For me, the intriguing part is why Dank has come out and said this now. It seems like he is just dropping Essendon in it, but there is presumably more to it than that. Nothing in the article says that he doesn't have a copy of the records kept, only that they were left at Essendon. It seems too far-fetched for me that someone like Dank would leave all that behind and not keep a copy himself. But why weigh in now? Has someone come after him asking for records?

I know I'm being a bit stupid by suggesting that we apply a bit of logic but here goes.

If he had the records he has claimed he has that would exonerate the players and the Club and for that matter himself wouldn't he have presented them. He says he will only present them in Court but if he had presented them to any stage of this sorry saga the whole thing would have gone away and there would be no need to go to the expense of a Court case. There is no detriment to him to provide these records in fact they would have saved his reputation. Instead by withholding it he has destroyed his own reputation and put the players under his care under untold stress and facing the real prospect of being banned for two years.

Now apply some logic to this and I come up with 2 + 2 = B%&lls*$t!!! He doesn't have records, he doesn't have any proof that would have helped the players. A life ban isn't enough for this man and his ethics.

Nothing to do with EFC but i thought given the popularity of this thread i would put it here. I created a thread on thye sports forum called Autumn carnival. It included the following message:

I've never ventured onto the other DL forums before. Spooky world.

I came looking for a thread on the Autumn carnival. I love horse racing, though these days limit by punting to the Autumn and Spring Carnivals.

I thought about joining a horse racing specific site (Punters.com looks pretty good) for cyber chat but getting to a whole new site and posters leaves me a bit cold. One sport forum is enough for me

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in a dedicated topic on the carnivals but i know from comments (and at least one avatar) that there are some punters on DL. I was thinking some chat about tips, thoughts on match ups or other racing related chat (eg which online bookies are any good, cobalt etc).

Anywhoo i'll put it up and see.

Sandor Eale say's "What's that STANK?. . It's DANK takin it to the BANK? . . What a WAANK!"

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/suspended-former-nrl-player-sandor-earl-stunned-as-stephen-dank-lands-indian-cricket-job-20140302-33tqs.html

I know I'm being a bit stupid by suggesting that we apply a bit of logic but here goes.

If he had the records he has claimed he has that would exonerate the players and the Club and for that matter himself wouldn't he have presented them.

or...he does have records but they dont exonerate anyone !! He thought Tymosin was ok...remember..just saying

If his records actually highlight what was taken and they arent Kosher...well..... he continues his line of bullshlt.

Hes playing the strawmans defence !!

What stance? Who's stance? I ask again when has anyone connected to this saga categorically said there are no records?

Essendon have said...there are no records

Essendon have said...there are no records

When? I'm not being a smart arse, but i don't recall EFC ever saying there are no records. I can only recall some journos suggesting it

When? I'm not being a smart arse, but i don't recall EFC ever saying there are no records. I can only recall some journos suggesting it

They said back towards the start of the saga that they didn't know what the players were given because they had no records of the program, this lead to alot of their interim charges

Essendon have said...there are no records

To me - no records always rang alarm bells.

Have you ever heard of any medical practice/regime operating without records ????

I don't believe there were no records for one moment.

But taking the argument to its logical conclusion - let's suggest that records were not made. It poses the question - when anything medical has always been covered by copious amounts of record taking - why would a club put all its players on a regime of supplements and not take records ?

To me its damned if you can't find the records and damned if you didn't make records.

(for the record - one of my many ex wives was a doctor and the extent they went to keep records was over the top - with the litigious nature of anything related to medicine and medical services it is essential)

When? I'm not being a smart arse, but i don't recall EFC ever saying there are no records. I can only recall some journos suggesting it

Put "EFC" "Supplements" "No records" into search........any number of refernces

They said back towards the start of the saga that they didn't know what the players were given because they had no records of the program, this lead to alot of their interim charges

Not sure this is the case but be happy to be proven wrong

Of course there were records......what next....they dont keep score at their games ??

From:- http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/action-and-change-will-occur-at-essendon--just-not-today-20130506-2j2u4.html

Switkowski says "innovative supplement practices and compounds soon appeared - somewhat predictably given the mandate of the high performance team" although the "leaders of the program insist their methods were always legal and compliant".

"In particular the rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medical clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalisation of traditional medical staff etc combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club or in the period under review," he wrote.

what has ( for mine ) happened is bleedingly obvious

Dank, Weapon and Hird organised their little party, and for it all to happen 'off campus (sts) "

Records and such were kept at arms length to the club. so they had plausible deniability about therir existence. So neither Ziggy nor Reid or anyone else for that matter , not involved in the inner circle ' would be aware or availed of the info.

Now the accused parties all say in cohesion ( and collusion ) ...I dont have them, never had them, didnt exist

Of course there were records......what next....they dont keep score at their games ??

Sometimes I wish we didn't have to

Put "EFC" "Supplements" "No records" into search........any number of refernces

That's funny BB. I put those search parameters in and looked. Got to page 3 before getting bored. Not one redirect quote from an EFC person. Plenty of Sainstsationaal, Big Footy, the roar gosh even DL, but not one official from the EFC saying they did not have records.

This goes to my point that it has become an accepted fact (presumably because the EFC have spun it this way and people have bought it). It might be true but forgive me for being scpetical

Not sure this is the case but be happy to be proven wrong

From :- http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf

(h) failed to identify and record the source from which all substances used by players were obtained;

(i) failed to adequately monitor and record the use of substances;

(j) failed to audit or monitor all substances held on the premises of the Club;

(k) failed to implement a system for recording and storing all substances held on the premises of the Club;

Try doing a search yourself.

From:- http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/action-and-change-will-occur-at-essendon--just-not-today-20130506-2j2u4.html

Switkowski says "innovative supplement practices and compounds soon appeared - somewhat predictably given the mandate of the high performance team" although the "leaders of the program insist their methods were always legal and compliant".

"In particular the rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medical clinics, emergence of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalisation of traditional medical staff etc combine to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the club or in the period under review," he wrote.

Yes i noted that but not adequately documenting something isn't the same as no records

Dank has absolutely DESTROYED essendon in that interview.

No longer can the players claim innocence or that they were duped.

No longer can essendon pretend they didnt have records.

and "some approval somewhere in the world"

wow.

Not sure about that. Dank appears to be so unhinged it's doubtful anything he says or writes can be taken seriously. For similar reasons, nothing he says could help them , either.

From :- http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf

(h) failed to identify and record the source from which all substances used by players were obtained;

(i) failed to adequately monitor and record the use of substances;

(j) failed to audit or monitor all substances held on the premises of the Club;

(k) failed to implement a system for recording and storing all substances held on the premises of the Club;

Try doing a search yourself.

Yes i know the above. But again none of the above means they did not keep any records, which is the line the media and many others have been spinning. I have searched and have yet to find any official statement from ASADA, EFC or the AFL that they had no records.

Question. Can someone explain why any ban on Watson and Fletcher should be backdated to the International Rules game instead of the last game the EFC played. Not only were they not playing for Essendon, arguably they weren't even playing an AFL game. I just don't understand the argument.

Question. Can someone explain why any ban on Watson and Fletcher should be backdated to the International Rules game instead of the last game the EFC played. Not only were they not playing for Essendon, arguably they weren't even playing an AFL game. I just don't understand the argument.

because they were playing in sanctioned competition

it actually has nothing really to do who you play for...The transgression is made as an individual athlete.

That's funny BB. I put those search parameters in and looked. Got to page 3 before getting bored. Not one redirect quote from an EFC person. Plenty of Sainstsationaal, Big Footy, the roar gosh even DL, but not one official from the EFC saying they did not have records.

This goes to my point that it has become an accepted fact (presumably because the EFC have spun it this way and people have bought it). It might be true but forgive me for being scpetical

not funny if youre lazy.just saying

Theres much out there to find...we do

my search..same paremeters...4th item

Charges AFL.com

because they were playing in sanctioned competition

it actually has nothing really to do who you play for...The transgression is made as an individual athlete.

Thanks. I'll assume you mean "sanctioned" by the AFL. So if the AFL wanted for any reason to "allow" backdating to go back to Essendon's last game could they (AFL) decide that the International Rules game should not have been "sanctioned" because, for example, it was not actually a genuine game of AFL football?

From :- http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf

(h) failed to identify and record the source from which all substances used by players were obtained;

(i) failed to adequately monitor and record the use of substances;

(j) failed to audit or monitor all substances held on the premises of the Club;

(k) failed to implement a system for recording and storing all substances held on the premises of the Club;

Try doing a search yourself.

Yes i know the above. But again none of the above means they did not keep any records, which is the line the media and many others have been spinning. I have searched and have yet to find any official statement from ASADA, EFC or the AFL that they had no records.

For me - if the records above cannot adequately address all the issues quoted above you may as well not have records at all.

Its a bit like say we keep copious records from every game - except goals and behinds kicked by us and the opposition.

It is semantics - whether you want to say there were no records or records that were inadequate - the information that is not available means that the records they have or no records is exactly the same thing.

Question. Can someone explain why any ban on Watson and Fletcher should be backdated to the International Rules game instead of the last game the EFC played. Not only were they not playing for Essendon, arguably they weren't even playing an AFL game. I just don't understand the argument.

Presumably because it was an official AFL representative game.