On 23/04/2013 at 04:52, Redleg said:

I posted this on another thread and I would love to know the answer.

Is Demetriou more angry with us for answering a specific question he asked, which has proven to be the correct answer, but at the same time omitting to volunteer further information to a question not specifically asked, than he is with Essendon for injecting players in the stomach with unknown substances and having secret contracts that the AFL was not aware of?

I would love any media person in this country to have the guts to ask that simple question.

I don't know the answer to that either, and agree it will be interesting (very) to find out. You would imagine that Caro's "drug laboratory" at Windy Hill SHOULD be a much graver sin, but...

One thing though is for sure, right at this moment we are a much softer target than the mighty and powerful Essendon FC.

  On 23/04/2013 at 05:45, heartbeatstrue said:

I don't know the answer to that either, and agree it will be interesting (very) to find out. You would imagine that Caro's "drug laboratory" at Windy Hill SHOULD be a much graver sin, but...

One thing though is for sure, right at this moment we are a much softer target than the mighty and powerful Essendon FC.

IMO the difference is the Bombers got on the front foot by admitting they had a problem.

The MFC deceived the AFL ( maybe un wittingly ).

That puts us in a poor position. When you get the AFL off side by making them look silly look out.

  On 23/04/2013 at 05:54, old dee said:

IMO the difference is the Bombers got on the front foot by admitting they had a problem.

The MFC deceived the AFL ( maybe un wittingly ).

That puts us in a poor position. When you get the AFL off side by making them look silly look out.

FWIW, and I think I posted this elsewhere, apparently Karen Hayes (from the Board), spoke to a gathering of members at the match on Sunday, and reiterated that the board were happy with the submission they made to the AFL re this, but that Dr. Bates had not revealed his association(s) with Dank.

Just re an earlier post of yours here OD, this is different (very!) to the tanking investigation, simply because the ACC and ASADA are into it. They very much have a "take no prisoners" approach, and at the whiff of anything, from any club or player, at anytime, will be on to it.

Finally, just re the thread in general, we just have to wait to see who did what, who knew what, and who took what. There are some very long bows being drawn here.

  On 23/04/2013 at 04:00, heartbeatstrue said:

If the good doc was prescribing supplements that had an effect on players' fitness (as has been indicated), then David Misson - who is described as "Melbourne's elite performance manager" - surely had a pretty strong interest in knowing what the doc was doctoring his players with.

And while we're on the subject, once the Essendon/Dank stink happened and the AFL questioned each club on their dealings with Danks, if McLardy knew of the doc's dealings with Dank but didn't inform the AFL very openly and transparently (despite it maybe not being a speific answer to the particular question they asked) then he will be gone very quickly. If on the other hand, McLardy didn't know of the doc's dealings with Dank, then why on earth didn't he - as president - make damn sure that he had left no stone unturned in discovering what if anything was going on in the ranks in relation to interaction with Danks? Again, it's symptomatic of gross corporate negligence and he has disqualified himself as being fit to continue as our president.

The only hope for McLardy is that he made strenuous efforts to discover any and all club connections to Danks, but was bare-faced lied to by the doc.

This little gem surfaced after the GWS game:

MELBOURNE president Don McLardy has urged the AFL to guarantee that only people with integrity and the highest of values are attracted to positions of power in football clubs.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-president-don-mclardy-says-the-afl-must-guarantee-the-integrity-of-the-league/story-e6frecm3-1226625296519

Indeed!

I'd say this about Neeld, not McLardy.

McLardy doesn't handle and coach the players, he is the president.

It's worrying that Neeld says he didn't know about this, because he should've known, he definintely should've known.

And.. If he did know, then he is lying by telling us otherwise.

It's obvious that Neil Craig knew, so Neeld would've known.

  On 23/04/2013 at 06:18, ThreeOneSix said:

I'd say this about Neeld, not McLardy.

McLardy doesn't handle and coach the players, he is the president.

It's worrying that Neeld says he didn't know about this, because he should've known, he definintely should've known.

And.. If he did know, then he is lying by telling us otherwise.

It's obvious that Neil Craig knew, so Neeld would've known.

Of course none of this has anything to do with your desire to see Neeld gone.

  On 23/04/2013 at 06:06, bing181 said:

FWIW, and I think I posted this elsewhere, apparently Karen Hayes (from the Board), spoke to a gathering of members at the match on Sunday, and reiterated that the board were happy with the submission they made to the AFL re this, but that Dr. Bates had not revealed his association(s) with Dank.

Just re an earlier post of yours here OD, this is different (very!) to the tanking investigation, simply because the ACC and ASADA are into it. They very much have a "take no prisoners" approach, and at the whiff of anything, from any club or player, at anytime, will be on to it.

Finally, just re the thread in general, we just have to wait to see who did what, who knew what, and who took what. There are some very long bows being drawn here.

The worst part IMO is that Acc and ASADA are political organisations.

Months after the big meeting in Canberra there is still no one named, arrested or charged.

Again IMO don't hold your breath this is going to take months and months and there may never be a resolution.

People's reputations have already been damaged with no recourse.

  On 23/04/2013 at 06:28, old dee said:

The worst part IMO is that Acc and ASADA are political organisations.

Months after the big meeting in Canberra there is still no one named, arrested or charged.

Again IMO don't hold your breath this is going to take months and months and there may never be a resolution.

People's reputations have already been damaged with no recourse.

Yes OD, but soon, once the reputation of every player and every administrator in the AFL has been sullied, we will be back on a level playing field and it will be just like nothing ever happened :-)

  On 23/04/2013 at 06:28, old dee said:

The worst part IMO is that Acc and ASADA are political organisations.

Months after the big meeting in Canberra there is still no one named, arrested or charged.

Again IMO don't hold your breath this is going to take months and months and there may never be a resolution.

People's reputations have already been damaged with no recourse.

Relax old bean. It was claimed that the review by ASADA will take a number of months.

They are still progressing on Cronulla which arose before Essendon.

In respect of people's reputations well some of those people are squarely responsible for putting Essendon in the vice. There actions have also put the lives and good names of others at risk. It's terrible stuff.

It is hoped that the Switkowski inquiry and the AFL inquiry will deal with those issues outside ASADAs. If found guilty by ASADA heads will really roll. If ASADA finds no issue to answer then I believe a number of senior people should still be in the gun. Essendon's lack of knowledge of what was going on and the lack of oversight protocols over player welfare is appalling.

If the ACC and ASADA are properly funded and resourced I have no problem with them Government agencies. You would not think the private sector could handle this.

  On 23/04/2013 at 07:38, Rhino Richards said:

Relax old bean. It was claimed that the review by ASADA will take a number of months.

They are still progressing on Cronulla which arose before Essendon.

In respect of people's reputations well some of those people are squarely responsible for putting Essendon in the vice. There actions have also put the lives and good names of others at risk. It's terrible stuff.

It is hoped that the Switkowski inquiry and the AFL inquiry will deal with those issues outside ASADAs. If found guilty by ASADA heads will really roll. If ASADA finds no issue to answer then I believe a number of senior people should still be in the gun. Essendon's lack of knowledge of what was going on and the lack of oversight protocols over player welfare is appalling.

If the ACC and ASADA are properly funded and resourced I have no problem with them Government agencies. You would not think the private sector could handle this.

Justice delayed is justice denied RR.

If anyone is convicted I will be surprised.

Thats pure crap OD.

Justice should always based the accumulation of evidence.

Such doping investigations take time.

Surely Danks must have something for your chronic pessimism.

  On 23/04/2013 at 09:29, Rhino Richards said:

Thats pure crap OD.

Justice should always based the accumulation of evidence.

Such doping investigations take time.

Surely Danks must have something for your chronic pessimism.

This is not the way the law normally operates RR.

The longer it takes the more innocent people get their reputations shredded.

Your last line is just a put down and nothing to do with any thing in the discussion besides you shouting down someone who does not agree with you.

I could make a number of smart comments about you but I choose not to use that technique.

  On 23/04/2013 at 09:29, Rhino Richards said:

Thats pure crap OD.

Justice should always based the accumulation of evidence.

Such doping investigations take time.

Surely Danks must have something for your chronic pessimism.

Really?? How do you explain the 'tanking' inquiry and finding that we did not tank??

  On 23/04/2013 at 10:49, old dee said:

This is not the way the law normally operates RR.

.

And you would know....spare me.

  On 23/04/2013 at 11:31, jnrmac said:

Really?? How do you explain the 'tanking' inquiry and finding that we did not tank??

When the findings of the closed session investigation uncovered practices that were not in accordance with the rules of the game, the outcome was contrived by the AFL and the Board for the good of the game. Officially we didn't tank but $500k, employee suspension and soon after departure of the CEO would suggest otherwise.

  On 23/04/2013 at 20:59, Rhino Richards said:

And you would know....spare me.

When the findings of the closed session investigation uncovered practices that were not in accordance with the rules of the game, the outcome was contrived by the AFL and the Board for the good of the game. Officially we didn't tank but $500k, employee suspension and soon after departure of the CEO would suggest otherwise.

I'm going with the official line

Now that the anti obesity drug has been banned, does this mean Cale Morton will put on size?

  On 23/04/2013 at 20:59, Rhino Richards said:

And you would know....spare me.

When the findings of the closed session investigation uncovered practices that were not in accordance with the rules of the game, the outcome was contrived by the AFL and the Board for the good of the game. Officially we didn't tank but $500k, employee suspension and soon after departure of the CEO would suggest otherwise.

Or was it contrived solely so that the AFL didn't lose face, after their QC told them they had nothing and would get smashed in a Court hearing? Also was it agreed to by the MFC, because they were told no more AFL money and you play in New Guinea and Mexico for your home games from now on?

PS. I believe it had absolutely nothing to do with the good of the game. Do you have any different information that would assist me in changing my view?

  On 23/04/2013 at 09:29, Rhino Richards said:

Justice should always based the accumulation of evidence.

I can't believe you have written that. I am just stunned. So much of what is written here is based on media allegations, without proof and I have railed against it.

The lack of understanding about the rule of law which underpins the principles of our democratic society is palpable. People are found guilty around here on the basis of supposition and guesswork. Guilty until they can prove their innocence even if the charge is based on rumour, innuendo and the say so of people who have zero credibility. Welcome to the banana republic Redleg.

Trouble is, WJ, if Caro's performance Monday night is any guide that's how the AFL works, too.

  On 24/04/2013 at 01:58, Redleg said:

Or was it contrived solely so that the AFL didn't lose face, after their QC told them they had nothing and would get smashed in a Court hearing? Also was it agreed to by the MFC, because they were told no more AFL money and you play in New Guinea and Mexico for your home games from now on?

PS. I believe it had absolutely nothing to do with the good of the game. Do you have any different information that would assist me in changing my view?

If you could move beyond your "MFC is the victim" mindset you might go a long way to answering your questions.

  On 24/04/2013 at 02:07, Redleg said:

I can't believe you have written that. I am just stunned. So much of what is written here is based on media allegations, without proof and I have railed against it.

Well done on taking my statement of belief out of context. It was made in reference to the investigative processes of ASADA and all you can do is get overexcited again about your issues with the media.

  On 23/04/2013 at 06:28, old dee said:

The worst part IMO is that Acc and ASADA are political organisations.

ASADA are just the local arm of WADA. If they're beholden to anyone, it's to WADA.

  On 23/04/2013 at 06:18, ThreeOneSix said:

It's obvious that Neil Craig knew ...

Based on?

  On 24/04/2013 at 05:37, bing181 said:

ASADA are just the local arm of WADA. If they're beholden to anyone, it's to WADA.

It is funded by the Federal Government I thought?

Am I wrong?

  On 24/04/2013 at 05:40, old dee said:

It is funded by the Federal Government I thought?

Am I wrong?

correct

their website is http://www.asada.gov.au/

the "gov" is a good give away

  On 24/04/2013 at 05:03, Rhino Richards said:

If you could move beyond your "MFC is the victim" mindset you might go a long way to answering your questions.

Well done on taking my statement of belief out of context. It was made in reference to the investigative processes of ASADA and all you can do is get overexcited again about your issues with the media.

Most people tire of condescending posters, clearly the penny hasn't dropped yet.