But of course - only too eager to please.
You went on a little sentence rant that was finished with:
When in fact much of what you wrote is actually in question.
Let's see here....
Really? I've seen suggestions and/or reports that indicate Essendon may have received illegal supplements, but I've also seen reports suggesting that was an error and was accompanied by a credit.
Which one (if any) is correct? I don't know - but whether or not Essendon actually had records of illegal supplements is very much in question; let alone administered them.
Is that so? It is suggested that it was the PLAYERS that asked for the forms you are referring to, not the club.
Interestingly, I'm yet to see a single one of these forms that contained an illegal substance. I mean, if forty players signed them - surely at least one has found its way into the media?
It's well known that Zaharakis chose to not be involved because he doesn't like needles.
But because they were forced, of course he had to - right? Nobody was forced - your statement is flat out incorrect.
So that's three in a single sentence that are either flat out incorrect, or definitely questionable - despite your rather absolute statement of:
People tend to get carried away with the idea that Essendon is guilty of doping, and start to speak of it as an assertion of fact because nobody is there to correct you. That's why I'm here.