- Jul 25, 2013
- 8,020
- 11,605
- AFL Club
- Essendon
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY
- Thread starter Pweter
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
In this instance he is only trying to paint a picture that somebody impartial to the investigation has examined it and laid the charges.
You wouldn't know what to do with all the extra income.
- Jan 21, 2010
- 1,103
- 1,674
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Jul 25, 2013
- 8,020
- 11,605
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Looking at the charge sheet, I am pretty disappointed at what has happened at our club to be honest, especially after reading Reid's email. To me, individuals are never bigger than the club and it is sad to see some of our staff have conducted themselves the way they have.
It seems like the environment at the club was not a safe place at the time for our players and the health of the players is much more important than winning a flag. A flag is only temporary. The health of the players however could be permanent for them. As a fan, yes I would like for the club to win a flag, but not through taking substances that are border line or risking the health of the players.
I am sorry to say this, but I think Hird should do the right thing and stand down. The image of our club is getting dragged through the mud and an individual is not bigger than the club, even if he was one of the best players in the history of our club.
I remained objective throughout this whole saga. It is pretty obvious now that some of our staff screwed up, including Hird.
i still don't believe that we should punish the players by stripping our premiership points, but fine the club and strip us from draft picks. Then move on until ASADA completed the investigation.
Move on from this saga. Really drained our players and supporters.
It seems like the environment at the club was not a safe place at the time for our players and the health of the players is much more important than winning a flag. A flag is only temporary. The health of the players however could be permanent for them. As a fan, yes I would like for the club to win a flag, but not through taking substances that are border line or risking the health of the players.
I am sorry to say this, but I think Hird should do the right thing and stand down. The image of our club is getting dragged through the mud and an individual is not bigger than the club, even if he was one of the best players in the history of our club.
I remained objective throughout this whole saga. It is pretty obvious now that some of our staff screwed up, including Hird.
i still don't believe that we should punish the players by stripping our premiership points, but fine the club and strip us from draft picks. Then move on until ASADA completed the investigation.
Move on from this saga. Really drained our players and supporters.
Close! Admin gave us laptops because they were tired of replacing broom handles, and didn't approve of what some chose to do with those broom handles. Allegedly.
Lucky we are encouraged to vent here hey!
Joined today
I call TROLL!
- Jul 25, 2013
- 8,020
- 11,605
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Apr 27, 2013
- 3,555
- 4,422
- AFL Club
- Essendon
God I hope the players muster up incredible rage and smash the **** out of Carlshit this Saturday
Use this thread to vent all you guys like, it's all good.
Just don't threaten violence or bash other mods (PM them)
Just don't threaten violence or bash other mods (PM them)
Playing them heck sticks normally brings the best out of Essendon hoping this is the case.
Basically no phone or internet all day so just catching up on all the news.
Isn't it interesting after AFL 360 last night which put the spotlight firmly onto the AFL, they come out and release the charges the very next day?
Nice work AFL you toss bags.
Bring on the war. This is SPARTAAAA!!!
Isn't it interesting after AFL 360 last night which put the spotlight firmly onto the AFL, they come out and release the charges the very next day?
Nice work AFL you toss bags.
Bring on the war. This is SPARTAAAA!!!
quotemokc
Brownlow Medallist
All I ever heard on this site before this 'scandal' was how inept the AFL and AD and how things must change. But now when this is actually a possibility of it happening everyone would rather side with the 'corrupt' AFL all because of their irrational hatred/jealously/misunderstanding etc of the EFC.
cymarak
Go Gators !
Who does Dillon report to?
- Jul 25, 2013
- 8,020
- 11,605
- AFL Club
- Essendon
doug85
Capo di tutt'i capi
POTY
- Banned
- #20,899
As I see it:
1.The conduct described below constituted conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute (as defined in Rule 1.6) on the part of the Club because, having determined to implement a scientifically pioneering program relating to the administration of supplements to its players, it:
(a) engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
This is under dispute. There is NO evidence to support that any players health has been adversely affected, or was likely to be, due to the substances administered during the supplement program. There is no evidence that supports that any prohibited substances were ever administered, designed or encourage to be administered or planned to be administered.
(b) disregarded standard practices involving the human resources department when employing Robinson and Dank at the Club; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Are Geelong and the Gold Coast going to be facing charges next. What are ‘standard practises’ involving employment. Does the AFL have a specific HR policy document that clubs must adhere to? This is a frivolous charge point that is completely outside the domain of the AFL, nor can it be substianted. Both men were highly regarded in their fields at the time of employment.
(c) failed to conduct routine, systematic pre-employment checks in respect of Robinson and Dank; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
As for part (b), what would be ‘routine’ checks? When Garry Lyon was appointed Temporary Head of Footy at Melbourne last year.. what “pre-employment checks” were completed? If Leigh Matthews offers to come and help the forwards for a couple of training sessions, what EXACT pre-employment checks should EFC do?? This is again a frivolous and completely absurd point.
(d) failed to ensure that persons with the necessary integrity, reputation, qualifications and training were engaged by the Club to implement the program; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Again disputed. Have the qualifications, integrity, reputation and training of EVERY single staff member at the AFL and all clubs been compared against the SAME criteria? Barry Hall was suspended by the MRP a number of times, does this mean he doesn’t have the ‘integrity’ to be employed a club? Perhaps you should check with the Bulldogs and St Kilda before answering that one. Both individuals (Weapon and Dank) have relevant qualifications and had worked at SEVERAL clubs at AFL/NRL. This is absurd in a legal sense.
(e) failed to ensure that those implementing the program were adequately supervised; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
What level of supervision of staff is expected? If Dr Reid is able to express concerns (see later) then there was SOME sort of supervision. Define ‘adequately’? What level of supervision is given to the boot studder? What level to each assistant coach or the accounts staff? Does the AFL define what supervision levels are required? Is there a time ratio that the club needed to adhere to? Very loose charge point that is unlikely to hold up in court.
(f) failed to devise or implement any adequate system or process to ensure that all substances provided to and used by players were safe and were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
There is documented evidence of investigation and CHECKING with relevant authorities to ensure substances conformed to codes. The club doctor was initially involved in the program and, at different times, was included in key decision making. Other than checking with NATIONAL BODIES, what other process are required? Is EVERY other club able to produce their system and process to conform with this charge point? This is highly unlikely and another unsustained claim.
(g) failed to have proper regard to player health and safety, including failing to ensure that all substances had no potentially negative effects on players; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Categorically and forcefully denied. All senior figures at the football club were clear AT ALL TIMES that the program was to be safe for the players. The program was stopped for POTENTIALLY causing injury as even short term soft tissue injury concerns were unacceptable to the club. Club Doctor is highly regarded, as is the Senior Coach and there is NO evidence to suggest they had, at ANY TIME, a cavalier approach to player safety. This is irresponsible for its inclusion and damaging to reputations of all involved. This would be easily and convincingly rebuked in court.
(h) failed to identify and record the source from which all substances used by players were obtained; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Again this is around policy and procedure. Invoices were kept and relevant staff members were engaged to record this information. The club may have made some oversights however this is a MINOR issue around record keeping that in NO WAY confirms that prohibited substances or improper substances were used. There are strong records that indicated that all substances used were sourced from reputable chemists and prepared in Australia for use.
(i) failed to adequately monitor and record the use of substances; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
This is strongly refuted. This was NOT substantiated by the ASADA investigation. There is no documented evidence to demonstrate WHAT records should have been kept by the club. The AFL has no clear guidelines in this regard. The record keeping at the other 17 clubs has not be questioned. This point is irrelevant and vague and unlikely to be persuasive at court.
(j) failed to audit or monitor all substances held on the premises of the Club; (Record keeping error 1)
Again, where does the AFL specify this needs to occur? Were all substances, including Poweraide, expected to be monitored? What were the other 17 clubs doing/required to do during this period? Yes the club should have kept better records, however AGAIN this is a paperwork issue and hardly worthy of a charge.
(k) failed to implement a system for recording and storing all substances held on the premises of the Club; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
See (j), this is lawyering 101, repeat something with a ‘twist’ and hope that it makes your case look stronger. Is a verbal or informal system acceptable? Where does the AFL Rules state that you must have such a system? Apparently there was a ‘fridge’, does that count as a system for storage? Where does it state in the WADA or ASADA guidelines that all substances must be stored together etc etc? Very flimsy charge that again relates to little more than paperwork and a few signs. Nothing worth the paper it is written on.
(l) failed to meaningfully inform players of the substances the subject of the program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of the substances; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Strongly refuted by the club. There is no evidence in the ASADA report to support this claim. All players could ‘opt out’ at any time, all substances were named and listed in consent documents. All players were aware, if they wished to be, of what the supplement program consisted of and were comfortable with the legality and risks of them. This is another factually incorrect charge point that will be easily refuted in court.
(m) failed to take any appropriate and adequate action when it became aware of facts that strongly suggested that unsatisfactory and potentially risky practices were occurring in relation to the administration of supplements; (Small error in internal processes 2)
The club did take action, potentially 3 months after concerns first came to light. However as it is now demonstrated that the substance program was in fact safe and legal, then failing to act on concerns is nothing more than a minor issue. Complete ‘padding’ point here. Yes in hindsight the club should have looked at Reid’s letter sooner, however it would have changed nothing about the supplement program and it mainly irrelevant in the scheme of things. This is an INTERNAL issue and nothing to do with the AFL. Does the AFL keep check of other internal club issues around the league? When some Carlton officials started raising concerns about Fev’s behaviour.. and this was ignored by management.. why no charge? This point holds no legal weight.
(n) created or permitted a culture at the Club that legitimised and encouraged the frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements; and (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Strongly disputed by the club and is not supported by evidence. This is an OPINION posed as a legal charge. Secondly, if the injections were legal and within legal frameworks then it is irrelevant what the culture was.
(o) failed to adequately protect the health, welfare and safety of the players. (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Strongly disputed by the club. Overlapped with point (a) and with the same legal gaps. Cannot be supported by the evidence and again is an OPINION presented as legal fact. This can not be supported in a court of law.
By reason of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) above:
(i) players were administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; alternatively (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
No. Not Supported and Not Sustained.
(ii) the Club is unable to determine whether players were administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code. (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
No. Not Supported and Not Substantiated.
1.The conduct described below constituted conduct unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute (as defined in Rule 1.6) on the part of the Club because, having determined to implement a scientifically pioneering program relating to the administration of supplements to its players, it:
(a) engaged in practices that exposed players to significant risks to their health and safety as well as the risk of using substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
This is under dispute. There is NO evidence to support that any players health has been adversely affected, or was likely to be, due to the substances administered during the supplement program. There is no evidence that supports that any prohibited substances were ever administered, designed or encourage to be administered or planned to be administered.
(b) disregarded standard practices involving the human resources department when employing Robinson and Dank at the Club; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Are Geelong and the Gold Coast going to be facing charges next. What are ‘standard practises’ involving employment. Does the AFL have a specific HR policy document that clubs must adhere to? This is a frivolous charge point that is completely outside the domain of the AFL, nor can it be substianted. Both men were highly regarded in their fields at the time of employment.
(c) failed to conduct routine, systematic pre-employment checks in respect of Robinson and Dank; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
As for part (b), what would be ‘routine’ checks? When Garry Lyon was appointed Temporary Head of Footy at Melbourne last year.. what “pre-employment checks” were completed? If Leigh Matthews offers to come and help the forwards for a couple of training sessions, what EXACT pre-employment checks should EFC do?? This is again a frivolous and completely absurd point.
(d) failed to ensure that persons with the necessary integrity, reputation, qualifications and training were engaged by the Club to implement the program; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Again disputed. Have the qualifications, integrity, reputation and training of EVERY single staff member at the AFL and all clubs been compared against the SAME criteria? Barry Hall was suspended by the MRP a number of times, does this mean he doesn’t have the ‘integrity’ to be employed a club? Perhaps you should check with the Bulldogs and St Kilda before answering that one. Both individuals (Weapon and Dank) have relevant qualifications and had worked at SEVERAL clubs at AFL/NRL. This is absurd in a legal sense.
(e) failed to ensure that those implementing the program were adequately supervised; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
What level of supervision of staff is expected? If Dr Reid is able to express concerns (see later) then there was SOME sort of supervision. Define ‘adequately’? What level of supervision is given to the boot studder? What level to each assistant coach or the accounts staff? Does the AFL define what supervision levels are required? Is there a time ratio that the club needed to adhere to? Very loose charge point that is unlikely to hold up in court.
(f) failed to devise or implement any adequate system or process to ensure that all substances provided to and used by players were safe and were compliant with the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
There is documented evidence of investigation and CHECKING with relevant authorities to ensure substances conformed to codes. The club doctor was initially involved in the program and, at different times, was included in key decision making. Other than checking with NATIONAL BODIES, what other process are required? Is EVERY other club able to produce their system and process to conform with this charge point? This is highly unlikely and another unsustained claim.
(g) failed to have proper regard to player health and safety, including failing to ensure that all substances had no potentially negative effects on players; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Categorically and forcefully denied. All senior figures at the football club were clear AT ALL TIMES that the program was to be safe for the players. The program was stopped for POTENTIALLY causing injury as even short term soft tissue injury concerns were unacceptable to the club. Club Doctor is highly regarded, as is the Senior Coach and there is NO evidence to suggest they had, at ANY TIME, a cavalier approach to player safety. This is irresponsible for its inclusion and damaging to reputations of all involved. This would be easily and convincingly rebuked in court.
(h) failed to identify and record the source from which all substances used by players were obtained; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Again this is around policy and procedure. Invoices were kept and relevant staff members were engaged to record this information. The club may have made some oversights however this is a MINOR issue around record keeping that in NO WAY confirms that prohibited substances or improper substances were used. There are strong records that indicated that all substances used were sourced from reputable chemists and prepared in Australia for use.
(i) failed to adequately monitor and record the use of substances; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
This is strongly refuted. This was NOT substantiated by the ASADA investigation. There is no documented evidence to demonstrate WHAT records should have been kept by the club. The AFL has no clear guidelines in this regard. The record keeping at the other 17 clubs has not be questioned. This point is irrelevant and vague and unlikely to be persuasive at court.
(j) failed to audit or monitor all substances held on the premises of the Club; (Record keeping error 1)
Again, where does the AFL specify this needs to occur? Were all substances, including Poweraide, expected to be monitored? What were the other 17 clubs doing/required to do during this period? Yes the club should have kept better records, however AGAIN this is a paperwork issue and hardly worthy of a charge.
(k) failed to implement a system for recording and storing all substances held on the premises of the Club; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
See (j), this is lawyering 101, repeat something with a ‘twist’ and hope that it makes your case look stronger. Is a verbal or informal system acceptable? Where does the AFL Rules state that you must have such a system? Apparently there was a ‘fridge’, does that count as a system for storage? Where does it state in the WADA or ASADA guidelines that all substances must be stored together etc etc? Very flimsy charge that again relates to little more than paperwork and a few signs. Nothing worth the paper it is written on.
(l) failed to meaningfully inform players of the substances the subject of the program and obtain their informed consent to the administration of the substances; (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Strongly refuted by the club. There is no evidence in the ASADA report to support this claim. All players could ‘opt out’ at any time, all substances were named and listed in consent documents. All players were aware, if they wished to be, of what the supplement program consisted of and were comfortable with the legality and risks of them. This is another factually incorrect charge point that will be easily refuted in court.
(m) failed to take any appropriate and adequate action when it became aware of facts that strongly suggested that unsatisfactory and potentially risky practices were occurring in relation to the administration of supplements; (Small error in internal processes 2)
The club did take action, potentially 3 months after concerns first came to light. However as it is now demonstrated that the substance program was in fact safe and legal, then failing to act on concerns is nothing more than a minor issue. Complete ‘padding’ point here. Yes in hindsight the club should have looked at Reid’s letter sooner, however it would have changed nothing about the supplement program and it mainly irrelevant in the scheme of things. This is an INTERNAL issue and nothing to do with the AFL. Does the AFL keep check of other internal club issues around the league? When some Carlton officials started raising concerns about Fev’s behaviour.. and this was ignored by management.. why no charge? This point holds no legal weight.
(n) created or permitted a culture at the Club that legitimised and encouraged the frequent, uninformed and unregulated use of the injection of supplements; and (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Strongly disputed by the club and is not supported by evidence. This is an OPINION posed as a legal charge. Secondly, if the injections were legal and within legal frameworks then it is irrelevant what the culture was.
(o) failed to adequately protect the health, welfare and safety of the players. (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
Strongly disputed by the club. Overlapped with point (a) and with the same legal gaps. Cannot be supported by the evidence and again is an OPINION presented as legal fact. This can not be supported in a court of law.
By reason of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) above:
(i) players were administered substances that were prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code; alternatively (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
No. Not Supported and Not Sustained.
(ii) the Club is unable to determine whether players were administered substances prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code. (NOT PROVEN IMHO)
No. Not Supported and Not Substantiated.
No I have been on bigfooty since 2011. I deleted my previous account (MadBomberman) as I found bigfooty ridiculous (with all the opposition supporters trolling with the whole cheats etc).
Just because this is my view doesn't mean I am trolling. I think the health of the players are more important than a premiership.
- Status
