heartbeatstrue

The evidence which encouraged me in that belief was a paragraph in a Caroline Wilson article.

An oxymoron of the highest order!

Latest offering from The Age:

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

WADA declares obesity drug illegal

A yet-to-be-approved for human use anti-obesity drug allegedly injected into AFL and NRL players by sports scientist Steven Dank has been classified a prohibited substance by the World Anti Doping Authority.

In a notification released overnight, WADA said the drug, AOD-9604, fell under the category of substances that are prohibited because they have "no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use".

WADA ruled in 2012 that the use of unapproved substances fell under its prohibited category. This raises the prospect that footballers injected with AOD-9604 last year may have unwittingly breached anti-doping rules.

WADA's overnight notification on the status of AOD-9604 puts to rest speculation about the uncertain status of the substance in terms of its compliance with anti-doping rules.

Just about cooks the goose of all players who have been discovered to have used AOD-9604.

If we doped and they knew about it - they will be dealt with.

I don't think there are any allegations that "we doped and they knew about it". Even Wilson on Footy Classified last night said there was no evidence or suggestions that MFC was involved with performance-enhancing drugs. The charges are that we "misled" Vlad and made him splutter his morning coffee when he was "blindsided" by the text messages read out on the ABC 7.30 the night before. It seems to me that if we've got nothing to hide, our best interests are served by being very open and transparent, and not giving more fuel to the Melbourne-haters amongst the journos.

As supporters who have been through so much in our love for this club, we could do with some categoric assurances. Right now, the credibility of the MFC administration is very low, and it would help to know they aren't hiding more stuff that will inevitably come out and could devastate MFC even more.

They may need one at MFC if Bates can prove he was not a lone wolf in the awareness of dealings with Danks.

Even with my strong bias, it's awfully hard to imagine that Bates was a lone wolf in this. I'm dreading what more might be lurking under the MFC carpet...

Thanks Ron, appreciated.

HBT

Will they test club officials and AFL employees too?

Yeah with a lie detector... (remember Vlad hates being "deceived" almost as much as he hates being "blindsided" over his morning coffee)

You're not suggesting that there are club boards other than the MFC that might have advertently or inadvertently misled the AFL on player drug use in the past or even the present are you?

If it was a club the "Chief" football writer disliked, surely she would have filled the back page of The Age with it by now...??

Last night's Footy Classified was illuminating. The fact that MFC won (and on a week when Richmond didn't) must have upset the "Chief" football writer so very much. After drawing a long bow and attempting to drag Neeld as well as Craig into the Danks saga, she embarked on what came across as a rather nasty personal attack on James Brayshaw (and his failure to appreciate properly club doctors).

For those not in the habit of staying up late on Monday nights, I would strongly advise not to. She is so annoying.

Anyway, this is what the "Chief" writer has filled the back page of The Age with this morning ("Roos under scrutiny over doctor").

It is left to Samantha Lane on the inside pages to write the real story of the day, with integrity:

"AFL club officials taped on drug use".

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/22/3740178.htm

It's a report of the re-enactment on 4 Corners last night - it's towards the end of the program:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/22/3740178.htm

As Lane says, there is a recording floating around of AFL club officials - not from Essendon or Melbourne - discussing the use of human growth hormones with a compunding pharmacist:

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." The pharmacist told them: ''There are ways of avoiding things. I deal with a lot of players and athletes who take growth hormones and getting past the GH test is child's play. You just keep an eye on the relevant markers."

The pharmacist said the performances of the club's players would "go through the roof" if they used growth hormone properly. He said he could provide prescriptions, and added: "I've got all the right doctors on board to help."

Whichever AFL club those officials are from, you would assume AD will be feeling pretty "blindsided" by this taped discussion this morning, and perhaps just a little but misled by whatever assurances that particular AFL club has given him on their connections and research into performance enhancing drugs in footy.

If the "suplements" are not banned, whats the problem? Players taking vitamins, and extracts etc... has been going on forever and most people take some level of these things (i.e Multivitamins, cod liver oil, etc...).

If what has been reported is true, the problem is that the club - our club - has lied to the AFL about a very serious matter (ongoing investigation involving Dank, Essendon & performance-enhancing drug use), and about which the truth was always going to surface. I find it hard, almost impossible, to fathom that McLardy and whoever else who knew about the doc's association with Dank would even imagine they could hide it from the AFL and ASADA's investigators.

If it was as you say and there was no illegality, the wise and ethical thing was to fully admit to everything. Not to lie. That is plain stupid.

In my view, if this is what has happened, McLardy must go immediately and in total disgrace.

If the text messages are factual, and MFC has been less than fully truthful with the AFL over the club's association with Dank and his 'supplements', then as far as I'm concerned Don McLardy must immediately resign in disgrace, along with any other club officials or directors who share in the culpability.

I love and support MFC but not such unethical and stupid behaviour.

HBT

MN aparently is trying to emulate the pies Game plan, are our players suited to it? how long till we see it?

All i see on field is players confused garding space and leaving the oposition players free, when we do get the ball we go long down the boundry even when its not the best option ie two on ones. Does MN have a plan B he can turn to when were getting smashed, all we seem to do is flood the back line.

Id like to see us play man on man for four quaters this week. Thoughts?

Well I agree with you to the extent that what seems fundamentally missing is defensive accountability right across the ground, from the backline to the forwards. Why this is happening is not so clear - poor game plan, poor coaching instructions (communication breakdown) or poor execution? Or bits of all?

In school footy, it's simple "man up!" We all understood when the coach barked that at us. In the 8 quarters of footy we've watched this year, what has been missing is effective defensive structures which means no defensive pressure on opposition players. And the result is you are always going to get smashed until you introduce it into your game plan, or communicate it into the players' heads, or train them (and bully them if necessary) into executing what the coach has got in mind.

Paul Roos described the problem as he saw it in Tuesday's Herald-Sun:

Paul Roos, whose Sydney sides were renowned for defensive discipline, said he believed most Demons did not have the appetite to get their hands dirty. "There's effort and there's maximum effort, and I talked about this a lot with our players. I don't think any player goes out there and doesn't give effort, but what you don't see with Melbourne is maximum effort and that's what those stats show".

"Maximum effort is working both ways. Players coming into the game now, the majority can find the ball and they know where to go to get it, but do they want to work and stop someone else from getting it? Not many want to do that initially. You have to teach them. Everyone wants to run and get the ball and it's fun and part of the game, and it's what we loved as a kid, but the not-so-sexy part is tackling, spreading, running and picking someone up. I think Melbourne players give effort, but they don't give maximum effort. Probably some of them don't have a clue what maximum effort is."

Exactly.

It's hopeless trying to defend by guarding space when your opponent is a step away - pinpoint passes mean you're never going to make up even one yard separation when he's got the ball and you're chasing. Not a possibility of laying a tackle.

The good thing is that this can all be changed around pretty quickly. If it's a failing in the coaching game plan, MN just needs to realise the importance of effective defensive structures. If it's communication problems, surely the message is now loud and clear. if it's the players not giving maximum effort as Roos says, then that's why we've got coaches and mentors like Craig.

Just give them some tackling goals and hammer the message of accountability for your opponent and absolute importance of "maximum effort". Or go out there and head hunt Paul Roos!

This from Jake Niall's article in today's Age:

the AFL can no longer take any pride in the empirical fact that no AFL footballer since 1997 has recorded a positive test for WADA-banned substances (Richmond's Justin Charles being the last one).

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/smorgasbord-of-drugs-on-offer--legal-and-otherwise-20130410-2hlvh.html

Niall also says:

In effect, the expert told and sold the officials on the possibilities - and there were a hell of a lot of them. Much of what was being offered couldn't be detected via drug testing. Other substances were not banned; still others weren't even on the radar of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

It was possible, the expert said, for the players to have specific amino acids tailored for their body.

Personally I think it is unlikely that the Chief Football Writer for The Age will find it possible to objectively investigate and cast her opinions on Richmond FC's involvement if any, and on the culture at Richmond in Justin Charles' time there.

Hence this thread, for as the stories develop.

A cunning zone defense, where our players stand around like witches hats while the opposition players run off in different directions, so once the balls kicked in usually to an unmanned player our players either continue to zone up or try to find their man who is usually streaming off towards their goals with the ball. they had 200 extra possessions, that is not accountable football. How can you have accountable football when your primary job is to be a witches hat and stand there waving your arms around. The players are being given two contrary instructions that they cannot resolve during the game. Sure it worked in practice because when we played witches hats to ourselves our own sloppy kicked resulted in the turnovers, or we would stop the play and do it again until we got it right, real life is not like that. We are playing sides that kick to position well and do not turn it over, especially when there is no pressure on them.

Exactly.

If this isn't how it actually is (and it seems Neeld is in denial about any form of zone defence), we've got 8 qtrs of evidence now that strongly suggests it. So either fix the zoning, or fix whatever it is that makes the players play like it.

Or face another possibly worse hammering next week.

It was the most common cry from MFC supporters in the Members last night... "MAN UP!" Mind you, there wasn't much else to get vocal about (don't you just hate gloating Bombers fans, worst sort).

Watching them the past 2 weeks, the most obvious problem with how they're being coached to play is a total lack of any effective defensive structures, which means we're always going to get hammered. There's effectively no defensive pressure, anywhere on the ground.

The Neeld/Craig game plan seems to involve some form of cunning zone defence (even if Neeld doesn't call it like that, what else is going on when for 4 qtrs they just floated into some space away from where the Bombers players were, which obviously meant when Essendon had possession, Bombers players were always first to the ball). It makes it so easy for the opposition to quickly and without much if any resistance move the ball quickly from end to end.

If that's not what the players are being asked to do, then why hasn't it been addressed by the coaches in 2 whole games and a week in between, now?

I could think of dozens of things starting with manning up. But tell me do you think they know what that means in the olld fashioned sense of the word. What about the mini conferences the backs had after each goal. Leave your man to have a 30 secomd mental/ physical break while you got talk with your team mates.

I wondered about those back-line mini-conferences too. What do you think they were saying to each other? I know what I would have liked to have said to them...

It's pretty obvious that the change will not come from changing personnel but rather from changing their collective attitude. The problem ATM is what's in between their ears.

I'm not sure any more as to whether it's within the coach's capacity to effect that change.

It's clear lots of things have to change. But that's the biggest doubt I have right now, and so the coach is the most obvious and probably easiest change to hopefully save the club for better years to come.

Two games in and this year's gone already.

Totally gutted right now. Hard to know what to say, or what thread to say it on. Chose this because it's where I wrote after last week's loss, that on the evidence of what we saw against Port, Neeld isn't up to senior coaching right now. Learning he may be, but the point's been underlined, emphasised in bold last night - he aint got it right now.

Again there was little evidence of any defensive structures, which meant when the Bombers got the ball they could usually do what they liked with it. If we're not flirting with some type of zone-defence game plan, then why aren't players manning up (basic footy instinct)?

Add to that an overall lack of intensity - TW reckoned when the ball was in contention, 95% of the time a Bomber came away with it. Who's to blame for that? Players, coaches, club culture, something in the water?

You might have been please to hear Neeld during the week say the we do not employ a zone defense, in spite of how it looked on Sunday.

What type of defence is it I wonder?

Unless some things change, we're facing hammering after hammering. By whoever we play. Currently there's effectively no defensive pressure, anywhere on the ground.

But change what? The board? Coach? Assistants? Culture? Can't readily change the players (but must query the changes that presumably Neeld demanded - those we lost were clearly better than what we've replaced them with. Again a question mark over Neeld).

After the weak Port effort, I had this sinking feeling that any more pathetic efforts would go close to destroying our club. That's the world we're in this Sunday morning.

End of 2014

Oh... thanks!

Whatever happens from here, on the evidence of what we watched on Sunday, at this present time Neeld is not up to coaching AFL.

The bleedingly obvious lack of any effective defensive structures meant we were always going to get hammered. By whoever we played. Effectively no defensive pressure, anywhere on the ground.

Neeld may be learning. But as of right now he aint got it. OOC end of 2013, will take a miracle for him to last. Any more pathetic efforts like Sunday will go close to destroying our club. Sadly, it's hard not to see another one coming Saturday night. Terribly, terribly disappointing (and heartbreaking).

Buddy was the biggest champ running around on gran final day 2012?

A certain dual Brownlow medallist might have a case to argue about that...

Swans have a host of players I'd consider superior to the Hawks, including one who used to be there.

Goodes had been injured and his form wasn't great leading in to the GF (I know, I'd been hanging on him with my DT). On the day, he played with the injury and what he showed in bursts was the inspirational stuff of champs. Arguably his contribution to his team under those circumstances was the most decisive in the result, so on the day I would have to agree.

Also after the game and the result, many would agree with you. But leading in to it, more would have said the Hawks were the most star-studded.

It's a most interesting game for analysing the OP question.

Define 'champ'. Surely there's no magic standard, champs vary from out-and-out to common or garden.

Think, last year's GF. Certainly Buddy was the biggest 'champ' running around, but the Hawks had plenty of others (potential ones anyway). How many would you ascribe to the Swans?

I remember my days coaching school footy, the most memorable and satisfying win involved the whole team lifting and feeding off each other's efforts and desire. it's not something as a coach you can easily find the switch to turn on, but when it happens you have pretty much an unbeatable team on the day.

On the other hand, some of the most dismal memories involved teams studded with 'champs' who failed to galvanise the rest of the team and even champion efforts across the list aren't enough when the team as a whole isn't firing.

In short, the more 'champs' (however you define them) the better, but there's something else too. I saw it in the Dees in 1987, under Swooper. The way that team thrashed North in the first final on the MCG, then repeated it against the Swans the following week. The stuff of dreams...

So we "experimented" AND we lost to Richmond.

Presumably now The Age and their award-winning star sports journo can find us guilty again of "tanking". But perhaps this is exactly why Vlad has so much trouble getting his head around what constitutes the "crime".

Quiet you fool. People might realise that our $500K fine is in HK dollars.

Haha... very good.

The Age newspaper...

their role in damaging MFC's reputation

jnrmac, on 17 Feb 2013 - 23:42, said:

I'm convinced that Caro forced this investigation not Brock McLean. Caro went to the AFL with a 'brief' of evidence from a disgruntled ex-employee. Its why she has run so hard with the story. AA was running it and I have no doubt was her liaison but the leaks as we are seeing them are actually her repeating the 'evidence' that was told to her.

There is no other logical reason she has carried on the way she has.

Maybe. Plausible as conspiracy theories go. Have we discovered yet from the AFL report who the rats in the MFC ranks were?

Even this morning's Wilson headline:

Dees push to have fine halved

Like a dog with a bone, she just couldn't let go. Right up to the bitter end.

Now the headline:

Dees not guilty of tanking

Ha! That sure wasn't written by Wilson. But she has done irreparable damage to her own reputation, and sadly to that of The Age. If we say it enough and get The Age into the banners of the threads pointing out their lack of ethics and objectivity, hopefully it will get picked up by Google. They've done their best to damage MFC and we can fight back.

And keep repeating that they're also in trouble and should be investigated over their shoddy sports pages:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/media-bosses-critical-of-papers-miscalculation/story-fn63e0vj-1226579191175

But we were not cleared not at all!! we will forever be known as the tanker's.. It will stick no one buys it..

I was driving home and heard those words on the news... "MELBOURNE CLEARED OF TANKING". That was pretty, pretty good!

If you're worried about Caroline Wilson's incessant "tanking" allegations in The Age newspaper,

a) stop buying The Age;

b) remember how wrong she has been and the damage to her reputation; and

c) keep reminding anyone and everyone of this fact:

Wallace Tanked for Top Pick

Terry Wallace admits not trying in AFL game to secure Trent Cotchin

TERRY WALLACE ADMITS NOT TRYING IN AFL GAME TO SECURE TRENT COTCHIN

Former Richmond coach Terry Wallace has confirmed he did "absolutely nothing" in a game two years ago, knowing a win would cost the club prized recruit Trent Cotchin.

As the AFL continues to deny tanking exists, Wallace told the Herald Sun he was compromised as the Tigers took on St Kilda in Round 22, 2007.

"It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said.

"We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out.

"I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes."

Richmond led by nine points 12 minutes into the final term, but the Saints kicked the last three goals to win by 10 points.

I stand corrected Ben, Wilson is consistent, consistently pathetic. I am sure you agree that her vendetta against us has seen no balance in her articles?

I am still struggling with all of this, as my info is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the MFC actually tanking in the report. No one has said we actually tanked. Even McLean recanted his ambiguous statement that started it all.

I repeat that the strongest thing coming out of the report, on my info, is the so called "vault" statement of Connolly, whcih Bailey has said was a joke and which he totally ignored. Bailey's Solicitor said he denied tanking and will contest any finding that he did.

It has been suggested in the media, that the statements that have been made, have apparently led to complaints from some of those making them, that they were recorded inaccurately and done under coercion and intimidation.

Given that the vault statement is a private in house statement, how does it bring the game into disrepute without the 7 month investigation that is leaked to the media before it is even shown to the alleged culprit?

The rule is unclear and ambiguous, as to "perform on your merits" and tanking is not defined other than the CEO's definition of instructing players to lose, which didn't happen.

Other clubs despite more initial evidence than McLean's statement, are not being investigated, suggesting either an approval of what was done or an unwillingness to take on stronger clubs. In other words "Bias" is being shown in the administration of the competition.

If the above is true, no wonder the MFC don't want to settle and its lawyers want to litigate if it is charged.

BTW. Jason McGrath a former Lions player, today said he sold drugs to Lions players and assisted them with match fixing and spot fixing, several years ago. Do you think that will be investigated, considering it involves serious matters, against a beloved interstate club of the AFL?

Great summing up. And incidentally, the Jason McGrath allegations about Brisbane are definitely in the "Defcon 1" category. So it will be clear bias (read, hypocrisy) if the AFL having acted on Brock McLean's big mouth, simply accept Brisbane's bleating over McGrath and fail to have a proper investigation.

We are waiting and watching, AFL...