lloydy_loinchop
Senior List
Note: For those who want a shorter version, skip the section in the middle with all the quotes. That takes up half the post length.
I cannot believe how substandard the media has been on reporting the Essendon Drugs Scandal. I can't fault them on how quickly they break their news, but the journalists have been very poor at putting the whole story in context and telling a coherent narrative, researching the WADA/ASADA regulations themselves, and therefore explaining the actual significance and consequences of each event. It seems to me that a new story comes out about a new instance of drug use, it becomes a headline, and no one can make heads or tails of whether it's actually illegal and is a banned substance, and if so, whether the player taking that is wholly responsible in the eyes of ASADA, and if so, what the punishment is. As a footy fan, that is all I care about. I don't care about the 'bad look' of Essendon being 'associated' with 'borderline' or 'grey area' supplements. I don't understand what a 'grey area' drug could be. If someone could please explain this, this would be great, because the way I see it, the drug is either on the banned list or not on the list at the time the drug is consumed/used/injected into the player. If it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a drug on the banned list was indeed taken at a point of time when it had been banned, then there is no problem.
In my view, it is entirely within the rights of the club to be using so called 'performance-enhancing drugs' if those are legal within the WADA/ASADA rules. The footballing public is kidding themselves if they don't think clubs will try to attain the greatest possible chemical advantage, as long as it is legal and does not harm the players.
The problem seems to be about harming the players. Tim Watson expressed his concern about the seeming 'witch dictor' activity, and Demetriou was shockrd that 'potentially injurious' substances could have been given to players. Stephen Dank, however, is a sports scientist - Watson and Demetriou are not. He is specifically hired to find and hand out cutting-edge drugs that will benefit the players, provided that they are legal and safe. Watson and Demetriou are not experts on either the legality or the safety of the drugs out there. If whatever ruling body decides that the unorthodox supplements (pig's brain, cow's first milk, etc.) were illegal or potentially unsafe, then Stephen Dank should be in trouble.
James Hird as a football coach is also not an expert on drugs, and his and the football head's duty is to set out a process though which the sports scientist department is being monitored to a reasonable extent, and in a legal sense. If Dank has deceptively given illegal or unsafe drugs to players (which he public says he has not done), then it isn't Hird's role to double-check Dank's medical research. Hird claimed that his process involved the cub doctor, and a check against the ASADA banned list. That covers the his duty to investigate his program's legality and safety in my book. Unless it could be proved Hird was complicit in the danger or illegality, he should not be involved. Hird's own drug use has also been confusedly reported. Hird is a coach, not a player, and is permitted to take drugs on the ASADA banned lsit, as long as he does not in any way promote them to players, and reinforces the anti-drug stance. Unless Hird can be proven to have failed in his duty here, he can take all the performance-enhancing drugs he wants, under ASADA's own rules. The AFL Code of Conduct apparently is another set of regualtions he must act by, and his actions could be construed to have 'brought the game into disrepute'. Firstly, such a clause seems contractually flimsy and broad in a legal sense - I doubt it could be enforceable. Secondly, the extent to which it has brought the game into 'disrepute' is exacerbated the CEO's own comments, and the absolute media beat-up of the incident. The call for him to 'step down' of his own accord because he has 'brought the game into disrepute' through his non-infraction of any rules is utterly ludicrous.
Now it may seem that I am going out on a tangent here about the drug scandal, but I think it is the media's responsibiltiy to cogently point out exactly what I have done above. Instead, they have been irresponsibly breaking news about drugs without context. They are more interested in presenting an 'explosive' story that will attract media attention and eyeballs. Nothing out to coe out of this saga until the end of the ASADA investigation, and any other legal investigation deciding whether Hird or any other Essendon employees had acted out their duty towards the players and clubs. The media know that they are fanning the flames of this story. I personally think Hird will keep coaching until his guilt is proven, and in a week's time the scandal will again be in a lull until a new piece of information has come up, or until the ASADA investigation is over. Instead the media refers to the 'latest twist in the scandal'. It is reporting is as a piece of entertainment for readerly consumption (which I guess we should expect from a revenue-driven media), rather than intelligent, informative and exact reporting.
Here is the story originally broken at the beginning of the Hird part of the scandal (IF YOU WANT TO SKIP MY CRITIQUE OF THE ACTUAL ARTICLES, PLEASE SKIP TO THE BOTTOM FOR MY CONCLUSIONS):
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hird-injected-drugs-20130410-2hlvx.html
Here is another example from The Age (btw, don't even get me started on the Herald):
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...any-athlete-20130412-2hpff.html#ixzz2QCtoJr25
Now such a sentence sounds innocent - I believe it is referring to the news of the text messages that were broken by the 7.30 Report on ABC. However, while the statement is true, its failure to critically follow-up the accusation is bad reporting. A controversial program is not an illegal one. An accusation can either be well-founded or flimsy. The text messages seem to show just that - that Hird was well aware of a controversial program. It doesn't mean that he knew there was illegaity or danger. It just shows he knew he had a supplement program that would be controversial and newsworthy if revealed to the media. The subtext behind this innocent statement is important because without it, the statement is a flat-out prosecution of Hird, without any defence. The prosecution sells papers. The defence does not - no one wants to read a story about how we dont know enough to decide anything really; that we don't know whether any drugs are illegal or unsafe; that we don't know how much Essendon knew about Dank's activities.
All we know is that Damien Barrett broke a hazy story about 'drugs at Essendon' while the Crime Commission released an explosive report on Australian Sport. The 'mystery' at the Essendon Football Club had the country turn its eyes on the story, which has involved Essendon repeatedly denying illegality; Dank repeatedly denying illegality, against the testimony of Kyle Reimers, a man of not-so-great intelligence who 'did not know' what was being 'injected' (ooooo - intravenous drugs, even more scandalous!). Since then the story's own momentum has caused Demetriou and others to comment on how 'shocking' it is, while the closest we have come to seeing a breach of ASADA rules was by a coach who retired as a player in 2007, and is therefore not punishable.
I guess I expected too much for the media to report responsibly. It's frustrating though, because it's difficult to get the truth on the matter without substantial researching and critical analysis of the articles (what the journos are supposed to do for you). If Hird gets sacked, it will be because Essendon cant stand the media spotlight. He will be the umpteenth coaching victim of the media's reporting, as opposed to actual wrongdoing.
I cannot believe how substandard the media has been on reporting the Essendon Drugs Scandal. I can't fault them on how quickly they break their news, but the journalists have been very poor at putting the whole story in context and telling a coherent narrative, researching the WADA/ASADA regulations themselves, and therefore explaining the actual significance and consequences of each event. It seems to me that a new story comes out about a new instance of drug use, it becomes a headline, and no one can make heads or tails of whether it's actually illegal and is a banned substance, and if so, whether the player taking that is wholly responsible in the eyes of ASADA, and if so, what the punishment is. As a footy fan, that is all I care about. I don't care about the 'bad look' of Essendon being 'associated' with 'borderline' or 'grey area' supplements. I don't understand what a 'grey area' drug could be. If someone could please explain this, this would be great, because the way I see it, the drug is either on the banned list or not on the list at the time the drug is consumed/used/injected into the player. If it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a drug on the banned list was indeed taken at a point of time when it had been banned, then there is no problem.
In my view, it is entirely within the rights of the club to be using so called 'performance-enhancing drugs' if those are legal within the WADA/ASADA rules. The footballing public is kidding themselves if they don't think clubs will try to attain the greatest possible chemical advantage, as long as it is legal and does not harm the players.
The problem seems to be about harming the players. Tim Watson expressed his concern about the seeming 'witch dictor' activity, and Demetriou was shockrd that 'potentially injurious' substances could have been given to players. Stephen Dank, however, is a sports scientist - Watson and Demetriou are not. He is specifically hired to find and hand out cutting-edge drugs that will benefit the players, provided that they are legal and safe. Watson and Demetriou are not experts on either the legality or the safety of the drugs out there. If whatever ruling body decides that the unorthodox supplements (pig's brain, cow's first milk, etc.) were illegal or potentially unsafe, then Stephen Dank should be in trouble.
James Hird as a football coach is also not an expert on drugs, and his and the football head's duty is to set out a process though which the sports scientist department is being monitored to a reasonable extent, and in a legal sense. If Dank has deceptively given illegal or unsafe drugs to players (which he public says he has not done), then it isn't Hird's role to double-check Dank's medical research. Hird claimed that his process involved the cub doctor, and a check against the ASADA banned list. That covers the his duty to investigate his program's legality and safety in my book. Unless it could be proved Hird was complicit in the danger or illegality, he should not be involved. Hird's own drug use has also been confusedly reported. Hird is a coach, not a player, and is permitted to take drugs on the ASADA banned lsit, as long as he does not in any way promote them to players, and reinforces the anti-drug stance. Unless Hird can be proven to have failed in his duty here, he can take all the performance-enhancing drugs he wants, under ASADA's own rules. The AFL Code of Conduct apparently is another set of regualtions he must act by, and his actions could be construed to have 'brought the game into disrepute'. Firstly, such a clause seems contractually flimsy and broad in a legal sense - I doubt it could be enforceable. Secondly, the extent to which it has brought the game into 'disrepute' is exacerbated the CEO's own comments, and the absolute media beat-up of the incident. The call for him to 'step down' of his own accord because he has 'brought the game into disrepute' through his non-infraction of any rules is utterly ludicrous.
Now it may seem that I am going out on a tangent here about the drug scandal, but I think it is the media's responsibiltiy to cogently point out exactly what I have done above. Instead, they have been irresponsibly breaking news about drugs without context. They are more interested in presenting an 'explosive' story that will attract media attention and eyeballs. Nothing out to coe out of this saga until the end of the ASADA investigation, and any other legal investigation deciding whether Hird or any other Essendon employees had acted out their duty towards the players and clubs. The media know that they are fanning the flames of this story. I personally think Hird will keep coaching until his guilt is proven, and in a week's time the scandal will again be in a lull until a new piece of information has come up, or until the ASADA investigation is over. Instead the media refers to the 'latest twist in the scandal'. It is reporting is as a piece of entertainment for readerly consumption (which I guess we should expect from a revenue-driven media), rather than intelligent, informative and exact reporting.
Here is the story originally broken at the beginning of the Hird part of the scandal (IF YOU WANT TO SKIP MY CRITIQUE OF THE ACTUAL ARTICLES, PLEASE SKIP TO THE BOTTOM FOR MY CONCLUSIONS):
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hird-injected-drugs-20130410-2hlvx.html
They don't define what these supposed 'failings' actually are. Also use the weasel word 'may'. Unless they mean 'may' as in the 'the AFL would be permitted to'.
Nothing illegal about any of this. I'd want my footy club to be 'pushing the boundaries' to get the best out of their players. And this 'inner sanctum' stuff is just playing on the publics fear and the mystery of 'the sports scientist'
The term 'specific details' is used twice. Note that 'specific' is a superfluous term here. The medico wouldn't give the coach 'vague details'. The so-called 'controversial practices? The club doctor has to approve them (wow controversial). The supplements are injected (no way - medicine injected!?). And thymosin sounds like it prevents colds, but doesn't sound illegal. Also, AOD9604 is not banned. So this whole slab sounds anti-Essendon, when in fact all of it is legal and above board.
Here is another example from The Age (btw, don't even get me started on the Herald):
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...any-athlete-20130412-2hpff.html#ixzz2QCtoJr25
Now such a sentence sounds innocent - I believe it is referring to the news of the text messages that were broken by the 7.30 Report on ABC. However, while the statement is true, its failure to critically follow-up the accusation is bad reporting. A controversial program is not an illegal one. An accusation can either be well-founded or flimsy. The text messages seem to show just that - that Hird was well aware of a controversial program. It doesn't mean that he knew there was illegaity or danger. It just shows he knew he had a supplement program that would be controversial and newsworthy if revealed to the media. The subtext behind this innocent statement is important because without it, the statement is a flat-out prosecution of Hird, without any defence. The prosecution sells papers. The defence does not - no one wants to read a story about how we dont know enough to decide anything really; that we don't know whether any drugs are illegal or unsafe; that we don't know how much Essendon knew about Dank's activities.
All we know is that Damien Barrett broke a hazy story about 'drugs at Essendon' while the Crime Commission released an explosive report on Australian Sport. The 'mystery' at the Essendon Football Club had the country turn its eyes on the story, which has involved Essendon repeatedly denying illegality; Dank repeatedly denying illegality, against the testimony of Kyle Reimers, a man of not-so-great intelligence who 'did not know' what was being 'injected' (ooooo - intravenous drugs, even more scandalous!). Since then the story's own momentum has caused Demetriou and others to comment on how 'shocking' it is, while the closest we have come to seeing a breach of ASADA rules was by a coach who retired as a player in 2007, and is therefore not punishable.
I guess I expected too much for the media to report responsibly. It's frustrating though, because it's difficult to get the truth on the matter without substantial researching and critical analysis of the articles (what the journos are supposed to do for you). If Hird gets sacked, it will be because Essendon cant stand the media spotlight. He will be the umpteenth coaching victim of the media's reporting, as opposed to actual wrongdoing.
