heartbeatstrue

I often wonder if, in the context of the MFC, there is such a thing as a "normal football supporter".

I'm the norm mate, plumb in the middle of the bell curve. All the rest fall to one side or the other. There you go, I've said it

I was also at the meeting last night and had prior to the meeting come to the conclusion that Neeld should go in the shorter term. I now after listening to both Neeld and Craig believe that he should at least be given to the end of the season.

Both spoke honestly and both openly passionate about the Club and where it is and where it is going.

I was not at the meeting last night, but it will take a lot more than fine words with lashings of optimism (even spoken "honestly and passionately") to convince me that the current coaching group is the right one to solve our horrendous problems, going forward.

Neeld may well be a good coach under certain circumstances. What we spectators have seen last year and particularly for the 9 games this year provides no assurance that MN is the coach to take this group to success (and in my books, success equates with winning games). A young team will always risk getting hammered, but defensive structures in the game plan go a long way to minimising the size of those thrashings. So far, either effective defence is not part of the plan or it is, and the playing group aren't putting the structures into practice. For 9 weeks! Where is the learning? Can MN motivate the players? These are the questions I want to see answered on the field. And not in 2 or 3 years time, but starting this Sunday.

No one's saying Neeld is responsible solely for our current deep problems. But on the evidence (not words), is he the coach with the necessary solutions? Because we should be seeing signs of learning and improvement by now.

A very reasonable post again and a welcome contribution. You certainly don't give off the impression of someone purely sticking to principles on this subject, and have clearly thought it through. Kudos. A few points which come to mind:

- I doubt anyone is claiming that Neeld took over a picnic. I am however of the opinion that the situation has worsened, significantly, since Neeld took over, through basically poor decisions both on and off field. Clearly there were issues to which you have alluded, not least of which was the dearth in leadership. This in itself is something for which there is no easy fix, though your post seems to assume that the captaincy appointment was the only move that could have been made. I doubt many could honestly say that the Trengove appointment has been shown to be a correct decision. Quite the opposite. It would appear no-one has benefited from it, least of all Jack himself. And I don't for one minute buy into Neeld essentially washing his hands off it by claimng it was put to a vote. He's the coach for heaven's sake. Selecting the CAPTAIN is one of his most important decisions of which he must take ownership.

- The loss of Rivers and Moloney - a huge chunk of games experience walking out the door. For what reason? Both have provided a pretty clear indication it is due to an inability to play for Neeld. His defenders on this site will point to this as a positive, citing Moloney and Rviers as being representative of a poor culture that preceded Neeld. In the scheme of things, this is irrelevant. They are human beings, and they have talent. A good senior coach would have been able to achieve their buy in as SENIOR players, no question. Neeld had the complete opposite effect, resulting in both seeing their only option being to walk. Moloney in particular is certainly not free from blame, but both his and River's absence has hurt us, and for that, Neeld must be held accountable (note I am not disregarding the obvious impact of the J Mac decision under Bailey, which was an asbolute stinker).

- I think to attribute the form of Garland and Jones to Neeld is a little too convenient. I'm not discounting it, but the form of the vast majority of the list points towards it being far more likely that these players are simply coming into their prime, Jones in particular.

- To single out the Freo and Gold Coast games is essentially washing over other performances which have, on the whole, been completely unacceptable at AFL level. Granted, Gold Coast showed against the Hawks that they are a legitimiately far better side than they were last year, but this does not absolve the team from the disgusting lack of effort in that match. Which leads to the next point which you raise...who is to blame for this absence of the fundamentals?

- I am not for one minute saying all for this is Neeld's fault. Clearly the playing group have to take an equally large degree of responsibility for what is happening. But the buck stops with Neeld for good reason. As senior coach he is the one providing the instruction and motivation, which on the footy being produced has been a monumental fail on both counts. Players look lost, constantly second guessing themselves, and simply unable to move the ball on quickly which is so important in the modern game. Over the weekend I witnessed players simply not running in the first quarter. The FIRST quarter. It was almost unbelievable to witness, and it is inexcusable because it can not possibly be a fitness issue. It is either a misunderstanding of the gameplan and not knowing where to run, or a basic unwillingness to try. After 18 months at the helm, this to me can not be defended because this MUST come down to Neeld. We're not asking for miracles here. We're asking for something remotely resembling a cohesive, competitive side. He may be an absolute gun coach for a developed side, but for a developing side, he clearly is not.

- If Neeld is somehow able to retain his job after the Bye, following thrashings at the hands of Hawks and Pies, am I to assume that your view will be altered if we are put to the slaughter by St Kilda and the Bulldogs? Honestly, having watched both of those teams a fair bit, I can't see us getting close to either one. I just want to be sure that I understand you when you say those matches will be "the benchmarks of our progress", because I know there are some posters for whom no loss will be too great to covnince them, or at least to admit, that we've got the wrong bloke leading us out of this hole. You seem a reasonable guy, so am I understandfing you correctly that failure of these tests would see an alteration in your view on Neeld?

- We all know the lines being fed to the footy world. "We're in a rebuild of a rebuild". "It is what it is". Right now, we are accepting of the state we're in because we have to wait it out while the players build up games' experience. That's what we're told. We have to accept being legitimately and statistically compared with Fitzroy on its last legs, and having our brand massacred and mocked by the entire country. Reduced to complete and utter irrelevance. We have to accept that because "it is what it is". I say [censored]. It doesn't have to be this way. No club has to be brought to its knees like this in the name of a rebuild. The time for a statement has come, and that statement is we do no accept the football being produced, and we will move heaven and heart to bring the person or persons to this club who are capable of restoring it to where it once was, and utilising the talent on our list to its full potential, of which are are only seeing a shred.

Well said. Thanks, I share your views.

I've been as frustrated as the rest of you with the performances this year, but after each big loss which at the time seems unexpected, I find it useful to sit back, remove emotion from the equation and consider the lists and clubs who have handed us the latest belting.

1. But the reality is, that it's the perceived "lack of effort" that is killing us as supporters, and making our team harder and harder to watch. But is the lack of effort of Neeld's doing??? The more I read, the more I listen to what the players are saying, the less I believe it is.

2. So let me paint a picture of what Neeld took on when he accepted the head coaching position. When Neeld took over this club after Bailey's tenure, he took on a list that had kicked out it's best leader, Jnr McDonald, and said goodbye to good clubmen like Yze, Miller, Robertson, and Bruce; lost Tom Scully due to financial incentives and (if Scully is to be believed) concerns around the leadership of the veterans on the club list; had training standards and fitness levels that would take 3 years to fix; had a core group of young inexperienced players that had never experienced an environment with real AFL level standards before; and a history of poor drafting and insufficient investment of funds into player development; but he took it on with an aim to turning the club around to become "the hardest team to play against" within 3-5 years.

3. However, the foundations are there for change. Veteran players recognised as good clubmen, who are recognised for their attitude to training, as well as some seriously talented Key Position talent, have been recruited. Byrnes and Rodan were two such players recognised as good club men, who were brought into to help mentor the player group.

4. There are a number of positives, to go along with the negatives. Some say blame Neeld, some say don't, blame the players instead.

5. I say, the problems lie largely in the past, and have contributed to the poor practices that our current player group have displayed. Why, because when you look at everything that has happened, our club was a basket case before Neeld took over and changes were needed to turn it around.

I can see that this is a good post from the accolades, and I agree that it's an emotionally charged issue for all of us who passionately support MFC each week. Below are just some thoughts on the above lines in the post.

My own view after watching them for 8 weeks (I didn’t see the Freo game) is that Neeld is not the ONLY problem. But I do have doubts about him being the coach with the solutions that are necessary going forward.

Watching Footy Classified last night, maybe I was dreaming but when the discussion got onto Alastair Clarkson, I found myself wondering how the year would have panned out so far if we were coached by Clarkson or Malthouse or Roos for instance. Or even Gary Ayres. The thing that is missing from the coaching in all the games I’ve watched is defensive pressure and the structures that bring that (and go a long way to preventing huge thumpings). That is a coaching issue which all the sides coached by Clarkson, Malthouse, Roos and Ayres have as foundation strategies.

1. Lack of effort. Can Neeld motivate this group? On the evidence, there are doubts. Fitness? Maybe more it’s an issue of young bodies, but then for 25 years we’ve always been the weaker bodied side, up against the giants of the comp. But we were told that Neeld’s pre-season had worked wonders.
2. No disagreement that Neeld (or Clarkson or whoever else had taken over) inherited a totally dysfunctional set-up.
3. I question whether Byrnes and Rodan will contribute much to the necessary solutions. The cultural issues are deep-seated and I agree that Neeld has had the guts to begin to tackle them. Other hard changes within the club and its recruiting unit are essential and will happen because it’s now clear they must.
4. Yes the players share some blame, but the reality is these are the players we’ve got going into the future, more or less. Wholesale changes aren’t possible, so we need to coach the absolute best out of them, and build game experience and competitive structures into them. Plus motivate them. Jobs for the coach who will be part of the solution.
5. Yes the problems are largely in the past, but the solutions lie ahead. And is Neeld the coach with the solutions? Probably not on the evidence we’ve got before us. And we absolutely cannot risk keeping going down a path that does not contain the solutions.

Your post is thought provoking and a good basis for dialogue, whether we agree in total or in part. Thanks for the cool-headed thinking.

My daughter who is a Melbourne fan thanks to her father, but not a keen follower of football, said to me seriously after the game, "Why is it that whenever there is a bun fight for the ball in a pack a Docker player almost always emerges with the ball and with a pin point pass finds a teammate further afield and away they go to score yet again?" it was a good question which I just couldn't answer.

Quite simply, because the team isn't religiously putting in place the defensive structures at stoppages that prevent this from happening. Why that is so is more inexplicable. The obvious answer would be that the coaching staff aren't enforcing this and practising it as an absolutely essential part of any game plan that aims to prevent huge thumpings. But these are AFL coaches, so that doesn't exactly ring true. But clearly Neeld isn't able to get the players to do this, every stoppage in a totally disciplined and accountable way.

Which is what I would blame the coach for.

As your daughter sees very clearly, something's seriously not working with the current setup. What can we change?

Like you, I will never stop loving and supporting this frustrating club of ours. It's in the blood!

Well, it's fair to say Neeld is not the ONLY problem. Neeld probably can coach, under certain circumstances. Like, taking Ocean Grove to a premiership. He perhaps could coach Geelong quite well. But the evidence clearly indicates that Neeld can't coach the current Melbourne list.

Just look at the abysmal lack of defensive pressure and structures we've been watching for 9 weeks now. Ineffective defence equals big thrashings. It was evident in Rnd 1. What has changed? Whose job is it to put effective defensive structures in place? The only alternative is that the coach is demanding it but the players are not obeying orders, week after week. Even that would not reflect well on any coach. Or they're incapable, which is the worst nightmare thought imaginable because this lot is what we've got, more or less, for the foreseeable future.

Going back over the past 10 years or so, you can reasonably point the finger at recruiting, boy's club culture, inept boards, some ordinary presidents, morale-sapping staffing decisions, Garry Lyon's fiddling, some poor coaching staff, etc.

Now I share the view that we are at crisis point. We need to change some things that can be changed, quickly. Perhaps Gary Ayres would come across? Or else the AFL will step in and take over.

I am just gutted with where we currently are, and it's fundamentally not Neeld's fault. But he's shown that he's not part of the solution. Supporters can't have any faith in Neeld stemming the thumping losses by effective defensive structures (it hasn't happened in 9 weeks although the need is patently obvious), or in Neeld motivating the players to play hard, tough accountable footy.

So, change nothing and what are we prepared to accept against the Hawks? Will losing by something between 60 & 100 be seen as a respectable loss "considering where we are"? Perhaps much more than 100 would have Neeld "on shaky ground"?

For my part, going to the 'G on Sunday expecting anything less than a win is unacceptable. For the players to run out knowing that the only expectation is to not lose by too much, is pathetically objectionable. But without change, that's the awful reality.

Thinking about yesterday, maybe dreaming (OK, nightmare actually), the players play like they're frightened of something. There was one passage of spontaneous footy in the 3rd qtr that was so out of the ordinary that I commented to my wife beside me, they just played on instinct and it was exciting. It resulted in the ball with Howe directly in front about 40 out. He missed but it was what I go to the footy to watch.

The rest of the day it was like frightened rabbits drilled to try and do things that don't come natural, don't make sense and are destined to abysmal failure.

If MFC keep this up, nobody will want to watch let alone endure the embarrassing beltings.

What are they afraid of? Not getting a game next week? Is Neeld such a pathetic manager and motivator that he thinks having them all afraid of him is the recipe for success?

The coaches box is the same, the whole lot of them looked uninspired and unemotional all the way through. It was a pathetic passive bunch in there. If anybody had any clues about what to do, they too appeared too frightened to speak up.

A culture of fear is not the way to get results or to play footy that is attractive to watch.

Look he's finished as coach.

I wouldn't bother dancing on his grave.

He has not got a clue whats going on and has no idea how to fix it.

This list has gone so far backwards under this guy its now a tragedy.

Jackson needs to move and put him out of his pain.

It needs to be quick so we can start moving on asap. Quick so the players can feel good about their footy and their futures again. The longer this inept Board delay, the greater the damage and loss of support.

Why delay the inevitable? Get it done and move on. The longer this inept Board of ours delay, the more long-term damage.

If nothing is done till years end, will any supporters turn up to our games? I am serious when i say that.

The stats on todays game should tell the CEO quite a bit. The coach is out of his depth.

He only needs to read Mclardy's last 2 letters to the members to understand the position of the President.

Can we risk another 15 weeks of destruction?

Sitting in the members today, under the Melb coaches box, here's a summary of the comments and feelings. A dread of the MFC v Hawks game,several commenting that they'll be anywhere but the 'G that day. Frustration and at times anger at the box who all sat gazing out impassively into space, helpless to do anything. Why are they helpless? Has Neeld got them all cowed into submission to him? No sign of much if any emotion, except for a few rolled eyes at some of McBurney's pathetic display.

If I knew nothing other than what I saw in the coaching box today, I'd assess the lot of them as totally uninspiring.

A few members waved fists at the box (unfortunately Neeld had left for the boundary) and shouted at the glass.

Quite a few comments too along the lines of the game plan is so convoluted and impossible that the players will never understand whatever Neeld's expecting of them, and it's never going to work anyway.

Quite a lot of empathy for the players, who weren't being blamed over all.

In my opinion if Neeld stays the year out, our club will be totally stuffed beyond recovery. We have seen 7 weeks of absolute crap without any real improvement, they still don't have defensive accountability anywhere on the ground, and the players seem too frightened to play instinctive, risk-taking exciting footy. It's always handball back, head for the boundary, avoid the centre corridor if possible. If the players had bought into whatever this spud is trying to do, they would play with far more intensity and tackling than we saw today.

We are currently pathetic and hopeless and no obvious way of improvement, except for a complete change of coaching direction.

I think he has just sacked the tea lady.

No it was the sandwich lady.

I would like to see what Todd Viney could do with our players for the rest of the season.

Put Frawley forward. Carlton's bigs won't do anything. Just try it for a round, not going to be the difference between winning and losing.

Last time we tried something like that, they fined us $500,000.

First thread i have started so see how it goes,

Timely thread, thanks DF26!

Big Max Gawn is a positive. My biggest worry (and I believe our big liability) is the quality of the coaching. If you were a player with your whole career (or what's left of it) before you, once you lose confidence in the coach and his style and game plan (such as it is), then you'd be stupid not to bail out. We simply can't afford any more of that.

As a club we need to nurture our positives, and ditch the liabilities.

I don't want Neeld gone until the blokes responsible for choosing him and Bails are gone too. We'll just be on the bloody merry go round again.

Garry Lyon?

Don't wish him on Geelong - we'd have nothing worth watching in AFL!

What can we imagine him doing with Geelong? Trading Paul Chapman & Stevie J perhaps? Getting them to play the boundaries??

The thing is, the "zone" we watch each week which in MN's world is "not a zone" would probably work with Geelong because the players are faster/tougher/less lazy and would force the contest. Something called "winning mentality".

Ha ha, don't worry, it's an experiment that will only ever happen in our imaginations!

One thing is sure from all we've seen over 5 weeks, Neeld can't coach this team. Maybe he'd do OK coaching Geelong. But as has been pointed out, to a fair degree Neeld has shaped MFC into the team it currently is. And when he took the job, he bought into the list at the time (knowing he couldn't make unlimited changes). So, where does that leave us?

The biggest indictment is what somebody said, under Neeld & the other coaches, they've got us to the point of being virtually unwatchable. Which is a recipe for looming disaster (surely for Neeld, hopefully not for our club as well).

I don't think when Neeld took over, that it was inevitable that we would become so bad as to be unwatchable.

What will happen if Malthouse's blues thrash us by 100+? Ironic if Mick's boys costs Neeld his job.

Well im blaming Scwab who I have noticed is holidaying in NY. But I dont get this cream. Why does Jack need to use anti obesity cream

Here's what a quick google turned up on the therapeutic efficacy of the drug AOD9604. Easy to see the attraction for the doc treating Trengove:

AOD is a peptide 15 amino acids long which mimics a small portion of the growth hormone that has the fat reducing effects (increases fat metabolism). It works by mimicking the way natural growth hormone regulates fat metabolism but without the adverse effects on blood sugar and growth that is seen if unmodified growth hormone is given. It stimulates lipolysis (break down of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (non fat food being stored in the body as fat).

AOD has been shown to target abnormal fat stores, and to prevent fat from being stored in the cells. Studies have shown that it reduces the most stubborn fat regions (like abdominal fat). It also has other benefits including increasing muscle mass, increasing IGF-1 (insulin growth factor) in a positive way to metabolise fat, and increase the amount of energy burned for the same amount of activity.

Other benefits which have been shown include an improvement in osteoarthritis. It does this by increasing cartilage and collagen production in the joints to increase the thickness and repair some of the damage. It has been shown to improve muscle, tendon and ligament repair, improve bone density which may have positive effects on osteoporosis.

AOD is given daily either as an injection or transdermal cream. The effects are accumulative and continue to improve while taking it.

As far as ASADA's concerned, it won't matter whether it's administered by injection or cream. Just injecting sounds worse when emblazoned across a Caro headline. The cream is the sort of stuff the Top Gear boys rub on their tummys each night.

It was discovered by Monash Uni scientists and is subject to a US patent.

Well, if it's true that Danks has such a letter issued by ASADA then why did the Bombers not make a copy?

And if such letter was in fact issued by ASADA, then surely as a matter of public interest, ASADA should release that correspondence?

I think you can be pretty certain that no such letter exists and that it's simply part of Dank's salesman's kit. In the pre-2013 atmosphere where it seems likely many clubs and players (and fitness gurus and club doc's) were flirting with such substances, it would have been very easy for all of the above to just go along with the euphoria and imagine that because something's not on the banned list and lots of others are trying it, just do the same.

Which doesn't excuse what seems to have happened, certainly at Essendon, in any way. I just hope not at Melbourne. But as Rhino keeps saying, either way at MFC (if the doc was a lone wolf, or if he's the scapegoat for a wider involvement) there have been serious administrative failings.

If last nights 4 Corners report was correct and I have no reason to disbelieve it , there is at least one other club and bound to be others who whilst not as careless as we may have been with our reporting, IMO will have ventured into the same murky paddock , so what of gtheir reporting obligations?

Exactly. I'm still puzzled why AD came out so quickly and strongly in condemning MFC after that 7.30 report (which he claimed upset him so because he was "blindsided"), but there's not been a peep out of the AFL (that I'm aware of) in condemning this "other" club who were clearly exploring the possibilities. At the very least, they must also be subject to the ASADA investigation (along with Geelong & Gold Coast, and how many others?).

Maybe AD wasn't "blinsided" (meaning, he already knew all about this "other" club). Or maybe it's a much tougher club for AD to put the boot into?

Dunno. Puzzling.

Stay Strong mate..i am not in a wheelchair (yet...)

Yeah, heart goes out to the Bannister family. Who knows, maybe Jordan umpiring the Dees game was the best therapy for him, at that particular time. Under the circumstances, who gives a stuff about the quality of his umpiring, we can be certain that Jordan was doing his very best on the day. Thanks and best wishes, Jordan.

WYL, I hope I'm misreading your comment above totally - if so, ignore this. But something in it struck me as ominous - I have 2 cousins, one already gone with MND and the other with its inevitable sentence just progressively weakening him. It's an insidious disease and I just hope none of you here who I regard (like Nasher said above) as my "Demonland friends" have anything like this hanging over you.

Anyway, best wishes mate and we've both got the determination to keep going until that glorious day in September does actually happen. Meanwhile, winning up in Brisbane will be especially sweet!

The Age writer Jon Pierik has turned into the lapdog for The Age's "Chief" attack dog.

His article on Eddie's outburst against the disgraceful Footy Classified of this week, reports that Eddie attacked GWS, Footy Classified, Garry Lyon and even the MFC. But not one mention, not even a whisper of Eddie having anything at all to say about Wilson! Disgraceful journalism as the whole point of Ed's outburst was to point out the bankrupt journalism of someone attempting to manipulate news agendas based on their personal campaigns against people like Swan & Brayshaw.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mcguire-denies-plan-on-swan-20130423-2icer.html

Perik's articles also drip with Wilson's hatred for MFC; for instance in his article in today's Age on drugs and Koch, he can't resist the phrase "The controversy engulfing Essendon and Melbourne...". Yeah, as if. Lumping us in with the Bombers deliberately injecting the team with who knows what, for whatever it takes.

My advice - boycott Footy Classified and The Age and enjoy this week's Melbourne victory up in Brisbane! Which will annoy heck out of Wilson and her lapdog.

I posted this on another thread and I would love to know the answer.

Is Demetriou more angry with us for answering a specific question he asked, which has proven to be the correct answer, but at the same time omitting to volunteer further information to a question not specifically asked, than he is with Essendon for injecting players in the stomach with unknown substances and having secret contracts that the AFL was not aware of?

I would love any media person in this country to have the guts to ask that simple question.

I don't know the answer to that either, and agree it will be interesting (very) to find out. You would imagine that Caro's "drug laboratory" at Windy Hill SHOULD be a much graver sin, but...

One thing though is for sure, right at this moment we are a much softer target than the mighty and powerful Essendon FC.

Are you suggesting Misson should have done this as general practice or in light of the board's inquiries?

If the good doc was prescribing supplements that had an effect on players' fitness (as has been indicated), then David Misson - who is described as "Melbourne's elite performance manager" - surely had a pretty strong interest in knowing what the doc was doctoring his players with.

And while we're on the subject, once the Essendon/Dank stink happened and the AFL questioned each club on their dealings with Danks, if McLardy knew of the doc's dealings with Dank but didn't inform the AFL very openly and transparently (despite it maybe not being a speific answer to the particular question they asked) then he will be gone very quickly. If on the other hand, McLardy didn't know of the doc's dealings with Dank, then why on earth didn't he - as president - make damn sure that he had left no stone unturned in discovering what if anything was going on in the ranks in relation to interaction with Danks? Again, it's symptomatic of gross corporate negligence and he has disqualified himself as being fit to continue as our president.

The only hope for McLardy is that he made strenuous efforts to discover any and all club connections to Danks, but was bare-faced lied to by the doc.

This little gem surfaced after the GWS game:

MELBOURNE president Don McLardy has urged the AFL to guarantee that only people with integrity and the highest of values are attracted to positions of power in football clubs.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-president-don-mclardy-says-the-afl-must-guarantee-the-integrity-of-the-league/story-e6frecm3-1226625296519

Indeed!

What is the next step for those boys who were given this AOD by Dank?

Is the cream banned?

Do they co-operate?

Would it matter?

I think they need to get lawyered up.

The quicker these questions are answered, the better.

One would suspect that the ABC have more exposés up their sleeve, and it seems that the bit they've already drip-fed about MFC is low on the richter scale compared with what they have on the "other" AFL club whose conversation with the compunding pharmacist was taped and re-enacted by them last night.

How long will Vlad maintain his silence on the latest developments?

Also The Age (Richard Baker & Nick McKenzie who, apart from the fact they're journo's, seem to have credibility) are now reporting:

Controversial biochemist Shane Charter claims he assisted more than 30 AFL players from six different clubs in using performance enhancing drugs.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wada-declares-obesity-drug-illegal-20130423-2ibhh.html

So, which are the 6 clubs?

And in Sam Lane's report of the taped meeting between that other club ("not Melbourne or Essendon"):

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-club-officials-taped-on-drug-use-20130422-2iaqi.html

According to a report on the ABC's Four Corners, the club officials - who were not from Essendon or Melbourne - were told last year that growth hormone was expensive but they were guaranteed it was "child's play" to avoid testing positive to the substance.

The officials were not identified in the report, but in a re-enactment of the recorded discussion, one said of growth hormones: "I keep hearing lots of players are using it."

Has there been any report of the AFL response to this astonishing claim? Which is this "other" club? Is the AFL investigating them? The conversation is taped and the ABC have it. Hardly likely to vanish under the carpet. Or is any investigation by Vlad being conducted in secret, and why?