Roast Neil Balme

Remove this Banner Ad

i thought it was more something like this:

MV5BMTM1Njg3MzgwOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzMxMzU3MQ@@._V1_SY317_CR20,0,214,317_.jpg

You are as talented at posting images as I am.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And what makes you believe that's not exactly what he's doing?



Doctors have degrees, and are paid to know what is wrong. That's why they get the big bucks and the prestige. So, they should have a very good idea how long it takes a player to recover from that type of injury.
 
I don't know why people have a problem with keeping injuries and their management in house. Downplay everything, don't let the opposition know when a player is coming back just to keep them on their toes.

That's pretty childish though, especially these days.

The opposition know when the team is named, just like the rest of us. Somehow I don't think they are up at night stressing at to whether or not player A runs out there. Pretty sure they've moved beyond that. We see every year that the side with 22 fit players will almost always beat 21 fit players and 1 crocked star. All clubs still see fit to engage in subterfuge, I just don't see the need for it.
 
Doctors have degrees, and are paid to know what is wrong. That's why they get the big bucks and the prestige. So, they should have a very good idea how long it takes a player to recover from that type of injury.
Agree, but how does this prove Balme is not correctly passing off the medical prognosis to us which is basically what you are claiming?
 
Agree, but how does this prove Balme is not correctly passing off the medical prognosis to us which is basically what you are claiming?
I'll answer for 71. It doesn't.:)

71 seems to think these matters are simple when they can be quite complex. Even the best medical minds can get it wrong. Sometimes terribly wrong. And I'm not suggesting any iatrogenic causes either. Threw that word in to cause VC some anguish.:p

As I've posted before we've been the most successful team going around for yonks. So our medicos and sports science people must be getting way more right than wrong.

Frankly I'm not too fussed about how much they disclose so long as we keep producing on the paddock.
 
[quote="AM, post: 31565800, member: 29667"]I'll answer for 71. It doesn't.:)

71 seems to think these matters are simple when they can be quite complex. Even the best medical minds can get it wrong. Sometimes terribly wrong. And I'm not suggesting any iatrogenic causes either. Threw that word in to cause VC some anguish.:p

As I've posted before we've been the most successful team going around for yonks. So our medicos and sports science people must be getting way more right than wrong.

Frankly I'm not too fussed about how much they disclose so long as we keep producing on the paddock.[/quote]
AM as the delegated proxy for 71 thankyou for your answer, definitely makes more sense the any of his/hers attempts..:)
 
I'll answer for 71. It doesn't.:)

71 seems to think these matters are simple when they can be quite complex. Even the best medical minds can get it wrong. Sometimes terribly wrong. And I'm not suggesting any iatrogenic causes either. Threw that word in to cause VC some anguish.:p

As I've posted before we've been the most successful team going around for yonks. So our medicos and sports science people must be getting way more right than wrong.

Frankly I'm not too fussed about how much they disclose so long as we keep producing on the paddock.

Are you doubting the world famous Dr catman 71 ?

 
I'll answer for 71. It doesn't.:)

71 seems to think these matters are simple when they can be quite complex. Even the best medical minds can get it wrong. Sometimes terribly wrong. And I'm not suggesting any iatrogenic causes either. Threw that word in to cause VC some anguish.:p

As I've posted before we've been the most successful team going around for yonks. So our medicos and sports science people must be getting way more right than wrong.

Frankly I'm not too fussed about how much they disclose so long as we keep producing on the paddock.
Bastard
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'll answer for 71. It doesn't.:)

71 seems to think these matters are simple when they can be quite complex. Even the best medical minds can get it wrong. Sometimes terribly wrong. And I'm not suggesting any iatrogenic causes either. Threw that word in to cause VC some anguish.:p

As I've posted before we've been the most successful team going around for yonks. So our medicos and sports science people must be getting way more right than wrong.

Frankly I'm not too fussed about how much they disclose so long as we keep producing on the paddock.


FIRST
You say you're going to answer for catman71,
BUT THEN
You argue from established facts to a logical conclusion.

Make up your mind, AM, you can't have it both ways.
 
I'll answer for 71. It doesn't.:)

71 seems to think these matters are simple when they can be quite complex. Even the best medical minds can get it wrong. Sometimes terribly wrong. And I'm not suggesting any iatrogenic causes either. Threw that word in to cause VC some anguish.:p

As I've posted before we've been the most successful team going around for yonks. So our medicos and sports science people must be getting way more right than wrong.

Frankly I'm not too fussed about how much they disclose so long as we keep producing on the paddock.



You say our medical team has been the most successful for yonks.

Will you tell the Paul Chapman "cheerleaders" on this board that, please?
 
Sorry, but how is that relevant?



It is relevant because, if our medical team is the most successful for years, then don't they have the credits in the bank to know whether Paul Chapman's hamstring can stand up to the rigors of another year of AFL, and the club then acted accordingly, meaning that some supporters should lay off here having a go at Chris Scott at the club for not taking the risk.

I think the Geelong medical team might know a bit more about Paul Chapman's health than Paul Chapman himself does.
 
It is relevant because, if our medical team is the most successful for years, then don't they have the credits in the bank to know whether Paul Chapman's hamstring can stand up to the rigors of another year of AFL, and the club then acted accordingly, meaning that some supporters should lay off here having a go at Chris Scott at the club for not taking the risk.

I think the Geelong medical team might know a bit more about Paul Chapman's health than Paul Chapman himself does.
Was that the reason we moved Chapman on? Or was it because he wanted to play a full season of AFL football and the club were upfront about that not suiting their plans for developing youth?

Here-We-Go-Again.jpg
 
It is relevant because, if our medical team is the most successful for years, then don't they have the credits in the bank to know whether Paul Chapman's hamstring can stand up to the rigors of another year of AFL, and the club then acted accordingly, meaning that some supporters should lay off here having a go at Chris Scott at the club for not taking the risk.

I think the Geelong medical team might know a bit more about Paul Chapman's health than Paul Chapman himself does.

The only person that keeps mentioning Chapman is





So just GTF over it and




everyone else has moved on
 
You say our medical team has been the most successful for yonks.

Will you tell the Paul Chapman "cheerleaders" on this board that, please?

Um!

Doc, I didn’t actually say that. I’d have no way of knowing or qualified to assess it if I did. What I suggested was our team has been the most successful for yonks. Ipso facto, our sports science and medical team must be getting more right than wrong.

btw. Don't recall Chappy complaining about his rehab.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top