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.

You are actually one of the better ones at referencing what you have said. Will give you that.

I am talking about answering when challenged, as in when you make a point, you are challenged with a question where answering it will justify your position. Take this to mean what you like.

The example I gave above of the questions posed my Mandee would be a god example. It went to the root of your belief and stance and in order for us to get a full understanding of your position it needed answering, even if you have done so here before, and especially if you have only done so on other forums.

Choosing not to answer this leads to the accusations and misunderstandings.

You are actually one of the better ones at referencing what you have said. Will give you that.

I am talking about answering when challenged, as in when you make a point, you are challenged with a question where answering it will justify your position. Take this to mean what you like.

The example I gave above of the questions posed my Mandee would be a god example. It went to the root of your belief and stance and in order for us to get a full understanding of your position it needed answering, even if you have done so here before, and especially if you have only done so on other forums.

Choosing not to answer this leads to the accusations and misunderstandings.

ok, fair enough. But do you consider questions as "what did they give the players?" to be reasonable?

As I explained earlier, the full resources of ASADA, the AFL, Deloittes etc, and now WADA, have thus far been unable to answer it. I consider that be a complete strawman and not really worthy of a response. Similarly, questions such as "do you think no documentation is acceptable", when I've already previously elaborated on my opinion that not only do I think it's not acceptable, but that I even think it should of itself be a brand new ADRV, should be answered over and over?

What actaully tends to happen is I answer questions, but people don't like the response because it either doesn't fit in with their world view or it is not equivocal enough, or they just have a hard-wired belief that as an EFC supporter I am obliged to think in a certain way, or they assume that rather than having my own opinions I am actually in fact part of an amorphous hive mind and anything I say that strays from that is somehow not authentic or allowed.

Any time I make empirical statements on, say, let's pick a random topic, burden of proof at CAS, I will be making it having done my research and with the capacity to source that information for all to see.

This isn't a black and white issue, yet so many people think it is and get offended when that world view is disputed.

Also, frankly, if people are condescending or aggressive then I don't feel any obligation to respond

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by Lance Uppercut

yawn

I hope CAS doesnt descend into the whiny, nit picking drone fest that this thread turns into whenever Uppercut pops up.

Drugs

Injections offsite

Convicted drug importers

Organised criminls inside the essendrug circle

And here we are discussing the same useless drivel. Please guys, stop engaging Lance. Please Lance, stop engaging us.

But feel free to return when the bans are handed out. Then I really would be interested in hearing about technicalities etc

ok, fair enough. But do you consider questions as "what did they give the players?" to be reasonable?

As I explained earlier, the full resources of ASADA, the AFL, Deloittes etc, and now WADA, have thus far been unable to answer it. I consider that be a complete strawman and not really worthy of a response. Similarly, questions such as "do you think no documentation is acceptable", when I've already previously elaborated on my opinion that not only do I think it's not acceptable, but that I even think it should of itself be a brand new ADRV, should be answered over and over?

What actaully tends to happen is I answer questions, but people don't like the response because it either doesn't fit in with their world view or it is not equivocal enough, or they just have a hard-wired belief that as an EFC supporter I am obliged to think in a certain way, or they assume that rather than having my own opinions I am actually in fact part of an amorphous hive mind and anything I say that strays from that is somehow not authentic or allowed.

Any time I make empirical statements on, say, let's pick a random topic, burden of proof at CAS, I will be making it having done my research and with the capacity to source that information for all to see.

This isn't a black and white issue, yet so many people think it is and get offended when that world view is disputed.

Also, frankly, if people are condescending or aggressive then I don't feel any obligation to respond

"what did they give the players?" was in response to your non answer to the previous question which was about you asking EFC where the records were. You have provided answers to both, although you may be asked for more info at times. If you truly wish to be understood then you answer these requests, not doing so only makes people sceptical and diminishes any credibility you may have built.

A simple reply to each question posed, even one word may well do the job, and would save all the accusations and confusion over your stance. Not everyone has read every page or remembers every post you have made. Sometimes repeating your self is the best course of action, even if you quote yourself from previously, this shows you are consistent and you have a stance that has been made public.

I don't think it is also as much you upsetting peoples world view, it is the tone in the comments, from both sides, that leads to a complete breakdown in any discussion. The trick is to rise above it and put your case forward clearly and respectfully, no matter what comes the other way. Otherwise you look a little foolish. I know this goes against pretty much everything internet blogs are about, I know I prefer to discuss the issue, not abuse people. Maybe it is just me.

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by Chris

Dank given a life ban by the afl

Which will really put a dent in his career prospects...

Back to the topic!

Dank has has been handed a life ban by the AFL anti-doping tribunal for his role in Essendon’s supplement saga.

One down one more to go...with the initials JH!

Back to the topic!

Dank has has been handed a life ban by the AFL anti-doping tribunal for his role in Essendon’s supplement saga.

One down one more to go...with the initials JH!

Not good enough to stop at Turd.

The Doctor, and the players need to be put away also. Maximum time for all.

I hope CAS doesnt descend into the whiny, nit picking drone fest that this thread turns into whenever Uppercut pops up.

Drugs

Injections offsite

Convicted drug importers

Organised criminls inside the essendrug circle

And here we are discussing the same useless drivel. Please guys, stop engaging Lance. Please Lance, stop engaging us.

But feel free to return when the bans are handed out. Then I really would be interested in hearing about technicalities etc

I try to ignore him, and do most of the time, but it is like the neighbors cats that comes over and pizzes on your front door. Sometimes enough is enough. Can we have a vote on removing him or allow him his own thread where those that want to engage him can. This thread in several guises has been a favorite of mine, but I am tired of Lance he is ruining it for me.

I hope CAS doesnt descend into the whiny, nit picking drone fest that this thread turns into whenever Uppercut pops up.

Drugs

Injections offsite

Convicted drug importers

Organised criminls inside the essendrug circle

And here we are discussing the same useless drivel. Please guys, stop engaging Lance. Please Lance, stop engaging us.

But feel free to return when the bans are handed out. Then I really would be interested in hearing about technicalities etc

Organised criminals inside the Essendon circle. That's ridiculous

Dank given a life ban by the afl

Which will really put a dent in his career prospects...

Dank, who was a key figure in Essendon's 2012 supplements program, was found guilty of 10 breaches of the AFL's anti-doping code in April this year.

These included "trafficking, attempting to traffic and complicity in matters related to a range of prohibited substances".

The substances included Hexarelin, Humanofort, CJC-1295, GHRP6 and SARSM.

- See more at: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-26/stephen-dank-banned-for-life-from-working-in-afl#sthash.FoJU2pHD.dpuf

I hope CAS doesnt descend into the whiny, nit picking drone fest that this thread turns into whenever Uppercut pops up.

Drugs

Injections offsite

Convicted drug importers

Organised criminls inside the essendrug circle

And here we are discussing the same useless drivel. Please guys, stop engaging Lance. Please Lance, stop engaging us.

But feel free to return when the bans are handed out. Then I really would be interested in hearing about technicalities etc

Organised criminals inside the Essendon circle. That's ridiculous

So that's ridiculous but the other three are correct, please go away?

Dank, who was a key figure in Essendon's 2012 supplements program, was found guilty of 10 breaches of the AFL's anti-doping code in April this year.

These included "trafficking, attempting to traffic and complicity in matters related to a range of prohibited substances".

The substances included Hexarelin, Humanofort, CJC-1295, GHRP6 and SARSM.

- See more at: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-26/stephen-dank-banned-for-life-from-working-in-afl#sthash.FoJU2pHD.dpuf

If he is guilty of trafficking prohibited substances then surely there must have been recipients.

And anyone receiving these prohibited substances is surely guilty too.

I still find it incredulous that the tribunal found Dank guilty of attempting to traffic hexarelin to Hird and the players and then found the players not guilty of not attempting to take anything illegal.

You've got to hand it to the AFL tribunal. Guilty of everything except giving you know what to the players.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/26/afl-essendon-stephen-dank-banned-for-life

Organised criminals inside the Essendon circle. That's ridiculous

It certainly is ridiculous that there were organized criminals inside the Essendon rifle - quite ridiculous.

Unprecedented at least in the modern era.

Hirds fitness coach a convicted drug trafficer.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-coach-james-hird-linked-to-convicted-drug-trafficker-shane-charter/story-e6frf9jf-1226572461168

I include the line about Woewodin for balance.

SHANE Charter - the convicted drug trafficker who may have supplied former Essendon sports scientist Steve Dank with supplements at the centre of footy's doping probe - has links to Bombers coach James Hird.

The Herald Sun can reveal Hird and Charter worked together for 12 months on his diet and fitness during the champion’s premiership and Brownlow Medal-winning career.

Charter was also hailed as “the architect” behind Demon Shane Woewodin’s 2000 Brownlow Medal win.

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/stephen-dank-cops-life-ban-from-afl-anti-doping-tribunal/story-e6frf3e3-1227416246416

This is going to get hilarious

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/stephen-dank-cops-life-ban-from-afl-anti-doping-tribunal/story-e6frf3e3-1227416246416

This is going to get hilarious

It's a bit rich to not attend a hearing and then to appeal the outcome.

This guy is a real loose cannon. He could do or say anything. EFC must be worried.

Id suggest that if he wants his day in the supreme court he should have it. Where everyone will be under oath and can be forced to appear...

It's a bit rich to not attend a hearing and then to appeal the outcome.

This guy is a real loose cannon. He could do or say anything. EFC must be worried.

in some respects it should help essendon

he is less likely to cooperate with anyone in officialdom now unless essendon turn on him significantly

anyway he is more likely to be judged an unreliable witness (for either side)

From: The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/26/afl-essendon-stephen-dank-banned-for-life

“The Australian Football League anti-doping tribunal has concluded its deliberation with respect to the sanction of the former Essendon Football Club support person found to have breached the AFL anti-doping code,” a statement read.

“The tribunal has imposed a lifetime sanction, commencing on 25 June 2015.”

A lifetime ban for what?

And the clubs and players are innocent?

If Dank is guilty he cannot be alone.

Id suggest that if he wants his day in the supreme court he should have it. Where everyone will be under oath and can be forced to appear...

I wonder if the following has dawned on him.

He will be suing people for defamation, for them to have defamed him they must have told an untruth about him in the public domain, for these people to defend themselves they only need to show that they are telling the truth.

In this defence they may well roll out all the evidence as presented to the AFL tribunal and then it will be up to the judges to make a ruling as to whether he is guilty or not of those charges, as that will determine if people have been telling the truth or not.

Now the funny part, this will mean people can be subpoenaed to appear and give testimony under oath, and this testimony will be judged on the lower burden of proof used in civil matters, which is balance of probabilities.

This action may well bring the entire EFC charade crashing down around them, and leave Dank with egg on his face in the process.

Just as the smile from last Sunday was wearing off a new one seems to have appeared!

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by Chris

Dank given a life ban by the afl

Which will really put a dent in his career prospects...

Havent seen the detail yet. Assume someone will have it soon . I will be looking for how they can ban Dank if there are no records and yet EFC is only fined and penalised for not keeping those records?

I wonder if the following has downed on him.

He will be suing people for defamation, for them to have defamed him they must have told an untruth about him in the public domain, for these people to defend themselves they only need to show that they are telling the truth.

In this defence they may well roll out all the evidence as presented to the AFL tribunal and then it will be up to the judges to make a ruling as to whether he is guilty or not of those charges, as that will determine if people have been telling the truth or not.

Now the funny part, this will mean people can be subpoenaed to appear and give testimony under oath, and this testimony will be judged on the lower burden of proof used in civil matters, which is balance of probabilities.

This action may well bring the entire EFC charade crashing down around them, and leave Dank with egg on his face in the process.

Just as the smile form last Sunday was wearing off a new one seems to have appeared!

Dank is all huff and puff!

He has been threatening to sue (someone, anyone) for a long time and has done nothing.

He did not attend theTribunal, nor 'defend' himself when he had the chance and now is squealling!

This is more bluster...as you say he has no case to go to the supreme court.

His only option is to appeal...to the AFL Tribunal no less!!! Ironic isn't it!

He is snookered whatever he does!