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.

Two years at Norf. One with Swans.

Two years at Norf. One with Swans.

I stand corrected then if that is the case. His own site had it as a year, more fibbing lol or I misread it, which is probably more likely.

Its time for Don to clear house and then stand down.

Time for the afl to take over the running of the club.

its been obvious to me that this is what the AFL have wanted to do for a while.... The bombers are charge with the same issue, yet the media have seemed to have forgotten all about them.... Why is it ok for the media to name our player but not bomber player? Gold Coast and Geelong have both had involvement with Dank.... Why are we the ones plastered across the media?

There is a media/AFL push to tarnish our name, so it is more execeptable when they do take over the club and eventually relocate us....

P.S can we please take our two year band now.....

That's probably a fair commentary and clearly the 'micro' investigation at our place should go deeper to establish exactly who knew what before we run off sacking anybody who can walk. I wonder though, when looking at 'macro', if a strange sort of relationship might be developing between ourselves and the Bombers being the only two clubs in the headlights at the moment. Once again the silence from the other clubs is deafening ( refer the similarity with tanking) where once again the trail of dots heads to a number of them.

Why do I get the feeling on the back of this , a lot of clubs are lying low right now?

AFL (AD) all over us for apparent non disclosure, at this point seems so far no other clubs administering supplements in a like manner?

Hmmmmmmmmm

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.

That's probably a fair commentary and clearly the 'micro' investigation at our place should go deeper to establish exactly who knew what before we run off sacking anybody who can walk. I wonder though, when looking at 'macro', if a strange sort of relationship might be developing between ourselves and the Bombers being the only two clubs in the headlights at the moment. Once again the silence from the other clubs is deafening ( refer the similarity with tanking) where once again the trail of dots heads to a number of them.

Why do I get the feeling on the back of this , a lot of clubs are lying low right now?

AFL (AD) all over us for apparent non disclosure, at this point seems so far no other clubs administering supplements in a like manner?

Hmmmmmmmmm

I would not hold your breath on the quality of the internal "investigation".

Who is actually going to be able to Chair and run such an investigation when one of the issues is whether or what McLardy, Craig, Misson, Mahoney and Neeld knew besides Bates?

If the AFL clubs have done nothing wrong and their internal structures can provide confidence over the integrity of their programs then they have nothing to worry about.

However given MFC's appalling balls up of this I would expect the AFL to be firing off further questions to all clubs to clarify.

You would hope there is greater integrity and transparency shown than what MFC have provided.

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.

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.

By the way what ever happened to the Andrews Report Wasnt that a full and thorough investigation?

That's probably a fair commentary and clearly the 'micro' investigation at our place should go deeper to establish exactly who knew what before we run off sacking anybody who can walk. I wonder though, when looking at 'macro', if a strange sort of relationship might be developing between ourselves and the Bombers being the only two clubs in the headlights at the moment. Once again the silence from the other clubs is deafening ( refer the similarity with tanking) where once again the trail of dots heads to a number of them.

Why do I get the feeling on the back of this , a lot of clubs are lying low right now?

AFL (AD) all over us for apparent non disclosure, at this point seems so far no other clubs administering supplements in a like manner?

Hmmmmmmmmm

On 3 AW yesterday Sheahan said it was a good thing we didn't examine the Eagles and Crows and even the Swans in premiership years as he alluded to a lot going on. He said the Swans have been the leader in this "extras" area for the last 15 years. Matthews said that he as a Coach and every other coach would do whatever and take whatever as long as legal of course, to get an edge. If not he said you would have been negligent in not doing everything possible to win. He reminded the panel of his players running around with holes in their arms ready for their drips at half time. He said Dank was regarded as the Guru before it all blew up and everyone would have spoken to him.

Sheahan then reminded everyone that Melbourne's crime is not illegal drugs but maybe not being fully frank with the AFL.

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.

You are right it was Daff and Fried. It is also my understanding that they had disagreements with Misson and left.

But you make a dangerous and inflammatory allegation about either or both Daff or Fried.

What proof do you have that Daff or Fried said anything to the Tanking Inquiry?

If you dont have evidence its a poor slur on a club life member and 20 year servant and you should retract it.

They deserve better than unsubstantiated rubbish like that.

And given my understanding of Daff's work, I would hardly think MFC would be in the embarrassing position it is in now with the AFL over Dank.

And if two medicos were in possession of damaging information in respect of the tanking strategy it only highlights the ineptness and carelessness of those entrusted to carry through the strategy?

Sheahan then reminded everyone that Melbourne's crime is not illegal drugs but maybe not being fully frank with the AFL.

Certainly not at this stage but the lack of frankness with the AFL is the issue currently.

If really wanted to see where it started then you go back to the Hawks and Eagles in the early 90s.

By the way what ever happened to the Andrews Report Wasnt that a full and thorough investigation?

My understanding it was an outside report commissioned by either Schwab or the Board to review football operations. I am not aware of the exact terms of reference of the report.

I further understand that the report was critical of Schwab in some areas but I am not sure if the report was ever tabled and considered by the Board.

The Andrews review has no direct connection to the current ASADA, AFL and internal investigations into MFC.

That's probably a fair commentary and clearly the 'micro' investigation at our place should go deeper to establish exactly who knew what before we run off sacking anybody who can walk. I wonder though, when looking at 'macro', if a strange sort of relationship might be developing between ourselves and the Bombers being the only two clubs in the headlights at the moment. Once again the silence from the other clubs is deafening ( refer the similarity with tanking) where once again the trail of dots heads to a number of them.

Why do I get the feeling on the back of this , a lot of clubs are lying low right now?

AFL (AD) all over us for apparent non disclosure, at this point seems so far no other clubs administering supplements in a like manner?

Hmmmmmmmmm

It is a fair point. I truly doubt that many involved in the sports science side of things would be unaware of Dank. There are a number of linkages in the US between clinics and drugs in sport. Have clubs been too trusting with their sports gurus?

its been obvious to me that this is what the AFL have wanted to do for a while.... The bombers are charge with the same issue, yet the media have seemed to have forgotten all about them.... Why is it ok for the media to name our player but not bomber player? Gold Coast and Geelong have both had involvement with Dank.... Why are we the ones plastered across the media?

There is a media/AFL push to tarnish our name, so it is more execeptable when they do take over the club and eventually relocate us....

P.S can we please take our two year band now.....

Unfortunately it is because we are the new news on the issue. Regardless of who is to blame, if we had disclosed our link to Dank at the same time the Gold Coast and Brisbane did we would not be in the headlines on this issue now.

Unfortunately it is because we are the new news on the issue. Regardless of who is to blame, if we had disclosed our link to Dank at the same time the Gold Coast and Brisbane did we would not be in the headlines on this issue now.

I highly doubt that.... If we were to disclose our link.... We'd still be the highlight.... Regardless of whether we did anything wrong here....

The AFL and media can smell blood.... They don't want our club at the "g" anymore.... The constant media push to destabilise our club will only stop when the AFL take over our club.... and in the end relocated us.....

Believe what you want.... our club will be based in Darwin or tassie within three years of the AFL take over.... And then it will be all sunshine and roses from the media....

The AFL have the media in there pocket and their plan is to destabilies and disenfranchise our club, to alienate everything that we are.... Til they have no choice but to relocate this so called rabble of a club.... It's a push the AFL have been working on for years.... They just didn't know there victim.... We have fallen over at the wrong time..... We are the next south melbourne/ Fitzroy....

We can try and fight.... Some will.... But they have got us and they won't let this go....

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

I am starting to think that could be the case RF, surely Don and company wouldnt be stupid enough to lie to the AFL.

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?

Because the MFC can't afford to sack its employees or anyone else involved with the club. They have a history of going to the media and telling tales out of school, some of them tall tales taken out of proportion for the purposes of revenge that get the club in deeper [censored].

The answer is not to hire these incompetent fools in the first place.

Leaving supposition and guesswork aside, is there any proof whatsoever that anyone other than Bates had or knew of a connection between Bates and Danks?

On 3 AW yesterday Sheahan said it was a good thing we didn't examine the Eagles and Crows and even the Swans in premiership years as he alluded to a lot going on. He said the Swans have been the leader in this "extras" area for the last 15 years. Matthews said that he as a Coach and every other coach would do whatever and take whatever as long as legal of course, to get an edge. If not he said you would have been negligent in not doing everything possible to win. He reminded the panel of his players running around with holes in their arms ready for their drips at half time. He said Dank was regarded as the Guru before it all blew up and everyone would have spoken to him.

Sheahan then reminded everyone that Melbourne's crime is not illegal drugs but maybe not being fully frank with the AFL.

...and there's the problem.

Leaving supposition and guesswork aside, is there any proof whatsoever that anyone other than Bates had or knew of a connection between Bates and Danks?

I would say the clubs statement indicates yes.

Leaving supposition and guesswork aside, is there any proof whatsoever that anyone other than Bates had or knew of a connection between Bates and Danks?

Supposition and guesswork?

Either we did know or only the Dr knew.

Tell me either one is better than the former?

One supposition leads us to a place where we misled the AFL and tried to bury an unholy Zombie of a story.

The other supposition leads us to a place where we have a rogue Dr and next to zero oversight of what our players are being administered considering we were ignorant of the administering pharmacy.

Choose your poison.

You are right it was Daff and Fried. It is also my understanding that they had disagreements with Misson and left.

But you make a dangerous and inflammatory allegation about either or both Daff or Fried.

What proof do you have that Daff or Fried said anything to the Tanking Inquiry?

If you dont have evidence its a poor slur on a club life member and 20 year servant and you should retract it.

They deserve better than unsubstantiated rubbish like that.

And given my understanding of Daff's work, I would hardly think MFC would be in the embarrassing position it is in now with the AFL over Dank.

And if two medicos were in possession of damaging information in respect of the tanking strategy it only highlights the ineptness and carelessness of those entrusted to carry through the strategy?

The medical staff were upset that a sports scientist could effectively overule them - long standing club doctors. That someone who did a PE course at a TAFE could hold sway over a long time and distinguished Doctor. Don't know about the salary side of things.

I agree with them.

Supposition and guesswork?

Either we did know or only the Dr knew.

Tell me either one is better than the former?

One supposition leads us to a place where we misled the AFL and tried to bury an unholy Zombie of a story.

The other supposition leads us to a place where we have a rogue Dr and next to zero oversight of what our players are being administered considering we were ignorant of the administering pharmacy.

Choose your poison.

I'll take the latter because if Dank was a consultant to Bates then there's no reason why there can't have been oversight of Bates' work at the club. As many others have said, there's no need for a rush to judgement at this stage until we know all of the facts.

What the hec are WE worried about? Storm in a tea cup at our end.

Especially after reading this on the AFL website, this has been well covered on Demonland already surely yes as i haven't heard a thing on this before? Not that i'm a believer with anything Dank says but ......

....."The ABC's 7.30 program has published text message exchanges purporting to be between Goodwin and controversial sports scientist Stephen Dank.

In the texts, from July last year, Goodwin reportedly asks Dank to supply him with "the good stuff" and "good gear."

"Don't forget the good gear mate," Goodwin reportedly writes on a text sent to Dank on July 5, 2012.

One week later, Goodwin reportedly writes: "Sorry mate forgot to see you yesterday. Am heading to Adelaide today can you please bring some of the good stuff in buddy."

AFL Media has been unable to independently verify the text messages and subsequent allegations reported by the ABC.

Dank said Goodwin was referring to Hexarelin, a peptide that stimulates the release of human growth hormones, the ABC said. "

What the hec are WE worried about? Storm in a tea cup at our end.

Iceberg!! What Iceberg?

Iceberg!! What Iceberg?

Eye Eye Captain! All ahead full steam!!

You are right it was Daff and Fried. It is also my understanding that they had disagreements with Misson and left.

But you make a dangerous and inflammatory allegation about either or both Daff or Fried.

What proof do you have that Daff or Fried said anything to the Tanking Inquiry?

If you dont have evidence its a poor slur on a club life member and 20 year servant and you should retract it.

They deserve better than unsubstantiated rubbish like that.

And given my understanding of Daff's work, I would hardly think MFC would be in the embarrassing position it is in now with the AFL over Dank.

And if two medicos were in possession of damaging information in respect of the tanking strategy it only highlights the ineptness and carelessness of those entrusted to carry through the strategy?

No slur intended against the 20 year servant. I believe, and I never put it higher than that, it was the junior medico had a bit to say re re tanking.

I agree with your comments re Daff. Honourable fellow who was sorry to leave.

The medical staff were upset that a sports scientist could effectively overule them - long standing club doctors. That someone who did a PE course at a TAFE could hold sway over a long time and distinguished Doctor.

Misson isn't a sports scientist. Having got that part wrong, you might also like to brush up on his experience and qualifications before dismissing him with patronising one-liners.