Both Dean Robinson and James Hird could well believe they are telling the truth because that’s how they remember things now.
The actual truth could be either version or somewhere in between.
The fact is memory is an unreliable tool. A person’s memory is shaped by their perceptions, emotional state, ego, and understanding of the events unfolding.
Over time memories can be become distorted and even suppressed. That’s why eye-witness testimony can be so unreliable.
That’s why Bob Hawke and Paul Keating disagreed about the nature of their conversation regarding Bob Hawke’s retirement.
It’s why my sister and I disagree on the nature of certain events and conversations on the morning after our father passed away.
And that is why it’s vital the ASADA investigation is as thorough as possible and interviews as many people as possible, regardless of the time it takes.
Having recognised the fallibility of memory, I also recognise Dean Robinson’s interview is contradictory on one point and the editing of it has allowed James Hird and the Essendon Football Club to obfuscate and deflect on a couple of other key points.
Here are the questions I want answered:
1) For the Essendon football club
No one, not even Dean Robinson, has suggested either Danny Corcoran of James Hird ever used the term “Black Ops”.
But was it their intention, at the meeting with Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson, to set up a highly clandestine, cutting edge supplement program that pushed the boundaries as far as they could be pushed?
And why wasn’t Dr Bruce Reid also present at that meeting?
2) For James Hird
Have you ever spoken to anyone, anywhere about the use of a non-detectable testosterone cream?
3) For Dean Robinson
How can a program be a “Black Ops” program and simultaneously be out in the open, with seemingly everyone at the club knowing about it?
Regardless of the ASADA findings, I can’t see a happy ending here for anyone.
Mike
Guest
Look apologies Simonjzw, but is this not somewhat inane? One person, in this case Danks, in his own personal, subjective take of this discussion, refers to to a "black-op". No record of the response from the people he was speaking to? No clarification of what was in Danks mind? People can use all manner of words and phrases in an informal discussion that can be completely out of place and wrong. There was nothing "black-op" about the program at all from the EFC. Off-site does not mean black-op or secret. No one was sworn to any secrecy. Consent forms were supplied and signed. Nothing black-op about this except in the first thoughts of one Stephen Danks. The questioning and confected shock from the Robinson interviewer were dismal. Many things about this episode are bad, sad and unfortunate. But just as sad and bad is much of the speculative and sensationalist reporting and fantasy filled interpretations. It has reached ludicrous levels, and apart from the errors and wrong actions of the EFC, the media and press have done just as much, if not more, to bring the AFL and football industry into disrepute with their continual dragging down of all involved here, the game and the players. Just look at what the media did with Jobe Watson for being honest? They had him hanging from a tree in no time, and hetzed the fans onto him in grand manner, salivating on the sensation caused and revelling in the booing incidents. The possibility that a Brownlow winner could be brought down and produce excellent headlines was a bonus from the scandal. Sad. Bomber Thompson was 100% right, many of us will simply turn away from footy.
vicbomber
Guest
There wont be a happy ending any way you look at it. Despite the findings in the report the damage has been done, the club has had it's reputation tarnished permanently, the credibility of various individuals has been destroyed, several (and possibly more) good people have had their careers ended and the supporters of the EFC have been disillusioned by the whole process. The only people who have gained anything from this are the media...and it's only just beginning!