Hird: Dons chose wrong supplements team

Posted on another thread also , note how the cover up and weasel words started early With Dank Extract from Feb 2013, interview on 730 report : CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Did you inject any Essendon players with a prohibited substance? STEVE DANK: No. CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: What did you inject Essendon players with? STEVE DANK: Oh, look, they had intravenous injections for vitamin B and vitamin C, which are quite compliant with the WADA code. CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: What else were Essendon players injected with? STEVE DANK: Nothing else, intravenously, no. CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: How then were peptides applied? Because the suggestion is that peptides were applied intravenously. STEVE DANK: No, there was no intravenous application of peptides whatsoever. CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: So how then were they applied? STEVE DANK: Look, as I said, I'm not gonna go through the specifics of the whole program.

Mr Football I have copied and pasted this from one of your rambles, "My overwhelming concern is that the 34 players receive a modicum of natural justice - but that now appears unlikely." how many attempts would you like, this has been going on and on for 3 years they have had sooo meny oportunities to plead their case, but they wnt with the theory "say nothing do nothing, deny. deny, deny (34 times 35 with Hird as well) just give it a rest. Guilty is what they are. I swear I'm not replying anymore, had enough can't wait for the footy to start.

I can't recall ever saying nothing wrong happened - I have said that the CAS judgement is full of speculation and massive leaps in logic and that it is wrong for the CAS to reach a determination of the 34 en masse rather than go through each of the 34 individual charges and determine guilt based on evidence pertaining to each individual charge. People want simple answers and view things in black and white, that's human nature - they want a villain, they want to know who the baddies are, etc - they are incapable of delving in the grey - and to my eyes at least - the grey abounds (including the role of the AFL - so I"m not sure what the point is of quoting the AFL - it had a particular outcome in mind even before the infamous blackest day in sport presser). My overwhelming concern is that the 34 players receive a modicum of natural justice - but that now appears unlikely. I encourage all to read this ABC report on how some Europeans are now viewing the overly cosy relationship between WADA and the CAS, and hopefully people will start to appreciate why the 34 did NOT receive natural justice and why the CAS prepared a judgement based substantially on speculation and wild leaps in logic. You see - the CAS had a specific job to do - and they followed the script laid out for them. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/whats-wrong-with-wada-and-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/7081534 There is always grey - see me as the one most willing to add texture to the discussion (which is depressingly full of obsequiousness to WADA and the CAS - and I struggle to understand why it pervades the discussion).

Dr Reid was bypassed because all doctors can access the same drug data base that ASADA has. His biology and chemistry expertise would have scuttled this farce.

Yes, as I've said before any other coach would have fallen on their sword from the get go. The way Hird and EFC fought this like the knight from Monty Python was just pathetic.

The article in The Age today about Hal Hunter where there is a lengthy quote from the AFL should be read by MF and all the other deluded Hird supporters, for those who haven't read it here it is. "The AFL has done whatever in our power to find out what the players were given in 2012. We have seized documents and hard drives, we have interviewed all relevant people who were willing to cooperate, we have analysed phone messages, and sought assistance from the anti-doping authorities. "We are in the same position as the players that we are unable to identify many of the substances used in the program in 2012, or determine which player received which substance. We are concerned for the players and are talking with the players' association about welfare and support going forward." These two short paragraphs encapsulate the whole sorry saga and while the players were naïve they were certainly deceived by Hird and his merry men. If as alleged by the Hird fan club that nothing wrong was done and that the injections were harmless why were no records kept and why were the players coerced into denying that they had received any injections.

should that have said a black jumper with a red sash?

sorry but I think you are kidding yourself. If Hird would stick to the same story at least once he may have been believed. Obviously it's far too late for that because we have had far too many versions of his truth. Reading your posts, I swear you have a black jumper with a red stripe on. You are ignoring the obvious like you are wearing blinkers

Of course Essendon are the ones caught, given the involvement of Dank, it was easier to offer up the EFC as a sacrificial lamb - the AFL offering up EFC to ASADA effectively meant that no other AFL club would be looked at - which is precisely how it panned out, despite the fact that Dank had smaller links to a few other clubs. Also, who recruited Dank to EFC? That was Dean "the weapon" Robinson. And where did he come from? Why he came from a club who had just won its 3rd premiership in five years, and who had dominated the competition for those five years. Who recruited Robinson to EFC? The recently departed Geelong coach! Now I know you have a hard time believing me, so here's an ABC report on Dank's link to the Melbourne Football Club: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-18/text-messages-reveal-danks-demons-involvement/4637954 And here's a link with another AFL club: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/nathan-bocks-career-at-gold-coast-suns-hangs-by-a-thread/story-fn6pe9hv-1226641505268 that's even more serious than the previous one, but curiously, despite CJC being a bona fide PED, it was never pursued by ASADA. Interesting that at the time the club in question was under the direct control of the AFL. A bit embarassing isn't it? Rest assured - the EFC was the AFL's offering to ASADA, and ASADA was happy to accept it and run with it, but the quid pro quo was that no other AFL club would be looked at as closely. One last one, here's another ABC article asking why EFC was the only club looked at when the AFL's own internal review found that: 12 clubs conducted programs with medium or high levels of supplement use and lacked a single point of accountability. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-18/holmes-afl-spring-clean/5031326

James Hird is going to need a bigger bus for his next column-there is no room left under today's.

We also know that Essendon paid $1M to Dean Robinson to settle a wrongful dismissal suit, a suit in which he claimed he was being set up as a patsy for the drugs regime. In return for their $1M Essendon bought Dean Robinson's silence. And now Hird can roll out his "rogue operators" story with limited pushback. If Essendon and Hird believe that Dank was acting ultra vires, surely they would bring a suit against him.

I have read all the comments and was going to write one - but decided your comment summed it up for me!!

On this point again, the head of the sports medicine department at the time (the one to whom Dank and Robinson reported) was a bloke called Paul Hamilton. Anyway, what do you know - he is now employed by the AFL. Now..what do we make of this....it appears to underscore perfectly the AFL's own dubious part in this whole story, from start to finish (and you know that I say this as a big fan of Australian Football).

andy once again - I'm not the one accusing the players - ASADA and WADA have done that - they must come up with evidence to prove that the 34 players took TB4 - I am expressing the opinion that having read the judgement, at no stage did either ASADA or WADA prove that any player actually used TB4. My interest is in supporting the accused's right to natural justice and a fair hearing - I don't think that has happened this time round. It is my hope, as difficult as it might be, that the players find a way to appeal the decision through the Australian court system, where they are much more likely to get a fair hearing, and a judgement based on actual evidence and not speculation.

Port Adelaide guy, that previously worked in English soccer, Darren Burgess. i would have to agree that Reid was bypassed, not because they thought Dank was giving banned drugs, but because Reid was against supplement use and needles, Scott Lucas claims he only ever had one pain killing injection at Essendon because Reid was against them, Reid was a institution at Essendon, he was the Hird family doctor, but he was considered old school. Hird was naive and to a point way to trusting, but sports medicine was not his strength and he bowed i guess to what he thought were the experts, but i would stake my life - seriously - on the fact tat Hird would never contemplate giving his players banned, unhealthy drugs.

Mr Hird continues to demonstrate new methods of fudging the truth. Firstly, who was the preferred candidate working in the English League? May we double-check please that he was unable to take up a position with EFC and would have done so but for bad timings? Secondly, Dr Reid wrote to Mr Hird on 17 January 2012 saying "I have trouble with all these drugs." And following the team leaders of Watson, Hille and McVeigh voicing their concerns with Mr Hird the day before, a team meeting in the club auditorium was held with all players, Mr Hird, Dank, Robinson, but absent Dr Reid - the same Dr Reid that Mr Hird now insists in his newspaper piece had to give his final approval. Mr Hird, you may recall, texted Mr Corcoran on the 30 January to say the other clubs were way ahead of Dr Reid and that "Reidy... (is) stopping everything".Does this look and sound like the behaviour of a man who wanted the club doctor to have final approval of the supplements? No, it's the behaviour of a man who wanted to avoid Dr Reid being involved in the selection and administration of the supplements. Mr Hird's insistence on legality and consent forms was a facade of responsibility to cover his cavalier abandonment of care towards these players. And now we are to believe he was saddled by accident with the wrong team who did him wrong. Mr Hird has perfected the art of digging his own hole deeper than anyone thought possible.

Agree with most of that Tom. My view formed some time ago was that Hird was naïve, too trusting and inexperienced at a management level. It is ok to delegate but you must keep your finger on the pulse. There is also the club bubble factor.

MF - if the doping control form is similar to the one now in use under WADA rules, then I fail to see your point at all. It's a standard form used when a sample is taken for testing. Why would it be customized? It's up to the players and the person taking the sample to fill it out each time a sample is taken. The form requires the athletes details, the details of the sample, and it very clearly indicates that the athlete is to list any medication or supplement taken in the last 7 days and any transfusion in the last 3 months. Clearly, every Essendon athlete should have filled in that part with his own particular injection regime, but none did. And I don't think signing the form is optional: if you have a sample taken, you are required to fill out the form, answer the question about other medications, and sign it. Here's the current form: I assume the one back in 2012 would have been similar. https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_doping_control_form_v7.pdf

So why did Hird say in 2013 that the buck stopped with him?

We know that Robinson had no link to Dank during his tenure at Geelong. We also know that Dank did not have access to TB4 until he was at Essendon. You seem to be implying that other clubs, namely Geelong, were also cheating the system. The facts that we know suggest otherwise.