If last nights 4 Corners report was correct and I have no reason to disbelieve it , there is at least one other club and bound to be others who whilst not as careless as we may have been with our reporting, IMO will have ventured into the same murky paddock , so what of gtheir reporting obligations?

Exactly. I'm still puzzled why AD came out so quickly and strongly in condemning MFC after that 7.30 report (which he claimed upset him so because he was "blindsided"), but there's not been a peep out of the AFL (that I'm aware of) in condemning this "other" club who were clearly exploring the possibilities. At the very least, they must also be subject to the ASADA investigation (along with Geelong & Gold Coast, and how many others?).

Maybe AD wasn't "blinsided" (meaning, he already knew all about this "other" club). Or maybe it's a much tougher club for AD to put the boot into?

Dunno. Puzzling.

It was alluded to in the texts that Jack should have AOD for his foot. The next question is whether he applied the cream, and then the most important question is whether you can prove it. You would want to be damn sure of it before whacking a player with a year or two ban, and anything short of an admission or a positive test isn't good enough. Again, just have have to wait and see what pans out. I have followed cycling for years, and riders don't get banned unless they test positive, make an admission or are caught in possession pretty much.

Well, if it's true that Danks has such a letter issued by ASADA then why did the Bombers not make a copy?

And if such letter was in fact issued by ASADA, then surely as a matter of public interest, ASADA should release that correspondence?

I think you can be pretty certain that no such letter exists and that it's simply part of Dank's salesman's kit. In the pre-2013 atmosphere where it seems likely many clubs and players (and fitness gurus and club doc's) were flirting with such substances, it would have been very easy for all of the above to just go along with the euphoria and imagine that because something's not on the banned list and lots of others are trying it, just do the same.

Which doesn't excuse what seems to have happened, certainly at Essendon, in any way. I just hope not at Melbourne. But as Rhino keeps saying, either way at MFC (if the doc was a lone wolf, or if he's the scapegoat for a wider involvement) there have been serious administrative failings.

Do we actually know if any MFC player took anything?

As to JT my recollection is that the discussion was based around a cream, for his foot, not something ingested, does that make a difference?

People should read up about Operation Puerto which was an investigation into doping, which implicated a huge number of cyclists in a far worse manner than a bit of cream for a foot. And I am almost certain no direct sanctions came from that. Sure riders were target tested and tests positive overtime, but it takes more evidence than a text or even a few words to sanction an athlete. Btw, this isn't defending jack or the club, just merely saying how I see any potential bans playing out. Hopefully he, and others, have little to worry about.

I think you can be pretty certain that no such letter exists and that it's simply part of Dank's salesman's kit. In the pre-2013 atmosphere where it seems likely many clubs and players (and fitness gurus and club doc's) were flirting with such substances, it would have been very easy for all of the above to just go along with the euphoria and imagine that because something's not on the banned list and lots of others are trying it, just do the same.

Which doesn't excuse what seems to have happened, certainly at Essendon, in any way. I just hope not at Melbourne. But as Rhino keeps saying, either way at MFC (if the doc was a lone wolf, or if he's the scapegoat for a wider involvement) there have been serious administrative failings.

well two different clubs say that danks had a letter from wada (asada?)

so three possibilities

1] he had one

2] he had a forgery

3] both essendon and bates didn't actually see it but took his word for it

i suspect it may have been 3] - (just supposition)

well two different clubs say that danks had a letter from wada (asada?)

so three possibilities

1] he had one

2] he had a forgery

3] both essendon and bates didn't actually see it but took his word for it

i suspect it may have been 3] - (just supposition)

Not a bad supposition dc

Do we actually know if any MFC player took anything?

As to JT my recollection is that the discussion was based around a cream, for his foot, not something ingested, does that make a difference?

If JT just used a cream I think he would be ok as it falls under the cosmetic regulations. Essendon players are in trouble because they are alleged to have injected the drug of interest.

well two different clubs say that danks had a letter from wada (asada?)

so three possibilities

1] he had one

2] he had a forgery

3] both essendon and bates didn't actually see it but took his word for it

i suspect it may have been 3] - (just supposition)

WADA doesnt write letters giving approval for drugs. Can you imagine for a second what would happen of they did?

There is not chance in the world they wrote it. I doubt even ASADA would be stupid enough to write a letter like that.

bombers have found a bill for a banned drug: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-find-bill-for-banned-drug-20130426-2ikou.html

in dees' revelations:

•Confidential documents show the Demons told league officials in February that their club doctor, Dan Bates, had "communications" with Mr Dank and that players had been given vitamin injections at an external clinic.

•Dr Bates failed to disclose in an internal club review in March that he had asked co-captain Jack Trengove to use a cream containing an anti-obesity drug banned by doping authorities this week.

more here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dealing-with-dank-20130426-2ik8y.html

A confidential AFL record of the meeting shows that the league documented admissions from the Demons' delegation that its players had been injected with supplements at an external location but that this ''off-site injecting has stopped''.

It is not clear whether Dank's association with this injecting program was mentioned; if it was, the full details of Dank's association with Bates - if they were known to any of the Melbourne officials present- were not conveyed to the AFL at this meeting.

more here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dealing-with-dank-20130426-2ik8y.html

A confidential AFL record of the meeting shows that the league documented admissions from the Demons' delegation that its players had been injected with supplements at an external location but that this ''off-site injecting has stopped''.

It is not clear whether Dank's association with this injecting program was mentioned; if it was, the full details of Dank's association with Bates - if they were known to any of the Melbourne officials present- were not conveyed to the AFL at this meeting.

Dr Bates has some explaining to do if he held back info to the board. We could be hit with a fine like the non tanking one, not knowing what the officals were doing.

Edited April 26, 201312 yr by Satan

Confidential documents show the Demons told league officials in February that their club doctor, Dan Bates, had "communications" with Mr Dank and that players had been given vitamin injections at an external clinic.

•Dr Bates failed to disclose in an internal club review in March that he had asked co-captain Jack Trengove to use a cream containing an anti-obesity drug banned by doping authorities this week.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-find-bill-for-banned-drug-20130426-2ikou.html#ixzz2RaEHz17b

so we DID tell the AFL.

and if bates forgot to tell the afl about trengove it does NOT MATTER AS THE CREAM IS LEGAL.

Demons insiders say the February disclosures show the club did not set out to mislead the AFL, as has been widely reported. But the insiders acknowledge that Dr Bates did not disclose to the Thurin review that after he had discussions with Mr Dank last December he told co-captain Trengove to apply a cream to his foot injury. The cream contained the anti-obesity drug, AOD9604. the cream is legal. nothing to see here.

The AFL is furious that it only recently learnt that this drug was used and officials also suspect that Melbourne staff outside of Dr Bates may not have been forthcoming with the league about Mr Dank’s activities. The AFL clearly has no idea.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-find-bill-for-banned-drug-20130426-2ikou.html#ixzz2RaF087l3

Edited April 26, 201312 yr by biggestred

Demons insiders say the February disclosures show the club did not set out to mislead the AFL, as has been widely reported. But the insiders acknowledge that Dr Bates did not disclose to the Thurin review that after he had discussions with Mr Dank last December he told co-captain Trengove to apply a cream to his foot injury. The cream contained the anti-obesity drug, AOD9604. the cream is legal. nothing to see here.

The AFL is furious that it only recently learnt that this drug was used and officials also suspect that Melbourne staff outside of Dr Bates may not have been forthcoming with the league about Mr Dank’s activities. The AFL clearly has no idea.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-find-bill-for-banned-drug-20130426-2ikou.html#ixzz2RaF087l3

I wonder when the AFl were given a heads up from the Fed gov on the ACC report. I reckon about 3 days before the bs press conference in Canberra and one day before letting Essendon know their involvement. The AFL usually likes to control the spin. now they cant so I reckon their reactions are for the 30 sec sound bite

On February 5, McLachlan called Melbourne CEO Cameron Schwab to inquire about rumours Dank was hanging around the club. The same day, Essendon held a short press conference to detail its concerns about the supplement program Dank had previously implemented at the Bombers.

Schwab told McLachlan he'd never heard of Dank but later called McLachlan back and told him - according to notes retained by Schwab - that Demons doctor Dan Bates had ''communications'' with Dank and the club had considered employing him. McLachlan advised Schwab to immediately jettison the sports scientist.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dealing-with-dank-20130426-2ik8y.html#ixzz2RaKfnZqM

The way Andy reacted last Friday gave the impression that the AFL had no idea Melb was communicating with Dank. I think Bates held back info to the club about what his discussions with Danks were about. Otherwise the board would have fessed up earlier. If the board knew then they should resign on mass.

Edited April 26, 201312 yr by Satan

Demons insiders say the February disclosures show the club did not set out to mislead the AFL, as has been widely reported. But the insiders acknowledge that Dr Bates did not disclose to the Thurin review that after he had discussions with Mr Dank last December he told co-captain Trengove to apply a cream to his foot injury. The cream contained the anti-obesity drug, AOD9604. the cream is legal. nothing to see here.

At the time he told Trenner to use the cream it was not a banned cream to use, but correct me if I'm wrong but it was also not cleared. Does this leave him open to potential issues if he has been found to have applied it? If so that's kind of like moving the finish line at the end of a race.

On the surface it appears that we are ok in terms of WADA/ASADA but I think the AFL is getting very sick of us and how we're running things (although the feeling is mutual when it comes to the tanking fiasco). I get the feeling that the AFL is breathing down our necks for every little thing we do. It turns out that we disclosed the nature of the relationship with Dank a long time ago, despite what has been reported. The only thing that wasn't disclosed was that the doctor asked JT to use a cream on his foot that only NOW has been banned.

Edited April 26, 201312 yr by Pates

This article makes me even more angry at the AFL and specifically Demetriou, what a pathetically armature response from him when the 7:30 report story came out. He put petrol on this firestorm of controversy for us, when if he'd bothered to look at and state the facts it would actually have shown that we did in fact inform the AFL of the relationship. We then did a meticulous internal review and it was the club doctor who lied to us (I guess they'll fine us another $500k for employee acting without approval and lying). The 7:30 report also made references (while naming players) to 5 substances that we did not use and the one that we did was not banned.

This article also answers my earlier question of whether Trenners could find himself in trouble for using this cream, the answer is no.

So to review:

- we informed the AFL of the relationship as soon as we knew and terminated it immediately

- we (and certain players) have been associated with substances that we did not use

- as far as anyone can see, the doctor and Dank (who clearly leaked the info the ABC) were the only ones with any knowledge of this cream and it was not illegal at the time of use so there can be no retrospective action on Trenners. Bates did not inform the club during its review and he has stood down

- Demetriou instead of taking a breath and contacting Melbourne before going on the radio post 7:30 spoke extremely heavy handed about us and chose not to reveal that we had in fact told the AFL about communications with Dank. Now who's the liar Andy?

Demons insiders say the February disclosures show the club did not set out to mislead the AFL, as has been widely reported. But the insiders acknowledge that Dr Bates did not disclose to the Thurin review that after he had discussions with Mr Dank last December he told co-captain Trengove to apply a cream to his foot injury. The cream contained the anti-obesity drug, AOD9604. the cream is legal. nothing to see here.

The AFL is furious that it only recently learnt that this drug was used and officials also suspect that Melbourne staff outside of Dr Bates may not have been forthcoming with the league about Mr Dank’s activities. The AFL clearly has no idea.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-find-bill-for-banned-drug-20130426-2ikou.html#ixzz2RaF087l3

I don't think your right about that - AOD-9604 was not OK for Trengove to use regardless of whether it was a cream or injected. It was a drug not approved for human use and therefore automatically prohibited for use.

If the article is true and we met with the AFL and divulged the clubs relationship to Dank then the AFL has severely misrepresented this over the last week and our club needs to be vocal about taking issue with this publicly. The AFL has intimated we told them we had no dealing with Dank whatsoever whereas this is simply not true - we told them basically everthing except for the fact he recommended a cream for Trengove's foot which had the prohibited substance, something the club alleges Bates failed to reveal to them when queried. I find it far more plausible Bates either hid this knowledge or flat out failed to realise it may be an issue than he simply misled the club altogether about his relationship with Danks yet the AFL (and their lap dogs in the media) have made out we covered up and lied about any relationship. It is a disgrace and I would expect nothing less than McLardy coming out to publicly state so and demand the AFL publicly clarify this.

AHHHHH!

Could it be?

We're not liars, Demetriou is a hyperbole-driven reactionary fool, and the club has behaved appropriately at every step, with the exception of what may be a non-issue/non-violation mistake by the club doctor in recommending a cream treatment to a player?

Well gosh darn it, things are look'n up!

[touches wood frantically] (not a euphemism)

People should read up about Operation Puerto which was an investigation into doping, which implicated a huge number of cyclists in a far worse manner than a bit of cream for a foot. And I am almost certain no direct sanctions came from that.

There were a large number of sanctions - Sevilla, Ulrich and Basso (e.g.) were sanctioned for a couple of years for their involvement. It was for blood doping.

The main reason why there were fewer prosecutions is simply because in Spain, where all this took place, blood-doping wasn't illegal at the time (2006) - in fact, Spanish regulations and attitudes in regards to doping in sport lagged well behind other European countries. There has recently been a court case against the main protagonist (Dr. Fuentes), but it's for "endangering public health" which is about all they could get him on.

Hard to see any parallels there, and in any case, the laws are now much more stringent.

Age report interesting.

Perhaps the Board and Admin did everything they should have and could have. Perhaps we don't have to sack everyone and go into administration after all.

I don't think your right about that - AOD-9604 was not OK for Trengove to use regardless of whether it was a cream or injected. It was a drug not approved for human use and therefore automatically prohibited for use.

.

If he was told to buy the cream from a chemist would that not indicate a high probability it was approved for human use?

I must have been educated in a parallel universe to that of some of these modern day lawyers and doctors. Reading Samantha Lane's report in today's Age Scientist set to sue Demetriou, I can't help but feel more than somewhat bemused by the language used by Stephen Dank's lawyer about his client's intentions to sue the pants off anyone in sight in the current drug scandal.

The lawyer who asked not to be named (what lawyer would pass up the opportunity for some free publicity?) said:

''We propose to bring a defamation action against Andrew Demetriou on the grounds of him denigrating Mr Dank, and accusing him of all sorts of things he didn't do. That will definitely be going ahead."

Fair dinkum, lawyers don't even talk like that in John Grisham and Michael Connolly novels! Now, I'm not suggesting this bloke got his law degree from a Corn Flakes packet but I doubt that Vlad is exactly quaking in his boots this morning.

The other interesting piece of news is contained in revelations that Melbourne was more up front with the AFL over Dank than we had previously been led to believe Dealing with Dank. It changes the level of some of the comments made about the club, affects the impact of governance concerns (but won't deter the critics) and doesn't really change the issue of the responsibility of those in charge of the running of the club. it's not inconceivable this all this is connected with the team's dismal performances given that many of the players were going about their business knowing that publicly, at least, their club was "living a lie" about the Danks situation.

In practical terms, the revelations of the past few days mean that, on the face of it, the club should not face AFL sanctions but captain Jack Trengove might be in trouble over his possible use of AOD9604 in cream form although, as the report states, "any such prosecution would face serious legal hurdles."

What intrigues me about that is the alleged letter of comfort Dank supposedly had from ASADA about the status of AOD9604. I've read that both Essendon's people and Bates were told of the letter but neither has a copy. This suggests at the least, gross incompetence on their behalves. In this day and age where it's so simple to request a copy via SMS or email, you would think it standard practice on the part of a medical practitioner dealing with supplements such as these to insist on having a copy on his file before sending the patient out to purchase and use the cream.

If, as some have suggested, the letter never existed then, apart from being naieve in the extreme in accepting Dank's word for it, then it could be more than negligence on the part of the doctor. It might well be argued that Bates, and by extension his patient Trengove, were victims of a fraud.

Given that players do have an out on the basis of a WADA principle of "no fault or negligence", based on athletes proving they did not know what they were being given by sports scientists or doctors, the possible element of fraud should get Jack Trengove off any possible charges. On the other hand, if the ASADA letter did exist, then he must get off the hook anyway as a victim of ASADA's negligence.

So if Dank's lawyers want to prove that their client is of good character and his reputation is one which is worthy of being upheld by our legal system, one thing they could do to assist in proving it would be to produce the goods - in this case, the letter.

Do we actually know if any MFC player took anything?

As to JT my recollection is that the discussion was based around a cream, for his foot, not something ingested, does that make a difference?

Who is the player the Herald sun are accusing, had links with Dank but not from the Bombers,just recently injured, we have only 2 players injured on our list, Clark and Dawes, maybe theres another club linked to Dank.

Really disappointed we are wrapped up in this and even more so for Trenners. As an individual you have the utmost faith in the physio's, sports scientists and doctors around you but the responsibility falls to the individual athletes on what they "use". Atheletes have such a slippery slope to walk getting the best out of themselves, making sure each and every time they compete they are going to be at there peak but how can you maintain that over a 20+ round AFL season without "supplements".

I hope Trenners and the club are cleared of any wrong doing. Unfortunately as it appears it is one of the same drugs tied up with the Essendon players that will much reduce my enjoyment of them getting reamed.....