A new Dank interview

[D-N-R]

yes Mxett it doesn't make sense, 37 signatures, some say they didn't recieve it and were charged, yet 3 were not.
I would love to know the 3 that didn't get IN's

I thought I had read 38 consent forms were signed. Regardless, if there were more consents signed than players charged, it means to me that they haven't used the consent forms as the basis for charging the players and that their testimony or some other evidence was used to corroborate it.

 

[sonnywalters]

So Dank is clearly insinuating EFC have destroyed evidence/records.

Someone is lying. Him or them.

 

[Reality rules]

So Dank is clearly insinuating EFC have destroyed evidence/records.

Someone is lying. Him or them.

Didn't Dank also say he had evidence to clear the players on several occasions?

 

[Reality rules]

Not so. I'm an investigator - it doesn't work like that.

You interview someone - they say I think this is what happened, but I'm not sure. Or in this case someone says I was given TB4 - but you put it to an official and they say 'no ... Guy is confused and this is what happened.' So then you go ... Hey, I have five statements from people who reckon they got TB4, enough corroborative evidence for a cause of action? Your internal lawyers say nup, insufficient to be worth the risk of going in.

Then there is the agency senior management. Some are risk averse, some happy to spend funds on testing a 50/50 case.

Then there is always a point where agency lawyers put their view, but then someone says 'lets invest some dollars in getting this endorsed by co-council - so you send it to the AGS to hire a QC for a further memorandum of advice...

You see the picture. It's messy. And I get a bit fed up with ASADA attackers like Robbo crapping about dragging feet and taxpayer dollars etc. that isn't the way it goes, and investigations don't go slow just for the hell of it.

Anyway - point being, one player saying he was given TB4 would not have ended it in 2014.

So if you were a punter, who would you put your money on?

What odds would you quote if you were the bookie?

 

[BlueWorld]

One of the more astounding parts of this whole saga is grown adults complaining that they were compelled to tell the truth.

And even worse is Essendon supporters pointing it out like it some sort of underhanded activity....

...then when asked what their stance is, they claim that they are just waiting for the truth to come out.

Yes hird said he couldn't wait for the truth to come out.... then said his rights to not tell the truth were taken away.

 

[Proper Gander]

Ah, and I didnt. In my original comment I meant program, not investigation

No, they still did cooperate but genuinely didnt think it would result in a circumstantial case that would eventuate in INs. They then lamented they should have used their ASADA right to silence like Cronulla players did. I also dont discount the liklihood that the AFL tried manage the process and assured Essendon they would be punished as a club but players would avoid bans. But ASADA refused to play ball and Essendon ended up copping both ASADA and AFL charges rather than just AFL's

Probably exactly what happened.

If only they could have left it at just lamenting. No - we've been wronged and are going to court, and not against the AFL in an estoppel action - against ASADA, who never to anyone's knowledge gave anyone guarantees.

Tough t***ies to what they thought and why.

Also, I think the AFL actions were totally deserved - on the basis of the governance issues.

I also think there is unfinished business about specific doping - which as yet hasn't been decided. But if players are found guilty, I have no problem with EFC first copping sanctions for governance then copping bans for using banned substances. I don't think I am alone in this.

 

[Proper Gander]

So if you were a punter, who would you put your money on?

What odds would you quote if you were the bookie?

Money is on ASADA. This is too big and publicised for them to risk a fail. I'd guess they are confident.

(Having said that - weird shit happens in Courts and Tribunals)

 

[Reality rules]

Money is on ASADA. This is too big and publicised for them to risk a fail. I'd guess they are confident.

(Having said that - weird shit happens in Courts and Tribunals)

Yes. Like you I find the shit slinging at ASADA and Mr McD appalling as they have to act, they don't play the media games, as result people believe they're incompetent.. I think since McDevitt became the CIC at ASADA, they have been professional, timely and beyond reproach. Shame the AFL couldn't follow suite.

 

[Proper Gander]

Yes. Like you I find the shit slinging at ASADA and Mr McD appalling as they have to act, they don't play the media games, as result people believe they're incompetent.. I think since McDevitt became the CIC at ASADA, they have been professional, timely and beyond reproach. Shame the AFL couldn't follow suite.

AFL hasn't emerged from any of this well, have they? I think we all intuitively knew profits were the bottom line - not really the rhetoric that gets churned every so often. But this whole mess brings it front and centre.

 

[Reality rules]

AFL hasn't emerged from any of this well, have they? I think we all intuitively knew profits were the bottom line - not really the rhetoric that gets churned every so often. But this whole mess brings it front and centre.

Hence Fast Eddie talking about the AFL breaking away from the WADA Code.....

 

[mxett]

Probably exactly what happened.

If only they could have left it at just lamenting. No - we've been wronged and are going to court, and not against the AFL in an estoppel action - against ASADA, who never to anyone's knowledge gave anyone guarantees.

Tough t***ies to what they thought and why.

Also, I think the AFL actions were totally deserved - on the basis of the governance issues.

I also think there is unfinished business about specific doping - which as yet hasn't been decided. But if players are found guilty, I have no problem with EFC first copping sanctions for governance then copping bans for using banned substances. I don't think I am alone in this.

I personally dont think the governance bans made sense in view of more doping bans to the club and players if ASADA prove their case. There is no precedence for this type of double penalty

 

[morgoth]

That must mean all of them do hey! ******* idiots!

That must mean all of them do hey! ******* idiots!

Hence the use of the word some, rather than all.

 

[Reality rules]

I personally dont think the governance bans made sense in view of more doping bans to the club and players if ASADA prove their case. There is no precedence for this type of double penalty

I guess it's 2 separate offences, the second might incur a different type of penalty

 

[Proper Gander]

I personally dont think the governance bans made sense in view of more doping bans to the club and players if ASADA prove their case. There is no precedence for this type of double penalty

I can't recall a real, breathing precedent for the case. 34 possible dopers in one club? EFC are charting totally new territory. I'm not saying it has never happened, just that I don't recall any compatible scenario. So while the hypothetical penalties may seem a bit improvised, I think that might be because they have to be. There truly aren't any how to books on this one.

 

[mxett]

I guess it's 2 separate offences, the second might incur a different type of penalty

but you could say that about many breaches. The act itself and the failing in managment that caused the act.

I can't recall a real, breathing precedent for the case. 34 possible dopers in one club? EFC are charting totally new territory. I'm not saying it has never happened, just that I don't recall any compatible scenario. So while the hypothetical penalties may seem a bit improvised, I think that might be because they have to be. There truly aren't any how to books on this one.

I'm comfortable with harsh penalties if they are deserved, but I dont understand them being issued twice.

 

[sonnywalters]

Didn't Dank also say he had evidence to clear the players on several occasions?

Yep he also said that as soon as he got an IN he would be straight to Crt to sue ASADA and the AFL.
He got his IN back in November but hasn't lodged any kind of claim in any kind of Crt.

So if I had to choose who was lying between EFC and Dank I would be choosing Dank.

 

[Reality rules]

I can't recall a real, breathing precedent for the case. 34 possible dopers in one club? EFC are charting totally new territory. I'm not saying it has never happened, just that I don't recall any compatible scenario. So while the hypothetical penalties may seem a bit improvised, I think that might be because they have to be. There truly aren't any how to books on this one.

Maybe the Federal Government might make it law for all national competitions to be partied to WADA as a result if the AFL break away!

 

[Reality rules]

but you could say that about many breaches. The act itself and the failing in managment that caused the act.

I'm comfortable with harsh penalties if they are deserved, but I dont understand them being issued twice.

Doesn't the Act also state to work into the relevant sporting code so there is maximum coverage?

Take criminal drug dealing, possession and intent to supply and sell.

 

[mxett]

Doesn't the Act also state to work into the relevant sporting code so there is maximum coverage?

Take criminal drug dealing, possession and intent to supply and sell.

But arent they all tried and penalized together, not sentences 2 years apart?

 

[rose jam]

I find interesting in the RRR interview Dank says things like "approved somewhere in the world" and "real doping", which feels like an admission of guilt that he didn't follow the legislation like it or not

 

[Proper Gander]

but you could say that about many breaches. The act itself and the failing in managment that caused the act.

I'm comfortable with harsh penalties if they are deserved, but I dont understand them being issued twice.

For two different things:
A) truly appalling governance
B) (alleged) doping.

I can get my head around that.

Essendon had to make a bunch of crisis management decisions as they went.

They thought they had a deal stitched up with AFL to accept a slap and carry on. J Hird and EFC screwed up when EFC quickly figured out a way to pay hird for the next year in advance to 'minimise' the effect of the 'tough' sanction. Bad decision - it leaked out virtually immediately and people got pissed off. Essendon also agreed sanctions with the AFL - but spent days negotiating wording to their liking about what the sanctions are for. People like me are now getting pissed off.

Then the Federal court stuff. Agree it is everyone's right to take a matter of legality of process to court. But the problem is that everyone by now is noticing the flip-flop in messaging. Oh, we want the truth to come out and will be in a good place when it happens, but then take action to have purportedly truthful interviews ruled inadmissible? People are pissed off. If they weren't the first time, Hirds second appeal got them there.

I think a bunch of people don't think the agreed sanctions polished up by the AFL and EFC will really do the trick - and I think the only good that will come if EFC have a bad time of it in the tribunal is that maybe just maybe this will provide a broader disincentive to some future idiot jock or club that thinks 'whatever it takes' is worth this kind of risk,

...and hopefully Hird will think twice before getting a non-doctor to inject non-prescibed vanity drugs into him in some EFC office (especially since vitamins said the football club was so filthy and not a sterile environment and all).

Rant aborted.

 

[Proper Gander]

Maybe the Federal Government might make it law for all national competitions to be partied to WADA as a result if the AFL break away!

It's almost Bruce Francis stuff. Well done.

 

[Proper Gander]

It's almost Bruce Francis stuff. Well done.

Should have added smiley face

 

[mxett]

For two different things:
A) truly appalling governance
B) (alleged) doping.

I can get my head around that.

Essendon had to make a bunch of crisis management decisions as they went.

They thought they had a deal stitched up with AFL to accept a slap and carry on. J Hird and EFC screwed up when EFC quickly figured out a way to pay hird for the next year in advance to 'minimise' the effect of the 'tough' sanction. Bad decision - it leaked out virtually immediately and people got pissed off. Essendon also agreed sanctions with the AFL - but spent days negotiating wording to their liking about what the sanctions are for. People like me are now getting pissed off.

Then the Federal court stuff. Agree it is everyone's right to take a matter of legality of process to court. But the problem is that everyone by now is noticing the flip-flop in messaging. Oh, we want the truth to come out and will be in a good place when it happens, but then take action to have purportedly truthful interviews ruled inadmissible? People are pissed off. If they weren't the first time, Hirds second appeal got them there.

I think a bunch of people don't think the agreed sanctions polished up by the AFL and EFC will really do the trick - and I think the only good that will come if EFC have a bad time of it in the tribunal is that maybe just maybe this will provide a broader disincentive to some future idiot jock or club that thinks 'whatever it takes' is worth this kind of risk,

...and hopefully Hird will think twice before getting a non-doctor to inject non-prescibed vanity drugs into him in some EFC office (especially since vitamins said the football club was so filthy and not a sterile environment and all).

Rant aborted.

where have clubs been punished for poor governance in the past?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Im not, i think they should tell the truth and not avoid bans if they cheated. Im explaining their change of heart, not agreeing with it.

Sorry mexxy, I didn't mean to single you out.

I've read it hundreds of times over the course of the last 6 months from a number of people.
People genuinely carried on about Hird being compelled to talk, and it was reported like he'd been held down and had his fingernails pulled.

So he felt stressed and pressured...big ****ing deal, he's the head coach of 34 players now facing doping bans. I'd expect that he'd be getting some pretty curly questions and that when he sat there in the interview there was an uneasy feeling that he "had better tell the truth".

I mean, what did he expect? Did he think he could wave ASADA away with a glance at his Brownlow and the promise of an autograph?

This entire "they were forced to talk to ASADA" is the most ridiculous thing that I think the entire saga has seen.