whichever club they were talking about is screwed

Openly discussing the use of PED's and how to avoid beat drug tests

Wow

North Melbourne -We took Bates from them.

this is one of those things that will never go away

people will do anything to win and others will do anything for money

the nature of it means that there will always be grey-areas and dodgy workarounds

it is exactly the same as garden variety recreational drug use

it simply cannot be controlled fully

Let me ask this question: 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. It won't happen with the football media we have, they want to keep their footy pass.

Redleg, he doesn't like being deceived and when he is and the public knows about it, smart clubs fall on their knees and beg for forgiveness. And it works. Look at how Adelaide escaped serous censure about draft cheating by appealing for clemency.

so he is more angry about things that make him look bad. AND EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. I wonder what smart management would do if they knew about this and then found out that we'd talked to danks...

Last night's Footy Classified was illuminating. The fact that MFC won (and on a week when Richmond didn't) must have upset the "Chief" football writer so very much. After drawing a long bow and attempting to drag Neeld as well as Craig into the Danks saga, she embarked on what came across as a rather nasty personal attack on James Brayshaw (and his failure to appreciate properly club doctors).

For those not in the habit of staying up late on Monday nights, I would strongly advise not to. She is so annoying.

Anyway, this is what the "Chief" writer has filled the back page of The Age with this morning ("Roos under scrutiny over doctor").

It is left to Samantha Lane on the inside pages to write the real story of the day, with integrity:

"AFL club officials taped on drug use".

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/22/3740178.htm

It's a report of the re-enactment on 4 Corners last night - it's towards the end of the program:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/22/3740178.htm

As Lane says, there is a recording floating around of AFL club officials - not from Essendon or Melbourne - discussing the use of human growth hormones with a compunding pharmacist:

The officials were not identified in the report, but in a re-enactment of the recorded discussion, one said of growth hormones: "I keep hearing lots of players are using it." The pharmacist told them: ''There are ways of avoiding things. I deal with a lot of players and athletes who take growth hormones and getting past the GH test is child's play. You just keep an eye on the relevant markers."

The pharmacist said the performances of the club's players would "go through the roof" if they used growth hormone properly. He said he could provide prescriptions, and added: "I've got all the right doctors on board to help."

Whichever AFL club those officials are from, you would assume AD will be feeling pretty "blindsided" by this taped discussion this morning, and perhaps just a little but misled by whatever assurances that particular AFL club has given him on their connections and research into performance enhancing drugs in footy.

Redleg, he doesn't like being deceived and when he is and the public knows about it, smart clubs fall on their knees and beg for forgiveness. And it works. Look at how Adelaide escaped serous censure about draft cheating by appealing for clemency.

so he is more angry about things that make him look bad. AND EVERYONE KNOWS THIS. I wonder what smart management would do if they knew about this and then found out that we'd talked to danks...

If you are correct he shouldn't be running the game.

Last night's Footy Classified was illuminating. The fact that MFC won (and on a week when Richmond didn't) must have upset the "Chief" football writer so very much. After drawing a long bow and attempting to drag Neeld as well as Craig into the Danks saga, she embarked on what came across as a rather nasty personal attack on James Brayshaw (and his failure to appreciate properly club doctors).

For those not in the habit of staying up late on Monday nights, I would strongly advise not to. She is so annoying.

Anyway, this is what the "Chief" writer has filled the back page of The Age with this morning ("Roos under scrutiny over doctor").

It is left to Samantha Lane on the inside pages to write the real story of the day, with integrity:

"AFL club officials taped on drug use".

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/22/3740178.htm

It's a report of the re-enactment on 4 Corners last night - it's towards the end of the program:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/22/3740178.htm

As Lane says, there is a recording floating around of AFL club officials - not from Essendon or Melbourne - discussing the use of human growth hormones with a compunding pharmacist:

The officials were not identified in the report, but in a re-enactment of the recorded discussion, one said of growth hormones: "I keep hearing lots of players are using it." The pharmacist told them: ''There are ways of avoiding things. I deal with a lot of players and athletes who take growth hormones and getting past the GH test is child's play. You just keep an eye on the relevant markers."

The pharmacist said the performances of the club's players would "go through the roof" if they used growth hormone properly. He said he could provide prescriptions, and added: "I've got all the right doctors on board to help."

Whichever AFL club those officials are from, you would assume AD will be feeling pretty "blindsided" by this taped discussion this morning, and perhaps just a little but misled by whatever assurances that particular AFL club has given him on their connections and research into performance enhancing drugs in footy.

You're not suggesting that there are club boards other than the MFC that might have advertently or inadvertently misled the AFL on player drug use in the past or even the present are you?

You're not suggesting that there are club boards other than the MFC that might have advertently or inadvertently misled the AFL on player drug use in the past or even the present are you?

If it was a club the "Chief" football writer disliked, surely she would have filled the back page of The Age with it by now...??

I think in the future the AFL will follow the line of professional boxing and introduce random blood and urine tests.

Which is olympic style testing.

This would make it much hard for cheats to beat the system.

He should have quit over the tanking farce which made a mockery of his several pronouncements over a long period of time and including his public comments of support for Melbourne immediately after the Jordie McMahon game.

On anyone's definition of corporate governance he's a failure, the billion dollar broadcast rights deals on his watch notwithstanding.

I think in the future the AFL will follow the line of professional boxing and introduce random blood and urine tests.

Which is olympic style testing.

This would make it much hard for cheats to beat the system.

Will they test club officials and AFL employees too?

Will they test club officials and AFL employees too?

Yeah with a lie detector... (remember Vlad hates being "deceived" almost as much as he hates being "blindsided" over his morning coffee)

Some of this debate is becoming farcical.

So, here's another perspective on 'Drugs in Sport'. I'm not necessarily advocating this perspective, but it seems logical. It is also evidenced based - not based on hysteria.

I attach below part of an interview with Julian Savulescu, Professor of Applied Ethics at Oxford University. He's an Aussie - and he's very clever. As a Professor of Philosophy, he's also a clear thinker.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/drugs-in-sport-peptides/4529218

Really worth listening to if you have the time. It's not long.

Apologies for the repeat post - I just posted this on the Four Corners thread, but it seems more relevant to this thread. It'd be good if all sports journos and a few others at AFL House listen to this interview.

...

Here's another perspective on 'Drugs in Sport'. I'm not necessarily advocating this perspective, but it seems logical. It is also evidenced based - not based on hysteria.

I attach below part of an interview with Julian Savulescu, Professor of Applied Ethics at Oxford University. He's an Aussie - and he's very clever. As a Professor of Philosophy, he's also a clear thinker.

http://www.abc.net.a...eptides/4529218

Really worth listening to if you have the time. It's not long.

The more clubs involved, the more it is the AFL's problem and not the clubs, and less Melbourne's.

That's rubbish. It is and always will be the AFLs and each clubs responsibility. Even more so now.

Ouch, it must really hurt Vlad that it is North.....

Yes and he also played for Essendon.

He should have quit over the tanking farce which made a mockery of his several pronouncements over a long period of time and including his public comments of support for Melbourne immediately after the Jordie McMahon game.

On anyone's definition of corporate governance he's a failure, the billion dollar broadcast rights deals on his watch notwithstanding.

How dare he issue public comments of support for Melbourne? What was he thinking?

Given the AFL will be conducting its 2nd enquiry into aspects of conduct of the MFC do you think he might be a little more circumspect in the future?

Thanks Ron, appreciated.

HBT

Yeah with a lie detector... (remember Vlad hates being "deceived" almost as much as he hates being "blindsided" over his morning coffee)

They may need one at MFC if Bates can prove he was not a lone wolf in the awareness of dealings with Danks.

They may need one at MFC if Bates can prove he was not a lone wolf in the awareness of dealings with Danks.

Even with my strong bias, it's awfully hard to imagine that Bates was a lone wolf in this. I'm dreading what more might be lurking under the MFC carpet...

Even with my strong bias, it's awfully hard to imagine that Bates was a lone wolf in this. I'm dreading what more might be lurking under the MFC carpet...

When asked on the weekend whether they could confirm their previous statements to Club officials and AFL that Bates had not informed them and they did not know about the Danks association Neeld and Craig refused to answer citing an investigation. If they had nothing to hide then why didn't they confirm.

Despite being at the centre of a controversy Hird was able to categorically claim his innocence. No reason the others couldn't......or is there?

If it is shown that Bates was in fact a lone wolf and that others above knew then the Club reputation and competency is further in tatters. I hope this is not the case. It's bad enough that no one was aware of a 5 month dealing with a sports scientist who was rejected for a job.

Don't fall for the oldest journalism trick in the book. Journos ask questions, and people answer with as little information as they can. The journos then interpret what they didn't say as confirmation of hiding something. This is the default position of journalists when they haven't got a story, or anything reportable. It is also hack journalism, and if any of you ever listen to Laurie Oakes he hates this trend in modern journalism. It is unprofessional and diminishes the value of journalism across the broader community.

Because Neeld and Craig didn't say anything doesn't mean that they did anything. They will have been instructed - from the MFC and probably also the AFL - not to say anything that can be reported as undisclosed fact.

I am also a bit concerned about what knowledge the MFC had of Dank, but I am not going to believe the emotional, opinion based journalism of Caroline Wilson. I watch Footy Classified most weeks but 50% of it is cringeworthy grandstanding. Last night Caroline Wilson was an embarrassment to that show and on two occasions Lyon cut her short and went on. Her vitriol about James Brayshaw and the way she put a rumour on the table without any corroboration showed she has no professional integrity.

Edited April 22, 201312 yr by Maldonboy38

Don't fall for the oldest journalism trick in the book. Journos ask questions, and people answer with as little information as they can. The journos then interpret what they didn't say as confirmation of hiding something. This is the default position of journalists when they haven't got a story, or anything reportable. It is also hack journalism, and if any of you ever listen to Laurie Oakes he hates this trend in modern journalism. It is unprofessional and diminishes the value of journalism across the broader community.

Because Neeld and Craig didn't say anything doesn't mean that they did anything. They will have been instructed - from the MFC and probably also the AFL - not to say anything that can be reported as undisclosed fact.

I am also a bit concerned about what knowledge the MFC had of Dank, but I am not going to believe the emotional, opinion based journalism of Caroline Wilson. I watch Footy Classified most weeks but 50% of it is cringeworthy grandstanding. Last night Caroline Wilson was an embarrassment to that show and on two occasions Lyon cut her short and went on. Her vitriol about James Brayshaw and the way she put a rumour on the table without any corroboration showed she has no professional integrity.

Caro also said that Neil Craig should have answered the journos questions about Bates and that he was hiding behind the enquiry - of course insinuation made. All legal advice would be to say nothing. Hird came out and said he had nothing to do with Danks and then had to change his statement. I am happy for Neeld and Craig to say nothing at the moment. Can't wait for her aticle if Richmond are involved.

When asked on the weekend whether they could confirm their previous statements to Club officials and AFL that Bates had not informed them and they did not know about the Danks association Neeld and Craig refused to answer citing an investigation. If they had nothing to hide then why didn't they confirm.

Despite being at the centre of a controversy Hird was able to categorically claim his innocence. No reason the others couldn't......or is there?

If it is shown that Bates was in fact a lone wolf and that others above knew then the Club reputation and competency is further in tatters. I hope this is not the case. It's bad enough that no one was aware of a 5 month dealing with a sports scientist who was rejected for a job.

Hird has been lying and misleading the whole time.

We have no right to sit here and dictate the legal advice of Neeld and Craig.

If we doped and they knew about it - they will be dealt with.

Allusions to impropriety is everywhere - don't need more of it on here.

Hird has been lying and misleading the whole time.

We have no right to sit here and dictate the legal advice of Neeld and Craig.

If we doped and they knew about it - they will be dealt with.

Allusions to impropriety is everywhere - don't need more of it on here.

Well good. Then let the AFL and ASADA prove Hird as such. You may well be suckered by one of your allusions.

It's interesting you can lay strident claims on Hird but then pontificate they there can be no judgment on others.

And I have said nothing on the legal advice for either person. If they have nothing to hide then they can confirm.

And like Hird, Neeld and others will be assessed under same conditions.

But it won't look good for all if Bates has been scapegoated

If we doped and they knew about it - they will be dealt with.

I don't think there are any allegations that "we doped and they knew about it". Even Wilson on Footy Classified last night said there was no evidence or suggestions that MFC was involved with performance-enhancing drugs. The charges are that we "misled" Vlad and made him splutter his morning coffee when he was "blindsided" by the text messages read out on the ABC 7.30 the night before. It seems to me that if we've got nothing to hide, our best interests are served by being very open and transparent, and not giving more fuel to the Melbourne-haters amongst the journos.

As supporters who have been through so much in our love for this club, we could do with some categoric assurances. Right now, the credibility of the MFC administration is very low, and it would help to know they aren't hiding more stuff that will inevitably come out and could devastate MFC even more.