On 26/04/2013 at 15:25, biggestred said:

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.

what's your basis for saying the cream is legal?

I certainly hope so

  On 26/04/2013 at 21:50, Whispering_Jack said:

... 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.

I wonder if you're actually on to something there Jack?

  Quote

When the players arrived at the Gladstone Park Medical Clinic to be injected by a registered nurse, Dank was waiting in the centre's foyer.

Some players knew that Melbourne was hiding a dark secret about the club's connection with Dank. No doubt they would have discussed it among themselves and no doubt many of them would have felt uneasy about the circumstances. If it were me, I would feel more than somewhat betrayed.

The positive side would have to be the fact that it's now all out in the open and the fact that the club was not as secretive with the AFL as the media initially painted it could lift a heavy burden off the playing group.

I'm not saying this will suddenly make us a great team but it could well explain our abject mediocrity in the first three rounds of the season. If we get up and win tomorrow, the theory will get a further boost.

  On 26/04/2013 at 21:50, Whispering_Jack said:

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 criticism or wild speculation from some of the commentariat) 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.

Jack, couldn't Essendon bring a court action against dank to force him to produce the document he has claimed he has?

  On 26/04/2013 at 21:09, 71 Molloy said:

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

Good question - I guess it depends on who the "chemist" was. This link suggests it is still not approved so prohibited to take in any form.

http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-statement-on-substance-aod-9604/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-statement-on-substance-aod-9604

  On 26/04/2013 at 16:34, Little Goffy said:

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)

Yep, we just misled the supporters and the media.

Yipee.

  On 26/04/2013 at 22:32, daisycutter said:

Jack, couldn't Essendon bring a court action against dank to force him to produce the document he has claimed he has?

Dank's lawyers are threatening Federal Court action against Essendon and if they do so, there is a process called "discovery" whereby all documents relevant to a case must be identified and if required, produced.

Essendon might also be contemplating legal action against Dank (but when and whether they actually do so will depend on a number of factors and it might not be wise to act too quickly on that score) and would have the same right to discovery.

If the letter does exist and it was in fact issued by ASADA then I see no reason why Dank shouldn't volunteer the document for publication in the media. It wouldn't vindicate him entirely but at least, it would support what he's been telling the world about the legality of the supplements he's been recommending.

From the Age article today on MFC:

1. While the Club may have communicated that there were meeting between Bates and Dank, the Club allegedly still did not know what the extent of the relationship was and what actions/medications were involved with the players. Its still a failure of governance and responsibilities at the Club. Little has changed in this respect

2. Bates faliure of disclosure puts him in more confirmed hot water. IMO he is should be dismissed from the Club regardless of outcome.

3. Its not clear whether the extent of the Bates dealings with Danks were known by others at the Club. This is still to be established. If there are indeed communicatoins between Bate and other members of the FD about this and this has not be disclosed by other FD members then they are in some trouble as well

4. If Bates integrity rest on an alleged letter held by Danks about the legality of the drug then he has failed professional due care IMO. He should have been either aware of ASADA's standing or sought direct confirmation from ASADA itself.....period.

5. Through all this we have had the reputation of players tarnished and we have one player Trengove with the rtainty of ASADA action and banning for up to 2 years from the game. Its a disgrace Trengove has been placed in such a diabolical position by the processes of the Club.

And the other question is throughout the tanking and the danking who are the parties that are continually leaking to the press. The flow of material from the Club over the past 24 months has been amazing.

  On 26/04/2013 at 22:53, Rhino Richards said:

From the Age article today on MFC:

1. While the Club may have communicated that there were meeting between Bates and Dank, the Club allegedly still did not know what the extent of the relationship was and what actions/medications were involved with the players. Its still a failure of governance and responsibilities at the Club. Little has changed in this respect

2. Bates faliure of disclosure puts him in more confirmed hot water. IMO he is should be dismissed from the Club regardless of outcome.

3. Its not clear whether the extent of the Bates dealings with Danks were known by others at the Club. This is still to be established. If there are indeed communicatoins between Bate and other members of the FD about this and this has not be disclosed by other FD members then they are in some trouble as well

4. If Bates integrity rest on an alleged letter held by Danks about the legality of the drug then he has failed professional due care IMO. He should have been either aware of ASADA's standing or sought direct confirmation from ASADA itself.....period.

5. Through all this we have had the reputation of players tarnished and we have one player Trengove with the rtainty of ASADA action and banning for up to 2 years from the game. Its a disgrace Trengove has been placed in such a diabolical position by the processes of the Club.

And the other question is throughout the tanking and the danking who are the parties that are continually leaking to the press. The flow of material from the Club over the past 24 months has been amazing.

RR reading the "puzzles" piece in the age today I am just gob smacked a journo knows of detailed hand written notes Schwab took during a meeting with the AFL?!

How can this info have found its way into the public domain from our club yet again?! It has to stop!

The Dons have not leaked at all, Danks has been spreading anything relating to there case but not us at Dees HQ.... Details come pouring out, who is it/are they, why can't the Board find them and stop them talking to the press?!

maybe they can be found at the afl?

  On 26/04/2013 at 22:57, Cards13 said:

RR reading the "puzzles" piece in the age today I am just gob smacked a journo knows of detailed hand written notes Schwab took during a meeting with the AFL?!

How can this info have found its way into the public domain from our club yet again?! It has to stop!

The Dons have not leaked at all, Danks has been spreading anything relating to there case but not us at Dees HQ.... Details come pouring out, who is it/are they, why can't the Board find them and stop them talking to the press?!

The other possibility is that the information was leaked by the AFL which would have received those notes from the club. As we saw during the tanking enquiry, there were allegations that the AFL and even the investigators were not averse to leaking information when it suited them.

True but I don't think to that much detail especially in Schwab hand written notes or is McLaughlin a good upside down reader... And the details the media has know about internal conversations re tanking suggest internal leaks. Also why would the AFL only leak Melb related info and not Essendon??

In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html#ixzz2Rc8svdQx

Good news for Trenners if that is correct, especially considering he only used a cream, if he even used it at all.

  On 26/04/2013 at 23:26, hogans_heroes said:

In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html#ixzz2Rc8svdQx

Good news for Trenners if that is correct, especially considering he only used a cream, if he even used it at all.

Perhaps but the article was written before WADA's clarification this week that AOD was banned.

  On 26/04/2013 at 15:56, Pates said:

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.

It has not just been banned as an injectable....it has always been banned as it was never approved in the first place. It is ok as a cream as comes under cosmetic regulations

Demetriou should now be angry at Mclachlan.

As it was Mclachlan who was told about the relationship with Danks by Melbourne officials.

So therefore it was Mclachlan who withheld important information to Demetriou.

Looks like we are in the clear, in the reference to lying and witholding information.

Seems to be just a matter of whether we did anything wrong in administering a cream on Trengoves foot.

This allegation would be easy to defend as nothing was ingested and the drug was only recently banned so its a legal minefield for Wada and the AFL.

  On 26/04/2013 at 23:48, Crackers said:

It has not just been banned as an injectable....it has always been banned as it was never approved in the first place. It is ok as a cream as comes under cosmetic regulations

but isn't that only for the public use, not necessarily for athletes under wada regulations

it does seem to muddy the waters though, because if it is cleared by TGA to be used topically in a cream then doesn't that mean it is ok for human use (as a cream)?

can see lawyers having a field day over this

to summarise, aod is only in the wada (catch-all) banned list because it has not been approved by local regulatory boards (TGA) as "fit for human use"

yet in a cream form it (seems) can be sold by a chemist for "human use"

still confusing to me.....this cream aspect needs more clarification

  On 26/04/2013 at 23:48, Crackers said:

It has not just been banned as an injectable....it has always been banned as it was never approved in the first place. It is ok as a cream as comes under cosmetic regulations

Where does one find these "cosmetic regulations"?

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:01, DeeZee said:

Demetriou should now be angry at Mclachlan.

As it was Mclachlan who was told about the relationship with Danks by Melbourne officials.

So therefore it was Mclachlan who withheld important information to Demetriou.

Looks like we are in the clear, in the reference to lying and witholding information.

Seems to be just a matter of whether we did anything wrong in administering a cream on Trengoves foot.

This allegation would be easy to defend as nothing was ingested and the drug was only recently banned so its a legal minefield for Wada and the AFL.

Sound very much like the AFL has some, well ... um, corporate governance issues. Where's the communication between Vlad and McLaughlin? Probably in the same place as the communication between Vlad and Anderson over tanking.

No matter, such things are only important if we're speculating about unknowns involving one of its constituent clubs.

Can someone please explain to me why the AFL would come out and say we hadn't been forthcoming with information about bates and dank when it looks like we had in february?

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:02, daisycutter said:

but isn't that only for the public use, not necessarily for athletes under wada regulations

it does seem to muddy the waters though, because if it is cleared by TGA to be used topically in a cream then doesn't that mean it is ok for human use (as a cream)?

can see lawyers having a field day over this

to summarise, aod is only in the wada (catch-all) banned list because it has not been approved by local regulatory boards (TGA) as "fit for human use"

yet in a cream form it (seems) can be sold by a chemist for "human use"

still confusing to me.....this cream aspect needs more clarification

It is certainly murky water. As far as I can gether there are 3 categories of drugs;

1. Approved

2. Banned

3, Yet to be approved

If it has not specifically been approved then I would say it is still prohibited for athletes to take whether it is approved for pharmaceutical use or not.

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:14, cowboy_from_hell said:

Can someone please explain to me why the AFL would come out and say we hadn't been forthcoming with information about bates and dank when it looks like we had in february?

de·flec·tion

1. The action or process of deflecting or being deflected.
2. The amount by which something is deflected.

sub·ter·fuge

1. Deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.
2. A statement or action resorted to in order to deceive.

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:14, cowboy_from_hell said:

Can someone please explain to me why the AFL would come out and say we hadn't been forthcoming with information about bates and dank when it looks like we had in february?

This is the major issue for me now (aside from Trengove's potential use of a banned substance obviously) as well as why hasn't McLardy or anyone from the MFC come out to strongly clarify this?

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:35, Dr. Gonzo said:

It is certainly murky water. As far as I can gether there are 3 categories of drugs;

1. Approved

2. Banned

3, Yet to be approved

If it has not specifically been approved then I would say it is still prohibited for athletes to take whether it is approved for pharmaceutical use or not.

can be put another way

1. approved

2. banned

.. a] specifically named

.. b] catch-all - not approved for human use

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:42, daisycutter said:

can be put another way

1. approved

2. banned

.. a] specifically named

.. b] catch-all - not approved for human use

I don't think thats the case though - as far as has been reported if a substance or drug is not specifically "approved" then athletes should not be using it whether it has been approved for human use or not.

  On 27/04/2013 at 00:37, Dr. Gonzo said:

This is the major issue for me now (aside from Trengove's potential use of a banned substance obviously) as well as why hasn't McLardy or anyone from the MFC come out to strongly clarify this?

Its a good point, however I suspect that there are lingering issues from the tanking affair, and with the AFL recommending Peter Jackson as the CEO and doing a review of the footy operations etc... I suspect McLardy is reluctant to take on AD publicly at the moment.

Mind you, we haven't heard anything significant from the AFL since the 7:30 report went to air and the subsequent meeting MFC and the AFL where Bates was stood down. Perhaps someone reminded the AFL of everything that *was* disclosed as well as what wasn't....