Whispering_Jack

No more mystifying than the innuendo I read in posts from dozens of posters on Demonland and elsewhere every day including some of the pundits on this thread like your good self. I made no judgement on anyone or any thing, nor any claim other than that the content makes interesting reading for those who have the time to search for the articles and read them. They're all there in black and white and they form an interesting story - some of told by Wilson and some by others. Perhaps one day you or someone else will have the time. Otherwise just try googling "Wilson", "Mifsud", "Davey". That might help you.

If I had the link (or the time to look it up myself) I would have given it but if you're interested and have more time than I do, all you need is to search whatever tanking thread we had going at the time and you should find it. IIRC the discussion on the MIfsud story ends in a very telling way.

PROGRESS VOTING ROUND 5 56. Nathan Jones 26. Jack Grimes Matt Jones Jack Viney 23. Shannon Byrnes 22. Jeremy Howe Dean Terlich 21. Colin Sylvia 15. Colin Garland 13. Aaron Davey 11. Michael Evans James Frawley 8. Mitch Clark 7. Max Gawn 6. Tom McDonald 5. Luke Tapscott 4. Jordie McKenzie Jack Trengove Jack Watts 2. Rohan Bail Mark Jamar 1. Sam Blease

* where only 85% is contrived ...

Whatever ... it should make riveting television for the minions and will no doubt be like 95% of what we see on that programme - contrived. Q & A and Lateline for me.

Nah ... I reckon we're better than woeful ... but only a bit better.

Time for some character or else its a capitulation

We're being beaten statistically just about everywhere but this is actually the closest we've been to anyone this season at half time. Closer than last week. Now we just have to hope that the Lions have buggered themselves out with all that effort in the first half and bob's yer uncle!

Right now we're 3:0 from three games v his team. Happy with that and the rest matters little.

It doesn't sound like a game of poker to me either but there surely is more to it than meets the eye. We were accused of something last week which might have ranged from being as serious as outright lying to the AFL ranging all the way to accepting as true the word of an employee who wasn't quite frank enough on what is albeit a serious matter. We hear nothing from the club even when we appear to have been vindicated. Seems to me that the AFL currently has our board bound and gagged as well as manacled pending the arrival next week of Peter Jackson. There's an interesting back story here.

Folks, there's been a fair bit of unnecessary bickering on this thread tonight. Any more will result in immediate bans being put into effect. Thanks.

I suggested above that there could be an out if the doctor informed him that there was an ASADA ruling that the cream was legal and that information was based on an ASADA letter or alternatively on information that might have been given to the doctor by fraudulent means or even posssibly through negligence on the part of the doctor. All arguable points.

Could we keep this news from Jaded. Who knows what she might do?

If anyone's interested in the Mifsud/Neeld controversy there was an interesting discussion on it in one of the tanking threads around mid January which contains some interesting links both by and about Caroline Wilson. Fascinating to read and even more fascinating to think that Caro had the whole story well before Grant Thomas wrote about it in his blog. The reason given as to why she didn't publish was because she didn't have sufficient corroboration. She later backed Mifsud to the hilt even after he offered his apology to Davey. The fact that the parties reached a mediated agreement put an end to any detailed investigation as to the source of the story but there are some clues in the articles written about the affair. Very interesting stuff and a pointer to how informants can sometimes damage reputations in a very devious manner. Certainly, neither Melbourne nor Mark Neeld deserved that treatment.

Perhaps but the article was written before WADA's clarification this week that AOD was banned.

I'm starting to wonder with every new day whether the right hand at the AFL knows what the left hand's doing.

Dank's lawyers are threatening Federal Court action against Essendon and if they do so, there is a process called "discovery" whereby all documents relevant to a case must be identified and if required, produced.Essendon might also be contemplating legal action against Dank (but when and whether they actually do so will depend on a number of factors and it might not be wise to act too quickly on that score) and would have the same right to discovery. If the letter does exist and it was in fact issued by ASADA then I see no reason why Dank shouldn't volunteer the document for publication in the media. It wouldn't vindicate him entirely but at least, it would support what he's been telling the world about the legality of the supplements he's been recommending.

Brisbane didn't offer him anything near that. The paltry compensation we got from the AFL for both Rivers and Moloney was partly based on the contracts they were getting at their new clubs. Brisbane wasn't prepared to pay big money for Moloney because they know his shortcomings. Hence, we got SFA for him. Same with Rivers.Beamer was always capable of performing against weaker clubs and not so good against the stronger clubs. Last year, he had the wrong attitude, wanted out and had ... ahem ... some issues. I don't miss him at all. The club has to move forward. Changing clubs doesn't necessarily make you a better player as Ricky Petterd proved last night. I like the bloke but he still has troubles hitting the proverbial barn door.

I must have been educated in a parallel universe to that of some of these modern day lawyers and doctors. Reading Samantha Lane's report in today's Age Scientist set to sue Demetriou, I can't help but feel more than somewhat bemused by the language used by Stephen Dank's lawyer about his client's intentions to sue the pants off anyone in sight in the current drug scandal. The lawyer who asked not to be named (what lawyer would pass up the opportunity for some free publicity?) said: ''We propose to bring a defamation action against Andrew Demetriou on the grounds of him denigrating Mr Dank, and accusing him of all sorts of things he didn't do. That will definitely be going ahead." Fair dinkum, lawyers don't even talk like that in John Grisham and Michael Connolly novels! Now, I'm not suggesting this bloke got his law degree from a Corn Flakes packet but I doubt that Vlad is exactly quaking in his boots this morning. The other interesting piece of news is contained in revelations that Melbourne was more up front with the AFL over Dank than we had previously been led to believe Dealing with Dank. It changes the level of some of the comments made about the club, affects the impact of governance concerns (but won't deter the critics) and doesn't really change the issue of the responsibility of those in charge of the running of the club. it's not inconceivable this all this is connected with the team's dismal performances given that many of the players were going about their business knowing that publicly, at least, their club was "living a lie" about the Danks situation. In practical terms, the revelations of the past few days mean that, on the face of it, the club should not face AFL sanctions but captain Jack Trengove might be in trouble over his possible use of AOD9604 in cream form although, as the report states, "any such prosecution would face serious legal hurdles." What intrigues me about that is the alleged letter of comfort Dank supposedly had from ASADA about the status of AOD9604. I've read that both Essendon's people and Bates were told of the letter but neither has a copy. This suggests at the least, gross incompetence on their behalves. In this day and age where it's so simple to request a copy via SMS or email, you would think it standard practice on the part of a medical practitioner dealing with supplements such as these to insist on having a copy on his file before sending the patient out to purchase and use the cream. If, as some have suggested, the letter never existed then, apart from being naieve in the extreme in accepting Dank's word for it, then it could be more than negligence on the part of the doctor. It might well be argued that Bates, and by extension his patient Trengove, were victims of a fraud. Given that players do have an out on the basis of a WADA principle of "no fault or negligence", based on athletes proving they did not know what they were being given by sports scientists or doctors, the possible element of fraud should get Jack Trengove off any possible charges. On the other hand, if the ASADA letter did exist, then he must get off the hook anyway as a victim of ASADA's negligence. So if Dank's lawyers want to prove that their client is of good character and his reputation is one which is worthy of being upheld by our legal system, one thing they could do to assist in proving it would be to produce the goods - in this case, the letter.

No worries Deeman. I reckon I've got it covered.

They don't have the Law List in either the Age or Herald Sun these days. Very poor.

It's actually the second leg of a double. First one got up last week.

Sorry but I was educated in northern Georgia.

How many times have you heard the locals playing "Duelling Banjoes"?

Those who might be critical of us taking all of our emergencies up north instead of playing them at Casey (if that transpires) might note that none of the seven players named on Brisbane's extended interchange bench played for their reserves yesterday.