We still don't know the full circumstances of this relationship between Dank and Bates. What if Bates went on a frolic of his own in seeking Dank's advice and failed to disclose any part of that to any other person at Melbourne whatsoever? There's no breakdown in governance ecause the best standards of governance might not catch this and it can happen in any organisation and, in modern times we've even seen it in otherwise well run governments. Redleg has a point in that regard.

However, there is the issue of the leadership of the club accepting responsibility. Unfortunately, as we've already seen at the top levels of the AFL and at Essendon, this concept seems to have become redundant. The Bombers' off field leaders are surviving for the moment mainly because their team is performing so well on the field. Their time will come but at Melbourne at the moment there's nowhere to hide.

Agree. I'm not sure what is more depressing. Our on-field performance or the rush to judgement by posters none of whom are in possession of the actual facts.

Actually I am sure; it's the former. If we were winning, there would be far fewer intemperate calls for heads to roll and more calls to stand by the club over this.

Pretty terrible that a 21 year old young captain of ours had to be shielded by players from reporters because of the danker.

Should spread a rumour he perscribed things to damien barrett to help him talk crap better.

Would definitely get legs if it were about Hutchy having AOD's injected.

Good stuff mate, and I agree with that. This is more what I want 'Land to start discussing rather than the constant "off with his head" threads.

Do you think Freeman is going to take over from McLardy at the end of season? That's my initial instinct, but I don't know Freeman too well.

I assume Freeman will take over, the article in the paper the other day hinted as much. It seems he is being groomed to take over later in the season or at the end but the way things are heading he may find himself in quicker than expected. Will he be any better? I can't say - I hope he wasn't hand-picked by the same people running the club at the moment or who put their weight behind McLardy because we need a new broom to sweep through. I am wrapt we got Jackson as interim CEO but spewing he won't stay on permanently. We need people who have run successful (not just profitable) clubs - at least if they fail we will know it is us and not them. Similar to the coaching situation we need an experienced coach who has been round the track before and will work with but not be directed by the admin. Another rookie coach finding his feet would be a disaster which is why I wouldn't mind getting Eade, Ratten or perhaps even Williams.

I think the main thing we have to get away from is this entitled belief that we should be a power club - yes we were but the 50's & 60's were a helluva long time ago. We need leadership who can secure our future as a boutique club that can make sustained cracks at the flag not this profit one year, loss the next, finals one year, bottom 4 the next etc I would be modelling ourselves on the Swans and Cats rather than the Hawks/Pies/Blues/Bombers. Start of securing your future and having sustained success then worry about launching into being a power club and dominating the competition - don't think you can go from street sweeper to PM in one fell swoop.

Actually I am sure; it's the former. If we were winning, there would be far fewer intemperate calls for heads to roll and more calls to stand by the club over this.

Essendon are 3-0 and are up to their eyeballs in ASADA, AFL and internal investigations over guess what the faliure of the controls and procedures to ensure that players are not taking banned substances and are not at physical harm.

Winning is neither here nor there on this issue.

And if even if Essendon and MFC are cleared of any ASADA wrongdoing the problem is that they can make any accurate representation or determination. Its damning on those who has responsibility for the management and oversight of those controls.

Would definitely get legs if it were about Hutchy having AOD's injected.

I assume Freeman will take over, the article in the paper the other day hinted as much. It seems he is being groomed to take over later in the season or at the end but the way things are heading he may find himself in quicker than expected. Will he be any better? I can't say - I hope he wasn't hand-picked by the same people running the club at the moment or who put their weight behind McLardy because we need a new broom to sweep through. I am wrapt we got Jackson as interim CEO but spewing he won't stay on permanently. We need people who have run successful (not just profitable) clubs - at least if they fail we will know it is us and not them. Similar to the coaching situation we need an experienced coach who has been round the track before and will work with but not be directed by the admin. Another rookie coach finding his feet would be a disaster which is why I wouldn't mind getting Eade, Ratten or perhaps even Williams.

I think the main thing we have to get away from is this entitled belief that we should be a power club - yes we were but the 50's & 60's were a helluva long time ago. We need leadership who can secure our future as a boutique club that can make sustained cracks at the flag not this profit one year, loss the next, finals one year, bottom 4 the next etc I would be modelling ourselves on the Swans and Cats rather than the Hawks/Pies/Blues/Bombers. Start of securing your future and having sustained success then worry about launching into being a power club and dominating the competition - don't think you can go from street sweeper to PM in one fell swoop.

The AFL have appointed Peter Jackson to do a full and thorough review.

Given we are a disaster on the field, we have been found guilty of tanking and now we have not been transparent with the AFL over substances.

If the AFL have any sense it will control who gets on the Board.

We still don't know the full circumstances of this relationship between Dank and Bates. What if Bates went on a frolic of his own in seeking Dank's advice and failed to disclose any part of that to any other person at Melbourne whatsoever? There's no breakdown in governance ecause the best standards of governance might not catch this and it can happen in any organisation and, in modern times we've even seen it in otherwise well run governments. Redleg has a point in that regard.

I'm assuming you didn't read Baghdad Bob's very clear post on why this is a breakdown in governance.

It does not seem that he did. He should

MFC is part of the AFL, Demitirou is head of the AFL.... there's some joined dots for ya.

Also, Bates is required to make representations to the MFC, how is that different to MFC making representations to the AFL?

You're being defeated with your own logic.

Is this an act or are you really this naive?

It does not seem that he did. He should

I did but have a different view on the concept. It's simplistic, sounds good in theory and doesn't work in practice. There might well have been failures of governance by this administration as there certainly have been by most throughout the club's recent history. We differ in that I'm not yet making the call on governance but am on responsibility.

Splitting hairs again Jack.

You should review your different concept of governance. Its flawed.

Couldn't agree more Stuie. Satyriconhome and I have been trying to stop a hanging all day.

One poster even called me a "lawyer using weasely words" because I advocated waiting until all the facts were known.

There you go again, it was because of the way you wanted to define the lie in the precise terms of the question and not the bit the club omitted telling the AFL.

It does not seem that he did. He should

Just out of interest, how would a club like Geelong be treated differently on the score of governance had it been the Geelong club doctor who secretly went on a "frolic of his own", took advice from Dank and kept that information hidden from the Board until yesterday?

Should they have sacked Bates a month ago?

The AFL have appointed Peter Jackson to do a full and thorough review.

what is your source that

a] AFL appointed Jackson

b] AFL have asked him to perform a thorough review

Splitting hairs again Jack.

You should review your different concept of governance. Its flawed.

Does anyone have the slightest idea what he's trying to say and how he's addressed the point I made?

Not me.

It seems to me that unless you drown yourself in groupthink you have no right to an opinion these days?

what is your source that

a] AFL appointed Jackson

b] AFL have asked him to perform a thorough review

Logic is the only source needed.

Logic is the only source needed.

that's just silly hh. there is enough extrapolation and supposition as it is and this comment is just more of the same

it is quite possible the afl suggested and/or approved informally the appointment but there is no evidence he is doing a review for them. once appointed his allegiance is to the mfc.

i just think posters should be clearer when stating opinion as fact

that's just silly hh. there is enough extrapolation and supposition as it is and this comment is just more of the same

it is quite possible the afl suggested and/or approved informally the appointment but there is no evidence he is doing a review for them. once appointed his allegiance is to the mfc.

i just think posters should be clearer when stating opinion as fact

I would be pretty sure the AFL more than suggested Jackson and indeed made the approach to him but I don't think there would be any reason for him to report back to them, his brief would be to get the club back on track. I'm sure they have faith in him doing the job that they don't have in the previous CEO and current board.

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by rjay

what is your source that

a] AFL appointed Jackson

b] AFL have asked him to perform a thorough review

I heard it suggested from two different media outlets in the week before the appointment that the AFL were pushing for Jackson to go in.

Now that doesn't make it necessarily so, but IIRC Demetriou, when asked about it, all but confirmed it by re-stating that he had told MFC that AFL were only a phonecall away. ie nudge nudge wink wink

The club would have been silly not to consult the league on Schwab's replacement.

The fact that Jackson has been appointed at all is also telling - we already had an interim replacement in Spargo. Why swap Spargo for Jackson unless it was at the behest of the AFL?

I heard it suggested from two different media outlets in the week before the appointment that the AFL were pushing for Jackson to go in.

Now that doesn't make it necessarily so, but IIRC Demetriou, when asked about it, all but confirmed it by re-stating that he had told MFC that AFL were only a phonecall away. ie nudge nudge wink wink

The club would have been silly not to consult the league on Schwab's replacement.

The fact that Jackson has been appointed at all is also telling - we already had an interim replacement in Spargo. Why swap Spargo for Jackson unless it was at the behest of the AFL?

so you have no source and you avoid point b]

and you miss my point re blurring opinion with fact

and btw dimwit said he was not an afl appointment on 3aw

there is a big difference between (assumed) afl assistance and afl appointment

spargo was only a day to day emergency interim wheras jackson is a six month interim - big difference

I assume Freeman will take over, the article in the paper the other day hinted as much. It seems he is being groomed to take over later in the season or at the end but the way things are heading he may find himself in quicker than expected. Will he be any better? I can't say - I hope he wasn't hand-picked by the same people running the club at the moment or who put their weight behind McLardy because we need a new broom to sweep through. I am wrapt we got Jackson as interim CEO but spewing he won't stay on permanently. We need people who have run successful (not just profitable) clubs - at least if they fail we will know it is us and not them. Similar to the coaching situation we need an experienced coach who has been round the track before and will work with but not be directed by the admin. Another rookie coach finding his feet would be a disaster which is why I wouldn't mind getting Eade, Ratten or perhaps even Williams.

I think the main thing we have to get away from is this entitled belief that we should be a power club - yes we were but the 50's & 60's were a helluva long time ago. We need leadership who can secure our future as a boutique club that can make sustained cracks at the flag not this profit one year, loss the next, finals one year, bottom 4 the next etc I would be modelling ourselves on the Swans and Cats rather than the Hawks/Pies/Blues/Bombers. Start of securing your future and having sustained success then worry about launching into being a power club and dominating the competition - don't think you can go from street sweeper to PM in one fell swoop.

Great post mate. Agree with pretty much all of that (aside maybe from getting Eade). Any thoughts of if you think the AFL may have swayed Freeman to get on board, or does the timing not quite work out?

Is this an act or are you really this naive?

You're calling for McLardy's head under corporate governance because of Bates misleading him, but not calling for Demitriou's head after he was mislead by Essendon, Melbourne, and maybe more? I'm just following through on your own logic re:governance.

I haven't read the entire thread because quite frankly the whole topic is too depressing, so I apologise if this point has been made ...

On Thursday the club based its entire defence in this matter on the credibility of Dr. Bates:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-18/response-to-730-report

In response to the 7.30 Report on ABC television the Melbourne Football Club makes the following statement:

• Immediately following the announcement of the investigation into Essendon Football Club, the Melbourne Football Club launched an internal review into its own supplements program

• The review found no evidence that the supplements program at the Club contravened any ASADA or WADA guidelines and no evidence that any player at the Melbourne Football Club had been administered a banned substance at any time

• As previously stated, Stephen Dank did apply for a position at the Melbourne Football Club in 2012 but was not successful. He was known to the Club via this process and to the Club Doctor, Dr Dan Bates

• The 7.30 Report referred to injections. These injections were prescribed by Dr Bates and comprised vitamin B, C and Glutathione (an anti oxidant) injections to some players. These injections were administered by a registered nurse at a medical clinic recommended by Dank. The Club has received confirmation from the medical clinic that the injections administered were as prescribed

• The program also made reference to a cream which is not prohibited under ASADA and WADA guidelines

• The 7.30 Report program made reference to Thymomodulin, Cerebrolysin, Naltrexone, Tribulus and Oxytocin. None of these substances were prescribed by Dr Bates for players at the Melbourne Football Club

• As soon as the investigation was launched into the Essendon Football Club, the Melbourne Football Club instructed all staff including Dr Bates to sever all ties with Stephen Dank which occurred

• The Club’s protocol and governance in relation to all treatment of players is that only the Club Doctor can prescribe and approve treatment to players. This system meant that at no time was Dank able to directly treat players

• Dank and Dr Bates communicated via email, phone and text, regarding supplements (prior to the investigation). Our processes require Dr Bates to consider the appropriateness of any treatment and make a determination as to its suitability at all times, to ensure that the welfare of our players is always maintained

• 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

• The Club will continue to co-operate with the AFL and its ongoing investigation

On Friday the club said "We have sufficient concerns about an identified breakdown in reporting protocols":

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-19/club-statement-friday-19-april

THE MELBOURNE Football Club today accepted an offer by Club doctor Dan Bates to stand aside, effective immediately, pending the outcome of an investigation by ASADA and the AFL into a pre-season supplements program at the Club.

MFC President Don McLardy said that the Club felt it was appropriate that Dr Bates stand aside while the details of the program and the circumstances under which it was administered are independently reviewed.

"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.

That's a very damning situation - who knows what has been going on? Certainly not the MFC and their "internal review into its own supplements program". Really I despair ...

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.

I'd be interested to know what kind of protocols other clubs had in control prior to the Essendon/Dank/Supplements issue coming to a head. If any. Anyone?

In any case, there's a presumption in the above post that no-one was checking. I can't pretend to have followed this overly closely, but I've yet to see any evidence that that was the case. I also feel you're drawing a very long bow in equivalating signing cheques to giving injections to players. I don't believe there's a Hippocratic Oath for accountants.

In any case, this isn't about what Bate prescribed (for the moment at least). It's that he apparently denied having had contact with Dank when asked.

(edit. checks/cheques ... thanks to Rjay!)

Edited April 20, 201312 yr by bing181

I'd be interested to know what kind of protocols other clubs had in control prior to the Essendon/Dank/Supplements issue coming to a head. If any. Anyone?

In any case, there's a presumption in the above post that no-one was checking. I can't pretend to have followed this overly closely, but I've yet to see any evidence that that was the case. I also feel you're drawing a very long bow in equivalating signing checks to giving injections to players. I don't believe there's a Hippocratic Oath for accountants.

In any case, this isn't about what Bate prescribed (for the moment at least). It's that he apparently denied having had contact with Dank when asked.

...but someone had to sign the Cheques.

I haven't read the entire thread because quite frankly the whole topic is too depressing, so I apologise if this point has been made ...

On Thursday the club based its entire defence in this matter on the credibility of Dr. Bates:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-18/response-to-730-report

On Friday the club said "We have sufficient concerns about an identified breakdown in reporting protocols":

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-19/club-statement-friday-19-april

That's a very damning situation - who knows what has been going on? Certainly not the MFC and their "internal review into its own supplements program". Really I despair ...

I have a horrible feeling that they don't have a clue what the doctor was doing and still don't

I have a horrible feeling that they don't have a clue what the doctor was doing and still don't

i didn't think the issue was whether they knew what the doctor was doing with respect to supplements...

but...whether they were aware he had a relationship with danks and the nature of that relationship

...but someone had to sign the Cheques.

Well spotted ... there's a long story behind that one, but no need to go into it now ...!!

so you have no source and you avoid point b]

and you miss my point re blurring opinion with fact

I told you the source was media speculation - make of that what you will.

I didn't present my opinion as fact, so I'm not sure why that's an issue.

And I 'avoided' point b because I don't have any information on it.