There’s no doubt James Hird is a good man. He’s also a supreme competitor.
And therein lies the cause of Essendon’s serious dilemma.
Stephen Dank may well be trying to destroy his reputation but strangely the person most likely to harm Hird – albeit unintentionally – is his own wife.
In Hird’s 2006 autobiography Reading The Play, Tania Hird gave a surprisingly honest and intriguing insight into the nature of the Essendon great: “The four adjectives I believe best describe James are 1) motivated 2) hardworking 3) strong in character and 4) good, and not necessarily in that order”.
“Not necessarily”?
You could have forgiven her for opening with ‘good’ but that is not the primary trait of the extreme competitor and high achiever.
Hird’s gentle side has received plenty of publicity but his fame is based on his being a brilliant footballer – a Brownlow and Norm Smith Medallist and an Essendon skipper and premiership player – with exquisite skill and great courage despite being in possession of a body not suited to the brutal physicality of the game.
He arrived at the Bombers as a lowly number 79 draft selection already chronically injured and sickly looking with Kevin Sheedy describing him at the time as “too thin, verging on anaemic”.
But it was a willingness to embrace all forms of medicine that kept him in the game. In 1999 he sought “radical treatment” in the US to bring a debilitating stress fracture of the foot under control and in 2002 he was grateful a surgeon was on hand to reconstruct his face after a horrific collision with teammate Mark McVeigh’s knee.
More intriguing was his 2001 visit to Munich with the club’s fitness coach John Quinn to investigate the treatment methods of eccentric physician Dr Hans-Wilhelm Muller-Wohlfahrt famous for his use of Actovegin, a calf blood and rooster comb extract, injected with mysterious “homeopathic substances” to treat chronic injuries.
Apparently the club refused to accept the recommendations of Hird and Quinn on their return from Munich. Geelong though didn’t hesitate to use the doctor to treat Max Rooke for a hamstring injury prior to the 2007 finals
During his playing career Hird, was a client to the controversial “fitness guru” Shane Charter who used legal treatments and methods but was also later convicted for importing pseudoephedrine, used to make amphetamines.
As a coach you would assume Hird has not lost his desire to succeed or his belief in the importance of medicine in sport. It was no surprise, therefore, to learn that he was a supporter of Stephen Dank’s intensive use of therapeutic and recovery aiding supplements.
The worrying moment for me came when Dank said he injected Hird more than once with the banned growth hormone stimulant Hexarelin.
Now apparently Hird has stated he was injected but didn’t know with what.
Unfortunately I find it difficult to believe that a highly intelligent and learned man who, in the words of his own wife, “recognises where he lacks expertise and ensures that he obtains it” would agree to being injected with a substance he knows nothing about.
Perhaps in his desire to succeed at all costs he has allowed a sports scientist who by all accounts is an extremely persuasive and enthusiastic spruiker of his supplement regimen to hijack his good sense.
If it is found that Hird knowingly received a banned substance from the man who had been given free rein to service the playing squad then surely he will be sacked.
And that would be a real shame considering the recent stirring victories. I’m sure his intention wasn’t to cheat or to put the players’ health at risk but to make the club, and himself, a winner again.
Phil Maguire
Guest
@Blind Bomber Fan. Get it right. The AFL Code DOES NOT prevent taking taking supplements banned for players. The clinic was over the road from Windy Hill and was obviously a more sterile environment in which to inject people. That's a majorly important issue medically in case you didn't know. Keep trying because as they say, practice makes perfect. You'll be practicing for eternity to make something out of this, though.
Phil Maguire
Guest
@Blind bomber fan. If a club is fleeced of $100,000 or so I think it's fair enough to say they were victims. You haven't presented any kind of a case for your views and clearly that's because you don't have one.
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
@droppa - awesome, you have the ASADA report and findings. Nice one, and good to hear he's been cleared. Oh wait...?\\ @Titus - get it right, Hird authorised the injecting of players off-site, away from the club doctor. I can only assume the intentions of doing this, because having a nurse inject you in the club rooms is no different from away from prying eyes in a clinic. Clearly, my assumptions are just that. It's just that I haven't heard a reason why they would need to do so away from the club?
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
Honestly Phillip, did you say that out aloud "Bombers could be the victims here"? I must admit it made me chuckle, sorry to be personal but it sounds pathetic. It's too early to play the victim, which is the last resort of the desperate. If Hird and Essendon are not drug cheats, let them argue that. Blind faith is a dangerous thing, and you saying "I don't believe for one instant anyone at the Bombers knowingly used banned substances" is heading for a fall. The New England Journal of Medicine study might change your thinking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/phys-ed-will-olympic-athletes-dope-if-they-know-it-might-kill-them/ Clearly, elite athletes have different expectations to the general population, which has been pointed out with Hird (and would be true for many at Bomber land). The Olympians in the study were asked if they would take a drug that would guarantee to win them Gold but also kill them in five years, and more than half said Yes. I'm guessing, but you and I would say No. Putting your values and expectations on them is dangerous. Melbourne has enough people creating 'heroes' and 'role models' of people who kick a footy well and basically live a normal family life.
Blind Bomber Fan
Guest
Just querying whether people think James Hird injecting substances is really his own business? The AFL Drug Code includes "officials" as being under the drug code, which put simply means he is not able to inject banned substances. The get-out for him is that he won't ever get tested. The catch for him is that admitting to it, or others confirming it (ie. records, file notes) means he can be busted. Same goes for Goodwin, et al. Correct me if I am wrong. Danks may be (allegedly) a shady character, with equally (allegedly) shady connections, but does that make Hird somehow innocent, or any less culpable? If I buy drugs from a bikie, I can't argue that the bikie is at fault, nor does it make my crime any less. As a paralell, the problem of doping in cycling for many years was the 'Omerta', where riders and ex riders and journalists all refused to acknowledge the doping. They targetted 'bad types' as many are doing here, while refusing to acknowledge the other culprits. Lance Armstrong famously attacked his former inner circle, from doping team mates, masseurs to team mates wives, and the same is occurring here (Stephen Danks, Kyle Reimers anyone?). Paul Klimmage and David Walsh were about the only journalists who stood up to him. the rest all posted commentary, opinions based on hope, and disparaged or ignored anyone who might make them uncomfortable. The blue eyed boy in the middle is held up high above the standards of others, because he's a blue eyed boy. Elsewhere, a surgeon or accountant accused of malpractice, embezzlement would stand aside until the issue is investigated. The AFL is earning millions through gambling and generally selling the game, but it let's it all ride here because it's Hird. Will we get our money back if Hird and anyone else at Essendon is found guilty? No, because they won't be found guilty. The story will be buried, a scapegoat found, and a press release rehashed as news, without question by the press pack. When a cyclist came out and admitted to doping, but implicated the blue eyed boy or breached the Omerta, he was hounded out. It took years of slinging and bankruptcy for Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis to be heard. Google the name Christophe Bassons. They were usually torn apart personally, often by journalists just scared of upsetting Lance and risking his wrath. Some just left the sport. Better to keep the secret, keep the Omerta. Haven't heard from Reimers lately, I expect that is because he has succumbed to the Essendon version of the Omerta, with a special treatment from McVeigh. Plenty of examples on here as well. All that is a smokescreen and negligence by the commentators and journalists (let's be honest these people aren't really journalists, and even then 90% of AFL journalists are lazy matey types all happy to bury stories about players and clubs in return for access and sycophantic dribbling and fawning over players). Hard questions and research are best left to those guys in the first few pages of the Age, not the tabloids. When it's Caro Wilson, the dinosaurs all scream she's providing opinion not facts, yet those same dinosaurs provide their own opinions, musing as to the motivation of Danks, etc. That "speaks volumes to me" is simply hypocritical waffle. The blame should be shared in the EPO era, partly by the journalists and commentators who defended Lance when they should have asked more questions. Looks like similar things are happening here in footy.
dasilva
Guest
I also add that Peptides isn't banned in of itself Peptides is simply a short chain of amino acids ANy protein you eat is a form of peptide. Proteins get broken down to peptides and then down to amino acids. Protein shake has peptide. Only specific types of peptides are banned, the peptides that act as hormones (aka "peptide hormones" whcih is what WADA code specifically states not simply peptides itself) especially those that mimic growth hormones or caused growth hormones release.
Philip Maguire
Guest
Correct dasilva. The email Ian refers to doesn't mention Thymosin beta 4. @Ian. Are you seriously suggesting that if a football club deliberately injected players with illegal substances that it would keep accessible records of its wrong doing? Somehow I doubt it. But it's immaterial anyway as no such thing happened.
dasilva
Guest
The ASADA website only specifically mention Thymosin Beta 4 instead of Thymosin in general
dasilva
Guest
I have a feeling that Philip is referring that they are other subtypes of Thymosin Thymosin beta 4 is banned Thymosin in general is found in animal tissue and if this is considered doping than anyone who eats meat is "doping" Only beta-4 subtype of thymosin is considered doping in the thing you cut and past "We proved that there are only three distinct human peptide isoforms: thymosin beta4 (Tb4), thymosin beta10 (Tb10) and thymosin beta neuroblastoma (TbNB/15). ”" Thymosin beta 4 is banned and you post some of the reason why it is banned HOwever it's possible that they took Tb10 or TbNB/15 instead.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Phillip, Are you seriously suggesting the Essendon Football Club doesnt have records of what their players were given ? And once again, any Thymosin is a peptide. As such, they falls under section 2. So if they do anything listed under 2.5 ... they are prohibited. And why the catch-all clause ? To stop dodgy sports scientists using minor variants of banned PEDs, abnd then when busted, have the player claim what they were using wasnt banned. Oh yeah, and I cant find any record anywhere of Thymosin being approved for human medical use, so it's a ban under S0 in any case.
Philip Maguire
Guest
Tell us the facts that are being ignored? Would it be the fact that no Essendon player has tested positive for a banned substance? Or would it be the fact that James Hird has not been accused of personally taking any substance that he is not allowed to take by virtue of his role as a coach? Or would it be the fact that he spelt out clearly in published emails that any supplements given to players must not be harmful, must comply with the WADA and AFL codes and must have the consent of the players? It seems to me that you are the one ignoring the facts.
Anthony
Guest
Hmmm , lets just ignore the facts, shall we
Philip Maguire
Guest
I appreciate your hard work in writing it all down but that convoluted nonsense doesn't change things at all. First of all it has to be proven that players took a banned substance and that will be an impossible job in this case given that none has ever tested positive to a banned substance and that Stephen Dank has declined to be interviewed by ASADA. Even if Thymosin was clearly a banned substance in all its forms, which it is not, you can't convict on the basis of an email that states it will be used without proving that it actually was used and whom it was used on. Once again Thysomin is only banned in a particular form. You cannot say it is legal in one sense and banned in another. The law has to be clear and if it is not it cannot properly be enforced.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Lets take thymosin, as in "Dank: IV start next week. And Thymosin and Ubiquinone. We will start to see some real effects." What is that stuff ? Google "beta thymosin peptide bibliography" Lets pick an article at random. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/765793 Hell, lets properly cite it. Dhaese, Stien. 2009. “New Insights into the Beta-thymosin Family via Characterization and Classification of Different Thymosin Beta 15 Isoforms”. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. "Beta-thymosins belong to the broad class of actin binding proteins, they particularly influence actin filament dynamics by sequestering actin monomers. Our study has clarified the composition of both the human and mouse beta-thymosin family. We proved that there are only three distinct human peptide isoforms: thymosin beta4 (Tb4), thymosin beta10 (Tb10) and thymosin beta neuroblastoma (TbNB/15). " Ive highlighted the important words. Cool, so thymosin is a peptide. Where else do we see that word ? Thats right, section 2 of the WADA Probited list, that says ... http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf S2. PEPTIDE HORMONES, GROWTH FACTORS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited: 5. Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs), Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF), Vascular-Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) as well as any other growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching; and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s). So, what does this thymosin peptide do ? Time for another article - about a rat who blew a MCL. Ooh, season ending injury for The Rat ! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167011513000645 Thymosin β4 enhances the healing of medial collateral ligament injury in rat Regulatory Peptides, Volume 184, 10 June 2013, Pages 1-5 Bo Xu, Mowen Yang, Zhaozhu Li, Yubo Zhang, Zhitao Jiang, Shengyang Guan, Dapeng Jiang Here is the meat "Moreover, diameters of collagen fibrils within granulation tissue from the Tβ4-treated rats were significantly increased. In Tβ4-treated MCLs, the mechanical properties of these healing tissues were significantly higher at 4 weeks after surgery." "In terms of the mechanical properties of the healing femur–medial collateral ligament-tibia complexes, the Tβ4-treated group had significantly better biomechanical properties than the control group at 4 weeks after surgery. Local administration of Tβ4 promotes the healing process of MCL, both histologically and mechanically, in a rat model. These findings provide a basis for potential clinical use of Tβ4 in repairing ligaments." So, the peptide thymosin helped a rat recover from a blown MCL ! That could be happily described as "regenerative capacity" right ? Sooo ... lets put these together. If you're under WADA rules, it doesnt matter if thymosin is legal or illegal to own in your jurisdiction. Its a peptide that promotes regenerative capacity. Therefore, section 2.5 applies. Therefore one of the substances that Dank told Hird he was going to use is prohibited. Every player who got given thymosin, no matter how, is looking at the base two years, perhaps six months if they cooperate. And ASADA will go through this same process with every damn substance the essendon players got given, all of which were picked to be part of the cocktail for their good work in assisting "affecting muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity or fibre type switching"
clipper
Guest
Matt S, that's the other pub in Alexandria - and I'm sure he wouldn't do it if the interest wasn't there. I'm yet to visit a pub in the east / inner city that would not have at least one screen showing AFL or Rugby, so have yet to find the opposite, although if I went out to Blacktown or Rooty Hill, I'm sure I would.
Philip Maguire
Guest
Wrong Ian. I think you need to study the issue a little more thoroughly. Beta-thymosins are a family of proteins, and at this time there are 16 known versions in that class of compounds – among them TB-4. In the ACC report TB-4 is listed as an unregulated substance that is prohibited under section S2 of WADA’s list of substances prohibited in-competition. However, it is only prohibited subject to the form used which I have already pointed out. In any case is Dank such a fool as to deny he supplied illegal substances to players then release an email which reveals he planned to use Thymosin if he knew it was a banned substance?
Paddy
Guest
The released emails don't say anything about TB 4. Steven Dank only mentions Thymosin. TB 4 is not the only Thymosin you know.
Philip Maguire
Guest
Wrong Ian. In any case is Dank such a fool as to deny he supplied illegal substances to players then release an email which reveals he planned to use Thymosin? I think you need to study the issue a little more thoroughly. Beta-thymosins are a family of proteins, and at this time there are 16 known versions in that class of compounds – among them TB-4. In the ACC report TB-4 is listed as an unregulated substance that is prohibited under section S2 of WADA’s list of substances prohibited in-competition. However, it is only prohibited subject to the form used which I have already pointed out. I hope that makes it clear to you.
Redb
Roar Guru
Ian, The WADA banned list is fine , the catch all provisions rubbish. This will be legally challenged, guarantee it.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
RedB, Go read WADA rules 2.5 If it's vaguely useful for anyone who runs around on a footy field, it's banned.