Dank involved at Demons?

[Redleg 37,891]

Ok redleg. can i ask you three questions. One. Given the board apparently did a thorough review of our use of supplement program post the Essendon disclosure i am assuming, based on your comments, that you believe they did not uncover the fact the the club doctor was in regular contact over several months with Dank (the common link in the ACA report across two football codes). Is this this the case? The second question is if this is the case does that not cause you concern?

The third question is , if evidence comes to light that the board knew about the club utilising Dank's services (ie 'knowing about these conversations") do you believe this to be evidence of a failure of governance?

1. It doesn't matter what I believe, that is what the club has said. I don't know any different and therefore that appears to be the position.

2. I might have a concern, but I also understand that if an employee has conversations with people, the Board will not know of them unless a third party informs them, or they ask directly, which they did and apparently were misled, or bug the person's home, phone, office etc.or have them followed 24/7 by Detectives.

3. If it comes to light that the Board learned of Dank's involvement, but acted as soon as they learned of Dank's issues, how would that be a failure of Governance? In this case Bate stopped speaking to him when Dank's issues came to light, he misled the Board when asked if Dank was involved over 3 interviews and when the Board discovered the lie to them Bate is gone, how is this a failure of Governance?

Lastly it appears that Bate other than speaking to Dank did what Doctors are supposed to do and no illegal drugs are involved. The club told the AFL what they knew at the time. How is that a lie or a failure of Governance?

PS. It will never happen but once again Demetriou has slandered the club and may owe us an apology that we will never get.

[Soidee 1,496]

As a very long term member I have lost confidence in the people who are in charge of our beloved club.

If any poster has confidence in these people to get the club back on track, the best of luck to you.

I really hope the players give the supporters a glimmer of hope this week

[Hannibal 5,814]

1. It doesn't matter what I believe, that is what the club has said. I don't know any different and therefore that appears to be the position.

2. I might have a concern, but I also understand that if an employee has conversations with people, the Board will not know of them unless a third party informs them, or they ask directly, which they did and apparently were misled, or bug the person's home, phone, office etc.or have them followed 24/7 by Detectives.

3. If it comes to light that the Board learned of Dank's involvement, but acted as soon as they learned of Dank's issues, how would that be a failure of Governance? In this case Bate stopped speaking to him when Dank's issues came to light, he misled the Board when asked if Dank was involved over 3 interviews and when the Board discovered the lie to them Bate is gone, how is this a failure of Governance?

Lastly it appears that Bate other than speaking to Dank did what Doctors are supposed to do and no illegal drugs are involved. The club told the AFL what they knew at the time. How is that a lie or a failure of Governance?

PS. It will never happen but once again Demetriou has slandered the club and may owe us an apology that we will never get.

You're the dumbest smart guy I know.

[sue 8,463]

As usual a lot of posters seem to want to immediately think the worst at every turn when we don't know all the facts.

What if it turns out to be true that the MFC only misled the AFL because the Doc had kept his Dank involvement to himself. How then is that the Board's fault?

Doubtless some will say they bear ultimate responsibility. Well yes, in a general sense, but if you had an employee who put you in a hole because you neglected to torture him on a weekly basis to check he wasn't misleading you, you wouldn't really feel truly responsible. So why judge an organization by that impossible standard? Answer: politics.

I bet if we were winning games there would be a totally different attitude to admin problems on this board.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

As usual a lot of posters seem to want to immediately think the worst at every turn when we don't know all the facts.

What if it turns out to be true that the MFC only misled the AFL because the Doc had kept his Dank involvement to himself. How then is that the Board's fault?

Doubtless some will say they bear ultimate responsibility. Well yes, in a general sense, but if you had an employee who put you in a hole because you neglected to torture him on a weekly basis to check he wasn't misleading you, you wouldn't really feel truly responsible. So why judge an organization by that impossible standard? Answer: politics.

I bet if we were winning games there would be a totally different attitude to admin problems on this board.

McLardy has already stood aside the Doctor and has admitted failures in reporting protocols.

You need to get up to speed with the facts.

[Hannibal 5,814]

As usual a lot of posters seem to want to immediately think the worst at every turn when we don't know all the facts.

What if it turns out to be true that the MFC only misled the AFL because the Doc had kept his Dank involvement to himself. How then is that the Board's fault?

Doubtless some will say they bear ultimate responsibility. Well yes, in a general sense, but if you had an employee who put you in a hole because you neglected to torture him on a weekly basis to check he wasn't misleading you, you wouldn't really feel truly responsible. So why judge an organization by that impossible standard? Answer: politics.

I bet if we were winning games there would be a totally different attitude to admin problems on this board.

I posted this elsewhere and it's perfect for you, Sue.

"And asked a direct question as to whether he'd been dealing with Dank do you think it's likely that your club Doctor would lie to your face ? It's possible, but I highly doubt a club Doctor would lie on such matters. It's easy to smear Bates now that he's been stood down and it would certainly be self-serving to those that would rather close their eyes and put their hands over their ears, but it doesn't make sense to me."

Edited April 20, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[mjt 640]

So we sack the board because the doctor did the wrong thing without them knowing.... Not exactly a real world scenario.

Only a fool would defend our Board.

[mjt 640]

As usual a lot of posters seem to want to immediately think the worst at every turn when we don't know all the facts.

What if it turns out to be true that the MFC only misled the AFL because the Doc had kept his Dank involvement to himself. How then is that the Board's fault?

Doubtless some will say they bear ultimate responsibility. Well yes, in a general sense, but if you had an employee who put you in a hole because you neglected to torture him on a weekly basis to check he wasn't misleading you, you wouldn't really feel truly responsible. So why judge an organization by that impossible standard? Answer: politics.

I bet if we were winning games there would be a totally different attitude to admin problems on this board.

But were not winning games, that dream was 7yrs ago, like i said to stuie only a fool would defend this board, did you see Maccas little picture in the Sun today of the Tank with a needle as its gun, this board has severely damaged our jumper, they should be [censored] ashamed of themselves.

[Redleg 37,891]

You're the dumbest smart guy I know.

I suppose I should be honoured to be added to the list of people that you have abused and denigrated, simply because they offer a view different to your own.

That you resort to personal abuse, tells everyone on here a lot about you.

I have been on Demonland since it started and I am disappointed that it has now become a place for people to just abuse anyone who has a different view or opinion. There are those on here who appear to have the god given right to always be right and then they just abuse or ridicule those that disagree. I am not the first to say this to you and you know it. I don't abuse other posters but maybe according to you that makes me dumb.

I am sorry that I see things that are alleged in the media somewhat differently to you, who is obviously privy to all of the facts on every matter.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Redleg

[Hannibal 5,814]

I suppose I should be honoured to be added to the list of people that you have abused and denigrated, simply because they offer a view different to your own.

That you resort to personal abuse, tells everyone on here a lot about you.

For the record, I don't know who you are, so refrain from saying you know me.

Lastly, I have been on Demonland since it started and I am disappointed that it has now become a place for people to just abuse anyone who has a different view or opinion. There are those on here who appear to have the god given right to always be right and then they just abuse or ridicule those that disagree. I am not the first to say this to you and you know it. I don't abuse other posters but maybe according to you that makes me dumb.

I am sorry that I see things that are alleged in the media somewhat differently to you, who is obviously privy to all of the facts on every matter.

Don't get your nickers in a knot, it was a bit of a joke.

That your head is two feet under the sand is up to you.

And yes, I do know you. When you read people on the net for years you clearly get to know them. Otherwise, why do you waste weeks of YOUR life on-line. Clearly YOU are contributing, ergo, I know YOU.

[rpfc 27,590]

I said earlier that Bates will make an f__ing fantastic scapegoat if required.

I guess it is required...

I still have so many questions - did Bates see the earlier 'no involvement' statement in Feb and not say anything? Did we keep that from the AFL or did he keep that from the MFC.

Were MFC players administered supplements at a place the club, save for the good Dr, didn't know about? Why did we send out the press release on Thursday night defending the Dr and his oversight of the program if we jettison him the next day?

I would like a timeline of who knew of Dank's involvement and when.

The answers to these questions will not be a good judgement of our internal governance even if we avoid sanctions for PEDs.

Judgement has been swift on this site because we are not waiting for facts to determine absolution. We are awaiting facts to determine malfeasance or simple incompetence.

F___ing fantastic scapegoat, but.

[Slartibartfast 15,875]

In this case Bate stopped speaking to him when Dank's issues came to light, he misled the Board when asked if Dank was involved over 3 interviews and when the Board discovered the lie to them Bate is gone, how is this a failure of Governance?

Lastly it appears that Bate other than speaking to Dank did what Doctors are supposed to do and no illegal drugs are involved. The club told the AFL what they knew at the time. How is that a lie or a failure of Governance?

What if it turns out to be true that the MFC only misled the AFL because the Doc had kept his Dank involvement to himself. How then is that the Board's fault?

This situation is a failure of Governance but perhaps shows why governance is difficult.

Any small business representing others or with multiple owners will properly require two signatories on every cheque. Why? To avoid fraud and theft. It's call internal controls and without wanting to bore people internal controls are more and more important the larger an organization gets because it ensures core objectives are met or the chances of a failure of process minimized.

Clearly the administration of drugs to players is a critical issue for any football club because should something go wrong, like a rogue doctor, the implications for the club, player and governing body (AFL) are severe. We are seeing that now.

Schwab's job, amongst others, was to ensure that proper systems were in place to ensure the club met pharmaceutical standards. That a rogue doctor could put the Club's players at risk without any check or balance is a complete failure of internal control.

The Boards job is to ensure these internal controls exist. That's what governance is. Bate, on his single authority, should not have able to prescribe "supplements" without someone else checking.

It's tough on the Board but it's why you need people on the Board who understand their role. This Board doesn't. All they had to do was ask what protocols were in place to ensure supplements were legal. It would appear they didn't.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Baghdad Bob

[Hannibal 5,814]

It's tough on the Board but it's why you need people on the Board who understand their role. This Board doesn't. All they had to do was ask what protocols were in place to ensure supplements were legal. It would appear they didn't.

You clearly have experience when it comes to these issues, Bob.

When a player's Mother, namely Sue Dunn, says on radio that administrators at the MFC should be "shot" you know that there are deep seated issues. That some supporters still bury their head in the sand is somewhat surprising. The player's Mother wouldn't be saying it if the player wasn't thinking it. If one player thinks it how many player's think it ?

Not Don's fault though. Nobody told him.

Yeah, right.

[Redleg 37,891]

Don't get your nickers in a knot, it was a bit of a joke.

That your head is two feet under the sand is up to you.

And yes, I do know you. When you read people on the net for years you clearly get to know them. Otherwise, why do you waste weeks of YOUR life on-line. Clearly YOU are contributing, ergo, I know YOU.

Well I have unwedged my jockeys and I am smiling.

Let me make my position on our club clear. I too am very upset and angry at our current position and by that I mean every aspect.

I am not blind to the mistakes we have made in recruiting, appointing, sacking, discussing tanking, etc, etc, etc, That we are where we are hurts me more than I can express, after a lifetime of support.

As you possibly know I have been on the other side of the fence too as a Director, Team Manager and even Recruiter of the club.

What really worries me is that if this Board gets up and leaves who are the clever, talented, generous, experienced people lined up to take over. We had not one nomination at the last AGM in February. Yes we can say this Board has made many mistakes but they are not Robinson Crusoe. I only know one or two of them personally so I am certainly no lackey. They have given of their time, energy and to their credit large amounts of money,all to help the club. I just don't see their replacements readily available. I think the constant damning of the Board just puts others off from replacing them. Which successful businessman/woman wants to set themselves up for a scorching from the media and the members.

Lastly, I don't accept what I read and see in the media as fact. Most times it turns out to be the opposite. Too many opinions on here are solely based on what is written and televised.

[binman 38,765]

This situation is a failure of Governance but perhaps shows why governance is difficult.

The Boards job is to ensure these internal controls exist. That's what governance is. Bate, on his single authority, should not have able to prescribe "supplements" without someone else checking.

Redleg i appreciate you replying to my questions but i suppose where we differ is on what constitutes a failure of governance. Baghdad Bob post above sums up nicely how i define it. Without banging on about it Bates is an employee of the club and therefore the board are responsible for his behaviour and the ramifications of any poor practice.

Of course the board can't be across all 'conversations' an employee has but we're not really talking about conversations here are we. The club Doctor had what appear to be regular contact with Dank over at least 6 months and tat the least took advice from him on how to treat our players. As Bob notes good governance is having the proper internal systems to mitigate against risk. The board seem to saying they did not know about Bate's dealings with Dank which is clear breakdown in governance.

I really should have asked another question. That is do you really believe the club doctor would plan treatment of the players without checking it off with the FD, that's to say do you really believe the FD did not approve the contact with Dank. Me? I cannot believe that with their seeming fanatic focus on process Misson, Craig and Neelds would not have known exactly what contact Bates had with Dank and to be honest i'd be surprised if they were not directly involved.

[Redleg 37,891]

This situation is a failure of Governance but perhaps shows why governance is difficult.

Any small business representing others or with multiple owners will properly require two signatories on every cheque. Why? To avoid fraud and theft. It's call internal controls and without wanting to bore people internal controls are more and more important the larger an organization gets because it ensures core objectives are met or the chances of a failure of process minimized.

Clearly the administration of drugs to players is a critical issue for any football club because should something go wrong, like a rogue doctor, the implications for the club, player and governing body (AFL) are severe. We are seeing that now.

Schwab's job, amongst others, was to ensure that proper systems were in place to ensure the club met pharmaceutical standards. That a rogue doctor could put the Club's players at risk without any check or balance is a complete failure of internal control.

The Boards job is to ensure these internal controls exist. That's what governance is. Bate, on his single authority, should not have able to prescribe "supplements" without someone else checking.

It's tough on the Board but it's why you need people on the Board who understand their role. This Board doesn't. All they had to do was ask what protocols were in place to ensure supplements were legal. It would appear they didn't.

Bob what you say as usual is sensible.

What if you were a Board member, would you have suggested as a protocol, to oversee a Doctor, in handling the medical side of the club.

Also how far do you think a non day to day Board can go in micromanaging a football club?

Lastly how would you act when setting up your protocols, to not disenfranchise the staff member you were checking on?

[Redleg 37,891]

Redleg i appreciate you replying to my questions but i suppose where we differ is on what constitutes a failure of governance. Baghdad Bob post above sums up nicely how i define it. Without banging on about it Bates is an employee of the club and therefore the board are responsible for his behaviour and the ramifications of any poor practice.

Of course the board can't be across all 'conversations' an employee has but we're not really talking about conversations here are we. The club Doctor had what appear to be regular contact with Dank over at least 6 months and tat the least took advice from him on how to treat our players. As Bob notes good governance is having the proper internal systems to mitigate against risk. The board seem to saying they did not know about Bate's dealings with Dank which is clear breakdown in governance.

I really should have asked another question. That is do you really believe the club doctor would plan treatment of the players without checking it off with the FD, that's to say do you really believe the FD did not approve the contact with Dank. Me? I cannot believe that with their seeming fanatic focus on process Misson, Craig and Neelds would not have known exactly what contact Bates had with Dank and to be honest i'd be surprised if they were not directly involved.

I don't necessarily disagree on a failure of governance. I just want to know the true facts, not just the media version, which I clearly don't accept on every issue, before I judge people. Call it a handicap of my job.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Redleg

[Slartibartfast 15,875]

Bob what you say as usual is sensible.

What if you were a Board member, would you have suggested as a protocol, to oversee a Doctor, in handling the medical side of the club.

Also how far do you think a non day to day Board can go in micromanaging a football club?

Lastly how would you act when setting up your protocols, to not disenfranchise the staff member you were checking on?

It's not hard.

You could start with any supplement program to be approved by two doctors and only supplements on the approved WADA (ASADA) listing to be administered.

You could go further and have a central register of drugs administered which is checked periodically by an independent third party.

That's off the top of my head. Give me a day and it would be much more sophisticated.

By the way, it's not the Board members job to come up with the protocol. It's the CEO's to ensure one is in place and he would consult with people who understand these things.

The Boards job was to make sure a protocol was in place. That's governance.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Baghdad Bob

[stuie 7,374]

Disregarding all the other rubbish you spew I have to take you up on this point - you really think the only reason Schwab got the sack is because people on an internet forum (or even more general supporters) demanded it? If that's the case what does that say about the Board/President anyway that they're willing to roll over and make the wrong choice for the club after a little bit of heat from supporters?

Well Schwab was fired for being "divisive" amongst supporter groups.

[stuie 7,374]

Only a fool would defend our Board.

Read my posts troll. I'm not defending the board, I'm defending the usefulness and timing of the lynch mob.

[Slartibartfast 15,875]

Well Schwab was fired for being "divisive" amongst supporter groups.

No he wasn't but that's what we were told. It was a situation where telling lies is acceptable.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Baghdad Bob

[stuie 7,374]

You're the dumbest smart guy I know.

Great to have your useful insights back on Demonland BH.

[stuie 7,374]

No he wasn't but that's what we were told. It was a situation where telling lies is acceptable.

Haha... Oh dear. How many conspiracies do you think this "incompetent" board can run at once? How do you even have internet in your bomb shelter?

[Slartibartfast 15,875]

Haha... Oh dear. How many conspiracies do you think this "incompetent" board can run at once? How do you even have internet in your bomb shelter?

Stuie I retract. Please ignore any comment I've made to you and we'll agree not to converse.

[Damo 3,006]

I think Danks will have more to say soon. He is feeding the chooks periodically.

Dr Bates has not yet spoken about the situation to any one except AFL and (apparently) falsely to MFC.

There is more to come, I believe. A week is a long time in football.

I cant believe people are talking as if they know all the facts.

Also I am in a quandary whether a CEO or President is failing in his own duty by querying a Doctor of Medicine's methods.