24 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Yeah i also doubt our hands are completely clean in this... but i also find all these accusations by dank sudden and suspicious. Like why did he wait till after the Bock case was closed (rightly or wrongly) before making a clear concise confession like that? And why does he confess to that and what may or may not have happened at melbourne but maintain that what he did at the bombers was fine? Its all very strange.

Because he still thinks what he has done everywhere is fine. He checked with ASADA remember.

10 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Plan B from Dank?

Who knows, nobody knows much about Dank and he keeps it that way. 

Like BB says it is a very uncomfortable situation

i also would love to know Barrett's sources on these new allegations...

Barretts sources are often from head office. I can't get any good reason in my head why head office would want this shared, unless it is to protect Collingwood and we truly are the whipping boy of the league. 

17 minutes ago, red and blue forever said:

me too, no mention of this anywhere else. so does that mean he got the info directly from dank?

Exactly. Barrett may have spent time with Dank & seen solid evidence

Dank definately wants to throw Bombs, only he knows in which direction...

17 minutes ago, Chris said:

Barretts sources are often from head office. I can't get any good reason in my head why head office would want this shared, unless it is to protect Collingwood and we truly are the whipping boy of the league. 

This source must be outside AFL HQ. They want it all to fade away

It is not good for the Broadcast Rights...But we wait and see...

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This source must be outside AFL HQ. They want it all to fade away

It is not good for the Broadcast Rights...But we wait and see...

Barrett did say the AFL have told Dank to refer any information to ASADA, that would have to be a first that they want things done the right way, but it also takes it out of the media spotlight as ASADA have shown to not leak, unlike the AFL. 

I just watched what he had to say and all it essentially was was Dank saying Craig asked how to manage or increase testoterone. That is a fair question from a coach as long as it is followed by, it has to be legal. May well be nothing in that at all. Barrett also said he has seen documents from that time but does not say what the documents were or what they related to. Also didn't point out that Dank can't seem to do the same for the dons. 

This really is a piece of reporting (I don't think journalism is the right word) that is up their with Slobbo putting the pies in it even though there were worse clubs, and Robbo got the facts wrong. It is reporting for reportings sack with no fact and no details. Just a bit of slander. Barrett should realise that if he is going to do this then he should come out and back it up with facts or evidence.

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Dank is not to be trusted or liked.  He's also suspected of dealing illegal supplements.  He was engaged in some capacity at MFC.  It's a highly uncomfortable situation.

Bob, can you define what you mean when you say "engaged in some capacity at MFC"? 

1 hour ago, faultydet said:

Saty is the definition of a (clears throat) "dedicated fan".

 

If he says dank wasn't there, he wasn't there.

I reckon if there's no photo of his guns, he wasn't there (just jokin' Saty!)

5 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Bob, can you define what you mean when you say "engaged in some capacity at MFC"? 

No further than having discussions with Bates and exchanges with Dunn as presented on the 7.30 report some time ago. I'm sure there is more information available if you go looking but frankly I can't be bothered.

He was "around".  That's enough to make me very weary.  

8 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

  That's enough to make me very weary.  

Sums it up for many of us.

2 hours ago, GM11 said:

Never given any cred to anything Warrior had to say. Ambulance chaser.

And if what he has to say is based on what Dank says...well... I call BS x2.

The facts are out there.

Dank was dealing with our doctor at the time.

We were on the cusp of employing him when the Essendon story broke...backed away quick & flicked the doctor.

Trengove was given AOD cream but that has been cleared.

 

This matches my information.

39 minutes ago, Chris said:

Barrett did say the AFL have told Dank to refer any information to ASADA, that would have to be a first that they want things done the right way, but it also takes it out of the media spotlight as ASADA have shown to not leak, unlike the AFL. 

I just watched what he had to say and all it essentially was was Dank saying Craig asked how to manage or increase testoterone. That is a fair question from a coach as long as it is followed by, it has to be legal. May well be nothing in that at all. Barrett also said he has seen documents from that time but does not say what the documents were or what they related to. Also didn't point out that Dank can't seem to do the same for the dons. 

This really is a piece of reporting (I don't think journalism is the right word) that is up their with Slobbo putting the pies in it even though there were worse clubs, and Robbo got the facts wrong. It is reporting for reportings sack with no fact and no details. Just a bit of slander. Barrett should realise that if he is going to do this then he should come out and back it up with facts or evidence.

All depends on what the documents are that Barrett has "seen" Chris...

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

All depends on what the documents are that Barrett has "seen" Chris...

And when they were made, and if they can be backed up by other evidence etc etc etc. 

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

And when they were made, and if they can be backed up by other evidence etc etc etc. 

Barrett has seen something i have no doubt. Not even he would go public without that knowledge 

I don't rate anything Barrett says about the game of football, he hasn't got a clue. Unfortunately unlike most of us he does have a platform & microphone to spew out his dribble on the game itself.

...however football politics and the issues that go on around football are another matter. There is no point slamming him on this and sounding like a bunch of EFC supporters shouting conspiracies. Lets see how it pans out, it might be filling in some news with some Dank ramblings or it might go deeper.

Barrett has not been one of the Robbo men on the EFC saga and is also not a Dank apologist. He is pretty good at this stuff, I just hope he is on the wrong track here.

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

I don't rate anything Barrett says about the game of football, he hasn't got a clue. Unfortunately unlike most of us he does have a platform & microphone to spew out his dribble on the game itself.

...however football politics and the issues that go on around football are another matter. There is no point slamming him on this and sounding like a bunch of EFC supporters shouting conspiracies. Lets see how it pans out, it might be filling in some news with some Dank ramblings or it might go deeper.

Barrett has not been one of the Robbo men on the EFC saga and is also not a Dank apologist. He is pretty good at this stuff, I just hope he is on the wrong track here.

Yep. Remember Barrett was the first to go with this story. 

It was Barrett who interviewed Reimers...

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

Unless Saty is Dank . . .

Skuit, you're taking a huge risk. If Saty is Dank, you could be sued, because that's Dank's strategy to everything. If Saty is not Dank, you could be sued by Saty for hurtful slander and defamation.

Legal disclaimer: I'm not saying Saty is or isn't Dank or that Dank is or isn't Saty. Or any other combination.

After everything that has gone on with Dank it appears that he is doing everything he can to discredit the AFL and ASADA at every turn. Waiting until Bock is cleared AND THEN declaring to the world, not the investigators, that Bock is guilty and he had the proof smacks of someone who is purely looking for revenge on the competition and the investigators. 

This latest but with Melbourne again is him trying to destroy the fabric of the competition and Barrett is happy to begin patsy to see newspapers and make him seem like a "news breaking" journalist. If he had any credibility or integrity he would ignore all calls from Dank. But he's those are words he removed from his vocabulary a long time ago. 

And did we not keep records and produce all information regarding anything that we were involved with and ASADA were satisfied? 

Low hanging fruit, Barrett going after an easy target. 

Just curious, could this be Dank in disguise at Melbourne training?

16 minutes ago, america de cali said:

Just curious, could this be Dank in disguise at Melbourne training?

not sure about it being Dank but now i am very afraid - you dont get a head like that with all manner of stuff growing out of it without being on some illicit substance.

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Bob, can you define what you mean when you say "engaged in some capacity at MFC"? 

WJ is already sharpening the legal pencils. Should we be extra concerned?

15 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

Would be so fantastic if after the tanking debacle we got caught up in another investigation

Yeah, just brilliant.....

3 hours ago, GM11 said:

Never given any cred to anything Warrior had to say. Ambulance chaser.

And if what he has to say is based on what Dank says...well... I call BS x2.

The facts are out there.

Dank was dealing with our doctor at the time.

We were on the cusp of employing him when the Essendon story broke...backed away quick & flicked the doctor.

Trengove was given AOD cream but that has been cleared.

 

I recall Dunn's name also coming up at that particular time. And I don't think it was the ointment.

5 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

An unqualified sports scientist at that. 

Zero medical qualifications, not sure what qualifications you need to be a sports scientist. Phys Ed degree?

Edited April 15, 20169 yr by Cards13

Worst comes to worst take Cronulla offer 2 weeks, thanks very much

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

We have the perfect defense in any case.

We have to be found guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs.

We either didn't take performance enhancing drugs or if we did, we definitely need to ask for our money back.

Placebos and they didn't bloody work!

9 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Zero medical qualifications, not sure what qualifications you need to be a sports scientist. Phys Ed degree?

There ar a number of suitable uni degrees in sports science, applied science, human movement, exercise and sports science, etc.

Dank has nadda.