SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

[Bennett.]

There's not much more to it, if any - it's very vague.

From the 2011 version of the AFL Player Rules:

 

[efcboy]

What, you want him to putter around a town where the media have driven him into a state of medical decline?

My opinion is that he thought he was doing the right thing for the club at the time but should have had more faith they had not done anything wrong. It was Evan's call to self-report and his call to canvass the Ziggy investigation and also his call to publish the report publicly that didn't reflect well on the club. He may or may not have also lied about the phone calls with Demetriou.

I don't doubt his heart was in the right place but he made some monumental mistakes which will tarnish the EFC. Getting Demetriou involved was always fraught with danger.

I'm hopeful he will come back, take his hit and set some records straight and possibly implicate Demetriou as others at Essendon have testified.

 

[BERT]

Twitter account is @RalphyHeraldSun

He loves being reminded about infractions.

He blocked me on twitter when I asked him to stop speaking sh#$ and report facts only. It was one night on Fox Footy when he kept on and on about infraction notices.

 

[cymarak]

Gonna pose a hard-hitting question. Did Evans do more harm than good in calling for the investigation in the way he did? Was the release of the Ziggy report with unqualified comments about pharmacology a mistake?

Now I'm not saying the investigation was a mistake, but was the execution a poor judgement call? Hird's first comments on that day have been well parodied: "I'm shocked to be sitting here". Did he really mean "I don't believe I should be sitting here but I have to". That's how I read it.

I'm sure everyone involved would like to re-do some things from those early days - e.g. Hird's 'full responsibility' comment.

My guess is that at the start we thought that
(a) we didn't know exactly what had happened
(b) there was a serious chance banned drugs had been used; and
(c) the AFL was 'on our side', as long as we 'did the right thing' and cooperated fully

Calling for the investigation and releasing the Ziggy report make perfect sense if all of the above are true.

But if the above are not true - most particularly (c) - it comes back to bite us.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Was he, in your opinion, qualified to accurately phrase the term 'pharmacologically experimental environment'? As for all else being said about that report, this is the one phrase that has been repeatedly used as a stick to beat Essendon Football Club with.

No. Ziggy's area of expertise is management and the telecommunications industry. I am as qualified as he is to comment on biochemistry.

 

[slugger]

Yeah due to the invoicing fiasco

What evidence have you got for that? Not what I've heard.

 

[efcboy]

I'm sure everyone involved would like to re-do some things from those early days - e.g. Hird's 'full responsibility' comment.

My guess is that at the start we thought that
(a) we didn't know exactly what had happened
(b) there was a serious chance banned drugs had been used; and
(c) the AFL was 'on our side', as long as we 'did the right thing' and cooperated fully

Calling for the investigation and releasing the Ziggy report make perfect sense if all of the above are true.

But if the above are not true - most particularly (c) - it comes back to bite us.

Hindsight is a great thing but surely, when under no obligation, to initiate and and release a report that was damning of the club was plain silly. Dank was thinking what the "F" are they doing? Self incriminating...

 

[slugger]

To me, the major major problem here is the AFL feeding information to their tame gutter-dwellers. This could all have been kept under some sort of emotional control but for the hysterical rantings of the likes of Wilson, Smith, Barrett, Ralph, Maclure etc.

That has to stop.The AFL should and must cut the pair of them (Wilson and Smith) off.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I have no problem with the club being charged with 'bringing the game into disrepute'. Because despite the AFL and the Media making this far worse that necessary, we have.

This would then entail a punishment similar to Adelaides.

The individuals being charged is a joke, especially for the reason that some of the main players have not been charged, purely as they have since left the club, namely Robinson, Dank, Hamilton and Evans. What is stopping these guys getting employment at other clubs, while those at the club face 6 month bans? Staggering logic.

The AFL cannot possibly argue that they don't have a conflict of interests and therefore cannot judge this case. An independent party would have to. If this was the case, I can't see individual charges sticking. I can see a compromise being the AFL agreeing to reprimands, to avoid losing control if the Bombers fight this.

 

[efcboy]

What evidence have you got for that? Not what I've heard.

All those in chain of command of invoicing are gone. Dank reported to Robinson, Robinson reported to Hamilton and Hamilton reported to Robson. I've heard the board were very annoyed both Hamilton and Robson didn't make them aware of the significance of these invoices.

 

[efcboy]

To me, the major major problem here is the AFL feeding information to their tame gutter-dwellers. This could all have been kept under some sort of emotional control but for the hysterical rantings of the likes of Wilson, Smith, Barrett, Ralph, Maclure etc.

That has to stop.The AFL should and must cut the pair of them (Wilson and Smith) off.

Agree - the AFL has a responsibility to protect its brand and its clubs. They need to enforce tighter regulations of AFL media accreditation. I fully hope it all goes to court to prove this amongst other matters

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Gonna pose a hard-hitting question. Did Evans do more harm than good in calling for the investigation in the way he did? Was the release of the Ziggy report with unqualified comments about pharmacology a mistake?

Now I'm not saying the investigation was a mistake, but was the execution a poor judgement call? Hird's first comments on that day have been well parodied: "I'm shocked to be sitting here". Did he really mean "I don't believe I should be sitting here but I have to". That's how I read it.

I'd say it's probably a bit similar to hiring Dank - a disaster in hindsight but on the available evidence at the time, a reasonable course of action. We didn't know for sure we hadn't cheated at that point, because the one who did know had left the club.

 

[EnolaGay]

No. Ziggy's area of expertise is management and the telecommunications industry. I am as qualified as he is to comment on biochemistry.

Ziggy did the report aided by qualified doctors/scientists, so it probably is an accurate reflection of what occurred.

 

[efcboy]

Ziggy did the report aided by qualified doctors/scientists, so it probably is an accurate reflection of what occurred.

Not when those directly responsible for the program (Dank, Robinson) were not even interviewed

 

[cymarak]

Ziggy did the report aided by qualified doctors/scientists, so it probably is an accurate reflection of what occurred.

If ASADA can report on governance, Ziggy can report on pharmacology.

 

[EnolaGay]

Not when those directly responsible for the program (Dank, Robinson) were not even interviewed

That's true. I probably didn't get my point quite right, I was just clarifying that he Ziggy report wasn't written by just Ziggy alone.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

He may or may not have also lied about the phone calls with Demetriou.

He didn't. It's Hird's interpretation that is querulous.

 

[cymarak]

He didn't. It's Hird's interpretation that is querulous.

Say that again ?

 

[the PILL]

Hmmm, that's actually a very good point... I am not real sure we want danki interviewed though

Not when those directly responsible for the program (Dank, Robinson) were not even interviewed

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Wait, that's not even the right word. "Questionable" is probably what I meant.

 

[Daytripper]

My concern with the Ziggy Report is that I assume that all the Essendon Board all signed off on it.
Meaning they agree with what is contained within.

That could be tricky if we try to argue that what is in there is not a representation of the truth.

I'm discounting the ASADA report all together as I don't think the AFL will be able to use it.

 

[Nick C]

If BTGID is about brand damage, on what basis can EFC & staffers be charged?
How did EFC's actions damage the AFL's brand?
EFC was operating within the rules and did not ask for 7 months of scandal mongering.

To argue BTGID, you have to reduce things to causality and culpability.

How did this thing come about in the 1st place and what was EFC's role in this?
What did the ACC discover that caused them to pass intelligence to ASADA?
What was it about this intelligence that caused ASADA to launch an investigation?
And most importantly, were EFC responsible for this chain of events?

Lets run with the assumption that the ACC found that WADA-banned substances were being purchased on the EFC account and that EFC was being embezzled. Does this make EFC culpable for the ensuing media sh*tstorm?

This would be like punishing a burglary victim for not installing an alarm system.

 

[cymarak]

My concern with the Ziggy Report is that I assume that all the Essendon Board all signed off on it.
Meaning they agree with what is contained within.

That could be tricky if we try to argue that what is in there is not a representation of the truth.

I'm discounting the ASADA report all together as I don't think the AFL will be able to use it.

Did the publicly-released version of the Ziggy report place any blame on Hird, Thompson, Reid or Corcoran ?

 

[Harlequin]

Say that again.

That's what he was doing yesterday as per his advice to the media

 

[Daytripper]

Did the publicly-released version of the Ziggy report place any blame on Hird, Thompson, Reid or Corcoran ?

Not that I am aware of specifically however it did single out the club in general for attention.