Heard on SEN the good doctor is still being interviewed. That's 7 hours.

Heard on SEN the good doctor is still being interviewed. That's 7 hours.

Perhaps he's a victim of the Head Crusher at this very time:

http://www.medievality.com/head-crusher.html

Which, to my knowledge, and according to AD's comments, they didn't (technically) do.

edit: I'm happy to be proven wrong, but none of the information anywhere here, or available publicly, says we misled the AFL, given the direction of questions.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-to-call-demons-doctor-over-dank-link-20130419-2i3w1.html

An angry Andrew Demetriou said this morning there appeared to be “inconsistencies” and “at least some omissions” in what Melbourne told the league in February about its work with Dank. The AFL CEO said "they (Melbourne) will be in breach of a rule".

I don't believe that the board would have been so stupid as to put out the statements it did, had it been aware of the true extent of Bates' dealings with Dank. They are educated bsuiness people, well versed in disclosure requirements. They simply aren't that stupid.

It's far more likely that Bates mislead the Board as to the extent of Dank's involvement at the club. The texts released yesterday would have been just as surprising to the Board as they were to the AFL.

Those are the only two possibilities I see here.

I predict that Bates will be gone by the end of tonight, or tomorrow morning. Anyone else who knew the truth about Dank's involvement with the club, but didn't speak up, will go too.

And to think I laughed at Essendon for their stupidity! FMD!!!

I'm continually amazed how quickly people come to conclusions before the facts are known.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-to-call-demons-doctor-over-dank-link-20130419-2i3w1.html

An angry Andrew Demetriou said this morning there appeared to be “inconsistencies” and “at least some omissions” in what Melbourne told the league in February about its work with Dank. The AFL CEO said "they (Melbourne) will be in breach of a rule".

I don't believe that the board would have been so stupid as to put out the statements it did, had it been aware of the true extent of Bates' dealings with Dank. They are educated bsuiness people, well versed in disclosure requirements. They simply aren't that stupid.

It's far more likely that Bates mislead the Board as to the extent of Dank's involvement at the club. The texts released yesterday would have been just as surprising to the Board as they were to the AFL.

Those are the only two possibilities I see here.

I predict that Bates will be gone by the end of tonight, or tomorrow morning. Anyone else who knew the truth about Dank's involvement with the club, but didn't speak up, will go too.

So the problem the AFL has is not whether the substances were illegal (which they weren't) but that we didn't ask 'how high' when they told us to jump. Vlad the control freak is just angry because we didn't tug our forelocks and bow down to his royal highness. He can't get us for the substances, so he is going to get us for not playing the game by his rules. This will cost us, because Vlad is a spoilt, nasty little boy who gets vicious when you don't play the way he wants to play.

Sack everyone who lied, or didn't answer to the fullest, but....

Dank was a qulaified pharmacist. Does every club know the names credentials and criminal history of all pharmacists that their players, staff and doctors use.

Remember that prior to this issues breaking, Dank was just another pharmacist. He most definitely provided lots of people with perfectly legal stuff.

Also interesting that the ABC withheld the names of Essendon players in the text messages, but not the Melbourne players. For the players this may be the first time they knew that they had been provided stuff by Dank.

No he wasn't. He had a history of questionable involvement at 3 clubs yet MFC maintained contact.

And the program did not allege that the MFC players had been given stuff. It did allege they received supplements by prescription (Dr Bates) received from a South Yarra pharmacy.

Did you actually watch the program or did just deciphered bits of it via Demonland?

Thank you RR for your clarification. Yes I did watch, but may have misunderstood. Doesn't change the points I was trying make though.

Seems wrong to name players at Melbourne when the players may not have been aware of Dank's involvement.

I also still doubt that every club know the names, credentials and questionable history of all pharmacists and other suppliers that their players, staff and doctors use.

Thank you RR for your clarification. Yes I did watch, but may have misunderstood. Doesn't change the points I was trying make though.

Seems wrong to name players at Melbourne when the players may not have been aware of Dank's involvement.

The program suggested no wrongdoing of the players. You are drawing long bows

Thank you RR for your clarification. Yes I did watch, but may have misunderstood. Doesn't change the points I was trying make though.

Seems wrong to name players at Melbourne when the players may not have been aware of Dank's involvement.

I also still doubt that every club know the names, credentials and questionable history of all pharmacists and other suppliers that their players, staff and doctors use.

Well they should. Its incompetent that clubs and their officers dont do there checks and due diligence

Dank was a qulaified pharmacist.

So is Woosher.

We are like a stone skipping across the water, it hit the water once , twice, three times, perhaps more, but eventually it sinks.

When you skirt around the edges, you can get away with it a couple of times, but eventually you do it once too often and you sink, just like the stone.

We may not have breached any rule but we are skating close to the edge and every time we do this we lose a bit more credibility, eventually we'll have no more left to lose.

It's all about perceptions, it wasn't just one thing that sunk Schwab it was a series of perceived failures that brought about his downfall and it may be the same that brings us down.

We are like a stone skipping across the water, it hit the water once , twice, three times, perhaps more, but eventually it sinks.

When you skirt around the edges, you can get away with it a couple of times, but eventually you do it once too often and you sink, just like the stone.

We may not have breached any rule but we are skating close to the edge and every time we do this we lose a bit more credibility, eventually we'll have no more left to lose.

It's all about perceptions, it wasn't just one thing that sunk Schwab it was a series of perceived failures that brought about his downfall and it may be the same that brings us down.

Very accurate Robbie

I feel we have had our fifth bounce

So the problem the AFL has is not whether the substances were illegal (which they weren't) but that we didn't ask 'how high' when they told us to jump. Vlad the control freak is just angry because we didn't tug our forelocks and bow down to his royal highness. He can't get us for the substances, so he is going to get us for not playing the game by his rules. This will cost us, because Vlad is a spoilt, nasty little boy who gets vicious when you don't play the way he wants to play.

You don't think there would have been value in spilling the beans before Vlad even asked anything?

I really struggle with this argument that we did nothing wrong because we answered the question to the letter of how it was asked. That is an exercise in pedantry and nit picking. It's clear what the AFL needed to know and to me it's even more clear that we should have just told the story in its entirety when Essendon landed in hot water.

The only reason I can possibly think of for us not telling the AFL what was going on was if we didn't know, which is an even worse proposition.

Very accurate Robbie

I feel we have had our fifth bounce

I just can't understand it, McLardy runs a very successful business and we have some vey clever people on the board; they would fully understand the value of corporate governance yet we seem to be running the club like some tin pot organisation.

You don't think there would have been value in spilling the beans before Vlad even asked anything?

I really struggle with this argument that we did nothing wrong because we answered the question to the letter of how it was asked. That is an exercise in pedantry and nit picking. It's clear what the AFL needed to know and to me it's even more clear that we should have just told the story in its entirety when Essendon landed in hot water.

The only reason I can possibly think of for us not telling the AFL what was going on was if we didn't know, which is an even worse proposition.

Seems we have a lot of that over the last few years.

Where does the buck stop again?

Can someone remind me?

I just can't understand it, McLardy runs a very successful business and we have some vey clever people on the board; they would fully understand the value of corporate governance yet we seem to be running the club like some tin pot organisation.

You may well have just defamed a large number of crappy organisations Robbie

I just can't understand it, McLardy runs a very successful business and we have some vey clever people on the board; they would fully understand the value of corporate governance yet we seem to be running the club like some tin pot organisation.

Robbie, this post is on page 19 of the thread and will be buried in no time, but it is the absolute biggest question of all isn't it? The talent is there on the board, but they seem to have hung their skills up on the coatrack with their suit jacket on the way in to the board room. That's probably the most frustrating bit.

You don't think there would have been value in spilling the beans before Vlad even asked anything?

I really struggle with this argument that we did nothing wrong because we answered the question to the letter of how it was asked. That is an exercise in pedantry and nit picking. It's clear what the AFL needed to know and to me it's even more clear that we should have just told the story in its entirety when Essendon landed in hot water.

The only reason I can possibly think of for us not telling the AFL what was going on was if we didn't know, which is an even worse proposition.

Agree. Sums it up well.

If this blows up & the afl sinks the boots into us with another fine.....

Hand the keys in!

We are a train wreck!

If this blows up & the afl sinks the boots into us with another fine.....

Hand the keys in!

We are a train wreck!

Can't.... Don locked em in the car.

one positive - even caro reckons that all of this coming out and (hopefully) meaning a clear-out of the board, admin, footy dept. etc., will see us refreshed anew.

that's my sole hope.

I consider myself a reasonable thinking type but I am at a complete loss as to how this has occurred. As said earlier, there are smart people at the club who have worked at successful clubs in recent times. It just does not make sense that these people agreed to withhold information from the AFL, if indeed this took place.

In Asia they say the fish starts rotting at the head....Don appears to have no control over this club, none whatsoever. His position looks very shaky.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-club-doctor-dan-bates-expected-to-leave-the-club-in-wake-of-links-to-stephen-dank/story-e6frf3e3-1226624716917#.UXEl3krIkng

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-club-doctor-dan-bates-expected-to-leave-the-club-in-wake-of-links-to-stephen-dank/story-e6frf3e3-1226624716917#.UXEl3krIkng

They can't even get that right(bloody media).......He has been stood down pending the investigation......