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

[george2]

No, he was referring to ACC, not ASADA. ACC contacted him in September - coincidentally when he lost his job at Essendon.

Ok sorry my mistake.

 

[Doug Deep]

Ohhh Aging stuff. Some HGH maybe.

Pretty sure that Danks isn't peddling oil of Ulan.

Clearly, because the Oil of Ulan bird is heaps hotter than Hirdy or Bomber.

 

[fishardansin]

Dank certainly was.

Unless he got rid of all prohibited gear from his home and buisiness before every single match day last year of course.

Otherwise he's basically screwed.

Be very odd if the AFL code allowed an official at a club who was also a HGH (and similar) dealer to escape punishment for possession of HGH (and similar) on those grounds.

Legit second buisiness or otherwise.

Assuming his claims are correct, then what makes you so sure that any were administered at the club or in the possession of any of the coaches or Dank on site?

I think this is what the investigation is all about.

 

[morgoth]

My sisters friend works at the club and he said that Hird is a shattered man

Does not handle stuffing up well. Blamed an umpire when his team started to fade, walked away from broking over some bad advise and now over seen an alledged doping program.

 

[scottwade]

The 'rider' of 'connected to a Player or training' does not apply to the first arm of rule 11.6 (b) - read closely:

There are in effect two seperate offences here:

I know.

a) Possession by an Official 'In-Competition' of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance (full stop),

I'll repeat what I've already written twice before;
(1)
If the anti-doping authorities came onto property where the players were in competition/training and Danks was found to be in possession of banned substances (under the relevant doping codes) then yes he would be in trouble, irrespective of his claims they were for the coaches.

or

b) Possession by an Official 'Out-of-Competition' of any Prohibited Method of any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out of-Competition in connection with a Player or training.

Which is why I've previously replied;
(2)
However if he were in possession of those products away from Essendon (say at an anti-aging clinic) and no players were in attendance I interpret the code as meaning no offence is committed.
The crucial aspect is the context in 11.6 (b) "in connection with a Player or training".

Where that context has not been established then in my view no offence has occurred.

Note offence 'a' (Match day or 'in competiton' possession) does not require that possession to be 'in connection with a Player or training'. You can only rely on the defence of 'in connection with a Player or training' when its 'out of competiton' gear, and its found in the possession of an official who is also 'out of competition' .

I know, which is why I've differentiated between the two.
In competition response (1), out of competition response (2).
Only in the second do I refer to "in connection with a Player or training" (as a means of defence).

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Whilst I think Scottwade's interpretation is ultimately correct (illogical for retired players and officials to abide by the code), Malifice is absolutely reading it correctly. Which brings me to my next point that I'm shocked an important document such as this would be written so poorly.

This and almost every other code/piece of legislation/bylaw/etc

 

[Sector 7G]

I thought the Dank interview helped in a small way but by god he looks a sneaky slimy bloke - I certainly wouldn't employ him to shovel shit up hill lol. The only thing I take from that interview is that he has very carefully linked all the upper admin guys at your club to his meetings in a 'if I go down you lot are coming with me' type of deal. Thoroughly nasty piece of work looking from an outsiders point of view.

Nothing of real note surfaced yet really and I don't expect it to one way or another for quite a while unfortunately for everyone concerned.

Not sure how you can say this.
Raised a whole new line of concerns for the EFC coaches.
Who took what?
When did take it?
How often did they?
Where did they take it?
Did Doc Reid know about this?
Did they sign consent forms?
Did the club pay for it or was it provided for free by dodgy connections?
What was the cost?
Was it on club property?
Was it prescribed but a Dr ( if required)?
Does it breach ASADA rules in any way?

If the club come out and deny this occured, as Bomber has, we will know someone is lying. It will be interesting to see how everyones story holds up under interrogation

 

[morgoth]

Sat on the fence until now but based on last night Essendon have to pay a very heavy price and ASADA will see that they do.

Imagine a cycling team trying to use the 'oh the banned supplements were for the support staff'. Would not fly and that is the sort of benchmark that will be applied to Essendon. Based on Danks story there were definately illegal supplements at Essendon last year, he says they were used on coaches only, the club does not know.

He was sacked in Sept, interviewed by the ACC in Dec. Why? Essendon knew something was going on long before they 'fessed' up.

They have to be smashed.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Wonder how many times he intervened and told Dank not to answer a question?

I think they were saying that Meldrum-Hanna said on ABC (?) radio that he answered all questions and appeared very honest and forthright.

 

[jenny61_99]

Assuming his claims are correct, then what makes you so sure that any were administered at the club or in the possession of any of the coaches or Dank on site?

I think this is what the investigation is all about.

I think this is absolutely his get out clause... that the ACC has traced peptide 6 to the Bombers. That Dank now says some of the coaches were taking peptides "a little bit outside" WADA regs as an explanation for how they ended up at Essendon. There is no other reason he would have brought that up.

 

[Vtorians]

Did she say if there were questions they couldn't ask? Because she did miss some reasonably important ones.

It was apparently a lengthy interview, maybe those questions were asked but the answers weren't what they were hoping to hear & were subsequently edited out.

 

[pazza]

Saw this on TalkingCarlton.

PEPTEMITE

That's actually not bad

 

[jonbe54]

I dunno, Eddie must be up there .

One step down I believe in the eyes of most of the faithful

 

[Sector 7G]

I found it interesting how Dank said that he had spoken to ASADA and they had said that he had done nothing wrong. If thats the case then why are Essendon being investigated? he was the one that implimented the programme so if it wasn't him and he has done nothing wrong, then Essendon were administering themselves, which is highly unlikely. Dank has a lot to answer for in my books, he has tarnished the Bombers forever and he should pay the price.
The pressure on James Hird is enormous and from what i here he is not coping at all. For some reason i just think that Hird did not know or understand what was being done, for me i just feel that Bomber Thompson has got a lot to do with all of this.

They probably said "You administered PED's to your coaching staff, Yeah you have nothing to worry about" roll eyes out of Danks sight.

A bit like in Caddieshack when RD says "what a terrible hat, but it looks good on you Judge"

 

[teknodeejay]

I'm not in denial of anything. I'm telling you that the club did not knowingly break any doping laws.

Dank's interview last night suggests that people in the club DID know something was suspect and for Hird and Evans to sit glum faced and suggest they know nothing, well the golden boy has been shown up as a liar if Dank is to be believed. Even to the point that if the coaches were taking HGH or whatever to help them perform at their peak... just come out and say it "look the coaches do take supplements that the players are not allowed to take, however we believe our players are clean."

It's lies and more lies from the people that run your club. If that was going on at Visy Park, blimey would I be pissed off majorly.

 

[jonbe54]

Not sure how you can say this.
Raised a whole new line of concerns for the EFC coaches.
Who took what?
When did take it?
How often did they?
Where did they take it?
Did Doc Reid know about this?
Did they sign consent forms?
Did the club pay for it or was it provided for free by dodgy connections?
What was the cost?
Was it on club property?
Was it prescribed but a Dr ( if required)?
Does it breach ASADA rules in any way?

If the club come out and deny this occured, as Bomber has, we will know someone is lying. It will be interesting to see how everyones story holds up under interrogation

Tried to shift the focus from the playing group, that's a small help.

 

[jenny61_99]

It was apparently a lengthy interview, maybe those questions were asked but the answers weren't what they were hoping to hear & were subsequently edited out.

If the answers weren't what they wanted, they would have asked the question differently until they got a satisfactory answer. That's what journalists do when they have an exclusive. I might just add that I am mystified as to how this particular journalist was given this particular interview. She clearly had not done her homework and missed many opportunities to get full clarification on some very dubious comments by Dank. In her two years at Four Corners she has had one project (according to her LINKEDIN profile). Potentially the biggest story in Australian sporting history and they put a rooky on the job?

 

[Tex Support]

My sisters friend works at the club and he said that Hird is a shattered man

Your sisters friend's name isn't Captain Obvious by any chance?

 

[scottwade]

The ACC is concerned with criminal matters.

Anyone giving legal supplements that are outside WADA rules to athletes is not breaking any laws.

However, it is still cheating according to ASADA and WADA.

So it is quite possible for someone who has been cheating in sport to go to a meeting with ACC and for the ACC to say they are OK because the ACC is only concerned with the criminal aspects.

FWIW, from the transcript of the interview
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-11/former-essendon-sports-scientist-describes-afl/4513090

STEVE DANK: Oh, they said they didn't think that I'd done anything wrong.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: To confirm, the ACC told you personally that they did not believe you had done anything wrong?
STEVE DANK: Correct.

Call me a cynic, but I just don't see the ACC, in the middle of an collaborative investigation with ASADA, telling a guy he's not "done anything wrong".

PS How sus is it that the interviewer's name? A surname consisting of the names of 2 Carlton premiership players.
The plot thickens.

 

[evo]

Wonder how many times he intervened and told Dank not to answer a question?

probably bugger all. The reporter wasn't exactly probing that hard. Half of us numpties on BF could've thought of quite a few more pertinent questions she should've asked.

BTW, does anyone else think it strange that one of the biggest interviews ever - at least in regard to Australain sport - was done by a rookie.

Is the fix in ?

 

[Unknown Identity]

FWIW, from the transcript of the interview
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-11/former-essendon-sports-scientist-describes-afl/4513090


Call me a cynic, but I just don't see the ACC, in the middle of an collaborative investigation with ASADA, telling a guy he's not "done anything wrong".

PS How sus is it that the interviewer's name? A surname consisting of the names of 2 Carlton premiership players.
The plot thickens.

I give this 2 thumbs up!

 

[jenny61_99]

probably bugger all. The reporter wasn't exactly probing that hard. Half of us numpties on BF could've thought of quite a few more pertinent questions she should've asked.

BTW, does anyone else think it strange that one of the biggest interviews ever - at least in regard to Australain sport - was done by a rookie.

Is the fix in ?

I just said exactly the same thing.

If the answers weren't what they wanted, they would have asked the question differently until they got a satisfactory answer. That's what journalists do when they have an exclusive. I might just add that I am mystified as to how this particular journalist was given this particular interview. She clearly had not done her homework and missed many opportunities to get full clarification on some very dubious comments by Dank. In her two years at Four Corners she has had one project (according to her LINKEDIN profile). Potentially the biggest story in Australian sporting history and they put a rooky on the job?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Did Doc Reid know about this?

He had to, didn't he?

Somebody had to authorise the consent forms.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

probably bugger all. The reporter wasn't exactly probing that hard. Half of us numpties on BF could've thought of quite a few more pertinent questions she should've asked.

BTW, does anyone else think it strange that one of the biggest interviews ever - at least in regard to Australain sport - was done by a rookie.

Is the fix in ?

Curious.

 

[whiteoak]

If the answers weren't what they wanted, they would have asked the question differently until they got a satisfactory answer. That's what journalists do when they have an exclusive. I might just add that I am mystified as to how this particular journalist was given this particular interview. She clearly had not done her homework and missed many opportunities to get full clarification on some very dubious comments by Dank. In her two years at Four Corners she has had one project (according to her LINKEDIN profile). Potentially the biggest story in Australian sporting history and they put a rooky on the job?

Yes. Very, very poor interview indeed.