24 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

They do now (introduced in 2013). I don't know whether they can use them for events/investigations begun before that year. They couldn't in the EFC case because of timing although this was stepped around, at least with the players, because of the AFL's powers.

Hopefully one of the lawyers around here can add something, but I'd hope that Dank's claims might allow ASADA to declare their investigation a new one and use their current powers, including compulsion. Would love to see Dank hoist with his own petard ... syringe.

I suspect ASADA has powers to make someone appear but I'd be astounded if they have powers to force someone to speak. 

47 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

They do now (introduced in 2013). I don't know whether they can use them for events/investigations begun before that year. They couldn't in the EFC case because of timing although this was stepped around, at least with the players, because of the AFL's powers.

Hopefully one of the lawyers around here can add something, but I'd hope that Dank's claims might allow ASADA to declare their investigation a new one and use their current powers, including compulsion. Would love to see Dank hoist with his own petard ... syringe.

doesn't that only apply to persons (not athletes) currently employed by a body signed up to the asada/wada code?

and doesn't grant sub poena power at court/tribunal cases?

2 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

They do now (introduced in 2013). I don't know whether they can use them for events/investigations begun before that year. They couldn't in the EFC case because of timing although this was stepped around, at least with the players, because of the AFL's powers.

Hopefully one of the lawyers around here can add something, but I'd hope that Dank's claims might allow ASADA to declare their investigation a new one and use their current powers, including compulsion. Would love to see Dank hoist with his own petard ... syringe.

They were given powers to get people to turn up to an interview, it didn't come with powers to make them talk which is the issue. They have asked Dank many times to meetings and he has replied that he wont talk or he has already told them what he knows. There is no point forcing someone to a meeting when they aren't going to talk to you.

Just now, Chris said:

They were given powers to get people to turn up to an interview, it didn't come with powers to make them talk which is the issue. They have asked Dank many times to meetings and he has replied that he wont talk or he has already told them what he knows. There is no point forcing someone to a meeting when they aren't going to talk to you.

don't see how you can force him when he doesn't come under the asada umbrella at the moment. i.e. he's not signed up

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

don't see how you can force him when he doesn't come under the asada umbrella at the moment. i.e. he's not signed up

That too. He was actually clever to set up the company to contract to Essendon instead of being employed as he dodged all of that. He probably did it for tax reasons though and didn't even think of it. 

The 2013 amendment says (in part):

 (1)  The NAD scheme must authorise the CEO to give a person a written notice (a disclosure notice) requiring the person to do one or more of the following within the period specified in the notice:

                     (a)  attend an interview to answer questions;

                     (b)  give information of the kind specified in the notice;

                     (c)  produce documents or things of the kind specified in the notice.

That's not restricted to turning up to an interview, it requires providing information. As to who a 'person' is for the purposes of the ASADA legislation, I can't find any definition and I can't see why a 'person' would necessarily be restricted to someone signed up to the code. That's why I'd be interested in the views of one of the lawyers about the place. 

6 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

The 2013 amendment says (in part):

 (1)  The NAD scheme must authorise the CEO to give a person a written notice (a disclosure notice) requiring the person to do one or more of the following within the period specified in the notice:

                     (a)  attend an interview to answer questions;

                     (b)  give information of the kind specified in the notice;

                     (c)  produce documents or things of the kind specified in the notice.

That's not restricted to turning up to an interview, it requires providing information. As to who a 'person' is for the purposes of the ASADA legislation, I can't find any definition and I can't see why a 'person' would necessarily be restricted to someone signed up to the code. That's why I'd be interested in the views of one of the lawyers about the place. 

I can see Dank outside the High Court (with phone to his ear, of course) while he challenges the meaning of "attend an interview to answer questions". He'll be arguing that if the legislation intended that it be mandatory to answer questions it would have been worded "attend an interview and answer questions put at that interview". As currently worded he'll argue that the only mandatory bit is to attend and that the words "to answer questions" just qualifies the purpose of the interview.

Ms. Wilson in the Age has a good handle on Dank ~ His reputation ruined, Stephen Dank craves relevance.

It's not just Dank's reputation that's ruined but also his credibility. How appalling it is that some people who have it in for the former board and CEO would give the four month story the time of day. 

For the record the matter was investigated by the club which reported to Gillon McLachlan, then second in charge at the AFL. According to information made available then, Dank was interviewed for a position at the club and was rejected. He also had dialogue with the club's doctor, Dr Bate on treatment of injuries without the club's knowledge but Bate cut off all contact on 5 February 2013 ("the darkest day"). Eventually word of what had happened got back to Don McLardy and Cameron Schwab who had the matter fully investigated and reported to McLachlan who had not communicated the fact to Demetriou when the 7.30 Report story about the club's connection came out.  

Demetriou was wrong to blast the club but no apology was ever forthcoming. 

If there is any truth to Dank's story it might come out (personally, I doubt anything of the sort will) but if anyone on this site wants to cast aspersions of impropriety on the specific individuals in charge of the club at the time on this issue, then please provide your name and address and be prepared to accept the consequences.

This site does not endorse any comments or inferences against those persons. 

12 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I can see Dank outside the High Court (with phone to his ear, of course) while he challenges the meaning of "attend an interview to answer questions". He'll be arguing that if the legislation intended that it be mandatory to answer questions it would have been worded "attend an interview and answer questions put at that interview". As currently worded he'll argue that the only mandatory bit is to attend and that the words "to answer questions" just qualifies the purpose of the interview.

Except that there's nothing in the amendment that restricts the CEO to issuing a notice requiring only (a) or (b) or (c). But I agree otherwise: no matter what the law says, Dank and his lawyers will be quibbling/arguing/stonewalling for as long as they possibly can.

1 hour ago, Chris said:

That too. He was actually clever to set up the company to contract to Essendon instead of being employed as he dodged all of that. He probably did it for tax reasons though and didn't even think of it. 

Although the Essendon contract has nothing to do with his latest posturing about Bock and the Suns. Dank now claims to be intending to sue the Suns for wrongful dismissal so I assume he'll also be having to claim that he was an employee, not a contractor.

1 hour ago, Dr John Dee said:

Except that there's nothing in the amendment that restricts the CEO to issuing a notice requiring only (a) or (b) or (c). But I agree otherwise: no matter what the law says, Dank and his lawyers will be quibbling/arguing/stonewalling for as long as they possibly can.

To be more specific, I think the lawyers will be quibbling/arguing/stonewalling for as long as the money lasts.

25 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

To be more specific, I think the lawyers will be quibbling/arguing/stonewalling for as long as the money lasts.

that's a good point. dank has a big bill from his last court action and reportedly has a number of other writs already out there

he might find it very hard now (financially and otherwise) to launch new actions 

On another point, the AFL have announced that compensation picks will stay for free agents leaving. Who wants to bet that these picks vanish next year and the AFL twist the rules so Essendon get compo picks for what should be delisted free agents this year (who usually don't qualify for compo picks)? If it was a betting market I think you would get a 99cent return on your dollar as punishment for being dumb enough to not see what they are doing!

53 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

To be more specific, I think the lawyers will be quibbling/arguing/stonewalling for as long as the money lasts.

Maybe he can apply for legal aid. Do down-on-their-luck sports scientists get a go at the pubic purse?

5 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

Maybe he can apply for legal aid. Do down-on-their-luck sports scientists get a go at the pubic purse?

What sort of purse?

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What sort of purse?

Whoops, thank you Dr Freud. Probably a public one.

25 minutes ago, Chris said:

On another point, the AFL have announced that compensation picks will stay for free agents leaving. Who wants to bet that these picks vanish next year and the AFL twist the rules so Essendon get compo picks for what should be delisted free agents this year (who usually don't qualify for compo picks)? If it was a betting market I think you would get a 99cent return on your dollar as punishment for being dumb enough to not see what they are doing!

give them 2nd round compo picks. why should everyone else be penalised for their illegal mismanagement

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

give them 2nd round compo picks. why should everyone else be penalised for their illegal mismanagement

If only. Just wait, Essendon will be given at least 3 picks in the top 10 this year. One for finishing near the bottom, one for Hurley, and one for Hibbard. If Heppel leaves too they will go into meltdown and give them the entire top 10!

Oh dear there is Damien Barratt on the Footy Show talking about Danks and that he has a lot more to say about his time at MFC! Can't we get a break? 

Danks is desperate for relevance and happy to take down whom ever he can. This guy shytes me big time, can't say anything about the Dons but then pots Nathan Bock without being asked. What his is story? 

16 hours ago, Dr John Dee said:

Whoops, thank you Dr Freud. Probably a public one.

Surely there are laws against public pubic purses....... Or as the Americans call them 'fanny packs'

HEPPELL SUES!

Dyson Heppell's million dollar legal claim

Samantha Lane looks at the football world's dark side ~ Nathan Bock AFL case: Bomber Thompson says 'everybody knew'

Omerta: everyone knew.

Really?

For a start he should look in the mirror because there is no shortage of people who claim that everyone knew what was going on while he was coaching Geelong and the Weapon was on the payroll. Idle gossip of course, but everyone knew?

And the "Media Wagon" rolls on. Is that the phrase I'm looking for?

No, No, No,  "Earth Closet" Yes, Yes, Yes....

Gil the dill asked asked by Slobbo in radio this morning if Gil wanted Ess strong again next year. "Yes" was the answer.

Dill was asked if he thought Paul Marsh was a gun slinger for the players. "You would need more bullets to be a gun slinger" from Dill.

Arrogant, conflicted, myopic and letting down all clubs let alone clubs like ours is Dill. 

On 12 April 2016 at 9:07 PM, Chris said:

Dank has come out and said he provided Bock with CJC and has said where he bought it. Surely the pharmacy has records and can confirm what it was and ASADA can then go after Bock. Then again it does raise the question of why Dank can remember that and is willing to say it yet can't provide any clarity in the EFC matter?

Easy explanation IMHO. The nay sayers (Robbo, Holmes etc) have already pointed out the so called inconsistencies between Brock and the 34 by ASADA and are calling for the 34 to be re-instated. It is nonsense of course, but Dank is merely fighting his relevance deprivation and making himself feel important. Justice and the rule of law are seemingly irrelevant in this.