Ok so you're suggesting it's acceptable for a club doctor to take medical advice from an outsiders then administer supplements, legal or otherwise, without informing so much as Mission? Craig? hell, our coach?

Surely someone other than Bate knew about the talks with Dank, in which case, our CEO and our board should have also known.

If people in our club are holding information from our board, it shows me that our board isn't strong enough and isn't demanding enough transparency. Either that, or they consistently hire unsuitable individuals who screw them.

No I am not suggesting it's acceptable for a Doctor to take medical advice from outsiders and administer supplements unless he first checks them out, is sure they are legal and safe and then supervises their administration. This according to all reports including the ABC this morning is what Bate did.

Why is it not possible for a Doctor to discuss supplements with other people who have a professional knowledge of these supplements. It is not the discussion that would be the problem, it would be the abrogating of the Doctor's responsibility that would be a problem but that didn't happen.

Why would the Coach , Misson or Craig have to know of every such conversation Bate had? He can talk to who he likes as long as he is in control and is responsible for what happens. Nothing illegal was used, why then do others need to know?

There is no evidence of anyone else knowing of these conversations. And soon as the Board found out Bate has been stood down.

Maybe the Board should bug all employees phones, homes, offices and hire Detectives to follow them 24/7.

Maybe the Board should bug all employees phones, homes, offices and hire Detectives to follow them 24/7.

They don't need to, Don is Santa, didn't you know?

That we stuffed up letting our doctor of many years go, and instead hired a dodgy individual?

Who is accountable for that?

The recently departed CEO.

Also by the way, the previous Doctors resigned, one of them who had been with us for at least 20 years, the same period many on here bitched about us being the club with the most injuries.

geez we need a win on sunday, to give us something else to talk about

Yes, and Cam Schwab voluntarily stood down...

Do you really believe that? If so i retract my comment that you appear relatively switched on.

Do you really believe that? If so i retract my comment that you appear relatively switched on.

Geez mate, are you serious? Did you actually read the post? It wasn't exactly subtle sarcasm.

There is no evidence of anyone else knowing of these conversations. And soon as the Board found out Bate has been stood down.

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?

Geez mate, are you serious? Did you actually read the post? It wasn't exactly subtle sarcasm.

Gold

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

You have to be kidding. Again i ask do you understand the concept of governance? This exactly a real world scenario. The board are ultimately responsible for the actions of the organisation's employees. If the employee does something without the board knowing and it causes real problems for the organisation it is evidence of a breakdown in governance and a failure of the organisations risk management policy and procedures. Do you really not understand that?

You have to be kidding. Again i ask do you understand the concept of governance? This exactly a real world scenario. The board are ultimately responsible for the actions of the organisation's employees. If the employee does something without the board knowing and it causes real problems for the organisation it is evidence of a breakdown in governance and a failure of the organisations risk management policy and procedures. Do you really not understand that?

spot on...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-demons-are-kings-of-the-crisis/story-e6frecm3-1226624768204

You have to be kidding. Again i ask do you understand the concept of governance? This exactly a real world scenario. The board are ultimately responsible for the actions of the organisation's employees. If the employee does something without the board knowing and it causes real problems for the organisation it is evidence of a breakdown in governance and a failure of the organisations risk management policy and procedures. Do you really not understand that?

Yes, I'm familiar with Demonland's latest buzzword since "culture"....

However it is being trotted out as an excuse to go after the board. If governance is so important how come the board stayed after Bailey was fired? Or Schwab? Or Jurrah when he did a runner on us? It's sad how hard people here are looking for convenient ways to bring the board down.

... the fact the the club doctor was in regular contact over several months with Dank

Several months??

Please expand.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-demons-are-kings-of-the-crisis/story-e6frecm3-1226624768204

Oh come on:

"Dank says he never gave banned substances to Essendon players and you'd expect he'd say the same about his involvement with Melbourne players."

How can you put that out there, at least without acknowledging that the club has already denied that Dank had any direct contact with any of the players?

Yes, I'm familiar with Demonland's latest buzzword since "culture"....

However it is being trotted out as an excuse to go after the board. If governance is so important how come the board stayed after Bailey was fired? Or Schwab? Or Jurrah when he did a runner on us? It's sad how hard people here are looking for convenient ways to bring the board down.

FGS governance isn't a buzzword!

Several months??

Please expand.

The first text from Bates was September 2012 and the last (on the day of the essendon presser, bates advising Dank that the presser was happening!) was Feb 5th 2013. Months.

FGS governance isn't a buzzword!

Haha sure it's not.... Didn't you know in our "culture" the "fish rots at the head" and if you don't believe it you're "accepting mediocrity", so get on board the "reality bus" on the way to "elite performance" cos "blind Freddy" is driving...

explains why danks went to melb

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-peep-behind-the-sporting-curtain-20130419-2i5io.html?rand=1366380671966

This thread has been derailed by the usual rants about what's happened over the last 50 years - as though the failure of Dennis Jones' coaching has anything to do with now FGS - and personal abuse. Such a shame because the real significance of yesterday's statement is that the club evidently did not know that Bates was conducting a relationship with Dank.

For me, the key factoid in the statement is that the club says Bates was interviewed three times. That is code for persistent false denials. The club is saying he had ample opportunity to reveal the extent of the relationship and chose to hide it.

Yesterday I heard Essendon supporters gleefully saying we'd taken the heat off them. I DON'T THINK SO.

They are in the frame for banned substances and a club wide program.

We are in the frame for misleading the AFL, but on the face of it even that does not stand up since the club has been misled by one individual.

Our previous club doctor is working match days at Richmond after 20+ years with us and being made a life member. I wonder if he'll return.

In the meantime, how about less histrionics about how Tiger Ridley's coaching continues to drag down the club old dee, and focus on the issue here which might well work out ok for us.

The AFL has appointed a CEO to sort us out. After "supporters" and 'Landers screamed for Schwab's head.

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?

If you think I don't then I have serious given you the wrong idea.

What I want is the same as you stuie believe it or not.

I have just seen this club sink year by year further and further over the last five years.

The people controlling it need to acknowledge they have got us to this point and give the job to some one else.

The thing is they did acknowledge this in their statement re: Jackson and Freeman the other day.

I posted this on Demonology last night;

I really don't like attacking the club but they just reek of amateur hour. Does this statement not contradict parts of the statement issued 24 hours ago (similar to the statement made prior to Schwab's sacking).

"We have sufficient concerns about an identified breakdown in reporting protocols that we believe it is appropriate that Dr Bates stands aside until these matters are further investigated," McLardy said.

If that's the case then how can they say with confidence that;

Every supplement included in the Club’s supplement regime is approved by the Club Doctor and is in accordance with all ASADA and WADA guidelines

Frankly I don't believe a goddamn word coming out of the club anymore - they've burned all their credits. I have as much faith in McLardy's and the rest of their words as I do in the words of a politician i.e. none whatsoever. I just assume now that whatever they say is not the truth or only a half-truth which has given me a sense of apathy about the club.

Contrary to what some may believe I love this club too as I'm sure everyone on here does or we wouldn't be here. Everyone on here is more than just a casual observer. Criticising the people running the club isn't tantamount to treason which is what some like stuie and Satyriconhome (and Dr. Who on Demonology) indicate when they criticise anyone critical of the running of the club. I agree that strong clubs are those with everyone pulling in the one direction (including supporters) but you can't expect the supporters to go along to get along when the direction they see they're being pulled in is to the bottom of oblivion. This isn't about mere wins/losses or even innocence/guilt, this goes to the heart of the governance of the club and looking at the last 4-6 years honestly you'd have to say those in charge have failed miserably which as I said before, they indicated in their statement re: Jackson & Freeman;

The Board is the first to acknowledge that today the Club as a whole, both on and off the field, has not met the goals we set 4 years ago. This is unacceptable and must be addressed.

The recently departed CEO.

Also by the way, the previous Doctors resigned, one of them who had been with us for at least 20 years, the same period many on here bitched about us being the club with the most injuries.

No the ignorant minority were blaming Bohdan.

I cant believe you cant see the issue with all of this.

It is surprising that Misson Craig and McLardy did not know about Bates talk with Dank post 5 February. I cant believe it took a TV report to make the AFL aware of discussions outside what the club had told the AFL.

Its sloppy that we had maverick behaviour by one employee in the area of greatest importance to the Club.....player welfare.

The AFL have been individually dealing with each club over the importance of the integirty and transparency of supplement programs. It was ropable when Essendon came forward. And now 2 months later the AFL are "blindsided" by discussions between MFC and a dubious element that the Board were not aware was going on.

Yes, I'm familiar with Demonland's latest buzzword since "culture"....

However it is being trotted out as an excuse to go after the board. If governance is so important how come the board stayed after Bailey was fired? Or Schwab? Or Jurrah when he did a runner on us? It's sad how hard people here are looking for convenient ways to bring the board down.

You wouldn't know what governance was even if it smacked you in the face.

This administration has been an appalling failure of governance all the way through.

You really are clueless.

Yes, I'm familiar with Demonland's latest buzzword since "culture"....

However it is being trotted out as an excuse to go after the board. If governance is so important how come the board stayed after Bailey was fired? Or Schwab? Or Jurrah when he did a runner on us? It's sad how hard people here are looking for convenient ways to bring the board down.

Here's some more "buzz words" for you - critical mass. It's not one event or issue that has so many people so [censored] off with those in charge.

Oh come on:

"Dank says he never gave banned substances to Essendon players and you'd expect he'd say the same about his involvement with Melbourne players."

How can you put that out there, at least without acknowledging that the club has already denied that Dank had any direct contact with any of the players?

FMD. As if the Club would know!

They have stood aside a Doctor due to a fallure of reporting protocols.

I would not trust any assurances coming from the Club at the moment.

Anyone on Demonland who's still here after three losses with an average losing margin of 107 points still cares. It's ok mate, we're here too and as much as we want to protect ourselves from more hurt by pretending we don't care, the truth is, we still do and that's why we keep fronting up.

I'm starting to adopt a Papillon-like attitude. Which would make the MFC my Island Prison.

Where are you keeping your membership card?