deejammin'

Legal Issues aside. What irratates me about this is that if the players get off as perhaps they should I don't believe it is fair to the 17 other clubs in the competition. Essendon clearly gave substances to their players in order to aid recovery, be able to increase training loads, improve speed in recovering from injuries and generally gain an advantage. I don't think this is in the spirit of professional sport in general. But also if they went so close to the line they found a grey area and manipulated it, it may not be illegal but its certainly unfair to the 17 other clubs who didn't pursue this avenue and to the players who weren't willing to take part in such a program. Even worse if the players were injected with performance enhancing drugs like thymosin beta 4, then whether or not they were willing and aware, they were given a clear advantage that is outside the rules and is totally unfair to the rest of the competition. It may be that Essendon were so corrupt, incompetent or both as to not know which players these are, and it may not be proscecutable as a result. However the fact remains, every other player in the comp is at a disadvantage as long as these people are playing and the integrity of the sport will be questionable until they cease to compete, or such a time passes as the drug would no longer have aided their performance. I understand the sympathy for the Essendon players, but I feel far more sympathy for all the players from other clubs who have always stayed within the rules.

We had a crack yesterday. I enjoyed that element of it. We took the game on, we had a bit of the ball and didn't look as rudderless as in other performances this year. A few things: Watts was great, he's showed a bit in patches over the last couple of weeks but it seems to be coming together. He's definately a problem up forward when he gets to play on a 2nd or 3rd best defender and he seems to have gained some aggro in the way he attacks the contest. He needed to nail those goals in the 2nd and take some more marks, but if you have Clark in that forward line instead of Fitzy and a fit Dawes, Watts will be very problematic for the opposition. Our midfield warmed into the game but the first 5 minutes were terrible, it was remiscent of the PA game the way we failed to win any centre clearances or even pressure the opposition. After this we were much better and did a good job of applying pressure around the ground. We managed to lock it in our 50 regularly and really should have done a better job of scoring from our entries, just too rushed with the final decision and appaling kicking to the forward line. Garland was excellent, TMac did a great job on Riewolt, Terlich showed a bit but butchered it, Clisby was ok, Pedersen needs to be out and replaced by Frawley... Overall some good signs, there seems to be alot more positives than only 2 weeks ago, so there we are. Last but not least, THE UMPIRING was woeful, there were shocking frees both ways but St Kilda got the rub of the green in as much as the frees they got stopped the play and resulted in goals, where as frees to us were largely inneffectual. 1. The too high decision to Kosi when he was clearly holding the ball and tackled below the shoulder in the goalsquare was terrible. 2. The holding decision where Roo and Tmac were wrestling then Roo throws his arms out to reveal no pull of the jumper, no hold, no arm bars, nothing and received a free kick was a joke, Gerard Wheately defending it on radio was also a disgrace. Terrible decision. 3. The 50 metres against Dawes when he actually spoiled the ball in a marking contest was terrible and resulted in a goal. He hit the ball with one action and it was so close you could argue it should have been play on rather than a mark! 4. The sheparding decision in the huddle to Clint Jones was a disgrace, paid from 50 metres away by a largely unsighted umpire, then the fact that the free was taken from the point of the square by Reiwolt compounded a terrible decision. All of these frees changed the momentum and took the ball from a neutral situation, in two occasions outside 50 and handed St Kilda undeserved goals. This was the difference and the Umpires received the boos they deserved from our supporters. I know we always get the worst umps but for a professtional sport to still have amateurs (non-full time pros) umpiring the game is a disgrace. Would have been an interesting game had these decisions come out neutral.

I think the point has often been missed lately so here goes: What do these players have in common: Brent Moloney Brock McLean Jared Rivers Cameron Bruce* All four players left the club in order to pursue their own interests at a time where we most needed them to stand up. The fact is a Brent Moloney that bought in, tried hard, set an example in terms of attitude and put team first would still be at Melbourne, he gave himself the excuse by cracking it and regardless of whether Neeld handled it well or not he had a choice to help the club or leave. The other fact is our club also needed Jared Rivers' leadership and had he chosen to stay he would have been welcomed with open arms like other clubs that have players that have sacrificed in order to help the cause Boak being an example. Brock McLean left of his own valition when we needed leadership and Cameron Bruce cracked it over not being offered a contract when he (with Hindsight) he wouldn't have nescessarily been able to play it out. *I know the Junior situation which was a terrible mistake impacted on Bruce but the fact remains he left when he had a strong option to stay. I am not saying that these four players would have had us rocket up the ladder, but they would have filled a void of senior players to set an example on the training track and make our team more competitive over the last couple of years which in my opinion would have greatly helped the development of younger players. It may have also stopped us from needing to bring in the Rodans and Byrnes as had they behaved like real leaders and senior players the dearth of leadership may not have been so great. Add to this the Tom Scully situation (which may have come out well in the long run but has certainly hurt our midfield in the short term), the stupid Junior decision and you actually have a huge part of the reason for our non-competitive list. Certainly if these players had hung around and done the team thing we would have forced players to earn games.

So happy to see a win, I don't care who its against, a win is a win, particularly when on the first 3 weeks form I was starting to believe we wouldn't win a game all year. On GWS, I know people like to feel better about the expansion teams by considering them irrelevent easy beats who good teams consider a Bye.But the fact is this won't be the case for long. It may be sooner or later but GWS will start winning games against weaker clubs as they have been the beneficiary of one of the most unprecendented club builds of all time. Their finances are unprecedented, their salary cap advantage is unprecedented (kills Brisbanes and look what they did) their draft concessions are unprecedented, their ability to raid other clubs is unprecedented, the mini-draft is unprecendented, their board and admin is run by the AFL, the AFL has a vested interest in seeing them win and the CEO of the AFL is out there petitioning one of the best players in the comp to go there. I know that it makes the installation of these clubs more palatable to believe they will be pathetic for ages and that 27 games is nothing it will take decades, but the reality is no one really knows what the impact of these concessions will be, certainly we all know what the intent is, the AFL wants them to win a premiership, and soon. So I am seriously relieved they are yet to beat us, especially when our club is in such a moment crisis with such poor form. GWS and GC will start going past established teams very soon, they HAVE to, the AFL wills it! So lets just be glad that for now we are still beating them, if we can stay ahead of them the way things stand now it would be bloody amazing! Also, Mitch Clark had a good game in terms of his impact in helping out other teammates, but if he had been on, and if Jordan Bannister wasn't as bad an umpire as he was a footballer he could have had 4 goals yesterday! The two set shots he missed he normally would be nailing, the kick off the ground in the goalsquare was bad luck, and the mark in the goalsquare that was taken off him was a joke! Add to that the constantly mauling and pushing in the back in marking contests and he should have had a day out. I hope his foot recovers very quickly. Go Dees!

I'm in the 4 from 4, but I only made it to the 2nd half of the West coast game, in fact to be accurate, 20mins into the 3rd quarter I got there having sprinted from work, and yes I knew the score. I take the word supporter very literally and had a great time this weekend, (mainly in the 4th quarter although I thought the 1st was fun too), I'll be watching on tv next week and will be back at the G for the Carlton game, so when the tide turns I can say I was there when we were terrible.

It is possible that Bate has misled the MFC about his relationship with Dank, it is actually possible that the club is innocent. I am astounded how many people on here can't read between the lines of the MFC statement. A) It is likely that the meetings with Craig and Misson referred to in the text messages was part of the interview process for the position Dank applied for and was unsuccessful in pursuing. In fact Bate saying "give it a crack" to me confirms this. This also means that the players can never have met Dank in an official capacity, and the club never said that senior members of the FD department didn't meet with Dank as part of this process, indeed they confirmed the process took place. Which means it is still possible that players never interacted with Dank, so the club statement may actually not be a lie. B) It is likely the club was completely unaware that Bate consulted with Dank about supplements, and this on its own is not suprising, it would be extremely irresponsible for a club doctor to not be informed about all the supplements different AFL clubs are using, I would hope Bate has consulted widely accross the industry with other pharmaceutical providers, and Dank was one of the most well known and highly respected before this investigation began. Also it is hardly suprising that Bate consulted with Dank on an ideal clinic for the players to receive their vitamin injections as Dank owns one of the largest sports science clinics in Australia and at the time was in contention for a job at Melbourne. C) No player has been prescibed or given any of the substances Essendon is in trouble for. Our sports science division didn't aprove it as it wasn't prescribed and the statement infers that Bate thought these substances weren't suitable (3rd last dot point of MFC statement) and didn't prescribe them. D) the only way MFC players received contentionious substances is if Bate was doing the dodgy behind the clubs back, or if players were going to Dank of their own valition, as Dank was never employed by the club this is possible but I think it is extrememly unlikely as there would be a money trail that should have been easy for ASADA to find before now. It is worrying but Bate may be completely innocent as the ABC report didn't show the complete transcipts to provide context for the messages. E) Even if Bate has been dodgy it is possible he kept the club completely in the dark about Dank hence the statement. He may have done this deliberately, or it is possible that he thought the correspondance between he and Bate was inconcequential as it was just standard consultation. Whatever the true answer it is likely the MFC never knew about this Bate Dank correspondance. If they did they would have nothing to lose in revealing it, which is what leads me to believe this is the case. F) MFC is not guilty of any of the things Essendon is in trouble for, all MFC medications had to be prescribed which leads a clear paper trail (Essendon Didn't) all Melbourne's injections were given by a registered Nurse at a medical clinic (Not houses in the outer suburbs like Essendon), MFC can confirm no player was given any contentious substances (Essendon can't), Dank was never employed or given any right to treat MFC players (unlike Essendon). The only way MFC can be in trouble is if the club doctor or players have done the dodgy behind the clubs back without following protocol, unlike like Essendons program which was club sanctioned. Certainly the MFC isn't accused of the institutionalised doping that Essendon is, and this is what the clubs statement says.

Hey RPFC, we are, certainly Bate is in trouble. But comparisons with Essendon are stupid, and it is still possible that the club didn't lie to the AFL, it may have been unaware of what relationship Bate had with Dank. I am sure it will all come out, but everything I said is there in the statement. The club seems to have followed all the AFL's protocols, unlike Essendon, so Bate may be sacked, but there hasn't been any illegal supplement use, and its possible the club is innocent.

I am astounded how many people on here can't read between the lines of the MFC statement. A) It is likely that the meetings with Craig and Misson referred to in the text messages was part of the interview process for the position Dank applied for and was unsuccessful in pursuing. In fact Bate saying "give it a crack" to me confirms this. This also means that the players can never have met Dank in an official capacity, and the club never said that senior members of the FD department didn't meet with Dank as part of this process, indeed they confirmed the process took place. Which means it is still possible that players never interacted with Dank, so the club statement may actually not be a lie. B) It is likely the club was completely unaware that Bate consulted with Dank about supplements, and this on its own is not suprising, it would be extremely irresponsible for a club doctor to not be informed about all the supplements different AFL clubs are using, I would hope Bate has consulted widely accross the industry with other pharmaceutical providers, and Dank was one of the most well known and highly respected before this investigation began. Also it is hardly suprising that Bate consulted with Dank on an ideal clinic for the players to receive their vitamin injections as Dank owns one of the largest sports science clinics in Australia and at the time was in contention for a job at Melbourne. C) No player has been prescibed or given any of the substances Essendon is in trouble for. Our sports science division didn't aprove it as it wasn't prescribed and the statement infers that Bate thought these substances weren't suitable (3rd last dot point of MFC statement) and didn't prescribe them. D) the only way MFC players received contentionious substances is if Bate was doing the dodgy behind the clubs back, or if players were going to Dank of their own valition, as Dank was never employed by the club this is possible but I think it is extrememly unlikely as there would be a money trail that should have been easy for ASADA to find before now. It is worrying but Bate may be completely innocent as the ABC report didn't show the complete transcipts to provide context for the messages. E) Even if Bate has been dodgy it is possible he kept the club completely in the dark about Dank hence the statement. He may have done this deliberately, or it is possible that he thought the correspondance between he and Bate was inconcequential as it was just standard consultation. Whatever the true answer it is likely the MFC never knew about this Bate Dank correspondance. If they did they would have nothing to lose in revealing it, which is what leads me to believe this is the case. F) MFC is not guilty of any of the things Essendon is in trouble for, all MFC medications had to be prescribed which leads a clear paper trail (Essendon Didn't) all Melbourne's injections were given by a registered Nurse at a medical clinic (Not houses in the outer suburbs like Essendon), MFC can confirm no player was given any contentious substances (Essendon can't), Dank was never employed or given any right to treat MFC players (unlike Essendon). The only way MFC can be in trouble is if the club doctor or players have done the dodgy behind the clubs back without following protocol, unlike like Essendons program which was club sanctioned. Certainly the MFC isn't accused of the institutionalised doping that Essendon is, and this is what the clubs statement says.

No one sooks like the Scott brothers, amazing.

I posted this is the RIP thread before I saw this one, seems more appropriate here: What seems an age ago I wrote in the Mike Sheahan thread: The Melbourne Football club is more than the current team, or admin or Football Department it is 150 years of history, the foundation of the AFL Football, all the former players, every member and former member of the club from the bootstrappers to the cheer squad to the volunteers, the billets, the bugler as well as all of the fans. The club is more than the team, for the record a president who fought cancer and fought for youth in a public way is far from soft, the way the club adopted a young Barassi after his father was killed was far from soft, the way the club rallied around Trisha Broadbridge was far from soft. The way the club responded to racism allegations was far from soft, the way we dumped Energy watch was far from soft! 12 premierships is far from soft. This club is so much more than what is going on right now on field. it seems far more appropriate now. This is why I support our club, you may hate the current players, admin or FD, you may hate all three! But the reality is that our role as supporters is to be the caretakers of this club, the most important, oldest, foundation club of the AFL. We need to hold those who are running its name through the dirt to account and demand better performance from those who have the honour of representing the red and blue, but this is acknowledged, the admin, FD and players all know it isn't good enough. The reality is 17 teams will lose every year, we have to make ourselves relevant enough that the wheel can turn.The booing in round one was a kneejerk reaction of a stunned supporter group, but now we as the supporters of this club need to show our true character. I remember watching in disgust as Richmond fans spat on their players and coach, chanted obusive slurs at their own players, drove a truckload of manure to their own club, this is not how you support a club, and so it is with a large amount of hatred I watch their current transformation into an allegedly "great club with great supporters". Nothing could be further from the truth, they showed their true character and now it is our turn. We all know our stereotypes, disinterested, off to the snow, fair weather supporters. Now more than ever is our time to stick fat, to show the players, coaches and admin what the red and blue really means, what the honour they have inherited should inspire in them. Of course some on here are done, they can't stand it any more and I don't begrudge them that, we all understand. But I will be going to training and urging on the players, going to the games barracking for the players. Because even if every person currently employed at our club is incompetent, the MFC is so much more important than them, and it is our job as supporters to remember that, to carry it with us and make sure the MFC survives. Needless to say, I'm in

What seems an age ago I wrote in the Mike Sheahan thread: The Melbourne Football club is more than the current team, or admin or Football Department it is 150 years of history, the foundation of the AFL Football, all the former players, every member and former member of the club from the bootstrappers to the cheer squad to the volunteers, the billets, the bugler as well as all of the fans. The club is more than the team, for the record a president who fought cancer and fought for youth in a public way is far from soft, the way the club adopted a young Barassi after his father was killed was far from soft, the way the club rallied around Trisha Broadbridge was far from soft. The way the club responded to racism allegations was far from soft, the way we dumped Energy watch was far from soft! 12 premierships is far from soft. This club is so much more than what is going on right now on field. it seems far more appropriate now. This is why I support our club, you may hate the current players, admin or FD, you may hate all three! But the reality is that our role as supporters is to be the caretakers of this club, the most important, oldest, foundation club of the AFL. We need to hold those who are running its name through the dirt to account and demand better performance from those who have the honour of representing the red and blue, but this is acknowledged, the admin, FD and players all know it isn't good enough. The reality is 17 teams will lose every year, we have to make ourselves relevant enough that the wheel can turn.The booing in round one was a kneejerk reaction of a stunned supporter group, but now we as the supporters of this club need to show our true character. I remember watching in disgust as Richmond fans spat on their players and coach, chanted obusive slurs at their own players, drove a truckload of manure to their own club, this is not how you support a club, and so it is with a large amount of hatred I watch their current transformation into an allegedly "great club with great supporters". Nothing could be further from the truth, they showed their true character and now it is our turn. We all know our stereotypes, disinterested, off to the snow, fair weather supporters. Now more than ever is our time to stick fat, to show the players, coaches and admin what the red and blue really means, what the honour they have inherited should inspire in them. Of course some on here are done, they can't stand it any more and I don't begrudge them that, we all understand. But I will be going to training and urging on the players, going to the games barracking for the players. Because even if every person currently employed at our club is incompetent, the MFC is so much more important than them, and it is our job as supporters to remember that, to carry it with us and make sure the MFC survives.

I would have liked to see Gillies and Nicho dropped. I thought they were disgraceful. Also Sellar seemed less useful than Pedersen. But hey, thats just me. Who knows, last year I went to the Essendon game thinking we were stuffed and wouldn't win all year, maybe history will repeat. It'd be great just to see 22 players give it a crack though.

Perspective: We are the worst team in the AFL on form. If we continue to finish bottom our relatively weak club will die. Supporters who are with this club through thick and thin can't stand the pain any more. This is fact. I watched all 4 qtrs, I always do, I don't boo, but for the first time I understood those that did. Our club is haemorraging, if we don't show something next week we will lose a lot of valuable and passionate supporters through the fact that its not enjoyable or rewarding to put yourself through this every year, and even though I will be there to the bitter end, I don't blame them. I have waited all the the offseason for this, read every training report, been to training, bought a membership, paid for a seat, bought merchandise, defended my club against the media and anyone else.... for what?

Or our midfield (Trengove, Blease, Viney?), but we need to win, this is not good.

I count PA with 12 players with more than 10 and Melbourne with 11 players. Our stats are lower, but its not as diabolical as you suggest.

Apparently some unspecified Melbourne player can bench more?

50m goal on the run met with indifference and dissappointment, set shot 35m out directly in front as a result of a soft fifty is "goal of the day"...... save us all!

They just listed possessions without naming a single Melbourne player, surely someone has touched it?

I know! I was thinking that!

Hi all, I have refrained from posting on this topic as I like 99% of people on here have no idea what was in the AFL report or the MFC's response and also have no idea when and what the AFL will do with regards to the end of this investigation. Like the vast majority of people on here all I have is the reporting of a sensationalist and untrustworthy football media and the arguably even more biased views of my fellow demonlanders, however four things have really peeved me about the reporting of this issue by Caro: 1. Belief: I thought it was truly disgusting and was dissappointed Gary didn't pick Caro up on it when she went around the table and asked Hutchy and Lloyd whether or not they believed Melbourne tried to lose games in 2009. The fact is anyone can believe whatever the hell they like, many on here believe we tanked and they are entitled to their opinion, but the fact some people believe it, or even the majority, means nothing with regard to charging the Melbourne football club. Not one person on that panel, or anywhere that I have seen, has offered definitive proof that Melbourne issued a directive to lose games. We have all heard about the "vibe" the "gist" the "Mabo" that because Melbourne stood to gain from a priority pick they would have thrown matches. But no proof. As for experimenting and playing players out of position the fact is clubs must be allowed to do this as sometimes they perform better in the new position and sometimes they don't, but without the right to experiment coaches of bottom placed teams are basically sealed to their fate. Also for the record, statistically Brad Miller did better in the middle than he had done in the forward line in the Richmond game, as did Johnson in the backline. The fact a majority of people believe something has more to do with the way it is presented to them by the media than any empirical proof, the fact is many people believed (and some astoundingly still believe) that Lance Armstrong never took drugs. 2. Credibility: For Caro to state that Gary had no credibility on the tanking issue as he is a friend of people involved and loves the club whilst simultaneously stating the the reason Melbourne should be charged for tanking is that 'there were splits within the club resulting in disinfranchised former employees coming forward' on Offsiders this morning is hypocrisy in the extreme. So those that support the current administration have no credibility whilst those who want to bring it down have credibility? As I have said in the past it is easy for former employees, particularly those with an axe to grind, to take pot shots at the club, in fact it makes them look better as it allows them to justify their removal from the club with very little scope for punishment. If anything there is equal credibility amongst both groups then to not hear from those that support the club is presenting the same biased, unproven and acidic commentary that we have received on this issue so far. 3. Facts: So far the only piece of evidence we the public have heard from Caro is about a comment at a single meeting. For a start to coordinate half a season's worth of thrown games would take far more than one meeting. But also all we have heard is that there was one comment, that may or may not have been a joke which has sparked this reporter into calling our club "pathetic and disgusting" and any number of other slurs. Also this is not on its own definitive proof as it would require the majority of the Melbourne FD taking it as a directive and putting it into action to make it tanking. If this is the only factual piece of evidence of our football club tanking that Caro has then her slander against the club is unjustified in the extreme. 4. Precedent: First off there is no such thing as an unofficial response from an organisation, there is the official response and a whole bunch of hearsay. However, to say that the argument that other clubs actions have no bearing on the Melbourne case is "childish" is ignorant in the extreme. If Dean Bailey is found guilty of not coaching to his utmost, in what will be a retrospective judgement then this precedent must be applied to all AFL coaches and other coaches guilty of the same action in a similar period must receive the same charge. Had the AFL brought in a new description this year of what not coaching to your utmost meant then other coaches from previous eras would be spared. But if this judgement is made against Bailey then Wallace and several other coaches must also be scrutinised. As a result the AFL could find that the practice was so widespread that a retrospective judgment would have to be made against number of clubs which may make the decision moot. Also, since when is having a thorough, clever, well thought out official legal defence a bad thing? Anyway, thats been my peeves, in the past I have had a large amount of time for Caro but her reporting on this issue and the Drugs fiasco has made me seriously doubt her credibility. Here's hoping theres no charges at all when it is announced.

Thanks RPFC, makes for some sorry viewing, Neeld would want all of these to turn around if he(we) have any hope of having a good year. Hopefully we can all enjoy the stats alot more this year. Thanks so much for doing it again...

My big problem is not that they got drunk on holidays, thats fine, its not that they chose to have fun at an iconic sporting event. If they had done these things in a more private setting, from a corporate box to simply a different stand then there would not have been a problem. But the fact that they chose to go to the most infamous Australian location for loutish behaviour in Bay 13, on the biggest day on the Cricket calender and then proceeded to act exactly the way that would draw attention to them in a negative way, from press, police etc, is incredibly stupid for them, the club and the AFL. When you work for organisations that require public support to survive whether you like it or not you are culpable for the image of that organisation. The players involved weren't a good look for themselves, the MFC or the AFL. Stupid and dissappointing thing to do especially in light of our clubs current predicament.

There would be a lot of malcontent with Hardwick from the Richmond faithful. They have been drinking a lot of their own bathwater lately and most seem to believe they are a genuine contender (despite their abscence of a backline and forwardline), we all know how temperamental the Tigers faithful are and if the tiges are ruled out of finals contention I would suggest Hardwick runs up the race with an umbrella. Anyway, I love the Oracles enthusiasm but I don't see us jumping all of Adelaide, North Melbourne, Richmond, Essendon, St Kilda and even Brisbane had our number last year and look to be improving. I would expect us to beat PA, Bulldogs, GC and GWS comfortably and maybe steal a couple of others, but I don't see us jumping all 6 of those teams to make the 8, here's hoping though....man would it be sweet!

Its a huge rort, being banned from the ND was meant to be punishment for Tippett, but ultimately it was punishment for the 16 teams that could have picked him before Sydney, also this putting a price on your head only one club can pay seems bizarre in terms of draft tampering. Also it seems weird that the AFL told GWS they couldn't afford it, maybe they just didn't want a Tippett driven lawsuit? Anyway, first Ball, now Tippett.. its a slippery slope to powerful teams buying their players while poorer clubs fight over the scraps.

Bump, Called it!