my opinion, the lions share of responsibility for the last 3 years.
History may well refer to them as the Dank years…and it fits very well.
Of course Dank kept good records. Just keeps them well hiddenHe's keeping his lawsuits nicely hidden too.
The AFL would sneak away from responsibility because the decisions that were made, the ones we have already admitted were bad decisions, were our decisions to make and were removed from the AFL's direct line of responsibility ie poor record keeping, poor oversight of Dank, insufficient pre-evaluation & approval of program by Doc Reid etc. Drawing the line from the AFL to the program requires proof that the AFL could have and had knowledge whereby they should have stopped it. That is a helluva lot more difficult than finding us guilty of something we have already admitted to.
Exactly, this was always going to happen. We left ourselves at the mercy of the AFL as soon as Evans self reported. Who knows what happened to any records that did exist is anyone’s guess. We know for a fact (both Hird and Bomber) have said spreadsheets did exist of what players took. To what extent we will never know.
All I know is with everything the AFL have orchestrated, It would not surprise me at all if the conveniently disappeared before ASADA could get there hands on them. I also think Ben Mc Divot suspects something is missing in relation to the records from the comments we have heard from him.
Evans would have been all to happy to see this happen, as he was ■■■■ scared we had done something wrong. AFL didn’t want a whole team of players out of action if there was something in them that was illegal. Also the AFL could play the governance card, charge the club, officials, and head coach because of the records not existing.
Which is exactly what they set out to do, before the club even self reported.
Also remember when Evans and the AFL looked over these records that some of the things we took are not clearly stated as legal or illegal by ASADA and WADA. Which is a disgrace in itself.
Of course Dank kept good records. Just keeps them well hiddenI’ve heard this a lot. From many sources and to be honest it scares the hell out of me.
Many who know Steve Dank ( I am not one of those) have a high opinion of both his intelligence and competence. I can’t count the number of times he has said or been quoted as saying that ‘when the time is right’ he will clear both himself and our club.
Now they are simply empty words.
We made many mistakes as a football club, from ‘self reporting’ to jumping from one communications disaster to another pretty much on a daily basis. But whomever is responsible for bringing this man to our football club holds, in my opinion, the lions share of responsibility for the last 3 years.
History may well refer to them as the Dank years…and it fits very well.
Yes, Dank did say he would clear the players. But I am not sure he said via the records. He latter said that he left all the records on the clubs intranet, and that he didn’t have a copy.
What ■■■■■■ me of is when Journos ask questions they don’t get specific enough.
To what extent where the records kept? Did you note every injection to every player?
Not that we would necessarily believe the answers given but it would have been interesting to hear his responses to the questions. Meaning would he talk around the question, or would he get all specific about it.
I am 99 percent sure records existed. The detail they contained I do not know.
I do suspect however ( because Hird and Bomber sore the spreadsheet) they included exactly what each player took and when they where to take it. A program would have been set out for each player, to suit there individual needs.
However I also suspect that Dank did not record every single injection given after that. He would go around and give injections but not get around to recording them all. I suspect this because Chip says in his book that he would ask players if he had already injected them this week or not? Not great practice at all, and yes someone should have been monitoring this more carefully, and no I am not for one second talking about the coaches.
Now Dank had been at other clubs and injected at other clubs. His record keeping was impeccable there though surely? It was only at the EFC he was sloppy? The AFL wouldn’t lie to us. would they?
Did the AFL, the head of the competition who governs all the clubs have an exact framework on how supplement programs where to be run and documented? No
Given this fact. Do you think all the other clubs had perfect documentation for there programs?
You would be naive to think so. I am sure some may have been, I am also sure many didn’t especially the clubs Dank was at. Some may have been just a little better and perhaps some worse.
At what exact level did the AFL give a pass mark to these other clubs? Remembering that they didn’t have a framework to compare it too in first place.
If the workcover investigation was legit, the AFL should have at least got a wack for not governing its own clubs, and not having a framework in regards to supplement programs.
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.
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.Don’t be a dunce. Dank and his "science"wasn’t good for Essendon Football Club.
Wasn’t it? What are you basing that on? You are the one making these defined claims but providing no substance to support them. You’re the dunce who basically is unable to give an even mildly intelligent response. Maybe Essendon football club wasn’t good enough for Dank’s science. Maybe you are too uneducated to be in position to make any claim about anything remotely scientific. Maybe you are just a troll. The evidence suggest the players were bigger & stronger. The evidence supports the position that the overall program (including Weapon’s regime) had the players performing at a better level in 2012 than they were in 2011. Its also strongly supports the position that many players were unable to maintain & sustain that level & broke down, while others (Jobe for example) had their best ever years.
Now if you are in any way capable of mounting an evidenced based scientific case to support the notion that it was Dank’s supplements & not Weapons weights program that caused the soft tissue injuries then by all means, the world is waiting to read your insights. Until that time your ignorant opinions on the validity & efficacy of Dank’s or any other sports science program is frankly as useful as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.
Do you really believe Dank could establish the validity and efficacy of his program when he couldn’t even be bothered keeping good records? You’d be a real dill to think there was anything scientific about the way Dank conducted his “business”.His science also got the ■■■■, in case you may have forgotten.
As I was saying, when you’ve got something that isn’t ignorance come back & educate us. Till then I see you as no more that a stupid person with no knowledge, experience or expertise to make your opinions worth considering.
Lots to cover there munna…in a nutshell…
Yes I agree the AFL have much to answer for…but I’m not holding my breath
I also believe we had records…where it gets murky is do our records match what Dank supplied…TBH I don’t think he knows…Alavi doesn’t know…Charters doesn’t know…he’s as dodgy as they come.
What I want…really really want…is for our club, our players and us, to concentrate on footy.
They deserve it.
We do also.
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.
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.Don’t be a dunce. Dank and his "science"wasn’t good for Essendon Football Club.
Wasn’t it? What are you basing that on? You are the one making these defined claims but providing no substance to support them. You’re the dunce who basically is unable to give an even mildly intelligent response. Maybe Essendon football club wasn’t good enough for Dank’s science. Maybe you are too uneducated to be in position to make any claim about anything remotely scientific. Maybe you are just a troll. The evidence suggest the players were bigger & stronger. The evidence supports the position that the overall program (including Weapon’s regime) had the players performing at a better level in 2012 than they were in 2011. Its also strongly supports the position that many players were unable to maintain & sustain that level & broke down, while others (Jobe for example) had their best ever years.
Now if you are in any way capable of mounting an evidenced based scientific case to support the notion that it was Dank’s supplements & not Weapons weights program that caused the soft tissue injuries then by all means, the world is waiting to read your insights. Until that time your ignorant opinions on the validity & efficacy of Dank’s or any other sports science program is frankly as useful as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.
Do you really believe Dank could establish the validity and efficacy of his program when he couldn’t even be bothered keeping good records? You’d be a real dill to think there was anything scientific about the way Dank conducted his “business”.His science also got the ■■■■, in case you may have forgotten.
As I was saying, when you’ve got something that isn’t ignorance come back & educate us. Till then I see you as no more that a stupid person with no knowledge, experience or expertise to make your opinions worth considering.
While you continue to advocate that Dank’s program at Essendon was less than a disgrace, consider yourself a well qualified imbecile.
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.
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.Don’t be a dunce. Dank and his "science"wasn’t good for Essendon Football Club.
Wasn’t it? What are you basing that on? You are the one making these defined claims but providing no substance to support them. You’re the dunce who basically is unable to give an even mildly intelligent response. Maybe Essendon football club wasn’t good enough for Dank’s science. Maybe you are too uneducated to be in position to make any claim about anything remotely scientific. Maybe you are just a troll. The evidence suggest the players were bigger & stronger. The evidence supports the position that the overall program (including Weapon’s regime) had the players performing at a better level in 2012 than they were in 2011. Its also strongly supports the position that many players were unable to maintain & sustain that level & broke down, while others (Jobe for example) had their best ever years.
Now if you are in any way capable of mounting an evidenced based scientific case to support the notion that it was Dank’s supplements & not Weapons weights program that caused the soft tissue injuries then by all means, the world is waiting to read your insights. Until that time your ignorant opinions on the validity & efficacy of Dank’s or any other sports science program is frankly as useful as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.
Do you really believe Dank could establish the validity and efficacy of his program when he couldn’t even be bothered keeping good records? You’d be a real dill to think there was anything scientific about the way Dank conducted his “business”.His science also got the ■■■■, in case you may have forgotten.
As I was saying, when you’ve got something that isn’t ignorance come back & educate us. Till then I see you as no more that a stupid person with no knowledge, experience or expertise to make your opinions worth considering.
While you continue to advocate that Dank’s program at Essendon was less than a disgrace, consider yourself a well qualified imbecile.
Your mind is just far to simple to comprehend what you are been told. Jbomber is not saying that Dank didn’t make mistakes (sloppy documentation), he is saying that perhaps the science behind the program was working and was there to be seen.
Was he a disgrace when he was at Geelong too? Helping the weapon in getting them bigger and stronger?
How about Melbourne, the Goldcoast?