Mega Thread AFL to investigate Essendon for controversial fitness program - PART3

[evo]

From what was reported on FC on Thurs night, it doesn't sound like it could be Gold Coast. They said Dank was only there for a matter of weeks before GC got rid of him. This in itself seems strange! Obviously did not get what they thought they were getting when they hired him and got rid of him very quickly.

Yeah fair point. One wonders why Essendon were then so keen to pick him up. Easy in hindsight I guess, but his reputation does appear to precede him.

Who does that leave then? If it is an AFL club( and not Essendon) are we to believe there is another Dankster-like character at a club?

The plot thickens.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

There is truth.

Your hypocrisy has come to know no bounds in this thread - as much as you implore people to wait for the truth, you suggest things have been 'debunked' in the mean time.

Reimers is not credible. His version of events is not credible. I appreciate McVeigh is not an unbiased witness, but he emphatically rebutted Reimers version of events. There has not been one single shred of evidence since that has come to light that backs up Reimers confused interpretation of events.

I am comfortable in calling it. You can prevaricate all you like

 

[Call Me Cake]

Now all we have out of those two instances is two former players from only one club confirming they were getting injections from sport science staff

Where have you been, under a rock?

Vitamin injections no worry, says Fremantle CEO Steve Rosich

FREMANTLE CEO Steve Rosich has admitted the club has injected players with vitamins to aid their recovery but said the Dockers have nothing to fear from investigations stemming from the bombshell Australian Crime Commission report.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ceo-steve-rosich/story-e6frf9jf-1226573646514

Unlike Reimers, whose comments were taken way out of proportion, McVeigh actually specifically described what it was that he was injected with, and reports of injections from others, as you can see, correlates with his "admissions" - to which he has every right to bring up.

To say only these two have brought up the topic of "injections" is ridiculous, and it only makes you seem out of touch with what's been going on.

It's not much - In fact it probably amounts to nothing at all. Yet Essendon posters acted for days like McVeigh's interview was a positive. It wasn't.

How is upholding Essendon's innocence in any way farfetched? Essendon was innocent before it's self-initiated investigation and still is - it is common logic that the status quo remains notwithstanding anything that needs to prove otherwise.

The onus is on the one making claims contradictory to the current situation to provide evidence showing as such.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Wow! Now they believe they run the country!

odd post by an odd poster.

You don't have to run a country to take legal recourse.

 

[Tedeski]

I tell you what will happen.

Nobody will be suspended, nobody senior will resign.

The story will be forgotten as soon as footy starts next week - its even starting to shrink back into its shell now going by the make up of both the HUN and The Age today.

I'm quite bemused at peoples perceptions of ASADA in all this too as if they some all powerful organization. If this has been going on for years then WTF have they been doing all this time aside from suspending the odd VFL player and weightlifter. They are a government organization mired in red tape.

They would find it hard to organize the coffee's in the morning for everyone.

Well no problem then............................sleep easy.

Bring on round 1!

 

[Paddywhackers]

You'd reckon the AFL will have enough to contend with when all clubs have been investigated and the players who have been taking PED's are found out to be trying to make a scapegoat of Essendon for having a few bad processes...

Especially if there has been players at clubs who have won premierships are found to be taking PED's

'A few bad processes'. Not they wern't bad processes, they were absolutely disgusting. Putting a 18/19yo kids (as many would have been) in a position that they were put in, is outrageous! If a player has taken a dieretic (aka Warne) at another club that's one thing. But abuse of the system by Essendon to 'do whatever it takes', to get their players 'bigger and stronger' and by jeapordizing not only careers but the health in the 'process' is going to have massive repurcussions as it should!

As much as I hate Essendon, I would find t really unfair if the players were punished throgh a suspension of 6 months or more. But I would find it an absolute cop out if only certain administrators were punished which I dont think will be the case.

Essendon should get penalized for this, and I reckon the players who were put in such a grotesque position are more victims of this whole saga than villains.

This is the reason that the punishments will exempt them personally IMO but not the club! They will be punished and punished hard as they should be.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Relax man!
You know nothing more than me.
None of us know anything.
You club does though........................they sacked the suspect character they employed to do a certain job in the first place.

That is something we both know.

Other than that...................as an Essendon supporter, it's all your problem to worry about & to defend.

When someone posts & asks for other people's opinions, don't carry on like a girl when someone gives one that you don't like.
It's a freaken public forum.

Just sit back, relax & watch your club...................I mean .................IT............unfold!

it's a "freaken public forum", so I'll post what I like thanks all the same, and you can just like it

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Interests aside, the only facts that will finalize 'these cases' are facts.

That is incorrect. The AFL can 'finalize' this case in any manner it sees fit. Contradictory to the facts. Contradictory to ASADA or common law.

This was my point. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, your point was that I had chosen one to be factual. Which you were incorrect in asserting.

Where your comprehension had failed you was that I had chosen certain consistencies in both McVeigh's and Reimers' reports to extract something as 'established'. What was established by both of those reports is of no help to Essendon.

It would've been better for Essendon if McVeigh said nothing, and left Reimer's claims of injections and supplements to be merely that of a 'disgruntled' former player. A lone voice amongst a sea of Liberatores, Lewises and Akermanises.

What it does show our supporters is that there are two sides of a story. When one side of a story is run with as gospel, people need to understand that there are many more aspects to interpretation than meets the eye.

This is elementary. One side was not run with as gospel.

Thanks for replying.

Thank you for replying.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

odd post by an odd poster.

You don't have to run a country to take legal recourse.

Let me know when the lawyers issue a warning spelling out the terms and boundaries of free speech.

It's the 9th round and your legs are starting to wobble.

 

[JeffDunne]

Lance (& other Essendon supporters), can I ask, given what you do know, why are you still supporting the officials that allowed this to happen?

At the very least they risked the possibility of a worst case scenario & put player welfare at risk.

Essendon has one of the most respected doctors in the country (let alone football) - and these officials ignored or deliberately avoided his advice.

Regardless of the outcome your club will be forever stained by the accusations.

It puzzles me why anyone wouldn't want them sacked NOW!

 

[Tazmania]

if they were injecting anything illegal they are in trouble. No doubt. Like anyone would be. I don't know what the go is with the stomach, whether it is true, not true, what the implications are etc.

However it appears more likely that they didn't take anything illegal. That's not proved yet either of course. Essendon will still get sanctions regardless, in my opinion, for dodgy injecting practices and signing documents outside the auspices of the AFLPA.

But I don't believe, and I am far more comfortable about it, that Essendon are drug cheats.

So you're happy that they're cheats, just not drug cheats?

 

[84859300]

Reimers is not credible.

My thought on this, which is the same for many cases, is that if anyone gets called out in the media and belittled that they normally have an answer to journalist somewhere along the line backing up their first call.

I get the impression that McVeigh would be up for round 2, 3 or 4 to back his facts up. I don't get the same from Riemers, no matter the status of his intellect.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Essendon has one of the most respected doctors in the country (let alone football) - and these officials ignored or deliberately avoided his advice.

Not only that, they then allegedly pushed the legal limits and issued consent forms to control and minimise fallout.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Where have you been, under a rock?

Your comprehension skills fail you. The quote you have given me comes from another club - I fail to see its relevance.

To say only these two have brought up the topic of "injections" is ridiculous, and it only makes you seem out of touch with what's been going on.

Point me to where I posted this so I can clarify it for you.

How is upholding Essendon's innocence in any way farfetched? Essendon was innocent before it's self-initiated investigation and still is - it is common logic that the status quo remains notwithstanding anything that needs to prove otherwise.

Why are you equating common law principles with ASADA and AFL protocol?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance (& other Essendon supporters), can I ask, given what you do know, why are you still supporting the officials that allowed this to happen?

At the very least they risked the possibility of a worst case scenario & put player welfare at risk.

Essendon has one of the most respected doctors in the country (let alone football) - and these officials ignored or deliberately avoided his advice.

Regardless of the outcome your club will be forever stained by the accusations.

It puzzles me why anyone wouldn't want them sacked NOW!

forever stained? Give me a break.

I want to see what happens and what's PROVED to have occurred. I will then either lend or remove my support based on facts.

The fact as I understand it is Hird hired Robinson, Robinson hired Dank. Hird shouldn't have to micromanage every single part of the football operations, yet it is apparently the case that the club do in fact know exactly what went on, as they should by providing legal documents.

It is not and has never been a systematic operation and I don't see why one rogue operator should necessarily spell the downfall of the entire management team. And I most certainly wouldn't dream of passing judgement based on media speculation, as you seem happy to do

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So you're happy that they're cheats, just not drug cheats?

how are they cheats, champ?

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Reimers is not credible. His version of events is not credible. I appreciate McVeigh is not an unbiased witness, but he emphatically rebutted Reimers version of events.

How did he rebut Reimers version of events if he hadn't seen his statement? Or had he?

 

[Astro Bomber]

Lance (& other Essendon supporters), can I ask, given what you do know, why are you still supporting the officials that allowed this to happen?

At the very least they risked the possibility of a worst case scenario & put player welfare at risk.

Essendon has one of the most respected doctors in the country (let alone football) - and these officials ignored or deliberately avoided his advice.

Regardless of the outcome your club will be forever stained by the accusations.

It puzzles me why anyone wouldn't want them sacked NOW!

What you want and what we want is different. Lets not get the two mixed up. There is no proof of anything mate. Not even of what was injected. So hold your horses.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I most certainly wouldn't dream of passing judgement based on media speculation

Come again?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

How did he rebut Reimers version of events if he hadn't seen his statement? Or had he?

He probably had. It was aired on the Footy Show, so it was out there. In any case, that's completely irrelevant. What are you trying to imply?

 

[Plugger35]

Invisible drug lab?

Dank and Dr Ageless are craftier than I thought.

 

[84859300]

issued consent forms

I've seen these forms described as waivers, consent forms, admissions of guilt.......does anyone actually have access to a form to prove what they are.

In knowing the title of the form surely should clear up some innuendo.

 

[evo]

The story will be forgotten as soon as footy starts next week - its even starting to shrink back into its shell now going by the make up of both the HUN and The Age today.

.

LOL. Come on trippy. Not even you could believe that.

This is the biggest story in football, well, ever.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I've seen these forms described as waivers, consent forms, admissions of guilt.......does anyone actually have access to a form to prove what they are.

In knowing the title of the form surely should clear up some innuendo.

Forms of some description have been widely reported.

I utilised the word "consent" as it applies the lesser level of prejudice.

You can't say that I'm not a fair man.

 

[JeffDunne]

The fact as I understand it is Hird hired Robinson, Robinson hired Dank.

You forgot one important 'messiah' in that timeline of events.

Hird shouldn't have to micromanage every single part of the football operations, yet it is apparently the case that the club do in fact know exactly what went on, as they should by providing legal documents.

If they knew what went on, why did they sack Dank?

Why call for an investigation & the 'on death row' press conference?

And I most certainly wouldn't dream of passing judgement based on media speculation, as you seem happy to do

Nothing I said in that question is specualtion - it's fact.


As for the stain . . . google doesn't lie