On 20/04/2013 at 03:29, Rhino Richards said:

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.

Whether or not Essendon are in trouble was not my point. I was referring to the attitude of most of their supporters on Bomberblitz. If we were winning games, posters here wouldn't be calling for everyone's head in the admin, they'd be defending the club. In contrast to what I read here.

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:42, Grapeviney said:

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.

if you read my previous posts you would understand the "opinion vs fact" reference was in response to rr's original post not yours

this discussion is veering away from my original question/objection

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:43, sue said:

Whether or not Essendon are in trouble was not my point. I was referring to the attitude of most of their supporters on Bomberblitz. If we were winning games, posters here wouldn't be calling for everyone's head in the admin, they'd be defending the club. In contrast to what I read here.

Essendon is a good example that disproves your argument

There are a lot of Essendon supporters who are really dark on Robson, Thompson and Corcoran for the fiasco there in and for compromising Hird. They will definitely want them gone. Even if Essendon are found not guilty the Board could easily severe the CEO and FD personnel mentioned. Winning games is neither here nor there when you have fundamental and serious failings in governance. And if you do try to hide it behind a few wins you will eventually be exposed.

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:43, sue said:

Whether or not Essendon are in trouble was not my point. I was referring to the attitude of most of their supporters on Bomberblitz. If we were winning games, posters here wouldn't be calling for everyone's head in the admin, they'd be defending the club. In contrast to what I read here.

The problem is we are not winning games Sue and the Natives are restless; we have a right to expect competitive performance and the possibility of a win and we've been denied that so far.

It just seems as if the Club lurches from one eff up to the next and you can put it down to bad luck, or admit something's wrong.

I've defended the Board and the club quite a few times but I've run out of patience and I want to see al the [censored] cleaned up and the club run properly.

Geoff Freeman has been a director of one of the Largest Insurance Broking firms in the World and is now on their advisory committee so he will have a background in corporate governance and hopefully he will have a tighter rein on the club should he be elected.

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:49, daisycutter said:

if you read my previous posts you would understand the "opinion vs fact" reference was in response to rr's original post not yours

this discussion is veering away from my original question/objection

Fair enough

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:42, bing181 said:

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

I think the time to go into it is now if you know the story.

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:52, Rhino Richards said:

Essendon is a good example that disproves your argument

There are a lot of Essendon supporters who are really dark on Robson, Thompson and Corcoran for the fiasco there in and for compromising Hird. They will definitely want them gone. Even if Essendon are found not guilty the Board could easily severe the CEO and FD personnel mentioned. Winning games is neither here nor there when you have fundamental and serious failings in governance. And if you do try to hide it behind a few wins you will eventually be exposed.

Under corporate governance (the latest Demonland buzz word), shouldn't the Essendon board be fired too?

  On 20/04/2013 at 03:57, Blistering said:

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?

It should not matter which club. If Geelong had given the all clear to the AFL on this issue and it was released in the media that in fact a club doctor had been acting contrary to that all clear then it's the same situation.

Why would they sack Bates a month ago? The clubs key officers are claiming they were not aware of Bates actions. They will be in hot water if its found they did know and have scapegoated Bates.

  On 20/04/2013 at 04:26, daisycutter said:

what is your source thata] AFL appointed Jacksonb] AFL have asked him to perform a thorough review

Mainstream press can't remember which one.

  On 20/04/2013 at 04:43, Whispering_Jack said:

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?

Yet you accuse me of "groupthink" but you claim not to understand the point. Go figure.

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:04, Rhino Richards said:

Yet you accuse me of "groupthink" but you claim not to understand the point. Go figure.

You're actually making a point? Go figure?

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:58, rjay said:

I think the time to go into it is now if you know the story.

Completely OT, but I live in France, and spend most of my time speaking, reading and writing French. As a result, I get thrown by French spelling of English words. I know that we're not discussing Stephen Danque, and that we weren't found guilty of tanquing ... but for "cheque" I need to think twice. Which I didn't do ...

  On 20/04/2013 at 06:37, stuie said:

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?

I don't think so - I don't have any inside knowledge by pretty sure I heard Freeman's name mentioned prior to all the current issues arising.

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:43, sue said:

Whether or not Essendon are in trouble was not my point. I was referring to the attitude of most of their supporters on Bomberblitz. If we were winning games, posters here wouldn't be calling for everyone's head in the admin, they'd be defending the club. In contrast to what I read here.

I don't think so - what you say would be correct if this were the only issue the club had handled poorly over the last couple of years as is pretty much the case with Essendon (since Hird came on board). The difference between us and them is not only that they're winning and we're getting smashed its also that this is just another example of the clubs incompetent management under the current admin.

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:04, Rhino Richards said:

It should not matter which club. If Geelong had given the all clear to the AFL on this issue and it was released in the media that in fact a club doctor had been acting contrary to that all clear then it's the same situation.

Why would they sack Bates a month ago? The clubs key officers are claiming they were not aware of Bates actions. They will be in hot water if its found they did know and have scapegoated Bates.

Mainstream press can't remember which one.

Yet you accuse me of "groupthink" but you claim not to understand the point. Go figure.

Part of what defines groupthink is the inability to respect another's point of view.

Throughout your time on this site, that sums you up perfectly.

And you can ask the question "go figure"?

The mind boggles.

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:27, bing181 said:

Completely OT, but I live in France, and spend most of my time speaking, reading and writing French. As a result, I get thrown by French spelling of English words. I know that we're not discussing Stephen Danque, and that we weren't found guilty of tanquing ... but for "cheque" I need to think twice. Which I didn't do ...

Thought that might be it. Cheers 'bing'

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:19, Whispering_Jack said:

You're actually making a point? Go figure?

Why accuse me of "groupthink"?

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:40, daisycutter said:

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

The fact that they don't know about the Dr-Dank relationship means that that they don't know waht the Dr was doing with respect to supplements. That's what is so concerning. We're in a worse postion than Essendon - they don't know what happened but at least they knew something happened.

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:45, Sydney Pennski said:

Part of what defines groupthink is the inability to respect another's point of view.

Throughout your time on this site, that sums you up perfectly.

And you can ask the question "go figure"?

The mind boggles.

I challenged his concept of governance and said it was flawed. I not surprised your mind boggles so easily.

  On 20/04/2013 at 06:40, stuie said:

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.

No I reckon McLardy position is untenable prior to this point. He and Stynes have lead an administration for the past 5 years that has lurched from disaster to disaster both on and off the field.

This debacle only reinforces the position that the Club does not know what is going on and does not have the operating framework to work that out.

In this case Demetriou is entitled to take a face value the original statement made by MFC that they had no connection with Danks. the fact that Demetriou had to find out about the Bates/Danks involvement by TV and not the club would spread confidence in the competence of the AFL. Demetriou isn't in the gun on this.

To be fair the AFL have consistently engage each club and warned them of the ASADA conditions

And at this point only 2 clubs out of 18 have an issue. Essendon came forward transparently and advised they did could not guarantee that that the supplements were all legal then submitted themselves to an ASADA, AFL and independently chaired investigation. The AFL are ropable with Essendon and rightly so. And then there is MFC that when the AFL sought guarantees of probity from each club, the MFC Board don't know what's going on and they have misled the AFL. Since the Essendon story no one was aware apprarently that the good doctor was liaising with Danks on supplements. McLardy advised there has been a failure of reporting protocols.

And you are thinking that Vlad is cut at this point??? For a buzzword, you have not got a clue about governance.

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:48, Fifty-5 said:

The fact that they don't know about the Dr-Dank relationship means that that they don't know waht the Dr was doing with respect to supplements. That's what is so concerning. We're in a worse postion than Essendon - they don't know what happened but at least they knew something happened.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion about what they did know and what they didn't know wrt supplements

the only thing that seems to be the case is the doc's relationship with dank (and possibly others?)

of course though there could be more being withheld about the supplements program but that's pure guesswork at this stage

  On 20/04/2013 at 07:59, stuie said:

Under corporate governance (the latest Demonland buzz word), shouldn't the Essendon board be fired too?

If they are found guilty of illegally using substances then the following positions are in trouble:

Board Chairman - Evans

CEO - Robson

Head of Coaching - Thompson

Coach - Hird

Assistant Coach - Goodwin - the guy that liked the good stuff.

FD senior manager - Danny Corcoran

The AFL should fine the club heavily, punish them draft picks and force the sacking of a number of officials.

Players will be suspended for 6-24 months under ASADA.

The AFL will have to step in an take control of the licence. It's an Armageddon situation.

The club members may not have a chance to lunch the board.

If they are found not guilty of breaching ASADA rules, they have certainly either breached AFL expectations and/ Or internal view outcomes.

I would expect that Robson, Corcoran and possibly Thompson are on thin ice. It's unbelievable that the Club should have been put in such a predicament.

This is a serious issue even if you can't understand it.

And then MFC misled the AFL on this......

  On 20/04/2013 at 09:06, Rhino Richards said:

No I reckon McLardy position is untenable prior to this point. He and Stynes have lead an administration for the past 5 years that has lurched from disaster to disaster both on and off the field.

This debacle only reinforces the position that the Club does not know what is going on and does not have the operating framework to work that out.

In this case Demetriou is entitled to take a face value the original statement made by MFC that they had no connection with Danks. the fact that Demetriou had to find out about the Bates/Danks involvement by TV and not the club would spread confidence in the competence of the AFL. Demetriou isn't in the gun on this.

To be fair the AFL have consistently engage each club and warned them of the ASADA conditions

And at this point only 2 clubs out of 18 have an issue. Essendon came forward transparently and advised they did could not guarantee that that the supplements were all legal then submitted themselves to an ASADA, AFL and independently chaired investigation. The AFL are ropable with Essendon and rightly so. And then there is MFC that when the AFL sought guarantees of probity from each club, the MFC Board don't know what's going on and they have misled the AFL. Since the Essendon story no one was aware apprarently that the good doctor was liaising with Danks on supplements. McLardy advised there has been a failure of reporting protocols.

And you are thinking that Vlad is cut at this point??? For a buzzword, you have not got a clue about governance.

It's very good of you to engage this fool. I assume you do it for the benefit of others, as you're talking to a brick wall.

  On 20/04/2013 at 06:40, stuie said:

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.

Sorry Stuie, I don't see how it is the same. The club's aren't employees of the spew, if anything they employ him, due to the fact that they vote the commission in.

So good to have Ben Hur back. The abuse level was dropping off for a while.

Seriously, why can't you can disagree with Stuie without abusing him. Doesn't reflect well on you BH, but I guess you don't care.

(And I can defend Stuie from abuse without agreeing with him.)

The issue at hand here is whether we'd done all we could to investigate before telling the AFL we had no connection.

If McLardy and other senior members of the MFC took reasonable steps to see if we had a connection to Dank, and they couldn't find it because Bates and/or anyone else was trying to hide it, it's not that big of a deal.

To say 'it's not good enough, he should have known' is an irrelevant statement until we know how much was done to see what was going on in the club. Yes, McLardy and other senior members need to take responsibility, but there is only so much you can do as President. If it emerges that we conducted a full and proper investigation, and those who were in the know covered up their connection to Dank, and that led us to tell the AFL we had no connection, and there is no way we could have done any more short of invading privacy, then there cannot be any ramifications for McLardy etc.

Of course, if we didn't do all we could, then that is not good enough, and to not investigate properly and miss this, in the process telling the AFL there was nothing wrong, there are going to be problems for McLardy and co.

Regardless, it appears Bates and/or others have misled the club, which will have obvious negative consequences for them.

Until we know exactly what steps the board/club took when it tried to find out if Dank was involved with us, we really can't defend or condemn McLardy or the board. We have to wait and see what they did (if anything).

  On 20/04/2013 at 09:35, titan_uranus said:

The issue at hand here is whether we'd done all we could to investigate before telling the AFL we had no connection.

If McLardy and other senior members of the MFC took reasonable steps to see if we had a connection to Dank, and they couldn't find it because Bates and/or anyone else was trying to hide it, it's not that big of a deal.

To say 'it's not good enough, he should have known' is an irrelevant statement until we know how much was done to see what was going on in the club. Yes, McLardy and other senior members need to take responsibility, but there is only so much you can do as President. If it emerges that we conducted a full and proper investigation, and those who were in the know covered up their connection to Dank, and that led us to tell the AFL we had no connection, and there is no way we could have done any more short of invading privacy, then there cannot be any ramifications for McLardy etc.

Of course, if we didn't do all we could, then that is not good enough, and to not investigate properly and miss this, in the process telling the AFL there was nothing wrong, there are going to be problems for McLardy and co.

Regardless, it appears Bates and/or others have misled the club, which will have obvious negative consequences for them.

Until we know exactly what steps the board/club took when it tried to find out if Dank was involved with us, we really can't defend or condemn McLardy or the board. We have to wait and see what they did (if anything).

If Bates was guilty of misleading the club, and lying to the Board, why wasn't he sacked instead of just being stood down?

If it comes out at a later date that there were others at the club who were aware of this, we are finished as a club; if there is a cover up and Bates has agreed to be the scape goat then it will eventually be revealed. Dank or someone else will leak more texts if he needs another dose of publicity.

We are facing sanctions now, according to Vlad, and all of this could have been avoided if we'd fessed up in the first place.