Stephen Dank has AFL appeal thrown out

I think the best place to get information is not the media. Istead do some research into the facts. Read this: http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf. It will explain a lot about what went wrong at Essendon.

Nope. Every doped player who has medical complications over the next 50 years will be related back to the drugs they were given back when they were at the Essendon football club.

Exactly ! Due diligence would have found absolutely nothing to justify undertaking this idiotic experimental program and if desperate and crazy enough to take the risk and least put in some decent supervision and oversight of the program to know what the hell was going on ? Why do you even need to ask this question ???

the AFL didn't seem to think that WADA was particularly relevant to team sports and were clearly against signing up and only did so under political pressure. Def. naive at best and complicit at worst - either way, they deliberately closed ranks to protect themselves and the brand.

What Essendon did wasn't science though. Can't replicate results without knowing what you did, who you did it to, how often and at what dosage(s) the first time.

I'm sort of wondering why you think "sports science" is a new paradigm. The East Germans were doping their athletes over 30 years ago, after all. And it was being done by scientists attached to their sporting institutes. Same with the Russians and quite a few others. On the non-state side, half the teams in the Tour were using all sorts of supplements, legal and illegal, throughout the 90s. If the AFL and the clubs didn't see this coming, or thought they were exempt from all the skullduggery going on in other sports across the globe, all I can say is, they are too naive to be involved in sports management. And actually, I don't think they're naive at all: they just didn't expect to get caught.

"In a letter to supporters posted to the club's website, Little hinted a deal was being negotiated with the AFL and that the issue of punishment will be resolved within days. He accepted sanctions were required for mistakes with the club's governance and personnel management, but insisted the Bombers should not be penalised for "drug cheating"." and so it turned out....which leaves me to wonder why the AFL has played dead on the CAS decision as it relates to the club's culpability in doping its players which was proven to the level of comfortable satisfaction. Nothing to see here, apparently.

Corcoran also expressed concern after Dank had been appointed. So he raised ut twice - even though he was hardly at the club during this period due to his wife battle with cancer and subsequent death. In terms if other people a good place to start would have been Cronulla Sharks.

I've never read that Corcoran advised not to employ Dank. And who are these other people that had concerns about Dank? I guess in hindsight everyone can say they had reservations.

The Bombers penalised themselves in a very big way -- $9.8m loss in 2016, that would finish most clubs. Hopefully we can all move on now.

Casper - for a start they should have listened to Danny Corcoran who was not convinced about Dank credentials and expressed his strong reservations about engaging his services. Actually l think he said something to James Hiird along the lines of - We should not appoint him. There were plenty of other people who had concerns about Dank before he started at Essendon and considering ,Essendon knew that his programme was going to be at the edge of what was legal then they should have left no stone unturned in assessing his suitability and competence for the role.

in fairness, it would seem that Dank's original involvement with the AFL-backed Suns might have given the Dons enough comfort that he was bona fide. As it panned out, it was insufficient due diligence but it should be remembered that sports science was a new paradym at the time. IMHO the AFL took too long to sound the alarm or do it's own evaluation of club programs once it was alerted to the risks. I'm not excusing the Bombers but the AFL also failed in its stewardship role both in (a) managing sports science risks once they became known and (b) then not making the Bombers fully accountable - that last failure was (in part) rectified by WADA. I still don't believe the Bombers have been fully penalised for vicariously doping its players as determined by WADA and CAS, rather the governance issues related to the failure to maintain records, consult medical staff etc. The fact they had the 2016 No.1 draft pick is farcical.

An undertaking to provide detailed descriptions of every single product that was used, where it had been tested, it's legal status. Regular written reports to the club of the intended schedule, dates, names, contents ...... etc.

Enlighten me. What would the due diligence have found?

Was it Roy Orbison who had a song with a refrain, It's Over, 3 times?

Hopefully that is the last we will hear of this con-man, and hopefully no-one else will be drawn into his web in whatever field he ventures into.

And i read in today's press that he's still spruiking that its not over, 'ill go through different channels'...etc Surely the media has to stop giving this oxygen thief any column inches/airtime whatsoever.

Presumably that will be worked out behind closed doors. Shouldn't become public again unless they can't reach agreement, which I think is unlikely. As a Bombers fan I'm just looking forward to footy. The suspended players are back and we've got some exciting young talent.

Last I saw they settled with 18 players. Still some to go, notably no settlement yet with Heppell nor Watson.

He couldn't provide the paperwork because his printer had been rushed to hospital? What now? Perhaps Dank will start whingeing that he has been treated unfairly. Or maybe Alan Jones will get Dank in for another 'interview'.