Geelong rorting the system

[Wojcinski]

Whose coping? You beat us fair and square in 2011, extremely courageous victory when you were even more injured than we were.

2006-2010 its a different story. The whole crew was there. Mark "garage full of drugs, but none of them were mine" Thompson, Dank, The Weapon, the chemist. The club melted down, Ablett walked, Thompson retired.

Whats your version of events, they were all clean, nek minit James Hird mind controlled them? Talk about cope.

He asks who's coping and then drops his biggest cope yet. Well done

 

[Cyclops]

He asks who's coping and then drops his biggest cope yet. Well done

"Five guys walk into a club and get caught organising the biggest rug cheating scheme ever admitted, but moments before they were angels"

Is that really your story?

 

[yeahmate]

Im sure nothing bad would have happened with Dank, Robinson and Thompson all connected with the Cats at the same time. Players gains in that period would have been down to the healthy living down in Geelong and lots of time on the farm and surfing. Those probably all just went a bit off rails later on when they got to windy hill

 

[Wojcinski]

"Five guys walk into a club and get caught organising the biggest rug cheating scheme ever admitted, but moments before they were angels"

Is that really your story?

Nah it's your story because it's the only way you can cope with how good Geelong was in that period. It's like now the story is we're good because we rort the cap. So many cooked campaigners on BF lol

 

[Leeda]

Nah it's your story because it's the only way you can cope with how good Geelong was in that period. It's like now the story is we're good because we rort the cap. So many cooked campaigners on BF lol

Smart ass fry I ng pan ...no oil on your fingers

 

[Cyclops]

Nah it's your story because it's the only way you can cope with how good Geelong was in that period. It's like now the story is we're good because we rort the cap. So many cooked campaigners on BF lol

I'm in the "Scott is Geelongs best coach ever" camp. I'm also in the "Scott I'd the best current coach" camp.

Try again. Got an explanation for Bomber and his Dank Crew offending at Esendon and not at Geelong? Was Frank Costa some sort of moral policeman?

 

[PhatBoy]

Whose coping? You beat us fair and square in 2011, extremely courageous victory when you were even more injured than we were.

2006-2010 its a different story. The whole crew was there. Mark "garage full of drugs, but none of them were mine" Thompson, Dank, The Weapon, the chemist. The club melted down, Ablett walked, Thompson retired.

Whats your version of events, they were all clean, nek minit James Hird mind controlled them? Talk about cope.

Well no, Dank wasn’t there. He was working primarily in rugby league - specifically Manly and later Cronulla, and independently, and as you’ve already been shown, the sole link between the club and he in any capacity, was the purchase of one supplement from a company that he didn’t even work for but that he had been associated with. A legal supplement.

Do you think that every person who has ever taken drugs has always been a drug addict?

Do you think that Kurt Cobain was on heroin when he was playing the recorder in his elementary school band?

 

[Wojcinski]

I'm in the "Scott is Geelongs best coach ever" camp. I'm also in the "Scott I'd the best current coach" camp.

Try again. Got an explanation for Bomber and his Dank Crew offending at Esendon and not at Geelong? Was Frank Costa some sort of moral policeman?

Got any proof that they did anything against the rules? The AFL investigated and found nothing but I suppose you must know more

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm in the "Scott is Geelongs best coach ever" camp. I'm also in the "Scott I'd the best current coach" camp.

Try again. Got an explanation for Bomber and his Dank Crew offending at Esendon and not at Geelong? Was Frank Costa some sort of moral policeman?

So hang on - you’re blaming the Essendon drug regime on their director of football or whatever Thompson was when he went there.

But at Geelong you’re saying the coach is the one moving those chess pieces?

 

[PhatBoy]

Got any proof that they did anything against the rules? The AFL investigated and found nothing but I suppose you must know more

No no, the AFL is willing to take down one of its richest and most powerful clubs and sit them out of a competition but won’t touch a middle of the road one who doesn’t impact on their bottom line

 

[Leeda]

No no, the AFL is willing to take down one of its richest and most powerful clubs and sit them out of a competition but won’t touch a middle of the road one who doesn’t impact on their bottom line

Partner in Roid...

 

[yeahmate]

Oh yeah i forgot the AFL investigated and cleared it all so obviously there was nothing to see

 

[Cyclops]

Got any proof that they did anything against the rules? The AFL investigated and found nothing but I suppose you must know more

That's the AFL that weren't sufficiently co portable there were crimes at Essendon until WADA came over the top. The AFL that hit straight on the phone to Essendon the moment they heard ASADA got involved. That AFL.

Zero positive tests at Essendon, they got caught because of sloppy paperwork. I wonder what a club that wasn't sloppy could get away with...

So hang on - you’re blaming the Essendon drug regime on their director of football or whatever Thompson was when he went there.

But at Geelong you’re saying the coach is the one moving those chess pieces?

No.

We have a crew doing crimes together at Essendon.

They were all at Geelong before that.

What's the story they were not doing crimes together, but something in the Windy Hill water turned them all cooked at the exact same time?

 

[PhatBoy]

That's the AFL that weren't sufficiently co portable there were crimes at Essendon until WADA came over the top. The AFL that hit straight on the phone to Essendon the moment they heard ASADA got involved. That AFL.

Zero positive tests at Essendon, they got caught because of sloppy paperwork. I wonder what a club that wasn't sloppy could get away with...


No.

We have a crew doing crimes together at Essendon.

They were all at Geelong before that.

What's the story they were not doing crimes together, but something in the Windy Hill water turned them all cooked at the exact same time?

Well no, as you’ve been shown, they weren’t.

James Hird wasn’t at Geelong, and Stephen Dank wasn’t at Geelong.

A figure in the world of exercise science was linked to a sports science company who supplied a legal science product to a sports team. Huge if true.

That must mean he was pulling the strings at the club. Hell he was probably doing our recruiting.

 

[Cyclops]

Well no, as you’ve been shown, they weren’t.

James Hird wasn’t at Geelong, and Stephen Dank wasn’t at Geelong.

A figure in the world of exercise science was linked to a sports science company who supplied a legal science product to a sports team. Huge if true.

That must mean he was pulling the strings at the club. Hell he was probably doing our recruiting.

Geelong admits to sourcing drug from Stephen Dank during 2009 premiership year

Geelong have admitted to sourcing a drug from Stephen Dank to give players in 2009, the year the club won the second premiership of its dynasty.

www.theage.com.au

Dank was supplying legal substances to Geelong in 2009, although this was hushed up. He was also part of a group that supplied illegal substances to Essendon. This was an injected substance, although players declared "no one got injections".

The story changed over time as facts emerged. I think it stinks, as does the way Bomber's part at Essendon was minimized. Hird took the fall, he was a nitwit not a crime lord. Dank's role was maximised.

Bomber subsequently got caught with a garage stuffed with drugs supplied by "someone from Geelong he didn't know", and somehow that story was accepted. Once again his role was downplayed and others were blamed.

Any was all this is in the past and is a distraction from this thread. I agree with OP that the current side is exemplary in their management and tactics. I think jealousy is probably part of the reason some supporters have a crack at Geelong, my mob have been trying to copy the best bits from Geelong and Richmond.

 

[PhatBoy]

Geelong admits to sourcing drug from Stephen Dank during 2009 premiership year

Geelong have admitted to sourcing a drug from Stephen Dank to give players in 2009, the year the club won the second premiership of its dynasty.

www.theage.com.au

Dank was supplying legal substances to Geelong in 2009, although this was hushed up. He was also part of a group that supplied illegal substances to Essendon. This was an injected substance, although players declared "no one got injections".

The story changed over time as facts emerged. I think it stinks, as does the way Bomber's part at Essendon was minimized. Hird took the fall, he was a nitwit not a crime lord. Dank's role was maximised.

Bomber subsequently got caught with a garage stuffed with drugs supplied by "someone from Geelong he didn't know", and somehow that story was accepted. Once again his role was downplayed and others were blamed.

Any was all this is in the past and is a distraction from this thread. I agree with OP that the current side is exemplary in their management and tactics. I think jealousy is probably part of the reason some supporters have a crack at Geelong, my mob have been trying to copy the best bits from Geelong and Richmond.

No, a company who had ties to Stephen Dank supplied one supplement to Geelong.

Dressing mutton up as lamb and serving it to people is still serving people mutton no matter how you want to paint it.

 

[Cyclops]

No, a company who had ties to Stephen Dank supplied one supplement to Geelong.

Dressing mutton up as lamb and serving it to people is still serving people mutton no matter how you want to paint it.

That's semantics mate. Dank wasn't on the payroll but he was delivering substances. The club kept it somewhat quiet (understandably) but players making statements about "no injections" when there were is less understandable.

 

[PhatBoy]

That's semantics mate. Dank wasn't on the payroll but he was delivering substances. The club kept it somewhat quiet (understandably) but players making statements about "no injections" when there were is less understandable.

No it isnt semantics.



Getting a dose of medicine from a pharmacy and then someone claiming your entire extended family’s four years around that singular treatment, which at a micro level involved the employment of a person who was subcontracted by that pharmacy on a casual basis - by calling them ‘the subcontractor years’ for that whole extended family - you think distinguishing between that, and full-time employment of someone is semantics?

All of which ignores that the substance was legal.

We can add that to the legal ground dimensions as one of the other legal but illegal things we do.

 

[yeahmate]

robinson admitted he was working with dank the whole time he was at geelong. the only official dealing geelong admitted to direct with dank was sourcing activegan which although not banned at the time was a very dodgy substance associated with masking epo use which lance armstong and the like were also balls deep into. you guys can bury your heads in the sand and point to afl ticking it all off and asada not being able to find anything 2 years later after the essendon thing blew the whole gig up but it will always stink given the rise to success the cats had coincided with the bomber, robinson, dank connection and also very marked changes in the athletic profile of a number of players over that time

 

[Cyclops]

Love the way you have now stated twice that Geelong FC kept it "hushed up" or "somewhat quiet". Do you expect a media release everytime something happens at a club? Why announce something that was legal? Geelong did nothing wrong and ASADA drew the same conclusion.

No evidence is not the same as did nothing wrong.

Geelongs story evolved over time. It's not keeping quiet if you say one thing and then other evidence contradicts it.

In particular Bomber Thompson remains under a huge cloud, central to three scandals but his role de emphasised each time.

 

[The Jack]

Sort of makes sence now how Chapman ripped his hammy off the bone then trotted back onto the MCG to be best on. The Weapon had his toolbox in the changing rooms obviously.

And I thought Hawkins hitting the post was the most controversial thing in the 09 GF. Poor Saints were double duped.

 

[PhatBoy]

robinson admitted he was working with dank the whole time he was at geelong. the only official dealing geelong admitted to direct with dank was sourcing activegan which although not banned at the time was a very dodgy substance associated with masking epo use which lance armstong and the like were also balls deep into. you guys can bury your heads in the sand and point to afl ticking it all off and asada not being able to find anything 2 years later after the essendon thing blew the whole gig up but it will always stink given the rise to success the cats had coincided with the bomber, robinson, dank connection and also very marked changes in the athletic profile of a number of players over that time

‘Seeking advice’ = working with now.



Chris Scott’s chats with his brother mean Geelong are working with Essendon to this day now.

 

[Leeda]

‘Seeking advice’ = working with now.



Chris Scott’s chats with his brother mean Geelong are working with Essendon to this day now.

So we have nepotism grinding the gears...

 

[z547043]

You responded to an OP and somewhat took the high moral ground. I merely pointed out to you that Geelong hasn't been immune from off field player indiscretions when it comes to driving offences (nor have a lot of other clubs)

Not having a go - I think you are one of the more rational and common sense posters on here (especially on the cricket boards)

And FWIW I admired Geelong's response to Stengle's incident; how your club and players backed him in - & compare that to what our players and coach did to Rachele by throwing him under the bus.

Which was disgraceful....

Maybe go back to the beginning. I don’t think he took the moral high ground at all. The first suggestion was Geelong are more relaxed to off field drinking indiscretions than Adelaide. That to me is taking moral high ground.

Hence it was simply pointed out that Worrell still got a game after his drink driving incident. I will now also point out the fact Tyson himself played half a season after being unregistered, drunk and crashing a car at the Cows, so that poster who suggested Cows take more of a hardline stance on these issues is probably exhibiting a short-term memory.

The fact is they are all footy clubs, all trying to win and have on-field obligations, PR obligations, player welfare obligations, etc. in various orders and the general punishments and attitude towards these indiscretions that happen at every club tend to be the same.

 

[Leeda]

Maybe go back to the beginning. I don’t think he took the moral high ground at all. The first suggestion was Geelong are more relaxed to off field drinking indiscretions than Adelaide. That to me is taking moral high ground.

Hence it was simply pointed out that Worrell still got a game after his drink driving incident. I will now also point out the fact Tyson himself played half a season after being unregistered, drunk and crashing a car at the Cows, so that poster who suggested Cows take more of a hardline stance on these issues is probably exhibiting a short-term memory.

The fact is they are all footy clubs, all trying to win and have on-field obligations, PR obligations, player welfare obligations, etc. in various orders and the general punishments and attitude towards these indiscretions that happen at every club tend to be the same.

Stand by your man...I appreciate this