sue

Did I see the much maligned C Dawes take a few one grab marks?

Gotta enjoy demonland. After Q2 the razor blades were out and we were bound for the bottom again. Then it turned out Freo were just as bad in Q3.

I haven't followed this as closely as BBob ( ), but are there not 25 players from the list at the time still at EFC who have possibly been before the tribunal? Does that mean that the protection of 21 players privacy is less important to EFC than the protection of 25? It's like a shoal of fish evading a shark - doesn't help to make the shoal smaller. Perhaps the rationale is that there are now 4 fewer non-charged players whose reputations are thus no longer subject to suspicion? I've never understood the privacy argument. Is it to stop the media pestering the subset of the 25? Surely the media being what it is would have no hesitation in pestering all 25 (or now 21). Or let's assume that the players are all found not guilty (or not proven in Scotland). Does that mean players who were not charged are happy to forever be subject of suspicion?

A lot of what you say is true, but to say there have been no developments is not right. Every time there is an article in the media it seems reasonable for people here to comment on it. In theory I hate no club more than others, but by crikey when I recall the 2000 GF and compare EFC with say a struggling club like Footscray, I know where I'll apply any schadenfreude I can conjure up.

At the risk of popping into the top 10, whether this is a bigger story than the change in cricket is neither here nor there. It is a big story. But of course, compared to that day in the Colosseum in 26BC it is a storm in a teacup.

The thought that a player like Tippett could be stopped from playing for many months because a team did something naughty with transfers etc when players could get a small penalty when their team did something much worse than naughty with cheating drugs makes me sick.

There are other places to look though you'd probably need a warrant (though that check on government powers is about to go out the window). For example, it would be informative to see all the emails google and yahoo etc have got from about that time. As for backups, the incremental ones would probably not present a problem to those wishing to destroy all records and may not generate a suspicious gap depending on when forensic examination began. The absence of occasional full backups could be somewhat incriminating. Even if they wisely had 2 off-site full backups, if the IT staff set it all up and can get physically at the off-site media, they should have no trouble hiding stuff, but maybe not explaining the gap. But what if the IT staff squealed? I recall the Yes Minister episode where Sir Humphrey continually 'regrets' the records lost in the great flood of 1964. Alas Minister....

Forgive me for being off topic, but this phrase continues to grate with me. Surely he 'marks the ball when he is at his highest point' is what you and commentators mean when they say this. The ball's highest point is usually very much higher. Of am I missing something?

I was going to post something similar, but then I thought, crikey, no need to give Hird ideas.

Wm, interesting post- how do you know about these texts?

Unbelievable, first that anyone would think this meeting appropriate and second, why not weeks ago if they needed:

An excellent question. I'd also love to know what they said about their decision to the other players and coaches and doc and what the reactions were.

Disagree. Unless you call in the NSA, and even then, it is not that hard to delete files completely if you know what you are doing (and without physically destroying and dumping the disk drives into the Yarra). Your main danger is making sure you have also got all the backups deleted similarly. Assuming of course you do back up ........ That said, I'm not saying they did delete anything - I suspect they weren't tech savy enough to be sure they got it all and would be worried about how bad if would look if something popped up which wasn't meant to exist any longer or they carelessly left some other trace in re-writing back all the kosher data. Anyway, we don't have any idea of how forensically EFC's systems were examined so it do we? Were all their computers marched off-site, and if so, by whom?

Wolfmother I don't think this is a case of people being shouted down. When if comes down to it, "no records" is not significantly different from inadequate ones which provide no evidence either way. But it does bear on the issue of did they destroy incriminating records. The existence of poor records is some indication that nothing was destroyed. Only some indication though, not conclusive evidence.

A few probably do, but if they have any intellectual honesty when they compare results with a proper control group, they'll no longer be homoeopaths. Dank strikes me as so much of a snake-oil salesman that he might just boast without caring about much evidence.

Someone claimed that the fact records were missing was a fiction about 100 pages back in the thread. But I can't see why compliant HUN reporters would be the source of the myth - the absence of records doesn't necessarily support the EFC.

Do homoeopaths keep records? If Dank was slack and had enough players in the program, he might not care that one or two missed an injection. The end result would be the focus. What do you think are in these records?

Probably, but I'm not so sure. But Dank strikes me as such a cowboy that he might not bother to keep any records. He's just the sort of snake-oil salesman who'd be bragging about the results without any detailed data to back up his claims of success. After all, a potential customer is interested in the final result, not the day by day injection regime and 'progress'. If they asked for that detail, Dank might even claim that to be his secret IP. Or he may have just relied on Essendon keeping the records and assumed he'd have access to them whenever he wanted. Then they mysteriously disappeared. But it is really beside the point. We're all sure Essendon kept records - big waste of money if they didn't and completely out of keeping with the micro management of players that goes on these days. The fact that they may no longer exist is damning enough. I'm almost surprised they haven't created a set of bogus, but innocent ones by now.

Older again, but I'm guessing butter=nutter.

Jon Ralph's article in the HUN is amazingly brief. No mention of records etc etc. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/former-essendon-biochemist-stephen-dank-remains-unrepentant-despite-facing-life-ban/story-fni5ezdm-1227243871341

But not necessarily for Dank. No real reason why he'd keep his own copy, in fact his agreement with EFC may have been "EFC owns this valuable data, so only EFC will keep a copy". Whoops......

The man is mad. Somewhere in the universe

pm please...

ET old chum, I wasn't asking for an apology, just wondering if you had read it. Remember my ? and that read and read mean slightly different things depending on how you pronounce them.... I'm pretty sure I have the latest software updates. So are you getting it to work using AppleTV with airplay? Doesn't seem possible according to Telstra, nor the many complaints in the iTunes reviews: The Ts and Cs do not permit AirPlay: http://www.afl.com.au/livepass/telstra-terms-and-conditions "Airplay: Airplay Mirroring and any form of external video output of streamed content is not permitted and is not provided as part of any AFL Live Pass. "Telstra’s agreement with the AFL restricts the display of live match videos to the current screen size. Match highlights and match replays are available for viewing in full screen size."

ET - read the first post in this thread?