On 19/04/2013 at 05:44, Tricky said:

Exactly.

"If there was an association, regardless of whether there has been an employment agreement, I think that would have been relevant to our briefings.''

"This issue of ethics and trust in our code ... is something that you can't play ping-pong with,''

"If anybody hasn't got the message that they must be absolutely truthful ... then there will be consequences.''

-Vlad

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/afl-demands-melbourne-to-tell-truth-on-new-stephen-dank-claims/story-e6frf9mf-1226623810469

And given Redleg has quoted the interview with AD, where has the club not been entirely truthful?

They were asked: 'Was Stephen Dank approached or did Stephen Dank approach Melbourne or was there discussion around employment at the Melbourne Football Club?"

The club answered truthfully, regardless of what was hidden. Dank applied for a position, but was knocked back. That was the answer given by the club. Nobody technically lied. It's not a good look, and Vlad's welcome to his position, but the question of contact with the club in any capacity was not asked.

I'd like to see the 'rule' that AD is threatening that the club broke. If it's the old 'bringing the game into disrepute', I'd ask to see the Bombers get fined first.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:20, Redleg said:

When you say "come off it" that is prefaced of course on the notion that you don't need accuracy to condemn someone.

You say I use " lawyers weasel words " and that of itself is inaccurate. Yes I am a lawyer of some 36 years and whether you believe it or not, my job to a large degree revolves around discovering who is telling the truth. A lie simply is defined as not telling the truth. It is therefore important when you accuse someone of lying that you know the question asked and the answer given.

In this particular instance we don't even know who was asked the question or who answered it and yet many on here are happy to say that unknown party is a liar.

Do we even know if the person who answered the question even knew that the Doctor had spoken to Dank?

In my view if you are asked a specific question and you answer it truthfully, you should not be called a liar just because you don't volunteer information, that was not part of the specific question and of which you may have no knowledge anyway.

In summary many on here are prepared to say someone lied without knowing all of the facts.

Given you're a lawyer, call this an interrogatory: Do you think the club was misleading by commission or omission in its communication with the AFL and the media in relation to this issue?

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:22, deejammin said:

It is possible that Bate has misled the MFC about his relationship with Dank, it is actually possible that the club is innocent.

I am astounded how many people on here can't read between the lines of the MFC statement.

If Bates has misled MFC, there is no way that MFC could be innocent. They have released a improper press release two months ago that did not appropriately document the nature of involvement with an individual.

Any error by Bates to inform should be serious breach of governance rules and transparency. At the very least Bates been incredibly naive getting involved with a person in a high risk error that had been let go from 3 clubs in unusual circumstances.

There is an issue as to whether there was any commercial arrangement with Dank and whether there were any treatments provided to the players by Dank that were not subject to doctors prescription.

Given the ASADA requirements are so serious, how the club could have allowed a doctor possibly on his own to have linkages with a person that was reject for a FT role is the astounding part.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:27, Dr. Mubutu said:

And given Redleg has quoted the interview with AD, where has the club not been entirely truthful?

They were asked: 'Was Stephen Dank approached or did Stephen Dank approach Melbourne or was there discussion around employment at the Melbourne Football Club?"

The club answered truthfully, regardless of what was hidden. Dank applied for a position, but was knocked back. That was the answer given by the club. Nobody technically lied. It's not a good look, and Vlad's welcome to his position, but the question of contact with the club in any capacity was not asked.

I'd like to see the 'rule' that AD is threatening that the club broke. If it's the old 'bringing the game into disrepute', I'd ask to see the Bombers get fined first.

It should have been voluntarily disclosed by MFC given the seriousness of the Essendon issue. It's basic common sense to be totally transparent.

Vlad and MFC members are right to be filthy on this latest comedy caper from MFC.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:20, Tricky said:

Agree.

Which would be ironic as it would mean 2 of the four posters i have on my ignore list are the same people. But my guess is he's not the doctor.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:39, Rhino Richards said:

It should have been voluntarily disclosed by MFC given the seriousness of the Essendon issue. It's basic common sense to be totally transparent.

Vlad and MFC members are right to be filthy on this latest comedy caper from MFC.

Crisis can create strange bedfellows but Rhino you are spot on here. I'd go further and say choosing not to is negligent in the extreme, exposing as it does the club to harsh punishment from the AFL.

Which raises the question. Did the CEO and the board know we had ongoing contact with Dank. It would seem the FD did, so if the CEO and board didn't what we have here is a serious, serious problem ( a failure to communicate! would be my normal joke but i'm not feeling that humorous).

Perhaps we've gone from one extreme to the other - two years ago the Admin too involved in the FD, now the FD being unaccountable with no control by the admin

Sorry if somebody has raised this already but who is revealing the messages between Danks and others? I would have thought that would be a police matter.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:51, binman said:

Crisis can create strange bedfellows but Rhino you are spot on here. I'd go further and say choosing not to is negligent in the extreme, exposing as it does the club to harsh punishment from the AFL.

Which raises the question. Did the CEO and the board know we had ongoing contact with Dank. It would seem the FD did, so if the CEO and board didn't what we have here is a serious, serious problem ( a failure to communicate! would be my normal joke but i'm not feeling that humorous).

Perhaps we've gone from one extreme to the other - two years ago the Admin too involved in the FD, now the FD being unaccountable with no control by the admin

Given the AFL we're already investigating us and have provided "evidence" that we tanked its unbelievable that we were not completely transparent about the dealings with Dank.

  On 18/04/2013 at 21:29, Whispering_Jack said:

The revelations about communications between Stephen Dank and the Melbourne Club Doctor, Dr. Dan Bates over its supplements programme does not constitute proof of any breach by the club of ASADA and WADA guidelines. The club has issued a statement into revelations on the subject which was aired on last night's ABC 7.30 Report and can be read here.

However, the response is totally unsatisfactory in that it does not address why members and supporters were misled about the club's association with Dank after the Essendon doping allegations came to light in February. At the time, the club informed the world that Dank had made an unsuccessful application for a position at the club. What we and apparently the AFL weren't told then was that an association nevertheless continued in some way through Dr. Bates which only came to an end when the Essendon bombshell was dropped.

The withholding of this information from members and supporters is totally unacceptable and it is imperative that those responsible be relieved of their duties at the club as soon as practicable.

While we can't be certain that the association between Dank and Bates is in any way responsible for the team's poor form to date this season, it would be fair to say that by "coming clean" and taking full responsibility, the powers that be at the club would set an example to the playing group of the respect their supporters, who can only stand by and watch the events unfold with increasing bewilderment, deserve from the club. Only if this is done, can the club expect their loyalty in return.

And if there is any doubt about where the chain of responsibility ends, I direct you to the sign that once sat on the desk of United States President Harry S. Truman and read, "The Buck Stops Here".

.... again 'the club', seems to be run more like a business than a "Club", with supporters & members, having they're heartstrings stretched to the Max.

  On 19/04/2013 at 00:02, footywidow said:

The issue isn't the legality of the 'supplements'. I'd guess at both Essendon and Melbourne, they were all cleared as 'legal' by ASADA or whoever it is.

The issue is that is unethical to be basically experimenting on players. All they would've thought about is if they are 'legal', which they would've been assured that they are. But 'legal', and 'safe and effective' are not the same thing. The clubs all have an ethical code that they must follow. The issue is that all this stuff, especially at Essendon, where they signed waivers and confidentiality clauses, breaches that code. If it were my son playing at either of these clubs, I would be livid. At Essendon he would've been almost forced to sign those forms, then be injected with god-knows-what. At Melbourne, he's playing for a club who seem to be putting the players' best interests last all the time, half of their careers have been ruined by the culture there, and now we find out they too have been given substances that are still in the testing stage, and possibly on the 'to-be-banned' list. Then Melbourne lie about their involvement with this idiot, at least Essendon were smart enough to get it checked out so it at least looks like they are co-operating!

How the hell can the players run out there and play with integrity when their club has none!?

I think Andrew Demetriou is concerned with the ethical boundaries that are being crossed, and the fact Melbourne lied. And yes, it was a lie.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:53, Courtney_Fish said:

Sorry if somebody has raised this already but who is revealing the messages between Danks and others? I would have thought that would be a police matter.

Can only be coming from Dank himself. He's being taken down is and is taking as many with him as he can.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:27, Dr. Mubutu said:

And given Redleg has quoted the interview with AD, where has the club not been entirely truthful?

They were asked: 'Was Stephen Dank approached or did Stephen Dank approach Melbourne or was there discussion around employment at the Melbourne Football Club?"

The club answered truthfully, regardless of what was hidden. Dank applied for a position, but was knocked back. That was the answer given by the club. Nobody technically lied. It's not a good look, and Vlad's welcome to his position, but the question of contact with the club in any capacity was not asked.

I'd like to see the 'rule' that AD is threatening that the club broke. If it's the old 'bringing the game into disrepute', I'd ask to see the Bombers get fined first.

It's a technicality.

Giving a specific answer to a specific question without going on to disclose the full nature of any association with Dank was misleading and intentionally deceitful. So yes, I would say it was untruthful (not to mention stupid).

  On 19/04/2013 at 07:01, dee-luded said:

.... again 'the club', seems to be run more like a business than a "Club", with supporters & members, having they're heartstrings stretched to the Max.

A business???

More like a perpetual comedy act.

The only person on this site that has raised a concern about the players welfare and the impact that what is going on is having on this group. Those who want to continually rip into the quality of the group should have a good hard think about wot the admin & footy dept have had on these kids. It's a disgrace.

Well spoken footy widow!

  On 19/04/2013 at 05:58, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Here comes Squealer himself. You have dead set nothing to say but to pick on other people's writing style or to find something pedantic and stale to try and discredit the whole. The only thing that is pathetic is your slavish kowtowing to the club's line. You would be a good spokesperson for the American Republican Party.

or the nra - lol

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:28, Choko said:

Given you're a lawyer, call this an interrogatory: Do you think the club was misleading by commission or omission in its communication with the AFL and the media in relation to this issue?

I couldn't say if it was misleading at all because I don' t know the full facts. It answered the question asked, that is all that needs to be said.

  On 19/04/2013 at 03:43, Redleg said:

I give up. Please could everyone at the MFC just resign and walk out the door.

No doubt people from Demonland will then volunteer to run the club, win a premiership in a year or two and make millions of dollars.

Oh by the way, not one person nominated for the Board at the AGM a couple of months ago. However, I am sure there are many briliiant potential board members. just dying to volunteer and give money and have their reputations scorched by Demonland and the membership.

Come on suckers the line starts at the MFC front door.

This sort of post frustrates me. Like many I don't think that those who are charged with the responsibility of running our club have done a good job and I've argued for some time that in order to be a competitive AFL club we need to have better people in senior positions. This doesn't require me to do the job, in fact I don't think I'm up to it. The difference between me and some that have done and are doing current roles is that I recognize that I'm not up to it. I know my limitations and that has served me rather well over my 60 years. I do what I'm good at and recognize what I can't do.

The trouble with some in senior positions at out club is that they can't recognize that they are not up to the job and they keep doing it and they keep doing it badly. We've had tanking and danking together with about 4 wins in 25 games but still they believe they are the one's to lead us to the promised land. They need to look in the mirror, realize they've had their go, and move on. Hopefully whoever does take their place is up to it.

It's not an easy job, there is no shame in failure, but there is shame in pretending you're up to it and worsening an already terrible position.

  On 19/04/2013 at 01:42, Whispering_Jack said:

Bob,

For the purposes of clarification, I want to stress that I don't condone telling lies to the AFL or anyone else although some might say that since the language of the AFL is all lies then at least in doing so, they're speaking the AFL's language.

Of course, it's madness to mislead the AFL.

But let's not conflate the issues here - I'm referring to the specific matter of misleading the members which is unforgivable.

Jack I'm thrilled you've picked up the cause of the membership and are calling the Board to account for their failure to fully disclose the truth to members. I'm just surprised you saw fit to start a thread on this subject when clearly the major issue in relation to their dishonestly rests not with their relationship with a largely supportive membership but with the less than impressed AFL.

Keep up the good work and thanks for the clarification.

I want to know how players were named in last nights story.....i am more concerned about the naming of players than any Board Member Coach or Doctor,

They can fend for themselves....The players have just been thrown to the wolves

  On 19/04/2013 at 08:12, Baghdad Bob said:

This sort of post frustrates me. Like many I don't think that those who are charged with the responsibility of running our club have done a good job and I've argued for some time that in order to be a competitive AFL club we need to have better people in senior positions. This doesn't require me to do the job, in fact I don't think I'm up to it. The difference between me and some that have done and are doing current roles is that I recognize that I'm not up to it. I know my limitations and that has served me rather well over my 60 years. I do what I'm good at and recognize what I can't do.

The trouble with some in senior positions at out club is that they can't recognize that they are not up to the job and they keep doing it and they keep doing it badly. We've had tanking and danking together with about 4 wins in 25 games but still they believe they are the one's to lead us to the promised land. They need to look in the mirror, realize they've had their go, and move on. Hopefully whoever does take their place is up to it.

It's not an easy job, there is no shame in failure, but there is shame in pretending you're up to it and worsening an already terrible position.

Jack I'm thrilled you've picked up the cause of the membership and are calling the Board to account for their failure to fully disclose the truth to members. I'm just surprised you saw fit to start a thread on this subject when clearly the major issue in relation to their dishonestly rests not with their relationship with a largely supportive membership but with the less than impressed AFL.

Keep up the good work and thanks for the clarification.

Surprised that you're surprised or that you think the question of openness on this issue is any less important than the club's relationship with the AFL. It's of paramount importance IMO for a club to keep the faith of its supporters. That hasn't happened here.

  On 19/04/2013 at 08:27, why you little said:

I want to know how players were named in last nights story.....i am more concerned about the naming of players than any Board Member Coach or Doctor,

They can fend for themselves....The players have just been thrown to the wolves

Why don't you watch the program on iview and get some facts for once? Heard of it? FMD. You apparently worked at the ABC.

The program said the players went to a pharmacy with a prescription provided by Dr Bates for substances that not illegal. There is no evidence from the program that they have been in direct contact with Danks or they have been exposed to illegal substances. Save the melodrama for another time.

  On 19/04/2013 at 08:36, Blistering said:

Surprised that you're surprised or that you think the question of openness on this issue is any less important than the club's relationship with the AFL. It's of paramount importance IMO for a club to keep the faith of its supporters. That hasn't happened here.

At the moment it is. A good relationship with the AFL is critical to our survival. What's upset supporters should be that we have cheated that good faith and mislead the AFL.

  On 18/04/2013 at 23:58, PJ_12345 said:

The AFL is becoming more and more like the ATO - they say jump, you say how high.

Now now, that's not nice saying the ATO is as bad as the AFL.

  On 19/04/2013 at 03:43, Redleg said:

I give up. Please could everyone at the MFC just resign and walk out the door.

No doubt people from Demonland will then volunteer to run the club, win a premiership in a year or two and make millions of dollars.

Oh by the way, not one person nominated for the Board at the AGM a couple of months ago. However, I am sure there are many briliiant potential board members. just dying to volunteer and give money and have their reputations scorched by Demonland and the membership.

Come on suckers the line starts at the MFC front door.

I'm actually considering it. Despite my total lack of experience or money.

My platform would be 'call in the AFL to fix the administration, football department and assemble a new board for me to endorse come the next AGM'.

  On 19/04/2013 at 06:12, why you little said:

This must be Dr. Who...

Nah ..not enough....heheheheh's & first and forever's

  On 19/04/2013 at 08:48, Rhino Richards said:

Why don't you watch the program on iview and get some facts for once? Heard of it? FMD. You apparently worked at the ABC.

The program said the players went to a pharmacy with a prescription provided by Dr Bates for substances that not illegal. There is no evidence from the program that they have been in direct contact with Danks or they have been exposed to illegal substances. Save the melodrama for another time.

So nice to have you back around again Rhino....The names of the players could easily have been "mosaiced" out...

They weren't. I find that interesting.

I still work at the ABC, but no longer in the Newsroom.

Must you always be such a social pimple....I wouldn't like my name on National TV if i hadn't done anything.