Stephen Dank has reaffirmed his assertion that Essendon players weren’t injected with prohibited substances as part of the supplements program he oversaw.
The 34 past and present players handed infraction notices by ASADA for their part in the 2012 program will learn their fate on Tuesday when the AFL’s anti-doping tribunal hands down its verdict.
But Dank remains adamant that they were never injected with any substance that appeared on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s prohibited list.
“There was no substance labelled unfit for human use,” Dank told ABC News Radio on Sunday.
“So anyone that tries to bandy that comment around – apart from the fact the comment is totally false – we are now starting to accrue our legal case against people that have suggested as such.
“Under no circumstances was anything ever injected or given to a player which was unfit for human consumption.”
Dank has long maintained that he has documentation to back up his position and clear the Bombers players.
He said that it was incorrect to say that he had declined to give out that information, but added he didn’t consider the joint AFL-ASADA investigation to be the proper forum for that evidence to be presented. “We certainly weren’t prepared to offer it either to ASADA or the AFL because, to be really blunt, of their bastardisation of this process,” he said.
“We want to leave this to a forum which is fit and proper and certainly … we would not waste our time in a kangaroo court.”
Dank said he was still considering his legal options on a wide range of issues that have arisen over the course of the Essendon scandal – in particular the 2013 report tabled by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski.
“The allegations put forward in relation to a pharmacological experiment will be subject to judicial process,” he said.
“It is really laughable to even suggest that we conducted anything in a pharmacologically experimental manner.
“It was well known what was used at Essendon Football Club, so the furphy that has been portrayed by the AFL, ASADA and the Essendon Football Club, that they don’t know, is completely wrong.”
micka
Guest
Dank is a grub. If he has anything that would clear the Essendon players and he hasn't saved them the drama of this whole process, he is an immoral, grub. His best case scenario is that he is trying to make enough to retire on out of semantics. He knows full well that what he did at Essendon was wrong and knows he will never work with any sports team for the rest of his life. I for one hope he loses his house out of this.
Mikey
Guest
I am trying to work our Dank's strategy here. He has been talking legal action since day 1 - and yet so far zip. Have we ever heard a comment from a Dank lawyer? I mean, he must have paid a small fortune in legal fees over the last two years building his case against the rest of the world - but I can't ever recall hearing a single comment from his legal team. In the meantime Dank's reputation and career is in the trash can, the players he subjected to the programme have been through living hell,, a lot of previously well- respected people involved with the EFC have either lost their jobs or had their reputations severely damaged and the footy brand itself has taken a huge battering. But Dank's legal advice has been to sit on all the evidence he has that would clear both the players and himself - until the appropriate time. (Which apparently will be in a couple of weeks according to his latest interview). And he is still considering taking legal action against the Ziggy report which was released over 2 years ago. Why has he waited so long? I would have thought that if he was sitting on this killer evidence then it would have been a lot smarter to have started legal proceeding a long time ago - when he may have been able to end this saga a lot earlier.. But apparently Dank's legal team think otherwise.
AR
Guest
The title of this article doesn't quite match the quotes from Dank. He doesn't say "the players did not take banned substances". He says: “There was no substance labelled unfit for human use.” First, interesting use of "labelled'. Second, the "human use" bit is not only a pretty low threshold, but it's a furphy - it doesn't actually address whether the substances were banned or not. Third, he then seems focused on the "pharmacological experiment" comment and says that this comment "will be subject to judicial process". This is pretty laughable for a few reasons when Dank himself, has refused to be part of any judicial process; and it's an informed comment based on opinion. You can't sue someone for their opinion. I seriously doubt that is the legal advice he has been given. Typical smoke and mirrors from Dank. Hopefully this will all be over soon.
johno
Guest
It's taken him 3 years to try and work up a story where he is not a complete knob. Straw clutching much?
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Seems to me that Dank has an agenda of his own. He is building a list of people/organisations whom he intends to take legal action against for defamation. The longer this whole process takes the longer that list becomes. Perhaps Dank sees a financial benefit to himself of having this drag on.
pjm
Roar Rookie
Why didn't you say that at the start then Danky. Case closed boys, lets go home.
Ads
Guest
So this muppet reckons he has the proof to clear it all away, but would rather have everyone involved dragged through the mud for 3 years just to spite the investigators. Sure...