Stephen Dank takes it to another level

[Lavender Bushranger]

1. He admits to working on a 'handshake agreement'.

2. He worked there for four months (being less than the minimum employment period for the purposes of unfair dimissal).

3. He wants to commence proceedings more than 5 years after he was dismissed.

Yeah, nah. It's the ramblings of a ******* loon.

He's clearly combing for settlements and/or hush money.

"Yeah, I gave Bock banned gear..."

Nek minnut, he's putting it out there that he's going to take that club to court.


Coincidence?? I think not.

 

[Proper Gander]

He's just trolling everyone.

Top shelf effort too.

Liked for the "top shelf" bit. Not enough people use phrases like that these days

 

[gavaniacono]

How does Bock being guilty make Essendon less guilty? Beats the shyte out of me.

It's EFC folk being infected by the foaming bug.

 

[MaddAdam]

As I have said, this friend ended up being a key witness for ASADA and gave evidence by video to the CAS, so it is not a lie. This person is not a doctor, which is the reason he asked me about it at the time. I asked him why he believed Dank at the time and he said that the guy was a "scientist" and why would he doubt an expert in his own field. Don't forget back in early 2012 very few people had really heard about GHRP. We are now all experts on peptides but even in the medical field, these drugs were not being used, so most had no knowledge of them.
I just find it consistent now with Dank's behaviour of not really understanding the WADA code. He mentions in texts that both CJC and GHRP are not banned because they are not specifically listed but ignores the catch all (2011 WADA code) in S2 which mentions any drug with similar biological effect. Even his understanding of S0 seems incorrect as he tells Robinson not to be concerned that it (CJC) hasn't been approved for therapeutic use because “No but never submitted for therapeutic use.”
The guy was both stupid and too clever for himself I think is the bottom line.

Cool, thanks. I maybe should have been clearer, I do believe what you're saying.

It amazes me what people here think sometimes - on the SRP board one poster reckons I made up living in Belgium for a year so that I could fake knowing what I'm talking about regarding the Daesh stuff there. Yeah, I deliberately nurtured a hugely detailed lie from October 2013 onwards simply so I could win internet points in March 2016 after a terror attack that I somehow "knew was going to happen" took place.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

So now he's going to take the Suns to court!

This guy!


Does Dank still live in the western suburbs? Drive a small hatchback?

I swear I passed him on the west gate a few months back....couldn't decide whether to high-five him or run him off the road.

He's a fantastic campaigner.

 

[Proper Gander]

Does Dank still love in the western suburbs? .

Ew

I'm feeling very fragile today and that was not the mental image I needed to speed recovery

 

[Doss]

Interesting article from Caro indeed.

Is Dank a stain looking to remain relevant? For sure.

Does the Bock thing change what Essendon did? Nope.

But I find it amazing that she would choose not to address or gloss over the fact that ASADA didn't want to touch the Bock case despite, on the face of it, there being little different in the case (circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc.) from the Essendon one. Because it seems on face value they only changed their mind yesterday because it would be ridiculous not to, in light of the strands in the cable approach that ultimately told for the Essendon players.

I have absolutely no time for Dank whatsoever, but surely to not address that at all in such an article is akin to neglecting the elephant in the room.

 

[Proper Gander]

Interesting article from Caro indeed.

Is Dank a stain looking to remain relevant? For sure.

Does the Bock thing change what Essendon did? Nope.

But I find it amazing that she would choose not to address or gloss over the fact that ASADA didn't want to touch the Bock case despite, on the face of it, there being little different in the case (circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc.) from the Essendon one. Because it seems on face value they only changed their mind yesterday because it would be ridiculous not to, in light of the strands in the cable approach that ultimately told for the Essendon players.

I have absolutely no time for Dank whatsoever, but surely to not address that at all in such an article is akin to neglecting the elephant in the room.

Agree. Caro is weird - I've never been a fan particularly, not because of any deep issue with her views but because she is so strangely one eyed on every topic. The story here is surely about ASADA and their oddly inconsistent decisions - but she kind of wants it to be about Hird. And I'm all for a good Hird/Essendon story but this one just isn't the right choice.

 

[jenny61_99]

Interesting article from Caro indeed.

Is Dank a stain looking to remain relevant? For sure.

Does the Bock thing change what Essendon did? Nope.

But I find it amazing that she would choose not to address or gloss over the fact that ASADA didn't want to touch the Bock case despite, on the face of it, there being little different in the case (circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc.) from the Essendon one. Because it seems on face value they only changed their mind yesterday because it would be ridiculous not to, in light of the strands in the cable approach that ultimately told for the Essendon players.

I have absolutely no time for Dank whatsoever, but surely to not address that at all in such an article is akin to neglecting the elephant in the room.

What part of they didn't have enough corroborating evidence to pin on Bock (given that Dank refused to appear before them, and that he was in fact appealing their claim that he trafficked this drug to the Suns), don't you understand? You seem to be of the view that ASADA just made stuff up for Essendon rather than painstakingly develop over a period of time, an investigation that had many links (sorry, strands) and multiple connections. In Bock's case it was one persons view (Robinson), with no supporting documentation or other corroborating evidence. Now, with Dank's interesting public declaration, they now know where he sourced the gear from and can now go about proving that it was in fact CJC1295 that Dank gave Robinson to give to Bock. It really isn't that hard to understand if you think about it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This guy was a big part of the culture of the Essendon Football Club for a long time. Other places he did not seem to gel. At Essendon he seemed to fit right in.

Danksy I think James called him.

 

[Doss]

What part of they didn't have enough corroborating evidence to pin on Bock (given that Dank refused to appear before them, and that he was in fact appealing their claim that he trafficked this drug to the Suns), don't you understand? You seem to be of the view that ASADA just made stuff up for Essendon rather than painstakingly develop over a period of time, an investigation that had many links (sorry, strands) and multiple connections. In Bock's case it was one persons view (Robinson), with no supporting documentation or other corroborating evidence. Now, with Dank's interesting public declaration, they now know where he sourced the gear from and can now go about proving that it was in fact CJC1295 that Dank gave Robinson to give to Bock. It really isn't that hard to understand if you think about it.

Drop the patronising tone and don't put words in my mouth, Jenny. I've never said or thought ASADA just made stuff up, so don't claim that I did.

 

[gavaniacono]

So now he's going to take the Suns to court!

This guy!


Does Dank still love in the western suburbs? Drive a small hatchback?

I swear I passed him on the west gate a few months back....couldn't decide whether to high-five him or run him off the road.

He's a fantastic campaigner.

Let him go. I want there to be a season 4, then a season 5 and 6. He's one of the key characters. The Bombers Ballsup may go down as the best Aust. series ever. And I thought Breaking Bad was good.

 

[Proper Gander]

What part of they didn't have enough corroborating evidence to pin on Bock (given that Dank refused to appear before them, and that he was in fact appealing their claim that he trafficked this drug to the Suns), don't you understand? You seem to be of the view that ASADA just made stuff up for Essendon rather than painstakingly develop over a period of time, an investigation that had many links (sorry, strands) and multiple connections. In Bock's case it was one persons view (Robinson), with no supporting documentation or other corroborating evidence. Now, with Dank's interesting public declaration, they now know where he sourced the gear from and can now go about proving that it was in fact CJC1295 that Dank gave Robinson to give to Bock. It really isn't that hard to understand if you think about it.

Steady on. I think the point is that the article itself is a bit odd - to my mind it totally is. It reads as though she is rebutting some point that hasn't been made by EFC that the Bock thing minimises their culpability - and it's not entirely clear who she has the shits with on this one and why she uses an interesting story that warrants a few questions about the basis of ASADAs decisions to fan the Hird flames. Like I said before, I have no real problem with her views but I do have a problem with her particular brand of journalism full stop because it strays so often away from inquiry into barracking. It's simplistic and dangerous.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Interesting article from Caro indeed.

Is Dank a stain looking to remain relevant? For sure.

Does the Bock thing change what Essendon did? Nope.

But I find it amazing that she would choose not to address or gloss over the fact that ASADA didn't want to touch the Bock case despite, on the face of it, there being little different in the case (circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc.) from the Essendon one. Because it seems on face value they only changed their mind yesterday because it would be ridiculous not to, in light of the strands in the cable approach that ultimately told for the Essendon players.

I have absolutely no time for Dank whatsoever, but surely to not address that at all in such an article is akin to neglecting the elephant in the room.

Unfortunately prosecution requires resources, and like the police, ASADA have to decide whether or not to pursue things.
If someone stole the DVD player from your car, I doubt that the police would be taking DNA evidence or even fingerprints. They would only find them if it showed up among some stolen property they happened to retrieve.

I think its fair to say the the Essendon saga was no walk in the park for ASADA, but with a systematic doping program by an entire football team, it had to be done.
To go through the same process for a single player who didn't play his last couple of years, and is now retired ( apart from coaching ), probably just didn't strike them as important. They could probably use the same resources and catch other , more significant cheats in other sports.

But with Danks throwing it out there , they are probably now forced into it.

 

[gavaniacono]

Oh

Danksy I think James called him.

oh oh ohhhh,...
Frankly Mr Danksy
This position you've held
It's kept me awake
And it's enlarged my one eyed snake
I want you to leave
Dear Mr Danksy
I want you to go down in not-for-human-use history
Oh Mr Danksy.

 

[Doss]

Steady on. I think the point is that the article itself is a bit odd - to my mind it totally is. It reads as though she is rebutting some point that hasn't been made by EFC that the Bock thing minimises their culpability - and it's not entirely clear who she has the shits with on this one and why she uses an interesting story that warrants a few questions about the basis of ASADAs decisions to fan the Hird flames. Like I said before, I have no real problem with her views but I do have a problem with her particular brand of journalism full stop because it strays so often away from inquiry into barracking. It's simplistic and dangerous.

You've summed up my bemusement perfectly.

The Bock stuff doesn't lessen Essendon's culpability. I'm not saying that and I don't think Essendon themselves have said that. It's more the weird focus of the article given what Dank's claims mean that gets me.

 

[jenny61_99]

Drop the patronising tone Jenny. I never said they made stuff up so don't claim that I did.

I've seen it mentioned a few times by Essendon sympathisers over various forums, so it wasn't really directed at you. You still haven't answered my question though. How can you not see the difference between the two situations? Is is fairly obvious.

Steady on. I think the point is that the article itself is a bit odd - to my mind it totally is. It reads as though she is rebutting some point that hasn't been made by EFC that the Bock thing minimises their culpability - and it's not entirely clear who she has the shits with on this one and why she uses an interesting story that warrants a few questions about the basis of ASADAs decisions to fan the Hird flames. Like I said before, I have no real problem with her views but I do have a problem with her particular brand of journalism full stop because it strays so often away from inquiry into barracking. It's simplistic and dangerous.

I'm not actually responding to Caro's article. I'm just talking about the situation in general. Caro's opinion is neither here nor there.

 

[Doss]

I've seen it mentioned a few times by Essendon sympathisers over various forums, so it wasn't really directed at you. You still haven't answered my question though. How can you not see the difference between the two situations? Is is fairly obvious.

Again with the presumptions.

I didn't say there weren't differences. I said they were merely enough similarities* for there to be a question mark over why one would be pursued and not the other. I don't buy your reasoning, sorry.

I think it's got everything to do with what SaintsSeptember said above. Resources, and optics.

*okay I said 'little difference'. Probably a bit over the top for me. My point remains however, and I'm not interested in further semantics around my choice of words.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Interesting article from Caro indeed.

Is Dank a stain looking to remain relevant? For sure.

Does the Bock thing change what Essendon did? Nope.

But I find it amazing that she would choose not to address or gloss over the fact that ASADA didn't want to touch the Bock case despite, on the face of it, there being little different in the case (circumstantial evidence, testimony, etc.) from the Essendon one. Because it seems on face value they only changed their mind yesterday because it would be ridiculous not to, in light of the strands in the cable approach that ultimately told for the Essendon players.

I have absolutely no time for Dank whatsoever, but surely to not address that at all in such an article is akin to neglecting the elephant in the room.

It's no coincidence either that she almost seems to praise Robinson.

 

[jenny61_99]

Again with the presumptions.

I didn't say there weren't differences. I said they were merely enough similarities for there to be a question mark over why one would be pursued and not the other. I don't buy your reasoning, sorry.

I think it's got everything to do with what SaintsSeptember said above. Resources, and optics.

And I disagree. There is no similarity between the two (other than Dank/Robinson). Resources are only an issue if you need to prosecute but can't due to lack of resources. If you can't prosecute, due to lack of corroborating evidence, resources don't even come into it, do they?

 

[Doss]

It's no coincidence either that she almost seems to praise Robinson.

Robinson who now just happens to be working at KPMG who is- WHAT- the AFL's auditor?

Definitely no coincidence.

 

[Doss]

And I disagree. There is no similarity between the two (other than Dank/Robinson). Resources are only an issue if you need to prosecute but can't due to lack of resources. If you can't prosecute, due to lack of corroborating evidence, resources don't even come into it, do they?

Great, so we disagree, that's fine. I'm not interested in a tennis rally so let's just leave it that.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Unfortunately prosecution requires resources, and like the police, ASADA have to decide whether or not to pursue things.
If someone stole the DVD player from your car, I doubt that the police would be taking DNA evidence or even fingerprints. They would only find them if it showed up among some stolen property they happened to retrieve.

I think its fair to say the the Essendon saga was no walk in the park for ASADA, but with a systematic doping program by an entire football team, it had to be done.
To go through the same process for a single player who didn't play his last couple of years, and is now retired ( apart from coaching ), probably just didn't strike them as important. They could probably use the same resources and catch other , more significant cheats in other sports.

But with Danks throwing it out there , they are probably now forced into it.

I'm not buying it.

This whole thing has a stink to it.


We KNOW the government was pressuring ASADA. We KNOW the AFL was pressuring ASADA. We KNOW the AFL thought they had a deal to get the players off. We KNOW the AFL tried to fudge their own rules in order to get Essendon and the players off as lightly as they possibly could.


The fact that the AFL's own baby miraculously get off scott free from an anti-doping breach when everyone involved confessed - is far too convenient. Considering what we know, it is far too convenient.



And what chances the timing of Bock being cleared is a coincidence too?
3 years to clear him?? And funny how they told us whilst 'everyone loves their footy' at the moment.

 

[Proper Gander]

It's no coincidence either that she almost seems to praise Robinson.

This.

AFL accredited media getting pretty tedious about now.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Robinson who now just happens to be working at KPMG who is- WHAT- the AFL's auditor?

Definitely no coincidence.

It's actually a disgrace she can go so hard on some people (rightfully so mind you) but go with the 'poor Dean just wants to move on' line in regards to Robinson!