cfe

Mahoney: "Jack then gradually increased his loading which included a period of time on the de-load treadmill before two weeks of running outside," Mahoney said. "Unfortunately, Jack experienced some pain in the associated areas around his navicular whilst running. This was considered normal after not running for six months, however further scans on Monday have unfortunately shown further damage to his navicular.

Is it worrying that Richmond's medical team were the only ones who picked this up...? Would the Demons have done scans on him at some point soon if not for the trade...? The mischievous way of looking at it would be that the Melbourne medical team/coaching panel knew that they were selling Richmond damaged goods....

There were certainly individual positives tonight, but I think against most other teams this would've been a 10-15 goal loss based on the i50 count alone. On the plus side, broke even in contest posessions, tackles etc.

Inside 50s 46 - 29 Hate to say it, but if we weren'tplaying Sydney (or they had kicked 15.8 instead of 8.15), this might have ended up being another one of those 80pt losses. Good goal there.

Along with drafting some young mids, I think the Demons should also be taking a very good, hard look at the VFL, WAFL, NEAFL, SANFL etc. for 2-3 midfielders. They don't need to be world-beaters and they don't need to be there for the next premiership, they just need to be able to get the ball into Hogan/Clarke/Dawes on a reasonably consistent basis, and perhaps more importantly have a track record of running the other way and protecting the backs. Being mature aged recruits, they will have the developed bodies needed to help now and to stop the bleeding and stop the 100 point losses for a year or two, while whoever we draft develops properly (ie in the reserves, not by being thrown in at the deep end where their confidence will be battered.). TBH, outside of a few, the current midfield is VFL quality anyway. A lot of second-tier success stories going around lately.

To be honest, I don't care if he supports Melbourne or not. I think what the club needs now are people at the top who are dispassionate and ruthless. It's been a boys club for too long. I can see the argument that, Peter Jackson being somewhat "dispassionate", a committed Dees supporter in the President's role would be a good counterpoint. But, if there isn't a better candidate than Jeff...

I think you can put a line through getting anyone decent through free agency at the end of this year. It has been said many times before - why would someone like Dale Thomas want to come to Melbourne, having become used to a club like Collingwood? The answer - absolutely obscene amounts of money, ie not just paying "overs", but paying a player 175-200% of his worth (think of the sponsorship opportunities that a marketable player like Thomas would lose by going from C'wood to Melbourne...)... Would that be a smart decision for the club? I don't think so. Barring that, they simply won't come. Melbourne will be left with the tired, poor, huddled free agent masses like last year. That said, the options for the playing list are draft/trade. One point for the "trade" camp is that forwards like Hogan will develop quicker by actually getting the ball sometimes from established midfielders, and from actually having a reasonable amount of inside 50s to play with....

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-to-call-demons-doctor-over-dank-link-20130419-2i3w1.html An angry Andrew Demetriou said this morning there appeared to be “inconsistencies” and “at least some omissions” in what Melbourne told the league in February about its work with Dank. The AFL CEO said "they (Melbourne) will be in breach of a rule". I don't believe that the board would have been so stupid as to put out the statements it did, had it been aware of the true extent of Bates' dealings with Dank. They are educated bsuiness people, well versed in disclosure requirements. They simply aren't that stupid. It's far more likely that Bates mislead the Board as to the extent of Dank's involvement at the club. The texts released yesterday would have been just as surprising to the Board as they were to the AFL. Those are the only two possibilities I see here. I predict that Bates will be gone by the end of tonight, or tomorrow morning. Anyone else who knew the truth about Dank's involvement with the club, but didn't speak up, will go too.

"It wasn't a lie, we just... omitted a few, minor, details". Let's see how well that defence goes down with the AFL.

Some people seem to be completely missing the point here, so I'll let Demetriou's appearance on 3AW sum it up nicely: http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/andrew-demetriou-angry-at-melbourne-demons-link-to-stephen-dank/20130419-2i47b.html

That's not the issue...

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-19/afl-to-question-melbourne-football-club-doctor/4638838?section=sport Demetriou: "As of this morning we will be calling in the doctor, the Melbourne Football Club doctor, together with any other relevant officials based on things that we have been told previously... and there appears to be, if the report is correct, some inconsistencies." "They'd maintained a position, which they maintained publicly, even through the media, that they never employed Stephen Dank" "This issue of ethics and trust in our code which are values that are held very dearly, particularly by our supporters, is something that you can't play pingpong with” "And if anybody hasn't got the message that they must be absolutely truthful and they must be absolutely honest and upfront with the AFL, then there will be consequences" "If there was an association, regardless of whether there was an employement agreement, then I think that would've been relevant in our briefings" Doesn't bode well.

New development: The AFL has called in Bates, and any other relevant officials, to HQ this morning for a "please explain". Deleteriou said that it appears there have been "inconsistencies" between current reports and what the AFL was previously told.

I'm not sure if you're seriously trying to defend that position. I sure hope not. First of all, it wasn't in answer to a narrowly framed question. It was an MFC statement. Something you'd hope would be conclusive and offer full and frank disclosure, not hide behind semantics and clever wording. Secondly, if you don't want to call it a lie, then what should we call it? A half-truth? A misrepresentation? A misleading statement? The exact term doesn't matter - the effect and perception of it is the same. Anyway, as I have said, I think the more likely explanation is that the author of those statements did not know of the true extent of Dank's involvement with the football club, due to lies told by the people he associated with within the club to the MFC administration when it came calling.

STEVE DANK TO DAN BATES (male voiceover): "When will we start Jack Trengove on the AOD?" DAN BATES TO STEVE DANK (male voiceover): "Tomorrow. Where can I get him to pick it up from?" STEVE DANK TO DAN BATES (male voiceover): "The Pharmacy. Tell him to ring me and he can meet me there." To be fair, there is no evidence that this meeting actually took place. As it stands, the texts imply that it did, though. Let's hope Trengove wasn't that stupid! *edit* oh and FYI, I believe that AOD is the substance that it is being reported that ASADA are trying to pin on Essendon...

Then why not say that? Lying by omission.

If you read the second statement in my post previously released by mFC (http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/33494-dank-involved-at-demons/page-8#entry732144), then I'm not sure that what you have said can be substantiated. ""He has never had any direct contact with the players.": In light of the released text messages, this is simply not true. It seems that he even met the captain (Trengove) at the pharmacy... (to be fair, we don't know that this meeting actually took place - the texts imply that it was planned, though). Either Melbourne didn't know of the extent of Dank's involvement with the players and their supplements program when they made the above statements, and when they were interviewed by the AFL , or they lied about it. I find the former more plausible (ie, Bates lied to them about his contact Dank once the [censored] hit the fan).

THIS is the statement MFC released some time ago with reference to Dank: "Steve Dank has never been employed by the Melbourne Football Club. All medical procedures involving the administration of supplements and medical substances have been and will continue to be under the supervision, direction and authority of the club doctor Dan Bates." At best, it's misleading. At worst, it's dishonest. One explanation is that the the author was unaware of Dank's true involvement with MFC. This would be because Bates (and perhaps others) was not honest with the club when he was asked about Dank (as he undoubtedly was). If so, his days are surely numbered. *edit* And here is one further damning quote from MFC re Dank: http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/allegations-of-possible-use-of-banned-drugs-systematic-cheating-secret-injections-rock-mighty-essendon-club/story-e6frepf6-1226571185543 A Melbourne Football Club spokeswoman yesterday confirmed Dank had applied for a job at the club. "He applied for a job at the club late last year but he was unsuccessful," she said. "He has never had any direct contact with the players."

Earlier tonight, the MFC Board allegedly attempted to cut a deal with the AFL by offering to forfeit all premiership points for the 2013 AFL season. The AFL was not amused.

Copied from my post in the Jack Watts thread (didn't see this one, sorry):

The Sunday Inquisition on ABC just absolutely ripped into the club's handling of Watts (and not just the past few weeks - going all the way back to his first game). I have to say, I completely agree with them, especially in relation to the way he has been dealt with in the last few weeks. Here is what they said (and I agree with) in summation: 1. He should not have been subbed and thereby made into an easily identifiable target and scapegoat v. the Bombers - plenty of other players had played worse than or just as bad as him to that point, and no need to do that to someone who is already a lightning rod in the first place. 2. For the same reasons, he probably should not have been dropped. 3. Finally, if he was going to be dropped, he should not have been held back from Casey this weekend to be an emergency for the firsts. You don't improve by not playing football. I've heard Neeld's explanation with respect to the need to have him in Melbourne as a backup tall and it is BS - find someone else to be your tall emergency.

It's damning that the Dees lost the disposal count by 70, but also lost the tackle count by 22. Five of the top 6 tacklers on the ground were eagles - Selwood had 12 alone. Surprisingly, Melbournes top tackler was Jamar with 6. He also convincingly won the hit out count (not sure how many were to advantage, though). He was absolutely rubbish around the ground though - 5 disposals for Jamar, while Cox racked up 24 and 3.2. That kind of trouncing puts a side at a huge disadvantage these days. It's as if the opposition have an extra player on the field in open play.

Just FYI, from the MFC twitter feed: Media for today: 12:05pm SEN - Neil Craig, 12:55pm ABC - Don McLardy, 1:05pm 3AW - Neil Craig, 1:05pm Triple M - Cameron Schwab Looks like the club is getting on the front foot.

I wonder if Caro does write her own headlines... a lot of that sort of thing is done by sub-editors. She has enough pull that she probably does, though, I suppose.

I stand corrected. Seems to me that "tanking", in the context of coaches, means either: 1. Deliberately trying to lose a game; or 2. Deliberately not trying as hard as you could ("your utmost") to win a game. A very subtle difference. The AFL decided that "tanking" means (1) and that was not present at MFC, but that certain people in MFC were guilty of (2).