You can only 'fess up what you know.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:05, bing181 said:

You can only 'fess up what you know.

If Bates was the only person at the MFC that was aware of the connection with Dank, then you're right.

But why wasn't he sacked for lying to the club?

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:08, RobbieF said:

If Bates was the only person at the MFC that was aware of the connection with Dank, then you're right.

But why wasn't he sacked for lying to the club?

Perhaps he didn't lie, perhaps he told someone else who didn't pass it on. Maybe we'll find someone else has been sacked shortly. Who knows. Until all the facts are known it is a mistake to rush to judgment like some twit journalists do

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:08, RobbieF said:

If Bates was the only person at the MFC that was aware of the connection with Dank, then you're right.

But why wasn't he sacked for lying to the club?

The clubs statement indicates that they knew of the connection with Dank.

• 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

You don't instruct staff to sever all ties with someone you don't know they have ties with in the first place and then know that it occurred.

The club obviously knew of the ties, instructed these ties cease and knew that the instruction had been complied with. This would have been known at least at CEO level and given the climate at the time with Essendon you would think the President at least and maybe the whole board would have known in February.

Why didn't they just tell the AFL that at the time?

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:37, rjay said:

The clubs statement indicates that they knew of the connection with Dank.

• 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

You don't instruct staff to sever all ties with someone you don't know they have ties with in the first place and then know that it occurred.

The club obviously knew of the ties, instructed these ties cease and knew that the instruction had been complied with. This would have been known at least at CEO level and given the climate at the time with Essendon you would think the President at least and maybe the whole board would have known in February.

Why didn't they just tell the AFL that at the time?

That seems fair and reasonable to me, you can't stop doing what you're not doing.

Perhaps some of those that believe the club to be telling all there is, would like to answer that?

Note in reply to Sue:

The club has admitted there has been an ( embarrassing) breakdown in reporting protocols.

Either Bates has not kept his superiors informed of his activities or he has and they are lying.

The club has stood Bates down pending the internal investigation.

There is enough facts released to determine the outcomes.

What's worse is....

Meanwhile MFC comes into the sphere of the ASADA enquiry.

They have embarrassed the AFL and undermined any confidence that McLardy and co know exactly what's going on.

I suspect you don't like to consider the ugliness of the situation but there are some aspects that are not in dispute.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:37, rjay said:

The clubs statement indicates that they knew of the connection with Dank.

• 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

You don't instruct staff to sever all ties with someone you don't know they have ties with in the first place and then know that it occurred.

The club obviously knew of the ties, instructed these ties cease and knew that the instruction had been complied with. This would have been known at least at CEO level and given the climate at the time with Essendon you would think the President at least and maybe the whole board would have known in February.

Why didn't they just tell the AFL that at the time?

Maybe they may have been aware that officials could have potentially been in contact or could be in the future but that is not proof they actually knew about Bates 5 month liaison with Danks. It is still to be proven that Bates had not inform any senior official pre or post 5 Feb when the Essendon story broke.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:46, Rhino Richards said:

The club has admitted there has been an ( embarrassing) breakdown in reporting protocols.

Either Bates has not kept his superiors informed of his activities or he has and they are lying.

The club has stood Bates down pending the internal investigation.

There is enough facts released to determine the outcomes.

What's worse is....

Meanwhile MFC comes into the sphere of the ASADA enquiry.

They have embarrassed the AFL and undermined any confidence that McLardy and co know exactly what's going on.

I suspect you don't like to consider the ugliness of the situation but there are some aspects that are not in dispute.

Are you talking to me; if you are that's effectively what I've already said.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:50, RobbieF said:

Are you talking to me; if you are that's effectively what I've already said.

I sent this via iPad but did not realise I had not quoted Sue's post. I have edited my post to note that it is a reply to sue.

  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.

Sue, surely that is because the way we're performing on the field is tied to a number of problems for which the board are responsible (ie how Neeld was hired et al)? The point you seem to be missing is that it isn't one issue in isolation that has pushed people like myself beyond the point of forgiveness, it's the very long sequence of mistakes that just seem to keep on coming. This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to one issue, it's the straw that broke the camel's back.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:08, RobbieF said:

If Bates was the only person at the MFC that was aware of the connection with Dank, then you're right.

But why wasn't he sacked for lying to the club?

well if they sack him, then no-one (mfc, afl, asada) can question him

just like dank can't be questioned by them

maybe its just better having him pissing inside the tent?

  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.

This is what is giving me a migraine.

How can we sit there and say 'our program was clean' when we apparently were not aware that we were using even the pharmacy (if not the man himself) of the man of the moment - Dank?

There was a breakdown and they are not good for Administrations, regardless of whether most of the impropriety is on Dr Bates.

Andrew Gaff - the old Dr that was around for an age - left after the FD came in and there were always whispers he was not happy about the direction we were going in.

I for one, I am incredibly concerned about a club that thinks this can be solved by a simple scapegoat - there are obvious issues with governance (even of the FD by Craig) and we will sort the out with the help of the AFL assisted decision to get Jackson.

He has some work to do.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:58, daisycutter said:

well if they sack him, then no-one (mfc, afl, asada) can question him

just like dank can't be questioned by them

maybe its just better having him pissing inside the tent?

I wonder what colour; bright green perhaps?

If he wants to salvage his reputation he will cooperate, or he will have no chance of ever working in the field of sports medicine again.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:59, rpfc said:

This is what is giving me a migraine.

How can we sit there and say 'our program was clean' when we apparently were not aware that we were using even the pharmacy (if not the man himself) of the man of the moment - Dank?

There was a breakdown and they are not good for Administrations, regardless of whether most of the impropriety is on Dr Bates.

Andrew Gaff - the old Dr that was around for an age - left after the FD came in and there were always whispers he was not happy about the direction we were going in.

I for one, I am incredibly concerned about a club that thinks this can be solved by a simple scapegoat - there are obvious issues with governance (even of the FD by Craig) and we will sort the out with the help of the AFL assisted decision to get Jackson.

He has some work to do.

If Bates was the only one at the club that was aware we were using Dank I would be astounded.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:58, daisycutter said:

well if they sack him, then no-one (mfc, afl, asada) can question him

just like dank can't be questioned by them

maybe its just better having him pissing inside the tent?

Agree Daisy. But that's just part of it.

If we were to sack Bates then we need to sure of all the facts. It gets back to basic employment law principles.

I understand MFC ( McLardy, Craig and Misson) are pretty crapped off with Bates for non disclosure.

The investigation to be undertaken should unearth who actually knew. I would not want to be one of those who said they did not know if evidence comes forth that they did.

Either the image of Misson has taken a beating. He had worked with Bates before but allegedly did not know what he was up to. Not good.

Oh ... kay ... let me test this out ...

(clears throat)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,

I am here to present the case on behalf of the Defendant in this action.

You have heard the prosecution present its case and I have only one thing to say about the evidence put forward by the prosecutor.

His case is "flawed".

The defence rests.

  On 20/04/2013 at 08:49, Rhino Richards said:

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

Redleg ... could you please run the above argument when you next appear in court (preferably not with one of my clients) and let me know how the argument flies with the judge or jury?

  On 20/04/2013 at 11:38, Whispering_Jack said:

Oh ... kay ... let me test this out ...

(clears throat)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,

I am here to present the case on behalf of the Defendant in this action.

You have heard the prosecution present its case and I have only one thing to say about the evidence put forward by the prosecutor.

His case is "flawed".

The defence rests.

Redleg ... could you please run the above argument when you next appear in court (preferably not with one of my clients) and let me know how the argument flies with the judge or jury?

Tiriel Mora tried it in The Castle. Didn't work. It was "flawed".

  On 20/04/2013 at 12:20, rumpole said:

Tiriel Mora tried it in The Castle. Didn't work. It was "flawed".

think we need hammill and not denuto

I was tempted to keep staying out of this, but as I have now failed to do that, here goes ...

On the one hand, I am in Redleg's camp, in that I don't see that there is enough information that we know for sure to make a judgement as yet. Maybe it will never come, but I don't feel that what has been made public so far is definitive. On the other hand, our actions over the past couple of months haven't inspired confidence, and it is hard to escape the feeling that the admin side of the club are punch-drunk at the moment. When reflecting on that, it didn't seem all that surprising that our board wasn't keen on volunteering information to the AFL, who in February concluded a farcical seven-month investigation into (something that won't name ). Perhaps the best thing to come out of our CEO being 'asked' to resign is not only that we have a fresh set of eyes to go through the club from top to bottom, but also that we can shed ourselves of some of the baggage and self-doubt that comes from being investigated for seven months by a bullying lunatic.

I think it should also be said that our board (like any other club's board) carry out roles that are thankless, difficult, time-consuming and unpaid, and that without an inspiring leader Jim Stynes it will often be hard to see the wood for the trees at the best of times, which certainly isn't now.

  On 20/04/2013 at 01:49, stuie said:

Why doesn't corporate governance extend to Demitriou? After all, there are at least 2 clubs officially involved in this now, and he is the boss.

And the Suns and Geelong.

  On 20/04/2013 at 12:55, Satan said:

think we need hammill and not denuto

Joe Pesci is the man we need.

  On 20/04/2013 at 02:34, jackaub said:

If Melbourne footballers are playing this alledgaly on drugs then please "Stop Using Them"

Imagine waht they would be like without them

Danks should be sued for releasing MFC players names to the media

I think the ABC have more questions to be answered with reference to revealing the players names.

  On 20/04/2013 at 13:23, longsuffering said:

And the Suns and Geelong.

You might want to add both the Sydney Swans and North Melbourne to the list now as well because Bates served them as club doctor before he came to Melbourne. Their corporate governance must now be under scrutiny.

Come to think of it, Neeld, Misson, Craig and others worked for other clubs too so we need to bring them into the web as well.

  On 20/04/2013 at 10:59, rpfc said:

Andrew Gaff - the old Dr that was around for an age - left after the FD came in and there were always whispers he was not happy about the direction we were going in.

Daff. His name is Daff.

Did more than 20 years and is a life member.

Had a blue with Misson early last year I believe, over whether a player could train or not. This was when Mission was in his 'these blokes are only 50-per cent AFL-ready mode'.

Daff and the second medico Fried or Freid - forget which but I think he dropped us in it on the tanking investigation - left together.

  On 20/04/2013 at 19:52, Apocalypse XXXI said:

You might want to add both the Sydney Swans and North Melbourne to the list now as well because Bates served them as club doctor before he came to Melbourne. Their corporate governance must now be under scrutiny.

Come to think of it, Neeld, Misson, Craig and others worked for other clubs too so we need to bring them into the web as well.

Just on that I just hope we asked the right questions when we hired Bates. Why was he only at the Swans and Kangas for a year? I imagine that the AFL may just retrace his work history and see if he has had ongoing links with Dank.