Chris

Lance, you seem to have forgotten the part of the quote that says the law could be heard under which ever law the CAS panel wish it to be heard under. If you quote at least do so completely.

Which law will he use? Surely going for defamation, don't think he has worked out the consequences of doing so yet

Unfortunately I think you are right, Dank has never actually done what he said he would. If only he would follow through just this once.

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 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 wonder if they are still taking the revenue from the pokies they have?

Change every reference for TB4 to Thymomodulin and you would be just as right in what you are saying. That is the problem.

6. Gawn 5. Vince 4. Dunn 3. Brayshaw 2. N.Jones 1. Viney

What were they lied to about if they didn't cheat?

Have been wondering where this win fits in significance for the club since I was born (1980). Of course we will only know this after some time has passed but I think it will be right up there. My ranking is - 1 - 1988 prelim over Carlton 2 - 1987 final round win over the dogs 3 - 2000 prelim win over the roos 4 - this win over Geelong (TBC) The reason I place it so high is that I think it has removed many of the shackles holding some of the older players down. It looked to me as if Watts and Chunk were crying after the siren, presumably due to a mass of pressure and history lifting from their shoulders after 186. It makes sense if you think that after that fateful day, as a team and as individuals, they have: - Seen a well liked coach sacked who has also passed away - Watched a club great and president fight the good fight but in the end lose - Lost one of the clubs greatest ever to Cancer - Lost another club great from their childhood - Have a past coach (for a few of them) get diagnosed with a terminal illness - Go through 7? coaches and years of false starts and hardship - Have potential very good players go home due to personal issues. - Have this single day hanging over you as the darkest of the dark, the pivotal moment of the mess they were in (almost wrote are in, but I think that would be wrong now) To get up and win, against that same team, with many of the same players, at the same stadium, would be huge. Lets hope with the shackles gone the club can get off its knees and stride towards a very bright future!

No Stretch?

It has always alternated between the two. The one constant is that it isn't the clubs, Hird's, or the players fault and the only person to blame is Dank.

Still months. Just look at the two Collingwood players and the pincher. Their cases have taken months, admittedly ASADA and the tribunal have been a little busy of late.

If he didn't know and it was all Dank's fault then it wouldn't be a mistake would it? Just goes to show the illogical clap trap they are willing to peddle to get the sympathy of the masses. And yes WADA won't care about that, but the AFl will and it is opening the doors to a softening of the drug code. Just wait for it, is just a matter of time, and will signal my departure from the sport.

Just as predicted when Dank was thrown in it last week, here is the follow up about how Hird (I predicted the players as well but that may be to come) is a saint and not to blame at all. The EFC media machine hard at work, but oh so predictable. Unfortunately many out there are eating it all up and believing every word.

I seem to always run into the paywall for some reason. Have used that loophole in the past but it doesn't work any more. Sounds like the article is the follow up to the 'how evil Dank is' article last week. Fact remains, they should have known and ignorance actually makes it worse in my opionion, not better!