On 13/12/2014 at 05:03, Redleg said:

Met some Essendon supporters today, who apparently have contact with the players QC, who has allegedly told them there is no evidence and the players will get off.

I have taken the opposite view, from a position of far less knowledge than him and am not changing my mind.

If I was running the ASADA case, I would open by stating that I will present a large body of evidence (albeit mainly circumstantial) which should prove to the tribunal's comfortable satisfaction that the 34 players ingested a banned substance TB4. I would then make the point that the onus is on the players to provide a plausible alternative as to what occurred at their club in 2011/12 and ask where is the evidence and where are the witnesses? Where are the records of what the players were given? Where are the people who ran the programme, supplied the material billed to the club? Where is the chemist who compounded that material? Where are Dank? Robinson? Charter? Hamilton and Alavi? What steps did the players and their representatives take to ensure their appearance at the tribunal to give evidence to provide a plausible alternative explanation as to the substances with which they were injected? I would ask why, if as they claim they were given vitamins, are all these people so eager to hide what was inherently such an innocent project?

If the best the players' counsel can come up with is that there's no evidence in the absence of Charter and Alavi (incidentally, both have very good reasons why they should not appear - and you can add Dank et al to that), then I suggest he has some homework to do over the weekend. If those friends of yours were referring to our mate David Grace QC, then he should pack some warm clothes for his forthcoming trip to Switzerland.

  On 13/12/2014 at 04:47, Hellfish said:

If your doctor tells you to take a medication you take it.

The same goes here, the club doctor said ok, the fitness staff said all good and the clubs sports scientist said all good. How many more people did they need to ask?

It's the club and it's administration that should burn, not the players.

The only difference between an essendon play and a melbourne player is where they were called out on draft day. Our guys would have done the same thing if our clubs medical and fitness staff told them to take something. Obviously now that would question it, but in 2012 they would have trusted the clubs staff

The problem with this stance is that precedent is against it. Wade Lees imported a banned substance on the recommendation of his club doctor and was banned for two years. He never even took it. They were able to prove that the club doctor told him to take the stuff, but the authorities said it was still up to him to make sure it was safe to take and he should have checked with ASADA before importing it. Same principal applies here. The players have multiple methods available to them to check if the drugs are legal. There's even a mobile phone app. Not one of them thought to double check. It's on them.

  On 13/12/2014 at 05:03, Redleg said:

Met some Essendon supporters today, who apparently have contact with the players QC, who has allegedly told them there is no evidence and the players will get off.

I have taken the oppositie view, from a position of far less knowledge than him and am not changing my mind.

The same QC that said Hird was a monty to win his case?

Opinions. Like bums. Everyone has one.

  On 13/12/2014 at 04:47, Hellfish said:

If your doctor tells you to take a medication you take it.

The same goes here, the club doctor said ok, the fitness staff said all good and the clubs sports scientist said all good. How many more people did they need to ask?

It's the club and it's administration that should burn, not the players.

The only difference between an essendon play and a melbourne player is where they were called out on draft day. Our guys would have done the same thing if our clubs medical and fitness staff told them to take something. Obviously now that would question it, but in 2012 they would have trusted the clubs staff

But he didn't. And he didn't supervise it, One look at Dank and you know he's shifty. You'd be watching every step.

He' s as guilty as the rest.

\

In any case your logic doesnt stack up. Refer the chinese swim team or the east germans. Athletes largely innocent and management/doctors dosing them up. Its no excuse...

  On 13/12/2014 at 04:47, Hellfish said:

If your doctor tells you to take a medication you take it.

The same goes here, the club doctor said ok, the fitness staff said all good and the clubs sports scientist said all good. How many more people did they need to ask?

It's the club and it's administration that should burn, not the players.

The only difference between an essendon play and a melbourne player is where they were called out on draft day. Our guys would have done the same thing if our clubs medical and fitness staff told them to take something. Obviously now that would question it, but in 2012 they would have trusted the clubs staff

Did they though? Reid's position throughout seems somewhat ambiguous, if players had gone to him individually instead of believing the snake oil salesman they may have got a different response.

And if I was being injected with something once let alone 100+ times I'd want to have a fair idea of what it was and what the benefits/side effects were.

There is a reason the drug code is as strict as it is on an athletes personal responsibility because if it weren't everyone could just stay in the dark and have plausible ignorance on what they were given and let the coaches cop it. Players are ultimately responsible and if the club uses them as human pin cushions shame on the club but also shame on the player.

It's interesting you mentioned MFC because if this didn't blow up I'd say we could be facing a similar situation with Danks involvement with Bates on the sly. And if MFC players had been subject to the same program I'd be furious with the club and run them all out of town but I'd also want to see the players suspended to hopefully set an example that this stuff will not be tolerated in our sport.

  On 13/12/2014 at 07:53, Whispering_Jack said:

If I was running the ASADA case, I would open by stating that I will present a large body of evidence (albeit mainly circumstantial) which should prove to the tribunal's comfortable satisfaction that the 34 players ingested a banned substance TB4. I would then make the point that the onus is on the players to provide a plausible alternative as to what occurred at their club in 2011/12 and ask where is the evidence and where are the witnesses? Where are the records of what the players were given? Where are the people who ran the programme, supplied the material billed to the club? Where is the chemist who compounded that material? Where are Dank? Robinson? Charter? Hamilton and Alavi? What steps did the players and their representatives take to ensure their appearance at the tribunal to give evidence to provide a plausible alternative explanation as to the substances with which they were injected? I would ask why, if as they claim they were given vitamins, are all these people so eager to hide what was inherently such an innocent project?

If the best the players' counsel can come up with is that there's no evidence in the absence of Charter and Alavi (incidentally, both have very good reasons why they should not appear - and you can add Dank et al to that), then I suggest he has some homework to do over the weekend. If those friends of yours were referring to our mate David Grace QC, then he should pack some warm clothes for his forthcoming trip to Switzerland.

Game, set and match . . thank you linesman, thank you ballboys!

  On 13/12/2014 at 05:34, Redleg said:

If Danks could really get them off by saying something like, "yes I got TB4, but decided not to use it on AFL players and instead had them injected with vitamins", then why hasn't he?

Because the reason/excuse is about as good as the dog eat my homework. The fact people believe this [censored] just shows how much want to believe.

It always easy to get someone to believe a lie if that's what they want to believe in the first place.

People need to do some 'so what' with the excuses. If dank ordered bulk tb4 and had it made but it was destroyed by uv light the question I would ask was where was the second order? If he claimed it was for his business or similar you don't order 100 vials and then when they don't arrive move on to something else. It defuse logic!!!

Not only that one of the players on the list should have a ASADA receipt number for all the items on the consent form and then they could claim they did everything in there power if they haven't then bad luck

  On 13/12/2014 at 07:53, Whispering_Jack said:

If I was running the ASADA case, I would open by stating that I will present a large body of evidence (albeit mainly circumstantial) which should prove to the tribunal's comfortable satisfaction that the 34 players ingested a banned substance TB4. I would then make the point that the onus is on the players to provide a plausible alternative as to what occurred at their club in 2011/12 and ask where is the evidence and where are the witnesses? Where are the records of what the players were given? Where are the people who ran the programme, supplied the material billed to the club? Where is the chemist who compounded that material? Where are Dank? Robinson? Charter? Hamilton and Alavi? What steps did the players and their representatives take to ensure their appearance at the tribunal to give evidence to provide a plausible alternative explanation as to the substances with which they were injected? I would ask why, if as they claim they were given vitamins, are all these people so eager to hide what was inherently such an innocent project?

If the best the players' counsel can come up with is that there's no evidence in the absence of Charter and Alavi (incidentally, both have very good reasons why they should not appear - and you can add Dank et al to that), then I suggest he has some homework to do over the weekend. If those friends of yours were referring to our mate David Grace QC, then he should pack some warm clothes for his forthcoming trip to Switzerland.

This is very well argued

Can their strategy be to have an adverse finding, sanctions imposed and appeal against such finding that the standard of proof required while meeting the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal, is not sustainable in the court of appeal as legal proof of wrongdoing and the penalties are unenforceable?

On the AFL Notice of Charge it is alleged that the EFC caused 16 substances to be administered to the players. The substances are listed and include TB4. You would assume the AFL made this allegation on the basis of finding these substances on the premises. Unless Dank used every mL of Thymosin (I doubt it) it would just be a matter of running the Thymosin through a mass spectrometer to see what variant it was.

Furthermore, why was 'Thymosin' listed on the consent forms that 38 players signed? Why wasn't it listed as Thymomodulin to avoid any ambiguity?

I don't think Dank knew there was variants of Thymosin until the Nick MacKenzie interview.

According to Chip Le Grand in his interview with Alavi, Alavi said he told Dank to have the Thymosin tested as he (Alavi) did not know whether he had compounded Thymosin alpha 1, Thymomodulin or TB4.

Apologies for duplicating material that has been previously posted.

Re timeline

I believe there was only one letter written by Reid in jan 2012 and it went missing .

-17 January, 2012: Dr Reid writes letter to Hird and Corcoran:

September, 2012: EFC receives a $61,000 bill from the HyperMED clinic (South Yarra Clinic) for hyperbaric and vacuumed treatments and 112 injections. This development prompts Reid to write a letter to Hamilton, Football Manager. Hamilton reads letter and discussed contents with CEO. Reid’s concerns not taken to Board. Letter goes missing

May, 2012: Dean Wallis asked to maintain a database of injections taking place, by Corcoran. Doesn’t get it done until 27 June, 2012, and is poorly organised.

This was 6 months after the program started. This was a smokescreen imo. There were other records kept despite Dank saying he had none.Dank would have kept records so he could prove to his next club he went to that his theory is proven by xxxx.

Essendon has changed their tune over the last 2 years

From the 2014 Annual report Paul Little

We maintain our confidence that neither harmful nor banned

substances were given to the players during the 2012 supplements

program

From his 2013 AGM speech http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-chairman-paul-little-tells-members-players-did-not-ingest-anything-illegal/story-fni5f6kv-1226784378408

However based on the information we have to date, we remain confident that our players:

-did not ingest anything harmful to their bodies

-did not take anything illegal

-did not take anything that was 'performance enhancing'.

The words ingest, illegal and performance enchancing do not appear in 2014 speech

So does that mean in the year 2014 EFc now believe that what ever the player took were illegal and performance enhancing?

I think EFc are in deep... despite the supreme court loss by ASADA. . Common sense would say that if all the players took were vitamins as per Mcveighs interview then this would have been all over the day after the blackest day in Australian sport was labelled by a scorned former chief of Asada. Robbo would have the records plastered all over the herald sun with names blacked out.But this fiasco is not based on common sense.There are too many.high profiled people involved who tried to get this investigation shut down . Too many conflicts of interest. I dont believe anything written in the media about this , too many journalists wanting to keep their job so are holding back. I still recall afl 360 last year when Bomber said Essendon were sailing very close to the wind with their supplements (ped) prigram and was about to spill the beans when Robbo jumped in and cut Bomber off.

  On 13/12/2014 at 05:34, Redleg said:

If Danks could really get them off by saying something like, "yes I got TB4, but decided not to use it on AFL players and instead had them injected with vitamins", then why hasn't he?

Because the reason/excuse is about as good as the dog eat my homework. The fact people believe this [censored] just shows how much want to believe.

It always easy to get someone to believe a lie if that's what they want to believe in the first place.

People need to do some 'so what' with the excuses. If dank ordered bulk tb4 and had it made but it was destroyed by uv light the question I would ask was where was the second order? If he claimed it was for his business or similar you don't order 100 vials and then when they don't arrive move on to something else. It defuse logic!!!

Not only that one of the players on the list should have a ASADA receipt number for all the items on the consent form and then they could claim they did everything in there power if they haven't then bad luck

What I've found most stunning in this whole saga has been the general footy public's stance coupled with the media's stance .. the bomber supporters stance should have been expected - they love their team so they're obviously going to have varying levels of bias.

The general footy public have largely protected Essendon as have the sporting media - I put this down to protecting the sport and the brand. Essendon therefore had to be protected as an extension of that stance.

Essendon are way out on their own on this issue and people who would otherwise point the finger in a damning way have refused to do so - it's been a very interesting study on how people view footy in general - it's taught me that many footy fans are fiercely loyal to the sport way more than I thought. I thought people's view on footy was largely about the team but it's much bigger than that.

If Essendon and their players were to be exonerated I believe that most footy fans won't bat an eyelid. They won't really care. They'd be mainly relieved that the whole thing is over.

Trying to explain to people that Essendon almost certainly won a lot of games on the back of taking copious quantities of PED's is a complete waste of time - they would have had to have won the flag for that aspect of the saga to take effect. Many people were congratulating Essendon for winning games whilst the investigation was going on - as if the drugs they took had no meaningful long term effect.

We are so quick to point the finger when PED's are used by athletes outside our shores. When it comes to our own, we don't want to know about it.

  On 13/12/2014 at 14:12, Macca said:

What I've found most stunning in this whole saga has been the general footy public's stance coupled with the media's stance .. the bomber supporters stance should have been expected - they love their team so they're obviously going to have varying levels of bias.

The general footy public have largely protected Essendon as have the sporting media - I put this down to protecting the sport and the brand. Essendon therefore had to be protected as an extension of that stance.

Essendon are way out on their own on this issue and people who would otherwise point the finger in a damning way have refused to do so - it's been a very interesting study on how people view footy in general - it's taught me that many footy fans are fiercely loyal to the sport way more than I thought. I thought people's view on footy was largely about the team but it's much bigger than that.

If Essendon and their players were to be exonerated I believe that most footy fans won't bat an eyelid. They won't really care. They'd be mainly relieved that the whole thing is over.

Trying to explain to people that Essendon almost certainly won a lot of games on the back of taking copious quantities of PED's is a complete waste of time - they would have had to have won the flag for that aspect of the saga to take effect. Many people were congratulating Essendon for winning games whilst the investigation was going on - as if the drugs they took had no meaningful long term effect.

We are so quick to point the finger when PED's are used by athletes outside our shores. When it comes to our own, we don't want to know about it.

I'm not so sure about this 'Macca'. If you take this site for example, most want Essendon to face the music. I would think every other clubs forum bar Essondon's would be the same, surely it's not only Melbourne people that hold this view.

What it tells me is the media is not reporting what the general public feel and that Essendon people in the media (and there are a lot of them) have marginalised the general football supporter.

  On 13/12/2014 at 15:17, rjay said:

I'm not so sure about this 'Macca'. If you take this site for example, most want Essendon to face the music. I would think every other clubs forum bar Essondon's would be the same, surely it's not only Melbourne people that hold this view.

What it tells me is the media is not reporting what the general public feel and that Essendon people in the media (and there are a lot of them) have marginalised the general football supporter.

I'm not necessarily basing my view with regards to this site (or this thread or the other thread)

More so the views I've gotten from work colleagues, friends, acquaintances, people at the sporting clubs I'm associated with and other people I might have conversations with about the subject.

The general theme right from the get-go is that Essendon were innocent until proven guilty - that view has changed as time has gone on but there's still a hesitancy to pronounce guilt.

Now that would be ok if those people's views were consistent - their views aren't consistent though. At various times over the years their views on PED's being used outside of Australia is that the athlete's or team's involved are guilty. A presumption of guilt is often formed right from the get-go.

I've even had a few acknowledge their bias. They don't seem to care about the inconsistency either. People love their footy and love is often blind. There have been people here wanting Essendon to be cleared because of the damage it might do to the game if they aren't cleared - I know a few people who feel the same way.

As a comparison, I reckon the average Aussie truly believes that Shane Warne only ever took 1 slimming tablet - fans of cricket who live overseas might have a view that he overstepped the mark in a far greater way - are they wrong?

I'm firmly of the belief that Aussies have a soft approach when it's their own sportspeople being caught out on drugs but when it's an athlete from overseas, that view is often harsh with very little benefit of the doubt given.

By the way, people on this site have been more inclined to question Essendon supporters - as I mentioned previously, it stands to reason that Bomber fans were always going to be hopelessly biased and compromised.

  On 13/12/2014 at 15:33, Macca said:

I'm not necessarily basing my view with regards to this site (or this thread or the other thread)

More so the views I've gotten from work colleagues, friends, acquaintances, people at the sporting clubs I'm associated with and other people I might have conversations with about the subject.

The general theme right from the get-go is that Essendon were innocent until proven guilty - that view has changed as time has gone on but there's still a hesitancy to pronounce guilt.

Now that would be ok if those people's views were consistent - their views aren't consistent though. At various times over the years their views on PED's being used outside of Australia is that the athlete's or team's involved are guilty. A presumption of guilt is often formed right from the get-go.

I've even had a few acknowledge their bias. They don't seem to care about the inconsistency either. People love their footy and love is often blind. There have been people here wanting Essendon to be cleared because of the damage it might do to the game if they aren't cleared - I know a few people who feel the same way.

As a comparison, I reckon the average Aussie truly believes that Shane Warne only ever took 1 slimming tablet - fans of cricket who live overseas might have a view that he overstepped the mark in a far greater way - are they wrong?

I'm firmly of the belief that Aussies have a soft approach when it's their own sportspeople being caught out on drugs but when it's an athlete from overseas, that view is often harsh with very little benefit of the doubt given.

By the way, people on this site have been more inclined to question Essendon supporters - as I mentioned previously, it stands to reason that Bomber fans were always going to be hopelessly biased and compromised.

Macca :-

The only problem there is that according to ASADA and the infraction notices they are guilty until they prove their innocence

  On 13/12/2014 at 14:12, Macca said:

What I've found most stunning in this whole saga has been the general footy public's stance coupled with the media's stance .. the bomber supporters stance should have been expected - they love their team so they're obviously going to have varying levels of bias.

The general footy public have largely protected Essendon as have the sporting media - I put this down to protecting the sport and the brand. Essendon therefore had to be protected as an extension of that stance.

Essendon are way out on their own on this issue and people who would otherwise point the finger in a damning way have refused to do so - it's been a very interesting study on how people view footy in general - it's taught me that many footy fans are fiercely loyal to the sport way more than I thought. I thought people's view on footy was largely about the team but it's much bigger than that.

If Essendon and their players were to be exonerated I believe that most footy fans won't bat an eyelid. They won't really care. They'd be mainly relieved that the whole thing is over.

Trying to explain to people that Essendon almost certainly won a lot of games on the back of taking copious quantities of PED's is a complete waste of time - they would have had to have won the flag for that aspect of the saga to take effect. Many people were congratulating Essendon for winning games whilst the investigation was going on - as if the drugs they took had no meaningful long term effect.

We are so quick to point the finger when PED's are used by athletes outside our shores. When it comes to our own, we don't want to know about it.

I think you're reading too much into it - a lot of footy supporters are idiots who get their opinions fed to them by the Murdoch media. The media have refused to go hard on the Bombers on this one compared to say what we copped during the tanking investigation, which is reflected in the average footy supporters views.

  On 13/12/2014 at 13:03, Satan said:

Re timeline

I believe there was only one letter written by Reid in jan 2012 and it went missing .

-17 January, 2012: Dr Reid writes letter to Hird and Corcoran:

September, 2012: EFC receives a $61,000 bill from the HyperMED clinic (South Yarra Clinic) for hyperbaric and vacuumed treatments and 112 injections. This development prompts Reid to write a letter to Hamilton, Football Manager. Hamilton reads letter and discussed contents with CEO. Reid’s concerns not taken to Board. Letter goes missing

May, 2012: Dean Wallis asked to maintain a database of injections taking place, by Corcoran. Doesn’t get it done until 27 June, 2012, and is poorly organised.

This was 6 months after the program started. This was a smokescreen imo. There were other records kept despite Dank saying he had none.Dank would have kept records so he could prove to his next club he went to that his theory is proven by xxxx.

Essendon has changed their tune over the last 2 years

From the 2014 Annual report Paul Little

We maintain our confidence that neither harmful nor banned

substances were given to the players during the 2012 supplements

program

From his 2013 AGM speech http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-chairman-paul-little-tells-members-players-did-not-ingest-anything-illegal/story-fni5f6kv-1226784378408

However based on the information we have to date, we remain confident that our players:

-did not ingest anything harmful to their bodies

-did not take anything illegal

-did not take anything that was 'performance enhancing'.

ha ha fantastic. What a pathetic lie... Why would you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on stuff that didn't enhance performance....

Did any of the players keep a record of the injections?

I can account for every injection into my body for the past ten years. Granted, there haven't been many but I would think that if I were a professional athlete, I would be keeping a record.

I know that the team environment accounts for a large number of players... But surely one out of 34 kept notes.

  On 13/12/2014 at 15:33, Macca said:

As a comparison, I reckon the average Aussie truly believes that Shane Warne only ever took 1 slimming tablet - fans of cricket who live overseas might have a view that he overstepped the mark in a far greater way - are they wrong?

I'm firmly of the belief that Aussies have a soft approach when it's their own sportspeople being caught out on drugs but when it's an athlete from overseas, that view is often harsh with very little benefit of the doubt given.

I think this is true 'Macca', and it's why the prevailing view is that the Essendon players are poor innocents caught up in a regime that duped them. Whilst young kids in East Germany and China were drug cheats.

There has definitely been a spin campaign run by the Hird/Essendon people, maybe it is working.

Maybe it's time we stood up and realised our athletes are just as vulnerable to all the influences that make people become drug cheats. I have no doubt there was another club in the past who won flags were drug cheats. There are very senior people from this club still in leading positions in football.

  On 13/12/2014 at 21:07, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think you're reading too much into it - a lot of footy supporters are idiots who get their opinions fed to them by the Murdoch media. The media have refused to go hard on the Bombers on this one compared to say what we copped during the tanking investigation, which is reflected in the average footy supporters views.

Ordinarily I might agree with you but my view is more based on a general prejudice against those who take PED's outside our shores as against Aussies who might take PED's here or overseas. The media know how the public generally think and they often just feed the masses what they want to hear.

Essendon & it's players have got off lightly in terms of the court of public opinion (so far) Look at at the Cronulla situation as an example - the media down here & the footy public from the Southern states would almost certainly have gone a lot harder on rugby league & Cronulla if none of this PED stuff had happened within the AFL.

I'm more talking about the early days of the investigation and the first 6 - 12 months of the investigation - sure, people's opinions have changed over time but again, if this sort of thing happens overseas, we're very quick to pronounce guilt. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy, contradiction and inconsistency of people's views. Not everyone of course - but a large percentage of the footy public.

Most people I speak to just want the whole thing to end and they wished it had never happened to "their" sport. Whenever there is a heavy bias involved, the truth can often get pushed aside.

Your reference to tanking and how we were singled out is interesting - we were just an easy head to kick in that situation. You'd reckon the same rules would apply to Essendon but it hasn't. They've largely been given the benefit of the doubt for other reasons that I've pointed out. It hasn't just been the media and I've put the "donkey vote" aside in forming this view.

  On 14/12/2014 at 00:06, Macca said:

Your reference to tanking and how we were singled out is interesting - we were just an easy head to kick in that situation

We were investigated for tanking because at a time when AD was overseas, Brock was coerced by the On the Couch guys, including our current Coach, into raising the subject and Adrian Anderson used the opportunity of AD's absence to launch an investigation.

Then with the aid of some rats when the investigation was going to shut down with no evidence, it got kick started again.

The result was a farce.

Bigger, stronger clubs, avoided the same scrutiny, despite admissions by staff, eg Libba and even Eddie.

Adrian Anderson lost his job as a result of going against the boss.

  On 13/12/2014 at 23:30, rjay said:

I think this is true 'Macca', and it's why the prevailing view is that the Essendon players are poor innocents caught up in a regime that duped them. Whilst young kids in East Germany and China were drug cheats.

There has definitely been a spin campaign run by the Hird/Essendon people, maybe it is working.

Maybe it's time we stood up and realised our athletes are just as vulnerable to all the influences that make people become drug cheats. I have no doubt there was another club in the past who won flags were drug cheats. There are very senior people from this club still in leading positions in football.

I've long held suspicions about PED's in the AFL, NRL, soccer the world over, NBA, NHL, MLB & the NFL. In reality, all sports where the testing for PED's hasn't been of a thorough nature.

I also believe that there is a correlation between taking "recreational" drugs & PED's - somewhat so anyway. Let's not forget that for a 5 year stretch just prior to the Essendon story breaking there were 69 players who tested positive to recreational drugs - and that's just the ones that they caught.

Track & field and cycling are looked upon with disdain by many people these days but have a guess which sports do the most testing?

People are the same all over - where there's big money at stake, you'll see lying, cheating, greed and all the other human traits that contribute to the wrong thing being done. We're no different in this country.

  On 14/12/2014 at 00:30, Macca said:

People are the same all over - where there's big money at stake, you'll see lying, cheating, greed and all the other human traits that contribute to the wrong thing being done. We're no different in this country.

Hard to argue against.

  On 14/12/2014 at 00:29, Redleg said:

We were investigated for tanking because at a time when AD was overseas, Brock was coerced by the On the Couch guys, including our current Coach, into raising the subject and Adrian Anderson used the opportunity of AD's absence to launch an investigation.

Then with the aid of some rats when the investigation was going to shut down with no evidence, it got kick started again.

The result was a farce.

Bigger, stronger clubs, avoided the same scrutiny, despite admissions by staff, eg Libba and even Eddie.

Adrian Anderson lost his job as a result of going against the boss.

I don't disagree with you Redleg ... my comment about us being "an easy head to kick" was more my perception of the public's view.

Again, we had another situation where the footy public were being fed by the media because the media knew what the footy public wanted to read and hear. With regards to the tanking investigation there was very little balance being shown by the media but also, by the footy public.

And that lack of balance extended to Melbourne supporters as well. Some here still refuse point blank to believe that tanking was widely practiced by various clubs.

  On 14/12/2014 at 00:39, Macca said:

And that lack of balance extended to Melbourne supporters as well. Some here still refuse point blank to believe that tanking was widely practiced by various clubs.

That was never my issue. I just couldn't believe that we were the only club being investigated.