Win at all costs - $35 Million

[gavaniacono]

Wrong

Admit everyone knew that they the program was dodgy?
Admit the Doctor told everyone the program was dodgy and that the advice was buried and then he made no attempts to follow it up?
Admit the reasons why they got a convicted drug dealer with a history of doping involved in the supply of drugs?
Admit that the coaches and future CEO were lining up for banned drugs.

Given there are numerous incriminating emails, how many incriminating conversations do you think were held that we haven't heard about?

What they needed to do was say the course of the PR strategy and repeat the message. Go with the Limited Hangout. Admit part of the truth (as they were knicked) and control the message, but never the whole truth.

Not sure going with "we don't know what was injected but we are sure it is not banned" was ever going to fly though.

Well...when you put it like that.

 

[thegerman]

******* lol.

Yep, goddamn EFC and their morality, how dare they, so evil. Eh?

http://www.meltwater.com/au/blog/10-steps-to-managing-a-pr-crisis/

10 Step PR Crisis Management Playbook

Step 2: Circle the wagons.

So evil and so immoral of EFC to employ basic tenets of crisis management, derp

The point exactly. Which you seem to miss entirely. Read up on Kantian ethics, you may grasp the point at sometime.

Treating it as a PR episode is fine when small issues can be swept under the carpet, organisation learns, creates policy yadda yadda.

Using PR in this event, was woeful. They took no learnings from Armstrong, who also tried every loophole to remove guilt.

But they kept on going.

You can say we are all wowzers Lance, do I care, no. I'll just sit back and laugh at the downward spiral of the comp, especially if we are to believe that PR oversight is the best way to deal with significant corporate error.

 

[HairyO]

Hanke advising Hird's legal advisors. That clears things up. I might start getting my Sales Manager to advise my HR manager. Could be fun.

You could get the guy who delivers the bottled water to work on the budget too.

It was never about the AFL / WADA drug policy. It was always about how to minimise the damage. The problem is, the minimum damage involved the players admitting guilt and Jobe losing his Brownlow and Hird's entire career being tainted. And that was too much.

So their only other choice became fight, fight, fight.

Despite it being obvious to outsiders that they were never going to win. It was always going to involve the AFL covering up and excusing, and it was always going to involve WADA coming in over the top and successfully appealing to CAS.

Knowing all of this the obvious thing to do was to minimise the damage.... and everyone at Essendon screwed up.

It seems like only Evans saw this.

Disgusting is not Gil talking about how hard it will be to take away Jobe's medal. Disgusting is Gil and Fitzpatrick saying Essendon have already been punished for being drug cheats and no further action being taken - despite the fact that Essendon threatened a Supreme Court injunction to remove any reference to being drug cheats in their punishment and ensuring it was only ever about poor governance.

The AFL assume we have short memories. It will be interesting to see what it takes for them to convince all the journos to forget when the CAS appeal fails.

 

[sameolds33]

You could get the guy who delivers the bottled water to work on the budget too.

It was never about the AFL / WADA drug policy. It was always about how to minimise the damage. The problem is, the minimum damage involved the players admitting guilt and Jobe losing his Brownlow and Hird's entire career being tainted. And that was too much.

So their only other choice became fight, fight, fight.

Despite it being obvious to outsiders that they were never going to win. It was always going to involve the AFL covering up and excusing, and it was always going to involve WADA coming in over the top and successfully appealing to CAS.

Knowing all of this the obvious thing to do was to minimise the damage.... and everyone at Essendon screwed up.

It seems like only Evans saw this.

Disgusting is not Gil talking about how hard it will be to take away Jobe's medal. Disgusting is Gil and Fitzpatrick saying Essendon have already been punished for being drug cheats and no further action being taken - despite the fact that Essendon threatened a Supreme Court injunction to remove any reference to being drug cheats in their punishment and ensuring it was only ever about poor governance.

The AFL assume we have short memories. It will be interesting to see what it takes for them to convince all the journos to forget when the CAS appeal fails.

The problem (for Essendon, Hird and the players, more so than the AFL) is that the decision of the AFL to "minimise the damage" was made before Essendon, Hird and the players even knew about the ACC investigation and the proposed ASADA enquiry. The AFL planned to minimise the damage because it believed (for reasons we don't know) that the club was guilty and the players had been doped. It made this decision before the production of any evidence which allowed ASADA to issue SCNs. You will recall that nothing came of that ACC report into organised crime.

Evans believed the AFL narrative and the early actions of the club and the players reflect this. After his departure the actions of the EFC, Hird and the players - all of whom have consistently maintained their innocence throughout - reflect their conviction that they didn't cheat. In the absence of the usual indices of guilt (positive test, witnesses, whistle blower etc) and a highly controversial CAS result, this viewpoint is at least as valid as the endless speculation on this board about the idiotic management of this case, all of which proceeds on the presumption of guilt. This surely falls into the same trap as that which ensnared the AFL and Evans - deciding on a course of action to "minimise the damage" before you even know what the damage is.

 

[HairyO]

The players believed they had doped. Or else why did they not tell ASADA about all the injections? Why didnt they report all their injections to Doc Reid like the drug code requires?

 

[sameolds33]

The players believed they had doped. Or else why did they not tell ASADA about all the injections? Why didnt they report all their injections to Doc Reid like the drug code requires?

I think you'll find that the players' statement made after the CAS decision was handed down, maintained their innocence and was the reason given for appealing to the Swiss court. They haven't deviated from the narrative that they didn't dope. As to speculation about the evidence, how the doping forms were or were not completed, who said what to whom when etc, lots has been written on this board and elsewhere. We'll each interpret what we want from the facts that have been made available and believe what fits our narrative.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Controversial WADA decision, what????
You may interpret what you want to suit your own narrative does not mean everyone else does too.

 

[HairyO]

I think you'll find that the players' statement made after the CAS decision was handed down, maintained their innocence and was the reason given for appealing to the Swiss court. They haven't deviated from the narrative that they didn't dope. As to speculation about the evidence, how the doping forms were or were not completed, who said what to whom when etc, lots has been written on this board and elsewhere. We'll each interpret what we want from the facts that have been made available and believe what fits our narrative.

There has never been an adequate response to why the players didnt inform ASADA as required and didnt inform the club doctor as required.

Many of us shifted away from believing the players were simply pawns once their deception was revealed.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I take it that you disagree?!

Of course I do.

You're merely repeating word for word, the narrative that Essendon paid a PR company to dream up for them.

It's total garbage. I presumed by now, even the most rusted on cretins realised it was nonsense all along?

 

[Laphroaig]

Oh really?

So yeah, Hanke was hired by Hird and paid for by Hird. I assume you're going to provide sources or evidence for your assertion to the contrary?

Incorrect. Not one of those sources says Hird paid. In fact, as far as we know he is yet to part with a single cent.

My recollection of the events is that EFC engaged Hanke for Hird. Just as they were picking up his legal bills for a time.

So you can shout ROOF as much as you like. You actually don't know. And given that until his most recent loss in court Hird clearly expected the Club, through it's insurer, to pay every cent he racked up - including his Fed Court challenge and appeal - you are drawing a very long bow indeed.

And - I don't think Hanke is the kind of guy to work on credit. Somebody was paying him, and all indications we have is that James Albert was neither putting his hand in his own pocket; nor ever intending to do so.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Incorrect. Not one of those sources says Hird paid. In fact, as far as we know he is yet to part with a single cent.

My recollection of the events is that EFC engaged Hanke for Hird. Just as they were picking up his legal bills for a time.

So you can shout ROOF as much as you like. You actually don't know. And given that until his most recent loss in court Hird clearly expected the Club, through it's insurer, to pay every cent he racked up - including his Fed Court challenge and appeal - you are drawing a very long bow indeed.

And - I don't think Hanke is the kind of guy to work on credit. Somebody was paying him, and all indications we have is that James Albert was neither putting his hand in his own pocket; nor ever intending to do so.

what??

Every single piece of evidence I've provided says he was engaged by Hird, separate to the club. So all due respect, but your recollection is wrong, and frankly a recollection means nothing in the face of actual evidence. As well, claiming your assumption as gospel over and above all the sources I've quoted is just silly.

Your assertion that Hird didn't spend any money is rendered absurd by the fact that he also engaged Burnside QC, and silks also don't tend to work on credit.

In any case, one thing is utterly clear. The club did not hire Hanke as you claimed.

 

[gavaniacono]

There has never been an adequate response to why the players didnt inform ASADA as required and didnt inform the club doctor as required.

Many of us shifted away from believing the players were simply pawns once their deception was revealed.

Black Ops. Or is it Black Oops?

 

[Samsquanch]

Black Ops. Or is it Black Oops?

It ended up as brown oops though.

Well, they say brown is the new black.

 

[sameolds33]

There has never been an adequate response to why the players didnt inform ASADA as required and didnt inform the club doctor as required.

Many of us shifted away from believing the players were simply pawns once their deception was revealed.

and, of course, you're perfectly entitled to believe as you choose about the adequacy (or not) of the players' responses to these questions and the other information that's been made available to us. My point was more about what the players' have said about whether or not they doped and on that point they've been consistent and insistent that they didn't cheat. My own view is that if there was any deception (and I doubt that there was), it was the players who were deceived.

However, my post is not about the actual innocence or guilt of the players (that's been discussed endlessly elsewhere) but addresses the criticisms made here on the management of the issue by the EFC, Hird and the players. These presuppose that the players (etc) were guilty. However, if management believed that they were innocent - as they have maintained - then the approach taken once Evans had left the club makes sense.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

and, of course, you're perfectly entitled to believe as you choose about the adequacy (or not) of the players' responses to these questions and the other information that's been made available to us. My point was more about what the players' have said about whether or not they doped and on that point they've been consistent and insistent that they didn't cheat. My own view is that if there was any deception (and I doubt that there was), it was the players who were deceived.

However, my post is not about the actual innocence or guilt of the players (that's been discussed endlessly elsewhere) but addresses the criticisms made here on the management of the issue by the EFC, Hird and the players. These presuppose that the players (etc) were guilty. However, if management believed that they were innocent - as they have maintained - then the approach taken once Evans had left the club makes sense.

Essendon's actions have not been those of an organisation that thought they were innocent.

Their weasel words weren't either.

How it was ever lapped up by the brain dead masses still amazes me to be honest.

 

[Laphroaig]

what??

Every single piece of evidence I've provided says he was engaged by Hird, separate to the club. So all due respect, but your recollection is wrong, and frankly a recollection means nothing in the face of actual evidence. As well, claiming your assumption as gospel over and above all the sources I've quoted is just silly.

Your assertion that Hird didn't spend any money is rendered absurd by the fact that he also engaged Burnside QC, and silks also don't tend to work on credit.

In any case, one thing is utterly clear. The club did not hire Hanke as you claimed.

Might be clear to you. Because that's the way you want it to be.

BTW. High priced lawyers DO work on credit. You don't go in and feed 20c pieces into the meter.

And. There's no reason to believe Hird ultimately parted with a cent of his own money for that either. It is almost a certainty that the Club picked that bill up - it is what would be expected. And highly likely the long suffering insurer ended up with the parcel when the music stopped.

You seem unwilling to approach the reality that on day one the Club was paying all expenses incurred by Hird. They had to continue to do so long as they kept him employed. Your assumption that this suddenly changed at some mystical moment is baseless.

And Hird clearly believed that to be an ongoing arrangement. See Hird vs insurer.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Might be clear to you. Because that's the way you want it to be.

BTW. High priced lawyers DO work on credit. You don't go in and feed 20c pieces into the meter.

And. There's no reason to believe Hird ultimately parted with a cent of his own money for that either. It is almost a certainty that the Club picked that bill up - it is what would be expected. And highly likely the long suffering insurer ended up with the parcel when the music stopped.

You seem unwilling to approach the reality that on day one the Club was paying all expenses incurred by Hird. They had to continue to do so long as they kept him employed. Your assumption that this suddenly changed at some mystical moment is baseless.

And Hird clearly believed that to be an ongoing arrangement. See Hird vs insurer.

Are you really trying to say your assumption with no proof is even slightly credible?

You claimed the club hires Hanke. You were demonstrably wrong *shrugs*

 

[Laphroaig]

Are you really trying to say your assumption with no proof is even slightly credible?

You claimed the club hires Hanke. You were demonstrably wrong *shrugs*

No. You make an alternative assumption which is inconsistent with known facts. An assumption based on separation of the Club and it's employees. An assumption which completely ignores the known that the Club is liable for costs related to the actions of directors and employees. The known that Mr Hird so enthusiasticly embraces that idea that he felt that the tab for his personal litigation should fall under the same umbrella.

And yet you assume that the spin doctor engaged to spin his actions as coach of the Club, while he is still coach of the club and is yet to stab his mentor in the back, it just jumps into a different universe.

How odd.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I've provided evidence. You've provided assumptions. Pretty simple

 

[The 747]

The problem (for Essendon, Hird and the players, more so than the AFL) is that the decision of the AFL to "minimise the damage" was made before Essendon, Hird and the players even knew about the ACC investigation and the proposed ASADA enquiry. The AFL planned to minimise the damage because it believed (for reasons we don't know) that the club was guilty and the players had been doped. It made this decision before the production of any evidence which allowed ASADA to issue SCNs. You will recall that nothing came of that ACC report into organised crime.

Because everyone knew the club was doping, and the ACC report categorically stated that they were.

 

[gavaniacono]

Words ending in "uish":
Roguish
Extinguish
Anguish
Cliquish
Languish
Vanquish
Squish.

 

[sameolds33]

Because everyone knew the club was doping, and the ACC report categorically stated that they were.

How could "everyone" have known at the start of 2013? The ACC report hadn't been published at the time the management strategy - to "save" the players - was adopted by the EFC on the basis of the information provided by the AFL which had been briefed by government. It was damage control on the basis that Essendon had doped. This response (which would have been entirely reasonable if the resulting investigation had produced the evidence that the AFL thought existed - or which it already knew existed but which has not been produced to date.) However, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears to have been a premature and panic-driven decision which caused far more damage than it set out to contain. It is also a strategy that makes no sense if claiming innocence (as Hird and the players maintain.)

As to the ACC report "categorically stating" that the players were doping, if that was true there would be no need for Senator Madigan to request the documents he's asked for. His press release says the documents requested are:

● the March 4, 2014 final report of Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority investigator Aaron Walker upon the conclusion of Operation Cobia (the ASADA investigation into the Essendon Football Club’s player supplements program during the 2012 AFL season),

● the independent review of Operation Cobia by former Federal Court judge Garry Downes as commissioned by Tony Abbott’s former Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, and

● the complete, non-public, unabridged and un-redacted final report of the Australian Crime Commission 2012-2013 special intelligence operation(Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport) known as Project Aperio (the so-called “public report” of which was released on the supposed “blackest day in Australian sport,” 7 February 2013).

It may be that these documents prove the AFL's management strategy was sound in the circumstances (and that Essendon doped). Alternatively, they may explain the post-Evans strategy that the players didn't dope, as they say. Either way, the knowledge you say was common in 2013 is still disputed in 2016.

 

[The 747]

How could "everyone" have known at the start of 2013? The ACC report hadn't been published at the time the management strategy - to "save" the players - was adopted by the EFC on the basis of the information provided by the AFL which had been briefed by government. It was damage control on the basis that Essendon had doped. This response (which would have been entirely reasonable if the resulting investigation had produced the evidence that the AFL thought existed - or which it already knew existed but which has not been produced to date.) However, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears to have been a premature and panic-driven decision which caused far more damage than it set out to contain. It is also a strategy that makes no sense if claiming innocence (as Hird and the players maintain.)

As to the ACC report "categorically stating" that the players were doping, if that was true there would be no need for Senator Madigan to request the documents he's asked for. His press release says the documents requested are:

● the March 4, 2014 final report of Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority investigator Aaron Walker upon the conclusion of Operation Cobia (the ASADA investigation into the Essendon Football Club’s player supplements program during the 2012 AFL season),

● the independent review of Operation Cobia by former Federal Court judge Garry Downes as commissioned by Tony Abbott’s former Minister for Sport, Peter Dutton, and

● the complete, non-public, unabridged and un-redacted final report of the Australian Crime Commission 2012-2013 special intelligence operation(Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport) known as Project Aperio (the so-called “public report” of which was released on the supposed “blackest day in Australian sport,” 7 February 2013).

It may be that these documents prove the AFL's management strategy was sound in the circumstances (and that Essendon doped). Alternatively, they may explain the post-Evans strategy that the players didn't dope, as they say. Either way, the knowledge you say was common in 2013 is still disputed in 2016.

Go back and read the public version of the ACC report, with the benefit of knowing what we know now. It's pretty clear.

 

[Satan]

Incorrect. Not one of those sources says Hird paid. In fact, as far as we know he is yet to part with a single cent.

My recollection of the events is that EFC engaged Hanke for Hird. Just as they were picking up his legal bills for a time.

So you can shout ROOF as much as you like. You actually don't know. And given that until his most recent loss in court Hird clearly expected the Club, through it's insurer, to pay every cent he racked up - including his Fed Court challenge and appeal - you are drawing a very long bow indeed.

And - I don't think Hanke is the kind of guy to work on credit. Somebody was paying him, and all indications we have is that James Albert was neither putting his hand in his own pocket; nor ever intending to do so.

Glenhawker83 likes this

 

[Laphroaig]

I've provided evidence. You've provided assumptions. Pretty simple

Bullshit. A heap of similar reports NONE of which say that Hird paid for Hanke. Nowhere. Not even a suggestion.