interesting, given you have no idea what I have or have not done. And you call me a hypocrite. lol

You may notice a pattern to my contributions - recognising that I'm a guest on this board and the general vibe that dissenting opinion isn't exactly welcome here I tend to only respond when I am directly referenced. Do you think I don't deserve the right of reply?

Put up or shut up. " I love that you just ignore it and hope no-one notices"

interesting, given you have no idea what I have or have not done. And you call me a hypocrite. lol

You may notice a pattern to my contributions - recognising that I'm a guest on this board and the general vibe that dissenting opinion isn't exactly welcome here I tend to only respond when I am directly referenced. Do you think I don't deserve the right of reply?

I notice a pattern to your contributions, they tend to go along the same lines as a lot of people, especially EFC supporters.

You come out, say something that you think is right (it may well be, it really doesn't matter), you are then asked direct questions and you either don't acknowledge them, don't answer them, or you attack the person who asked you, as you have done here (as I said, a lot of people do this, not just you). Makes me laugh though as all it achieves is a diminishing of your credibility, you would actually have more if you said you did not know, or that you got something wrong!

If you are so definite in your stance then why not answer the questions?

I notice a pattern to your contributions, they tend to go along the same lines as a lot of people, especially EFC supporters.

You come out, say something that you think is right (it may well be, it really doesn't matter), you are then asked direct questions and you either don't acknowledge them, don't answer them, or you attack the person who asked you, as you have done here (as I said, a lot of people do this, not just you). Makes me laugh though as all it achieves is a diminishing of your credibility, you would actually have more if you said you did not know, or that you got something wrong!

If you are so definite in your stance then why not answer the questions?

can you provide an example of where I've done this?

Put up or shut up. " I love that you just ignore it and hope no-one notices"

I assume you want to know what I've done, is that what you're talking about?

I've privately contacted the club expressing my concerns. I vote according to my concerns when I have the opportunity. I've publicly posted my thoughts on the matter on Essendon forums, including my belief that whether or not you actually did anything, that like a CEO should do if you're a figurehead and leader then the buck stops with you and you need to take responsibility about that. So yeah, I've publicly voiced my opinion that Hird should stand down.

Is that enough for you or are you still going to sook about me daring to express dissenting opinion on a complex situation that directly concerns the club that I support when directly challenged by name?

Oh, another thing I've done on quite a number of occasions is admitted publicly I'm wrong when I've been wrong. Strange concept that, eh

can you provide an example of where I've done this?

Man Dee asked why you were not demanding from the club to know what the players were given.

You replied with "interesting, given you have no idea what I have or have not done. And you call me a hypocrite. lol". Not overtly aggressive but still a personal attack, without any acknowledgement or answering of the question in hand.

I assume you want to know what I've done, is that what you're talking about?

I've privately contacted the club expressing my concerns. I vote according to my concerns when I have the opportunity. I've publicly posted my thoughts on the matter on Essendon forums, including my belief that whether or not you actually did anything, that like a CEO should do if you're a figurehead and leader then the buck stops with you and you need to take responsibility about that. So yeah, I've publicly voiced my opinion that Hird should stand down.

Is that enough for you or are you still going to sook about me daring to express dissenting opinion on a complex situation that directly concerns the club that I support when directly challenged by name?

That is all you needed to say to begin with Lance. You assume that we know your personal communications with the club, or that we frequent EFC blogs (I certainly don't, although I am sure it would be good for a laugh).

I assume you want to know what I've done, is that what you're talking about?

I've privately contacted the club expressing my concerns. I vote according to my concerns when I have the opportunity. I've publicly posted my thoughts on the matter on Essendon forums, including my belief that whether or not you actually did anything, that like a CEO should do if you're a figurehead and leader then the buck stops with you and you need to take responsibility about that. So yeah, I've publicly voiced my opinion that Hird should stand down.

Is that enough for you or are you still going to sook about me daring to express dissenting opinion when directly challenged by name?

Chip on the shoulder?

You continue to half answer questions.

Lance, what did they give the players?

Is it OK to have no records?

Do you think that the EFC has provided a safe workplace over the last five years?

That is all you needed to say to begin with Lance. You assume that we know your personal communications with the club, or that we frequent EFC blogs (I certainly don't, although I am sure it would be good for a laugh).

well, here's the thing. I actually don't feel the need to justify myself to absolutely everyone all the time. I don't feel the need to preface every single post I make on the issue with a disclaimer that I think events of 2012 were, largely, abhorrent. I also believe it's perfectly acceptable to have a nuanced discussion - clearly many people disagree but that's not my problem. Also, people should understand, some of the questions people ask are - to put it bluntly - [censored] stupid and I tend to ignore what I consider utter stupidity. Otherwise it turns into a slanging match and in a forum where the rules of engagement are most definitely (and rightly, of course) not in my favour that has only one outcome.

well, here's the thing. I actually don't feel the need to justify myself to absolutely everyone all the time. I don't feel the need to preface every single post I make on the issue with a disclaimer that I think events of 2012 were, largely, abhorrent. I also believe it's perfectly acceptable to have a nuanced discussion - clearly many people disagree but that's not my problem. Also, people should understand, some of the questions people ask are - to put it bluntly - [censored] stupid and I tend to ignore what I consider utter stupidity. Otherwise it turns into a slanging match and in a forum where the rules of engagement are most definitely (and rightly, of course) not in my favour that has only one outcome.

If you don't feel the need to justify yourself then don't, but you can't then complain when people call you out on it. That would be having your cake and eating it too.

Chip on the shoulder?

You continue to half answer questions.

Lance, what did they give the players?

Is it OK to have no records?

Do you think that the EFC has provided a safe workplace over the last five years?

half answer the questions. Oh really?

You seem to think that I owe you something. In reality, your whiny aggressive attitude doesn't deserve my considered responses, frankly speaking. This is a good example of some of the stupidity I just mentioned, but if I don't respond then I get accused of ducking the issue.

Have a little think about it big guy. How on earth do you expect me to know what they gave the players? The entire might of the global anti doping resources alongside the AFL and various forensic accounting bodies like Deloitte haven't been able to answer it. Yet here you are demanding that I answer it, as a club supporter. I'll tell you what that is. It's lazy debating and cheating. You're setting up a strawman and then calling me out for "half answers" when I respond.

As for your other questions, I've already answered them on this very forum. But for your benefit poppet, so you don't accuse me of half answering:

I don't know what they gave the players. I wasn't there. I am not, incredibly, a part of the ASADA investigation. Sorry to disappoint.

No, it's very much not ok to have records. In fact, if you actually paid attention, you'd find that on this very forum I've explained that I believe not keeping adequate records should in fact be an entirely new category of ADRV, but never mind that in your righteous thunderings eh?

No, I don't think they provided a safe workplace.

I just can't wait for your intelligent and thought-provoking response

If you don't feel the need to justify yourself then don't, but you can't then complain when people call you out on it. That would be to having your cake and eating it too.

I'm not complaining. I'm explaining. Why wouldn't I? Do you think I should just let the assertion stand that I'm a hypocrite? Genuinely curious. That's not having your cake and eating it too. You seem to be saying that I should in fact either preface all my posts with what I stated, or if I'm not prepared to then I should simply accept that people can make false assertions and call me a hypocrite. How does that work exactly?

half answer the questions. Oh really?

You seem to think that I owe you something. In reality, your whiny aggressive attitude doesn't deserve my considered responses, frankly speaking. This is a good example of some of the stupidity I just mentioned, but if I don't respond then I get accused of ducking the issue.

Have a little think about it big guy. How on earth do you expect me to know what they gave the players? The entire might of the global anti doping resources alongside the AFL and various forensic accounting bodies like Deloitte haven't been able to answer it. Yet here you are demanding that I answer it, as a club supporter. I'll tell you what that is. It's lazy debating and cheating. You're setting up a strawman and then calling me out for "half answers" when I respond.

As for your other questions, I've already answered them on this very forum. But for your benefit poppet, so you don't accuse me of half answering:

I don't know what they gave the players. I wasn't there. I am not, incredibly, a part of the ASADA investigation. Sorry to disappoint.

No, it's very much not ok to have records. In fact, if you actually paid attention, you'd find that on this very forum I've explained that I believe not keeping adequate records should in fact be an entirely new category of ADRV, but never mind that in your righteous thunderings eh?

No, I don't think they provided a safe workplace.

I just can't wait for your intelligent and thought-provoking response

Your attitude here confirms my opinion of you.

And you still defend them.

half answer the questions. Oh really?

You seem to think that I owe you something. In reality, your whiny aggressive attitude doesn't deserve my considered responses, frankly speaking. This is a good example of some of the stupidity I just mentioned, but if I don't respond then I get accused of ducking the issue.

Have a little think about it big guy. How on earth do you expect me to know what they gave the players? The entire might of the global anti doping resources alongside the AFL and various forensic accounting bodies like Deloitte haven't been able to answer it. Yet here you are demanding that I answer it, as a club supporter. I'll tell you what that is. It's lazy debating and cheating. You're setting up a strawman and then calling me out for "half answers" when I respond.

As for your other questions, I've already answered them on this very forum. But for your benefit poppet, so you don't accuse me of half answering:

I don't know what they gave the players. I wasn't there. I am not, incredibly, a part of the ASADA investigation. Sorry to disappoint.

No, it's very much not ok to have records. In fact, if you actually paid attention, you'd find that on this very forum I've explained that I believe not keeping adequate records should in fact be an entirely new category of ADRV, but never mind that in your righteous thunderings eh?

No, I don't think they provided a safe workplace.

I just can't wait for your intelligent and thought-provoking response

Go away!

Hey Chip you need to take a look over here . . . . .

Mick G
UNDERWORLD figure Mick Gatto says he was enlisted by the key witness in ASADA’s case against Essendon players to help sell information that could clear the Bombers of anti-doping charges.
Gatto claimed he offered biochemist Shane Charter’s untold story to media, including 60 Minutes, for up to $400,000, but that there had been “no interest”.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 7130030661

Shane Charter
STRATHDALE gym owner Jarrod Butler has been cleared of drug importation charges.
A jury in the Melbourne County Court yesterday found Butler, 38, not guilty on charges of importing a Tier One good and possessing ephedrine.
On April 18, 2004, police arrested Shane Geoffrey Charter, a former personal trainer and pharmaceutical salesman who trained elite footballers at Butler's gym, the eelgood Family Fitness Centre.
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/sto ... g-charges/

Clients ranged from strippers to millionaires to James Hird Few lifestyle coaches can boast a client list as broad as Charter's. He has instructed Brownlow medallists, underworld identities, strippers and even millionaire businessmen on how to get the best out of themselves.

Charter said in 2002-2003 he had about 30 AFL players from six clubs on his books. One of those clients was James Hird, then making his way in the stockbroking firm Goldman Sachs JBWere.

Charter says Hird introduced him to the firm's then managing director, David Evans, now Essendon chairman. He said he worked with Evans and six of the company's directors as a ''holistic health trainer''.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clients-ranged-from-strippers-to-millionaires-to-james-hird-20130419-2i5m1.html

Mario Salvo
A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE Essendon coterie member has emerged as the fixer who brokered a peace deal between the Bombers and a key ASADA witness.
Property developer Mario Salvo, a long-time friend of witness Shane Charter, arranged crucial talks between the biochemist and senior club figures as the AFL tribunal hearing approached.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/meet-t ... 7292301387

Stephen Amendola, Hanke, Burnside
[censored] Boys muscle up in Essendon drugs war. Yesterday’s Crikey item on the spinners and lawyers descending on Essendon threw up some interesting connections, many of them forged in the notorious 1998 waterfront dispute. Before his pivotal role in the O’Connors meatworks spat, James Hird’s lawyer Steven Amendola worked on the MUA vs Patrick case as counsel for the Commonwealth — he was there as barrister Tony Pagone’s junior solicitor and was friendly with Hird spinner and Liberal operative Ian Hanke.
The waterfront dispute was a huge story, bigger than the Essendon saga. It was national and had political, commercial and legal ramifications on a massive scale. That’s where these boys earned their stripes. And of course, there’s also the link with union buster Chris Corrigan, who was the boss of Patrick before it was forcibly taken over by new Essendon chair Paul Little’s Toll Holdings. To cap the incestuousness, Hird has now hired Julian Burnside QC, who was MUA counsel in the waterfront dispute against Hanke, Amendola, Corrigan and Peter Reith. When it comes to IR and AFL, Melbourne is far, far less than two degrees of separation.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/02/tip ... mours-935/

Forget "Underbelly" I'm hangin out for "Essendonbelly!!

Your attitude here confirms my opinion of you.

And you still defend them.

you're clearly incapable of any type of nuanced discussion. And I really couldn't give a rats tossbag about your opinion of me. I'll continue to reply when I'm directly referenced and I'll continue to provide my opinion to those that are interested in hearing alternative perspectives in a respectful manner as befitting a guest to those that deserve it. If I overstep the line or outstay my welcome then your mods will no doubt ban me, but I'd like to think you don't get banned for merely having a different opinion, and so far that seems to be the case

I'm not complaining. I'm explaining. Why wouldn't I? Do you think I should just let the assertion stand that I'm a hypocrite? Genuinely curious. That's not having your cake and eating it too. You seem to be saying that I should in fact either preface all my posts with what I stated, or if I'm not prepared to then I should simply accept that people can make false assertions and call me a hypocrite. How does that work exactly?

Here comes tactic number 2, make the other person seem unreasonable by changing their argument so you sound right.

I will lay it out for you Lance.

You stated a position.

You were challenged and ask specific questions.

You didn't answer them and as such did not back up your own statements or your stance on the matter.

You were again challenged to answer the questions.

You did so but then said that it is your right to not have to do so as you wont always answer questions as you have in the past

I pointed out that complaining about being attacked because you wont answer questions, when you say you wont, is like having your cake and eating it too.

Now you pick up my line, apply it to one comment, which is actually irrelevant to the discussion we are having, and you try and pin it on me.

It is very very simple Lance. If you are asked a direct question and you do not answer it then you have no claim in being able to criticise anyone on not providing references or backing up their points, which you have done.

To be even clearer, I am not saying you should preface you comments, in fact I am saying the opposite, when you put something forward and it is questioned, answer the question. You should also always stick up for your self when you think it is needed (when being called a hypocrite).

You do seem to have somehow completely turned our entire conversation around though, maybe re read the bits between you and I and you will see I am being consistent on this and you have dragged in other irrelevancies.

Hey Chip you need to take a look over here . . . . .

Mick G

UNDERWORLD figure Mick Gatto says he was enlisted by the key witness in ASADA’s case against Essendon players to help sell information that could clear the Bombers of anti-doping charges.

Gatto claimed he offered biochemist Shane Charter’s untold story to media, including 60 Minutes, for up to $400,000, but that there had been “no interest”.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 7130030661

Shane Charter

STRATHDALE gym owner Jarrod Butler has been cleared of drug importation charges.

A jury in the Melbourne County Court yesterday found Butler, 38, not guilty on charges of importing a Tier One good and possessing ephedrine.

On April 18, 2004, police arrested Shane Geoffrey Charter, a former personal trainer and pharmaceutical salesman who trained elite footballers at Butler's gym, the eelgood Family Fitness Centre.

http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/sto ... g-charges/

Clients ranged from strippers to millionaires to James Hird Few lifestyle coaches can boast a client list as broad as Charter's. He has instructed Brownlow medallists, underworld identities, strippers and even millionaire businessmen on how to get the best out of themselves.

Charter said in 2002-2003 he had about 30 AFL players from six clubs on his books. One of those clients was James Hird, then making his way in the stockbroking firm Goldman Sachs JBWere.

Charter says Hird introduced him to the firm's then managing director, David Evans, now Essendon chairman. He said he worked with Evans and six of the company's directors as a ''holistic health trainer''.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clients-ranged-from-strippers-to-millionaires-to-james-hird-20130419-2i5m1.html

Mario Salvo

A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE Essendon coterie member has emerged as the fixer who brokered a peace deal between the Bombers and a key ASADA witness.

Property developer Mario Salvo, a long-time friend of witness Shane Charter, arranged crucial talks between the biochemist and senior club figures as the AFL tribunal hearing approached.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/meet-t ... 7292301387

Stephen Amendola, Hanke, Burnside

[censored] Boys muscle up in Essendon drugs war. Yesterday’s Crikey item on the spinners and lawyers descending on Essendon threw up some interesting connections, many of them forged in the notorious 1998 waterfront dispute. Before his pivotal role in the O’Connors meatworks spat, James Hird’s lawyer Steven Amendola worked on the MUA vs Patrick case as counsel for the Commonwealth — he was there as barrister Tony Pagone’s junior solicitor and was friendly with Hird spinner and Liberal operative Ian Hanke.

The waterfront dispute was a huge story, bigger than the Essendon saga. It was national and had political, commercial and legal ramifications on a massive scale. That’s where these boys earned their stripes. And of course, there’s also the link with union buster Chris Corrigan, who was the boss of Patrick before it was forcibly taken over by new Essendon chair Paul Little’s Toll Holdings. To cap the incestuousness, Hird has now hired Julian Burnside QC, who was MUA counsel in the waterfront dispute against Hanke, Amendola, Corrigan and Peter Reith. When it comes to IR and AFL, Melbourne is far, far less than two degrees of separation.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/02/tip ... mours-935/

Forget "Underbelly" I'm hangin out for "Essendonbelly!!

Wouldn't it be Essendon 'shots in the' belly?

Here comes tactic number 2, make the other person seem unreasonable by changing their argument so you sound right.

I will lay it out for you Lance.

You stated a position.

You were challenged and ask specific questions.

You didn't answer them and as such did not back up your own statements or your stance on the matter.

You were again challenged to answer the questions.

You did so but then said that it is your right to not have to do so as you wont always answer questions as you have in the past

I pointed out that complaining about being attacked because you wont answer questions, when you say you wont, is like having your cake and eating it too.

Now you pick up my line, apply it to one comment, which is actually irrelevant to the discussion we are having, and you try and pin it on me.

It is very very simple Lance. If you are asked a direct question and you do not answer it then you have no claim in being able to criticise anyone on not providing references or backing up their points, which you have done.

To be even clearer, I am not saying you should preface you comments, in fact I am saying the opposite, when you put something forward and it is questioned, answer the question. You should also always stick up for your self when you think it is needed (when being called a hypocrite).

You do seem to have somehow completely turned our entire conversation around though, maybe re read the bits between you and I and you will see I am being consistent on this and you have dragged in other irrelevancies.

I'm sorry, but how does the act of not answering a question render you unfit to criticse people for not providing references or backing up their points? That doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry, but how does the act of not answering a question render you unfit to criticse people for not providing references or backing up their points? That doesn't make sense.

Asking for references or backing up a point made is the SAME as answering questions posed to you when challenged. You can't ask for one unless you provide the other. To do so would be hypocritical.

must say I'm shocked to be sitting here seeing you desperately avoiding acknowledging being wrong again. I love that you just ignore it and hope no-one notices

I assume you want to know what I've done, is that what you're talking about?

I've privately contacted the club expressing my concerns. I vote according to my concerns when I have the opportunity. I've publicly posted my thoughts on the matter on Essendon forums, including my belief that whether or not you actually did anything, that like a CEO should do if you're a figurehead and leader then the buck stops with you and you need to take responsibility about that. So yeah, I've publicly voiced my opinion that Hird should stand down.

Is that enough for you or are you still going to sook about me daring to express dissenting opinion on a complex situation that directly concerns the club that I support when directly challenged by name?

well, here's the thing. I actually don't feel the need to justify myself to absolutely everyone all the time. I don't feel the need to preface every single post I make on the issue with a disclaimer that I think events of 2012 were, largely, abhorrent. I also believe it's perfectly acceptable to have a nuanced discussion - clearly many people disagree but that's not my problem. Also, people should understand, some of the questions people ask are - to put it bluntly - [censored] stupid and I tend to ignore what I consider utter stupidity. Otherwise it turns into a slanging match and in a forum where the rules of engagement are most definitely (and rightly, of course) not in my favour that has only one outcome.

half answer the questions. Oh really?

You seem to think that I owe you something. In reality, your whiny aggressive attitude doesn't deserve my considered responses, frankly speaking. This is a good example of some of the stupidity I just mentioned, but if I don't respond then I get accused of ducking the issue.

Have a little think about it big guy. How on earth do you expect me to know what they gave the players? The entire might of the global anti doping resources alongside the AFL and various forensic accounting bodies like Deloitte haven't been able to answer it. Yet here you are demanding that I answer it, as a club supporter. I'll tell you what that is. It's lazy debating and cheating. You're setting up a strawman and then calling me out for "half answers" when I respond.

As for your other questions, I've already answered them on this very forum. But for your benefit poppet, so you don't accuse me of half answering:

I don't know what they gave the players. I wasn't there. I am not, incredibly, a part of the ASADA investigation. Sorry to disappoint.

No, it's very much not ok to have records. In fact, if you actually paid attention, you'd find that on this very forum I've explained that I believe not keeping adequate records should in fact be an entirely new category of ADRV, but never mind that in your righteous thunderings eh?

No, I don't think they provided a safe workplace.

I just can't wait for your intelligent and thought-provoking response

you're clearly incapable of any type of nuanced discussion. And I really couldn't give a rats tossbag about your opinion of me. I'll continue to reply when I'm directly referenced and I'll continue to provide my opinion to those that are interested in hearing alternative perspectives in a respectful manner as befitting a guest to those that deserve it. If I overstep the line or outstay my welcome then your mods will no doubt ban me, but I'd like to think you don't get banned for merely having a different opinion, and so far that seems to be the case

Persuasive argument or an attempt at agumantum ad baccum. If you don't like it you get personal.

Your club is out of control, it is run by liars and cheats. The players lives have been put at risk by human experimentation and all you have is that I am a whiny aggressive stupid lazy righteous poppet.

I am sorry your life is not happy, I am sorry you cannot get intelligent conversation with Essendon supporters, I am sorry you feel the need to come here. I really feel sorry for you. I am also sure you will think that you don't want my pity, you have it none the less.

The TV adaptation of this sleazy affair is going to be wonderful.

At least 7 Seasons so far. Could be longer....

Asking for references or backing up a point made is the SAME as answering questions posed to you when challenged. You can't ask for one unless you provide the other. To do so would be hypocritical.

well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Because in my opinion not answering every single question you are ever asked is not even remotely akin to expecting people to provide evidence to back up their opinion, or reference (or even bother reading) source material.

well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Because in my opinion not answering every single question you are ever asked is not even remotely akin to expecting people to provide evidence to back up their opinion, or reference (or even bother reading) source material.

So in short, you don't like it when you are asked to backup your own statements, but other people must provide references for every statement they make.

Must admit I am not surprised you have come to this conclusion.

So in short, you don't like it when you are asked to backup your own statements, but other people must provide references for every statement they make.

Must admit I am not surprised you have come to this conclusion.

Hang on. Are you talking about replying with evidence to back up statements I make or are you talking about me replying to every question I am asked. Because they are very different things. Further, do you have any examples at all of me refusing to provide evidence or back up statements I've made? I can't remember any. I can remember diligently ensuring I read legislation and policy and referencing that on numerous occasions however.