Rumours that Doc Reid has called it a day (Doc Larkins)

[neutralguy]

I have read Docs letter , It still does not mean he is negligent from a medical point of view. I have not see anything saying he was the one who prescribed,supplied or injected the drugs.

In the charge sheet it says he was present when some IV's were given to some players that he hadn't authorised, Essendon "claim" they don't know who was given what. That right there is negligent in that he never stopped it immediately he never reported it and he never recorded it.

 

[Albert Ross]

We are in exactly the same position at the Sharks. Our Doctor (David Giveny) did do the right thing in that he didn't turn a blind eye. He did shut it down as soon as he could, albeit they went behind his back for 5 weks till he issued an ultimatum that it was him or Dank to leave the club. What Givney didn't do was take it to the NRL and the appropriate authorities. If he had, Stephen Dank would never had got his hooks into Essendon.

And it would appear had Newcastle done something he wouldn't have arrived at Cronulla. The man is going to leave some sort of legacy on sport in this country.

 

[jenny61_99]

I have read Docs letter , It still does not mean he is negligent from a medical point of view. I have not see anything saying he was the one who prescribed,supplied or injected the drugs.

It is only considered "negligent" if the healthcare practitioner has failed to take "reasonable care". Did he take "reasonable care"? Was the letter enough?

 

[Sharko]

And it would appear had Newcastle done something he wouldn't have arrived at Cronulla. The man is going to leave some sort of legacy on sport in this country.

Dank should burn. Our doctor was with the club for 28 years and is similarly respected in the medical community as was Reid. He was also the Australian team doctor.

Givney protected the players at the club. What he didn't do was move to protect those from when Dank moved on which was his responsibility as a medical professional. The reason Givney didn't elevate it was because if he had the club would have folded. Givney was one of the boys as was Dr Reid. This is unacceptable from a medical doctor.

 

[Armchair Critic]

In the charge sheet it says he was present when some IV's were given to some players that he hadn't authorised, Essendon "claim" they don't know who was given what. That right there is negligent in that he never stopped it immediately he never reported it and he never recorded it.

Listen to what your saying. You are saying a Doctor let players be injected with a substance that he didn't know what it was in front of him.

I think it's more likely that he was mislead as to what it was.

 

[ziad]

Listen to what your saying. You are saying a Doctor let players be injected with a substance that he didn't know what it was in front of him.

I think it's more likely that he was mislead as to what it was.

Hiding is not being misled. The cult of groupthink took over.

 

[IanW]

Dank should burn. Our doctor was with the club for 28 years and is similarly respected in the medical community as was Reid. He was also the Australian team doctor.

Givney protected the players at the club. What he didn't do was move to protect those from when Dank moved on which was his responsibility as a medical professional. The reason Givney didn't elevate it was because if he had the club would have folded. Givney was one of the boys as was Dr Reid. This is unacceptable from a medical doctor.

Sharko,

Thats true, but where it gets interesting is what he would have told someone about the warfarin at Cronulla, if another club had done their due diligence right and asked about Dank.

 

[strav]

In some ways he's the worst

Knew the problems, understood the ramifications & implications, warned people and then went along with everyone else

Surely he has higher duty of care as the only one who really understood, and instead of standing up for the players, he folded.

i wonder if he shouldn't be struck off

I agree whole heartedly. He should be struck off for not providing the necessary care.

 

[Armchair Critic]

It is only considered "negligent" if the healthcare practitioner has failed to take "reasonable care". Did he take "reasonable care"? Was the letter enough?

I am positive he has been negligent from A WADA perspective and deserves punishment from AFL, I am not so sure he has breached any medical laws though.

 

[eldorado]

One of the worst sins of the blind eyed is to ignore wrong doing when it affects someone innocent.

I feel for him.

What do you do when friends and colleagues around you are behaving in morally or legally questionable ways.

It's a massive, massive step to become a whistle blower to the authorities. It's the end of your social world, you become a pariah.

They were his two choices, support his duty by whistle blowing, and destroy his own private world, or write a letter and then keep quiet, knowing it's probably endangering his professional future.

They put him in a completely untenable position.

I can only imagine what it would have been like trying to go against Team Hird inside the corridors of Windy Hill...

 

[Underarm]

I am positive he has been negligent from A WADA perspective and deserves punishment from AFL, I am not so sure he has breached any medical laws though.

unless you believe the reports that AOD (?) wasn't approved for human use? I doubt it would be lawful to have that happen under your watch...

 

[Cunctipotent]

Reid looks like the result of an experiment, but it may just be age and the stress of hiding Hird's secrets.

 

[Armchair Critic]

unless you believe the reports that AOD (?) wasn't approved for human use? I doubt it would be lawful to have that happen under your watch...

AOD can be prescribed and used legally though.

 

[nineteen eighty]

He's a doctor. Whether he was "negligent" is an issue for the AMA and the courts to decide, not the AFL.

And you can guarantee they won't do that by releasing a ridiculous "charge sheet" to the media in order to put pressure on him to accept a pre-conceived penalty.

He has a very good case against the AFL re the way they've conducted themselves here.

I still can't believe they included him in this shit. They've waded into some very dangerous waters, when they could have simply turned over any findings to the AFLMA and AMA. That would have been the correct way to do it.

My take on why they included him was because of the role he potentially played post the writing of the letter. There are allegations that he actually played an active part in SOME of the goings on after he expressed his concerns. It's the same with Thompson. He also expressed his concerns and IIRC, even stated that the shit had to stop. He then did nothing about it.

Again it's all about how the AFL conducted themselves rather than against the facts / charges. Keep defending your club Bunk...even against insurmountable evidence that it deliberately went out of its way to take PED's and to cover up the fact that it did.

 

[neutralguy]

I feel for him.

What do you do when friends and colleagues around you are behaving in morally or legally questionable ways.

It's a massive, massive step to become a whistle blower to the authorities. It's the end of your social world, you become a pariah.

They were his two choices, support his duty by whistle blowing, and destroy his own private world, or write a letter and then keep quiet, knowing it's probably endangering his professional future.

They put him in a completely untenable position.

I can only imagine what it would have been like trying to go against Team Hird inside the corridors of Windy Hill...

But as a doctor he swore an oath that precludes any personal gain from being ignorant. If he wasn't serious about that oath he deserves to not be a doctor.

When i joined the Army I swore an oath to my country ergo to you and all others in my country that I was prepared to put my life in harms way to protect our way of life, I was serious about that oath and indeed served in armed conflict with every chance of being killed. Should I have turned a blind eye because some people don't agree with our countries involvement in that conflict? If I had of I would of been (rightfully) punished for breaking that oath.

 

[eldorado]

But as a doctor he swore an oath that precludes any personal gain from being ignorant. If he wasn't serious about that oath he deserves to not be a doctor.

When i joined the Army I swore an oath to my country ergo to you and all others in my country that I was prepared to put my life in harms way to protect our way of life, I was serious about that oath and indeed served in armed conflict with every chance of being killed. Should I have turned a blind eye because some people don't agree with our countries involvement in that conflict? If I had of I would of been (rightfully) punished for breaking that oath.

Ok, so for a better analogy than the one in bold...

You're on a mission, and the other members of your platoon, your brothers in arms, kill unarmed civilians. You were the only one there who saw it.

What do you do? If you try to tell me it's an easy decision, I don't believe you

 

[neutralguy]

Ok, so for an analogy...

You're on a mission, and the other members of your platoon, your brothers in arms, kill unarmed civilians. You were the only one there who saw it.

What do you do? If you try to tell me it's an easy decision, I don't believe you

It is an easy decision for someone that has morals and integrity (perhaps thats why some of us were promoted other others), I would immediately arrest anyone involved in said action and on return to base hand them over to my CSM for the appropriate action to be taken. But hey some wouldn't I know that, in the same token if it was later discovered (ala Essendon) that I had turned a blind eye and allowed this to go unpunished I would be dealt with in the appropriate manner just like the good doctor should be.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Ok, so for an analogy...

You're on a mission, and the other members of your platoon, your brothers in arms, kill unarmed civilians. You were the only one there who saw it.

What do you do? If you try to tell me it's an easy decision, I don't believe you

There are many examples of soldiers turning blind eyes to incidents and absolutely it would be gut wrenching with regards to what to do.

I liked your post from earlier and was well said. I'm sure Dr Reid is a good man who got caught up in this entire mess. Someone earlier said he is collateral damage and agree.

My issue really goes to his actions post the letter. OK I can accept that it could be difficult to not say / do anything. But to then allegedly be a part of SOME of it??

 

[IanW]

AOD can be prescribed and used legally though.

Its an experimental drug - certain things need to be done for that to happen.

Were they done ? Specifically, which conditions was it prescribed for, and why ? We Theraputic Use Exemptions sought ? If not, why not ?

 

[eldorado]

, I would immediately arrest anyone involved in said action and on return to base hand them over to my CSM for the appropriate action to be taken.

This implies ultimate authority. What if the guilty were peers, or even superiors?

 

[neutralguy]

This implies ultimate authority. What if the guilty were peers, or even superiors?

You do know in that circumstance a subordinate ahs every right to place a superior under arrest don't you? Same as if I was the duty NCO (corporal) and a superior was drunk and about to strike another member either supureior or subordinate it would be my duty to arrest my superior no question. Ultimate authority as you put is indeed a valid thing when the welfare of people are involved.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Its an experimental drug - certain things need to be done for that to happen.

Were they done ? Specifically, which conditions was it prescribed for, and why ? We Theraputic Use Exemptions sought ? If not, why not ?

Exactly, so crucifying him without then full facts is a bit harsh. TUE's have nothing to do with breaches of medical ethics though.

He has been negligent regards to the WADA code and deserves to be punished for that , I am just saying I am not convinced he has breached his duty of care as a doctor and that is still to be decided

 

[jj1978]

S

 

[eldorado]

You do know in that circumstance a subordinate ahs every right to place a superior under arrest don't you? Same as if I was the duty NCO (corporal) and a superior was drunk and about to strike another member either supureior or subordinate it would be my duty to arrest my superior no question. Ultimate authority as you put is indeed a valid thing when the welfare of people are involved.

I can only take you at your word, but I cannot believe a decision like would not cause massive internal stress, conflict, and deep questioning of one's own allegiances, priorities and morality, particularly with close friends involved.

All I'm saying is that the situation he was placed in left him only with two completely unpleasant choices.

 

[jenny61_99]

Exactly, so crucifying him without then full facts is a bit harsh. TUE's have nothing to do with breaches of medical ethics though.

He has been negligent regards to the WADA code and deserves to be punished for that , I am just saying I am not convinced he has breached his duty of care as a doctor and that is still to be decided

Failure in his duty of care of the players. That to me constitutes medical negligence. He knew things were not right, said as much in his infamous letter, yet let it continue.