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

Update/summary in the Age, which includes:

"A senior official at the club agrees that Bates' conduct is serious, but says that Demons officials are furious that the AFL has not publicly acknowledged that in February the club did pass on details to McLachlan about Dank's links to Bates and Thurin's planned review.

Club insiders say that the AFL never requested a copy of this review and did not send an investigator to interview Bates until the day after 7.30 aired. That same day, Bates stood down from the club.

Says the senior official: ''We are a football club, not an investigation agency. The AFL and the government have all the powers to do in-depth investigations and they keep saying that they know more than everybody else. To say that the club as a whole tried to cover anything up or mislead the AFL is a joke.''

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

Update/summary in the Age, which includes:

"A senior official at the club agrees that Bates' conduct is serious, but says that Demons officials are furious that the AFL has not publicly acknowledged that in February the club did pass on details to McLachlan about Dank's links to Bates and Thurin's planned review.

Club insiders say that the AFL never requested a copy of this review and did not send an investigator to interview Bates until the day after 7.30 aired. That same day, Bates stood down from the club.

Says the senior official: ''We are a football club, not an investigation agency. The AFL and the government have all the powers to do in-depth investigations and they keep saying that they know more than everybody else. To say that the club as a whole tried to cover anything up or mislead the AFL is a joke.''

Good to see the club putting the heat back on the AFL. For Demetriou to tell CW he was 'furious' about MFC not revealing all it knew is disgraceful, and clearly an attempt to put the AFL in the clear when they should not have been blindsided by Four Corners. Someone was not paying attention. Caro of course could not think independently or pose any queries - she'd just swallow and regurge like always. The AFL's head girl and snitch.

But the club looks to be in the clear. Bates looks to be sunk and certainly it's hard to see the club trusting him again. JT? who knows? I'm in the camp that says we don't know if he acquired the cream, and if he did, whether he used it.

From the same Age article :

" 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"

I'm wondering exactly how confidential this AFL record was?

are you saying JT didn't query the doctor?

and what would you do if having queried the doctor and been told it was not on the wada banned list?

are you really suggesting that in every case the player should then contact asada?

do you know how many sportsmen in the country come under the wada code? Can you imagine them only being satisfied by going to asada every time?

I don't make the rules, I am only explaining to you what the former head of ASADA stated and what the WADA code states.

Actually there can be very little difference between trans cutaneous administration and injection. The time course will be different and the drug must usually be made fat soluble. The fact that is a cream makes no difference at all.

I meant it more in that Trengove's appears to have been a one off whereas Essendon's (possibly our) supplement program was systematic.

I don't make the rules, I am only explaining to you what the former head of ASADA stated and what the WADA code states.

i heard his interview on radio. he talked generally and he refused to comment directly on current cases

I'm well aware what he said. What he didn't say was what an appalling record wada has had in combatting drug abuse and how desperate they are for scalps no matter what.

Look, i'm not suggesting JT is not in a difficult situation, just trying to explore all avenues. These things are never as black and white as some spokesmen would try and paint them

Also at the end of the data wada/asada/acc/afl have to work within the framework of justice and the law, not just their own rules

It is interesting for example that a poster pointed out that the ACC web site listed aod as a non-banned substance at the time

Good to see the club putting the heat back on the AFL. For Demetriou to tell CW he was 'furious' about MFC not revealing all it knew is disgraceful, and clearly an attempt to put the AFL in the clear when they should not have been blindsided by Four Corners. Someone was not paying attention. Caro of course could not think independently or pose any queries - she'd just swallow and regurge like always. The AFL's head girl and snitch.

But the club looks to be in the clear. Bates looks to be sunk and certainly it's hard to see the club trusting him again. JT? who knows? I'm in the camp that says we don't know if he acquired the cream, and if he did, whether he used it.

"........Says the senior official: ''We are a football club, not an investigation agency. The AFL and the government have all the powers to do in-depth investigations and they keep saying that they know more than everybody else. To say that the club as a whole tried to cover anything up or mislead the AFL is a joke.' "

Are you referring to this 'reported' quote Pit re us putting the heat back on the AFL?? I hope not. If so, and IF this reported response is anywhere near the truth and the source accurately quoted (and i'm not assuming they are) then IMO it's a pretty PW effort to defend the Club. If we did fully disclose the nature of the relationship with Bates/Dank back in the Feb meeting then Don, the Board/MFC should be asking for a full and unequivocal retraction from the AFL/The Age or take them both to court for defamation.

If the club can't stand up for itself in the face of what appears, at this point, is clearly a series of misleading statements by CW/The Age and AD then what does it stand for and represent? And if this isn't the case and we didn't fully disclose when we had the chance then they will be seen to be just as inept. If the present Board/President can't defend the club under this scenario then it/him should be replaced ASAP with a ticket/people/president that are willing to.

I meant it more in that Trengove's appears to have been a one off whereas Essendon's (possibly our) supplement program was systematic.

I don't understand your comment re systematic

A supplement program being systematic is not an offence

A supplement program in itself is not an offence

All clubs have some form of systematic supplement program

The only issue is whether the supplement program contained banned substances and who participated and the circumstances

I don't understand your comment re systematic

A supplement program being systematic is not an offence

A supplement program in itself is not an offence

All clubs have some form of systematic supplement program

The only issue is whether the supplement program contained banned substances and who participated and the circumstances

Well clearly I meant their supplement program re: the use of prohibited substances was more systematic whereas JT's alleged use of the cream containing AOD-9604 looks like a one-off.

"........Says the senior official: ''We are a football club, not an investigation agency. The AFL and the government have all the powers to do in-depth investigations and they keep saying that they know more than everybody else. To say that the club as a whole tried to cover anything up or mislead the AFL is a joke.' "

Are you referring to this 'reported' quote Pit re us putting the heat back on the AFL?? I hope not. If so, and IF this reported response is anywhere near the truth and the source accurately quoted (and i'm not assuming they are) then IMO it's a pretty PW effort to defend the Club. If we did fully disclose the nature of the relationship with Bates/Dank back in the Feb meeting then Don, the Board/MFC should be asking for a full and unequivocal retraction from the AFL/The Age or take them both to court for defamation.

If the club can't stand up for itself in the face of what appears, at this point, is clearly a series of misleading statements by CW/The Age and AD then what does it stand for and represent? And if this isn't the case and we didn't fully disclose when we had the chance then they will be seen to be just as inept. If the present Board/President can't defend the club under this scenario then it/him should be replaced ASAP with a ticket/people/president that are willing to.

I don't know what you've been reading but the club has mentioned everything in the article a while ago:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-18/response-to-730-report

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-19/club-statement-friday-19-april

I respect the club's quiet approach when it comes to the media. It worked during the tanking inquisition.

The verdict still isnt clear re Trengrove - dont you think its smart not to bashing the AFL over something petty such as miss-quoted statements and clearly a breakdown in communication between AD and GM compared to protecting and ensuring a good outcome for Jack and the club?

Priorities.

i have to admit i'm confused by this whole scenario and agree with WJ that there must be alot more to this story.

I also now agree with Redleg who counselled caution before calling fro scalps and i have to admit i am guilty of going off half cocked in declaring a breakdown in governance and calling for head's to roll (though in my defence in the absence of denials from the club i was assuming AD was being truthful in his assertions the MFC had lied to the AFL about our involvement with Dank - perhaps he was being disingenuous and was referring to us not advising them about AO cream?).

Who knows what is what and i'm not going to make the same mistake twice but if the latest articles are to be believed it appears we were made full admissions to the AFL about Dank (again assuming it to correct we didn't know about the cream, which is plausible).

Again if the article is to be believed we did a thorough review of our supplement program which included information on the connection to Dank. If this is the case there has been no breakdown in governance.

RR you are correct that the club is responsible for the actions of Bates in terms of him not fessing up to the use of a potentially banned substance but this does represent a break down in governance (a company whilst responsible for the actions of its employees can't stop them doing stupid things - only try and minimise the chances of doing them in the fist instance, respond appropriately when they do and mitigate against risks).

But where does this leave the club statement that said we had no direct contact with Dank, never employed him and that at the least implied we had no connection to him whatsoever? Not quite a lie but certainly not transparent and poor form. I noted in another thread a couple of weeks back that i was concerned about our media management (eg putting the DeeTv with Mat Burgan and JW where he bemoans the lack of leadership up on the website) and this is just another example. Who is responsible for media management? The CEO and i suspect this will have been a factor in the boards decsion to axe CS.

I'm still confused though. Why have the club not come out yet with specific rebuttals to ADs comments?

I don't know what you've been reading but the club has mentioned everything in the article a while ago:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-18/response-to-730-report

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-19/club-statement-friday-19-april

I respect the club's quiet approach when it comes to the media. It worked during the tanking inquisition.

The verdict still isnt clear re Trengrove - dont you think its smart not to bashing the AFL over something petty such as miss-quoted statements and clearly a breakdown in communication between AD and GM compared to protecting and ensuring a good outcome for Jack and the club?

Priorities.

I'm not so sure it did. We were fined $500,000 for not tanking. You call that working?

Yes i have read those 2 statements like most on here, but at no stage does the club refute or address the slur/slander that AD has committed against this club, either in writing or in any other media release/statement or interview that i'm aware of. Weak response, weak leadership.

...."Demetriou said in a radio interview that Melbourne would be in breach of league rules if the club had lied to his officials about Dank.

''If there was an association [between Dank and Bates], regardless of whether there has been an employment agreement, I think that would have been relevant to our briefings,'' said Demetriou. ''This issue of ethics and trust in our code is something that you can't play ping-pong with.''

Priorities!!? Slander and Defamation should always be defended re the Club as a whole. If you aren't willing to defend the club in such circumstances at this level you may as well give the game away and head to the VFL or an amatear league. The official response/line from the club is that we've done all the right things governance wise with regard to the club doctor and supplement administration/procedures at the time. We reported it to the AFL in good faith in Feb (full disclosure). It appears we may have become aware of Dank's involvement with Trengove (as a minimum) via Bates with at worst a possible administration of an OTC anti obesity cream that purportedly contained traces of AOD964 post the Feb disclosure (courtesy of Dank & the 7.30 report). If there is a JT issue, then i agree with you, it is an accusation which must be handled with due care and the utmost dilligence and urgency.

But with regard to defamation of the club itself...... in my eyes the Club is always bigger than any individual player. It should be defended varaciously in the press by at least one representative/spokesperson of the club. Yet we have an invisible Board that only issues the odd written statement that mentions nothing about the AD accusations/inferences.

Where is our spokesperson/defender PJ? Where is our Smorgan, Kennett, Evans, McGuire?? Where is Don McLardy??

Where is our spokesperson/defender PJ? Where is our Smorgan, Kennett, Evans, McGuire?? Where is Don McLardy??

It's all good to stand up for the club etc, but which of Smorgan, Kennett, Evans and McGuire has actually called AD a liar in public?

At the very least we'd have to accuse him of incompetently shooting his mouth off without checking the facts within the AFL. Anyone done that recently, even from a club with lots of dosh and no need for any favours form the AFL?

I'm not so sure it did. We were fined $500,000 for not tanking. You call that working?

Yes i have read those 2 statements like most on here, but at no stage does the club refute or address the slur/slander that AD has committed against this club, either in writing or in any other media release/statement or interview that i'm aware of. Weak response, weak leadership.

...."Demetriou said in a radio interview that Melbourne would be in breach of league rules if the club had lied to his officials about Dank.

''If there was an association [between Dank and Bates], regardless of whether there has been an employment agreement, I think that would have been relevant to our briefings,'' said Demetriou. ''This issue of ethics and trust in our code … is something that you can't play ping-pong with.''

Priorities!!? Slander and Defamation should always be defended re the Club as a whole. If you aren't willing to defend the club in such circumstances at this level you may as well give the game away and head to the VFL or an amatear league. The official response/line from the club is that we've done all the right things governance wise with regard to the club doctor and supplement administration/procedures at the time. We reported it to the AFL in good faith in Feb (full disclosure). It appears we may have become aware of Dank's involvement with Trengove (as a minimum) via Bates with at worst a possible administration of an OTC anti obesity cream that purportedly contained traces of AOD964 post the Feb disclosure (courtesy of Dank & the 7.30 report). If there is a JT issue, then i agree with you, it is an accusation which must be handled with due care and the utmost dilligence and urgency.

But with regard to defamation of the club itself...... in my eyes the Club is always bigger than any individual player. It should be defended varaciously in the press by at least one representative/spokesperson of the club. Yet we have an invisible Board that only issues the odd written statement that mentions nothing about the AD accusations/inferences.

Where is our spokesperson/defender PJ? Where is our Smorgan, Kennett, Evans, McGuire?? Where is Don McLardy??

Sigh,

RE tanking:

We didnt loose our draft picks

The club was found not guilty

DB and CC charged under disrepute

$500,000 fine - or roll the dice in court which will cost the same

During this whole time we held a consistent view, led the media do their work, didnt add any fuel to the fire and came out with a pretty aggressive statement to CW.

Yep, it worked out.

---

Every club gets defamed. Look at North and Caro, look at Eddie and Caro, look at us and Caro.

The difference is that this time its the AFL not Caro (dont bite the hand that feeds you)

All im saying is that its in the best interests for the club to keep continuing with its quiet media front, until the Jack and Bate issue is resolved.

They have said all they need to, and to the right people.

The right people know the truth and to me thats all I care about. If you want to go chasing defamation cases by all me go for it. But its pretty petty, the club doesnt have any money, and why burn a bridge with the AFL/risk Jack's outcome.

Priorities.

It doesn't sound like a game of poker to me either but there surely is more to it than meets the eye.

We were accused of something last week which might have ranged from being as serious as outright lying to the AFL ranging all the way to accepting as true the word of an employee who wasn't quite frank enough on what is albeit a serious matter. We hear nothing from the club even when we appear to have been vindicated.

Seems to me that the AFL currently has our board bound and gagged as well as manacled pending the arrival next week of Peter Jackson.

There's an interesting back story here.

I think you are right, WJ. There certainly is an interesting story here. What are the odds that Cameron Schwab is currently writing up his memoirs, to be published in a couple of years or so? 'Tanks for the Memories', perhaps? That would be an interesting read ...

It's all good to stand up for the club etc, but which of Smorgan, Kennett, Evans and McGuire has actually called AD a liar in public?

At the very least we'd have to accuse him of incompetently shooting his mouth off without checking the facts within the AFL. Anyone done that recently, even from a club with lots of dosh and no need for any favours form the AFL?

No need to state "He's a liar". Just come out and publicly refute that which was said against us....publicly. And at least ask privately behind the scenes for a public retraction from AD regarding his line that we didn't fess up when we had the chance. Something may have happened behind the scenes at Board/Office unofficial levels. But to keep it internal if it has, again to me is a sign of weak leadership. Stand up for the club and communicate with your supporter base. What else are you there for otherwise?

Weak response publicly on this issue so far = poor communication/ weak leadership

Sigh,

RE tanking:

We didnt loose our draft picks

The club was found not guilty

DB and CC charged under disrepute

$500,000 fine - or roll the dice in court which will cost the same

During this whole time we held a consistent view, led the media do their work, didnt add any fuel to the fire and came out with a pretty aggressive statement to CW.

Yep, it worked out.

---

Every club gets defamed. Look at North and Caro, look at Eddie and Caro, look at us and Caro.

The difference is that this time its the AFL not Caro (dont bite the hand that feeds you)

All im saying is that its in the best interests for the club to keep continuing with its quiet media front, until the Jack and Bate issue is resolved.

They have said all they need to, and to the right people.

The right people know the truth and to me thats all I care about. If you want to go chasing defamation cases by all me go for it. But its pretty petty, the club doesnt have any money, and why burn a bridge with the AFL/risk Jack's outcome.

Priorities.

Yes and other clubs such as North (JB) have threatened Caro with defamation action and asked her to withdraw. At least publicly

Not every club gets slandered by the chief like we have that i'm aware of, so there's no prior example to which you refer. Good try though.

Sigh,

RE tanking:

We didnt loose our draft picks

The club was found not guilty

DB and CC charged under disrepute

$500,000 fine - or roll the dice in court which will cost the same

During this whole time we held a consistent view, led the media do their work, didnt add any fuel to the fire and came out with a pretty aggressive statement to CW.

Yep, it worked out.

---

Every club gets defamed. Look at North and Caro, look at Eddie and Caro, look at us and Caro.

The difference is that this time its the AFL not Caro (dont bite the hand that feeds you)

All im saying is that its in the best interests for the club to keep continuing with its quiet media front, until the Jack and Bate issue is resolved.

They have said all they need to, and to the right people.

The right people know the truth and to me thats all I care about. If you want to go chasing defamation cases by all me go for it. But its pretty petty, the club doesnt have any money, and why burn a bridge with the AFL/risk Jack's outcome.

Priorities.

Sorry P.J.....I like your posts....but the same could be said of the Roman Empire.....The third Reich....Jeez don't rock the boat they can do all sorts of things to us......The AFL exist because of the clubs and for the clubs.....They are not a dictatorship.....They are needed to guard against self interested clubs..and make decisions for ALL clubs,fairly or should be.....

Yes and other clubs such as North (JB) have threatened Caro with defamation action and asked her to withdraw. At least publicly

Not every club gets slandered by the chief like we have that i'm aware of, so there's no prior example to which you refer. Good try though.

All bark and no bite.

If North sue Caroline Wilson for defamation ill eat my shirt.

Otherwise I'm content with being quiet, the right people knowing what we said to Gill and ensuring we get a good outcome for Jack... not being loud, and threatening to sue over something pretty minor

Priorities.

Sorry P.J.....I like your posts....but the same could be said of the Roman Empire.....The third Reich....Jeez don't rock the boat they can do all sorts of things to us......The AFL exist because of the clubs and for the clubs.....They are not a dictatorship.....They are needed to guard against self interested clubs..and make decisions for ALL clubs,fairly or should be.....

Thanks bossdog, unfortunately for me I see them as a dictatorship because of the bringing the game into disrepute rule.

With Jack in the spot light with the AFL running around like idiots, I just think its best to keep our heads down, and let a petty issue with AD blow over. Gill knows our original statement, AD now knows our original statement, and thanks to the recent article everyone knows our original statement.

Not worth suing! Its nothing like the Misfud/Davey/Neeld issue, or the Caro saying we tanked issue.

Got to prioritise Jack and this drug issue over something not worth suing.

And get rid of this bringing the game into disrepute rule...

Again if the article is to be believed we did a thorough review of our supplement program which included information on the connection to Dank. If this is the case there has been no breakdown in governance.

RR you are correct that the club is responsible for the actions of Bates in terms of him not fessing up to the use of a potentially banned substance but this does represent a break down in governance (a company whilst responsible for the actions of its employees can't stop them doing stupid things - only try and minimise the chances of doing them in the fist instance, respond appropriately when they do and mitigate against risks).

But where does this leave the club statement that said we had no direct contact with Dank, never employed him and that at the least implied we had no connection to him whatsoever? Not quite a lie but certainly not transparent and poor form.

Binman, it was all too little too late. We clearly did not do a through review as we clearly did not have an awareness of a rogue operator. The fact that it was necessary to undertake the review reeks that we did not have the appropriate line of sight over the management of player welfare. Its also highly embarrassing that the article refers to a conversation between McLachlan and Schwab where McLachlan brings to light activities at the Club that Schwab was not aware of. And Schwab was re appointed for a further term by the current Board.

Its the same as a bank not having proper oversight of a rogue trader on the dealing desk. Its not good enough for the Board to say we did not know.

Not only does it show lack of transparency and poor form in the disclosures by the Club to the AFL there is a bigger issue.

The fact that a cloud hangs over the legality of a substance concerning our co captain is an absolute disaster whatever the outcome. Player welfare is the most important aspect of the Club and should core to building a successful club.

We were slipshod in the oversight of player welfare. Already the good doctor is trouble. Its to be established that he acted on his own.

It's all good to stand up for the club etc, but which of Smorgan, Kennett, Evans and McGuire has actually called AD a liar in public?

At the very least we'd have to accuse him of incompetently shooting his mouth off without checking the facts within the AFL. Anyone done that recently, even from a club with lots of dosh and no need for any favours form the AFL?

Sue, you rightly point to the issue of key stakeholder management.

This clubs performance with the tanking and now the drugs issue creating a 2nd AFL enquiry just destroys the hand that readily feeds us.

And the way this year is going, the ability to derive a FY profit based on FH donations is looking out the window.

All bark and no bite.

If North sue Caroline Wilson for defamation ill eat my shirt.

Otherwise I'm content with being quiet, the right people knowing what we said to Gill and ensuring we get a good outcome for Jack... not being loud, and threatening to sue over something pretty minor.

Priorities.

Nup. You obviously prefer to lay down and die on your knees mate.

Not my style. At least North/Brayshaw stood up for their club and had the courage to publicly call her down.....

If you allow a bully to keep bullying you that's exactly what he'll keep doing. AFL outcome on tanking looked poorly for us in a public sense. We were obviously bullied into an "AFL preferred" result. We rolled over. Now the AFL is happy to keep bullying us and feels it can say what it wants as long as it suits its own agenda and looks good in the media. Hence the AD accusations on the Dank/Bates issue. Keep lying down and they'll just keep hammering us publicly. And without anyone at the club publicly refuting it.....we look and are weak as. Bad for PR. Bad for the club's look. Can't be good for existing sponsor renewal negotiations and new acquisitions either. Who would want to join a club who doesn't stand up for itself? Hate to be on the front line of the membership drive atm. Hats off to the volunteers! Should be given medals of honor for every 50 new members signed!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/brad-scott-irate-over-vendetta-against-james-brayshaw/story-e6frf9m6-1226628655034

Nup. You obviously prefer to lay down and die on your knees mate.

Not my style. At least North/Brayshaw stood up for their club and had the courage to publicly call her down.....

If you allow a bully to keep bullying you that's exactly what he'll keep doing. AFL outcome on tanking looked poorly for us in a public sense. We were obviously bullied into an "AFL preferred" result. We rolled over. Now the AFL is happy to keep bullying us and feels it can say what it wants as long as it suits its own agenda and looks good in the media. Hence the AD accusations on the Dank/Bates issue. Keep lying down and they'll just keep hammering us publicly. And without anyone at the club publicly refuting it.....we look and are weak as. Bad for PR. Bad for the club's look. Can't be good for existing sponsor renewal negotiations and new acquisitions either. Who would want to join a club who doesn't stand up for itself? Hate to be on the front line of the membership drive atm. Hats off to the volunteers! Should be given medals of honor for every 50 new members signed!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/brad-scott-irate-over-vendetta-against-james-brayshaw/story-e6frf9m6-1226628655034

Youre moulding two issues here (defamation from AD and defamation from CW) into the one issue.

In regards to CW, Don gave a good, aggressive, statement in regards to an article or hers and dropped the Age as our sponsor (can someone also confirm this?)

In regards to AD:

• His statements werent worthy of suing as they are non-defamatory (would get thrown out of court as they could argue a break down of communication between Gill and Andrew so to his knowledge we mislead them + argue that no actual damage [ie, loss of sponsor/business])
• When the AFL is investigating your club, and one of its captains for drugs - regarless of how good our case is - its good business practice to remain consistant with our no comments to the media, and a few press releases (which we have done)
• We have no money to sue
• At the end of the day, the right people, like you, me, supporters, and the AFL (particulary Gill and now AD) know what we told the

North has had a serious issue with Caro for a long time now. Her claims, that they have been taking drugs, are defamitory.

AD's claims that we werent transperant with him in regards to our original statment arent. Its small, petty and not worth kicking up a stink over - pick your battles.

Priorities:

Jack/Bate/Drugs > a small non-defamatory comment by AD

Ps, Just because I dont share your view, and I pick my fights doesnt mean I'm a push over. I'm a beligerant and the last person who lie down and lie on my knees

EDIT: the ps and dot points

Youre moulding two issues here (defamation from AD and defamation from CW) into the one issue.

In regards to CW, Don gave a good, aggressive, statement in regards to an article or hers and dropped the Age as our sponsor (can someone also confirm this?)

In regards to AD:

• His statements werent worthy of suing as they are non-defamatory (would get thrown out of court as they could argue a break down of communication between Gill and Andrew so to his knowledge we mislead them + argue that no actual damage [ie, loss of sponsor/business])
• When the AFL is investigating your club, and one of its captains for drugs - regarless of how good our case is - its good business practice to remain consistant with our no comments to the media, and a few press releases (which we have done)
• We have no money to sue
• At the end of the day, the right people, like you, me, supporters, and the AFL (particulary Gill and now AD) know what we told the

North has had a serious issue with Caro for a long time now. Her claims, that they have been taking drugs, are defamitory.

AD's claims that we werent transperant with him in regards to our original statment arent. Its small, petty and not worth kicking up a stink over - pick your battles.

Priorities:

Jack/Bate/Drugs > a small non-defamatory comment by AD

Ps, Just because I dont share your view, and I pick my fights doesnt mean I'm a push over. I'm a beligerant and the last person who lie down and lie on my knees

EDIT: the ps and dot points

Where did DM issue this "good aggressive statement" PJ? From behind the club secretary or media liaison officer again? There's no confusion in putting the 2 issues into my argument...only your understanding of it! It involves this club's willingness to stand up and refute matters that should be defended and doing so visibly rather than issuing "statements" that skirt around claims of lying and deceipt. If you think such claims from the head of the AFL arent damaging to the perception and off field marketing of the club then you're sadly deluded.

The willingness and ability of anyone to stand up and communicate/represent the club and defend it publicly or even just give it a public face/spokesperson that will be listened and taken note of is non existent.

The fact that you are unsure as to whether we took any action on The Age sponsorship or not is just another indicator of poor communication/weak leadership on offer atm.

If you truly stand for your club you have to get on the front foot go public (live interviews or press conferences) and defend/promote and communicate what the club is about and that the Captain is well and truly in charge. Under the present President and board we appear weak, easily led and rudderless IMO.

i have to admit i'm confused by this whole scenario and agree with WJ that there must be alot more to this story.

I also now agree with Redleg who counselled caution before calling fro scalps and i have to admit i am guilty of going off half cocked in declaring a breakdown in governance and calling for head's to roll (though in my defence in the absence of denials from the club i was assuming AD was being truthful in his assertions the MFC had lied to the AFL about our involvement with Dank - perhaps he was being disingenuous and was referring to us not advising them about AO cream?).

Who knows what is what and i'm not going to make the same mistake twice but if the latest articles are to be believed it appears we were made full admissions to the AFL about Dank (again assuming it to correct we didn't know about the cream, which is plausible).

Again if the article is to be believed we did a thorough review of our supplement program which included information on the connection to Dank. If this is the case there has been no breakdown in governance.

RR you are correct that the club is responsible for the actions of Bates in terms of him not fessing up to the use of a potentially banned substance but this does represent a break down in governance (a company whilst responsible for the actions of its employees can't stop them doing stupid things - only try and minimise the chances of doing them in the fist instance, respond appropriately when they do and mitigate against risks).

But where does this leave the club statement that said we had no direct contact with Dank, never employed him and that at the least implied we had no connection to him whatsoever? Not quite a lie but certainly not transparent and poor form. I noted in another thread a couple of weeks back that i was concerned about our media management (eg putting the DeeTv with Mat Burgan and JW where he bemoans the lack of leadership up on the website) and this is just another example. Who is responsible for media management? The CEO and i suspect this will have been a factor in the boards decsion to axe CS.

I'm still confused though. Why have the club not come out yet with specific rebuttals to ADs comments?

Binman, the whole situations stinks. It is difficult to make head or tail of it when the information we are getting is so compromised.

I think the "poker" idea is fanciful. This from a Board who fired the CEO for "dividing the supporter base" and whose president came out last year bemoaning poor performance and having no idea why it was happening. The poker theory stretches credulity to its breaking point.

I reckon that the media fuss after 7.30 made Andy D look bad and he responded by sounding threatening. He had left the media releases up to us in the first instance and we misled everyone and it made us and him look stupid (again). Now, out of frustration at the AFL not backing us up, the MFC has leaked to the Age to try and "right the ship" in the media without directly taking AD on. This further annoys him but he leaves it - he knows that the board is on a clock and time will take care of his problem.

Which is more credible - that Don is the greatest poker player ever or that both our media strategy and AFL relations are in the toilet?