Geelong on the peds...only idiots think so.

[Art Vandelay_]

Please stop dodging the question. I'll repeat, did Hocking knock back Dank or not? Your claim was that he did.

Now, why was Dank heavily involved with the club if he was officially knocked back? Why was he even dealing with Robinson?



Not at all. That was what was received in the report that the Herald Sun released, but it by no means suggests that it was the only drug that Geelong ever received from Dank by official or unofficial means. It only relates to that receipt that the Herald Sun reported on.

It's a simple syllogism that you have failed at here.

Yes moron he did knock Dank back and that's where our fleeting association with Dank ceased.

Was not involved with the club after that knock back.

You have no proof we received anything other than Actovegin. Why, because we've been investigated and found to be clean.

Continue to talk bullshit though, you're getting good at it

 

[Josh_hawk]

Yes moron he did knock Dank back and that's where our fleeting association with Dank ceased.

Was not involved with the club after that knock back.

You have no proof we received anything other than Actovegin. Why, because we've been investigated and found to be clean.

Continue to talk bullshit though, you're getting good at it

And again.....

 

[Lethality]

Yes moron he did knock Dank back and that's where our fleeting association with Dank ceased.

How do you know that? According to Geelong player Cam Mooney, Dank was only involved from 2009 onwards . . . yet Robinson says he was heavily involved in the club from 2007. Clearly Robinson is telling the truth here because he has no reason to lie, as he reported Dank's involvement in 2007 when this was not an issue, and also because he reported Dank's involvement long before Mooney did. A false positive would just be too big of a coincidence under those circumstances.

Therefore the lie would be Mooney's.

Why would Mooney lie about Dank's involvement? Was he simply not aware of the massive input Dank was having in the club in 2007 when Robinson credited Dank? Why didn't the players know that Dank was behind the scenes? How do you reconcile the fact that Essendon ripped their football program from Geelong with your argument that Geelong did not do anything wrong?

 

[chefmeister]

Yes, but it's your warped logic and overactive imagination. You can't even follow a simple position.

My position is nothing went on and no matter how hard you try or how hard you want to you can't prove otherwise.
That simple enough for you to follow?

Now of course this wouldn't necessarily mean that anything was wrong.

Look at that, you caught your own tail.

 

[Lethality]

My position is nothing went on

Derp, I was referring to your misunderstanding of my position. Once again you can't follow a simple exchange.

"At the end of the day when you do accelerate people and you do push them you find weaknesses. In the first four weeks we wanted to find the weaknesses and once we found them we could strengthen them," he said.
"They've already put size on and that was something we did at Geelong where some of those guys put on seven kilos in seven weeks and it was functional mass."

 

[Lethality]

"This opportunity ... when I spoke with Hirdy for the first time and knowing what they wanted to create, we got along from day one," he said. "I knew the fit was there."

He said Geelong's famed physical prowess could not only be replicated, but bettered.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ru-dean-robinson/story-e6frf9jf-1226217676548

 

[Art Vandelay_]

How do you know that? According to Geelong player Cam Mooney, Dank was only involved from 2009 onwards . . . yet Robinson says he was heavily involved in the club from 2007. Clearly Robinson is telling the truth here because he has no reason to lie, as he reported Dank's involvement in 2007 when this was not an issue, and also because he reported Dank's involvement long before Mooney did. A false positive would just be too big of a coincidence under those circumstances.

Therefore the lie would be Mooney's.

Why would Mooney lie about Dank's involvement? Was he simply not aware of the massive input Dank was having in the club in 2007 when Robinson credited Dank? Why didn't the players know that Dank was behind the scenes? How do you reconcile the fact that Essendon ripped their football program from Geelong with your argument that Geelong did not do anything wrong?

So we're going with no proof then. Good.

Not one shred of evidence anything untoward happened, investigated and found to be clean. Good.

Podgey still talking out his arse. No surprises there.

 

[Lethality]

So we're going with no proof then.

That's a poor position to take, there are plenty of things which can't be proven which we also don't believe in. Geelong's fitness regime would just be another to carry serious doubt.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

That's a poor position to take, there are plenty of things which can't be proven which we also don't believe in. Geelong's fitness regime would just be another to carry serious doubt.

You don't understand the concept of nothing was found. Investigated fully and nothing was found.

So any shreds of evidence that anything other than Actovegin was taken or asked for or are we to assume you're continuing to talk out of your arse... Again.

 

[chefmeister]

Derp, I was referring to your misunderstanding of my position.

LOL you sound like Hird.
No one cares about your position that's based entirely on "circumstance" when the facts are you actually 'know' nothing.
But you've already admitted this.

 

[Lethality]

LOL you sound like Hird.

Sounds like something Hird would say.

No one cares about your position that's based entirely on "circumstance" when the facts are you actually 'know' nothing.

argumentum ad ignorantiam\

Resorting to logical fallacies indicates that Geelong don't have a leg to stand on here.

 

[Lethality]

You don't understand the concept of nothing was found. Investigated fully and nothing was found.

I've already explained how that doesn't determine Geelong's innocence. Remember, Lance Armstrong made the same exact arguments you are putting up here.

 

[chefmeister]

Sounds like something Hird would say.



argumentum ad ignorantiam\

Resorting to logical fallacies indicates that Geelong don't have a leg to stand on here.

And you still have nothing.

Stop now dude, you already caught your own tail a few posts back.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I've already explained how that doesn't determine Geelong's innocence. Remember, Lance Armstrong made the same exact arguments you are putting up here.

So you've got no credible argument.

 

[chefmeister]

I've already explained how that doesn't determine Geelong's innocence. Remember, Lance Armstrong made the same exact arguments you are putting up here.

Remember, you've still got nothing.

 

[Mahlepi]

lethal

I've already explained how that doesn't determine Geelong's innocence. Remember, Lance Armstrong made the same exact arguments you are putting up here.

1. which team went to court to stop the release of extensive drug use at their club
2. which club had their star player on self reporting drug rehab program when he should have received a third strike
3. which club had a star player susspended for drug use under the guise of an injury
4. which club had half the senior team in drug rehab

lets just deal what are facts, not your imagination

 

[Lethality]

And you still have nothing.

I have plenty, you just don't understand the position because it doesn't bear thinking about for a Geelong supporter. There is real doubt over Geelong's fitness program as I have demonstrated.

So you've got no credible argument.

It's very credible to be doubtful of a Dank fitness program. Which rock have you been hiding under?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You sound like James Hirds article in the HUN today

Who was paying Deloittes bills?

You don't understand how an external audit works?

Who's paying the bills is irrelevant, a reputable auditing firm like Deloitte wouldn't jeopardise their standing and reputation over some football club. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I have plenty, you just don't understand the position because it doesn't bear thinking about for a Geelong supporter. There is real doubt over Geelong's fitness program as I have demonstrated.



It's very credible to be doubtful of a Dank fitness program. Which rock have you been hiding under?

So you've still got nothing.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Ablett. Chapman. Hunt. Questions must be asked about the hairloss.

 

[Lethality]

1. which team went to court to stop the release of extensive drug use at their club

The numbers of strikes per club are public information and are not suppressed by any club. Hawthorn only went to court to stop the printing of specific player names

lets just deal what are facts

Yes, let's . . . however none of your loaded questions deals with fact. I have dealt with one of your errors to show how completely off mark you are.

 

[chefmeister]

I have plenty, you just don't understand the position because it doesn't bear thinking about for a Geelong supporter. There is real doubt over Geelong's fitness program as I have demonstrated.



It's very credible to be doubtful of a Dank fitness program. Which rock have you been hiding under?

Someone call officer Barbrady, there's still nothing to see here.

 

[Hawk Dork]

*

 

[Mahlepi]

Ablett. Chapman. Hunt. Questions must be asked about the hairloss.

Buddy, roughhead, hale

 

[Lethality]

Someone call officer Barbrady, there's still nothing to see here.