If you read the article you might have noticed that it says the "AFL has determined the club did not put the players health at risk and Bates relationship with Dank did not constitute governance failings".

Just out of interest, if Bates was conducting his liaison with Dank completely outside of the MFC and did not inform the club, what more do you think the club could do?

If any employee of an organisation is associating with undesirable characters and doing so in private, what can that organisation do short of invading the privacy of the employee (for which it may be accused of breaches of the law as well as bad governance) to protect itself in those situations?

We dodged a bullet big time Jack. Our association with Dank finished the day of Essendon's presser.

The wheels were moving. Another month later and we would be right up to our neck.

Bate and Dank had the program ready.

Nothing happened because of timing luckily.

We dodged a bullet big time Jack. Our association with Dank finished the day of Essendon's presser.

The wheels were moving. Another month later and we would be right up to our neck.

Bate and Dank had the program ready.

Nothing happened because of timing luckily.

So you know for sure that although nobody in a position to know Bate and Dank were consulting with each other and notwithstanding that MFC had already knocked back Dank, we were going to give him a job at the club.

Sorry, but you're living in fantasyland.

So you know for sure that although nobody in a position to know Bate and Dank were consulting with each other and notwithstanding that MFC had already knocked back Dank, we were going to give him a job at the club.

Sorry, but you're living in fantasyland.

I don't know WJ

However my faith in the management of the MFC during that period does not give me the same confidence as yourself.

The rudder of the good ship MFC was not in good hands.

The rudder of the good ship MFC was not in good hands.

That would be the tiller, old dee, because if it was the rudder we would be under water...oh, wait, on second thoughts...

So you know for sure that although nobody in a position to know Bate and Dank were consulting with each other and notwithstanding that MFC had already knocked back Dank, we were going to give him a job at the club.

Sorry, but you're living in fantasyland.

No. I was shown the text messages sent between Dank and Bate after the 7.30 report story went to air.

The program was very close to rolling big time.

We were very lucky.

No. I was shown the text messages sent between Dank and Bate after the 7.30 report story went to air.

The program was very close to rolling big time.

We were very lucky.

I get it - pre-emptive bad governance.

I know a member of the Board who's a doctor who would never fall for that sort of think. It was never close to rolling anywhere except in Dank's brain. He'd already been told to buzz off.

I get it - pre-emptive bad governance.

I know a member of the Board who's a doctor who would never fall for that sort of think. It was never close to rolling anywhere except in Dank's brain. He'd already been told to buzz off.

The conversations between Dank and Dr Bate ended abruptly the same day as Essendon first fronted the media in Feb 2012.

I doubt the board would have known any of this.

Appointments were made for certain players. Others were to follow.

We were lucky the story broke when it did.

Edited April 4, 201411 yr by why you little

Sigh

If you read the article you might have noticed that it says the "AFL has determined the club did not put the players’ health at risk and Bates’ relationship with Dank did not constitute governance failings".

Just out of interest, if Bates was conducting his liaison with Dank completely outside of the MFC and did not inform the club, what more do you think the club could do?

If any employee of an organisation is associating with undesirable characters and doing so in private, what can that organisation do short of invading the privacy of the employee (for which it may be accused of breaches of the law as well as bad governance) to protect itself in those situations?

No 'Jack' don't agree with you at all on this. If he was associating with Dank and experimenting on his own and only on own body then yes. But as you know when more than one person knows, it's not a secret. If players were involved then then it wasn't a secret, the club would have known or other senior people in the club would have known and should have put a stop to it. I would be very surprised if no one else in the FD at a minimum knew about the connection.

Does this make us like Essendon? no, it wasn't or doesn't appear to have been systematic but it is a further sign of the appalling administration that has taken our club down. It has been a governance problem.

No 'Jack' don't agree with you at all on this. If he was associating with Dank and experimenting on his own and only on own body then yes. But as you know when more than one person knows, it's not a secret. If players were involved then then it wasn't a secret, the club would have known or other senior people in the club would have known and should have put a stop to it. I would be very surprised if no one else in the FD at a minimum knew about the connection.

Does this make us like Essendon? no, it wasn't or doesn't appear to have been systematic but it is a further sign of the appalling administration that has taken our club down. It has been a governance problem.

The problem with that is that these no evidence that Dank saw the players at all but that he and Bate consulted with each other. Hence, there's no connection and that's why the club had no case to answer.

The problem with that is that these no evidence that Dank saw the players at all but that he and Bate consulted with each other. Hence, there's no connection and that's why the club had no case to answer.

correct. He was consulting and it all stopped on that day