Remove this Banner Ad

No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OzBomber said:
Doing sports law this semester at uni. Guess what the main topic will be over the course of the 12 weeks? Yup, this rubbish.

Lecturer already thinks Hird was banned for 'being a drug cheat' and that the players are 'drug cheats' and that all 'drug cheats' deserve 'life bans'. Called him out on it and asked for his proof and why players haven't been banned yet, then he just said something along the lines of 'what about that Mexican stuff'.

Room was tense and had to stop myself haha. Expecting it to be a long semester, especially when your homework tasks are to read the Switskowski report and the charge sheet (the original one, not the new one...) and one of your major assignments is to argue whether or not James Hird should be paid.
Click to expand...

#DonTheSash
 
Gee good law lecturer, imagine if he was a judge? " Not guilty your honor".

Judge Echols.." but what all that Mexican stuff?"

Open and shut case right there.
 
Can you remind the lecturer that at no stage has Essendon, its coaches or its players ever been charged with officially breaking anti doping rules. The cart has gone before the horse in an example of poor governance from the AFL and ASADA both breaking federal laws in doing so. It's an absolute farce this has been allowed to occur.
 
efcboy said:
Can you remind the lecturer that at no stage has Essendon, its coaches or its players ever been charged with officially breaking anti doping rules. The cart has gone before the horse in an example of poor governance from the AFL and ASADA both breaking federal laws in doing so. It's an absolute farce this has been allowed to occur.
Click to expand...

AOD is a banned substance, WADA says so.

Jobe took AOD, he said so.

Ipso factoid.

Bombers are drug cheats.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

OzBomber said:
Doing sports law this semester at uni. Guess what the main topic will be over the course of the 12 weeks? Yup, this rubbish.

Lecturer already thinks Hird was banned for 'being a drug cheat' and that the players are 'drug cheats' and that all 'drug cheats' deserve 'life bans'. Called him out on it and asked for his proof and why players haven't been banned yet, then he just said something along the lines of 'what about that Mexican stuff'.

Room was tense and had to stop myself haha. Expecting it to be a long semester, especially when your homework tasks are to read the Switskowski report and the charge sheet (the original one, not the new one...) and one of your major assignments is to argue whether or not James Hird should be paid.
Click to expand...
Perfect opportunity for you to prove that you're the only one in the class who understands justice and innocent until proven guilty. What about the concept of 'kangaroo court', scapegoating, compromised investigation, media influences on fair trials etc. So many injustices and improper processes to highlight it's not funny(at all). You should go to town on their pre-conceived ideas and expose your lecturer's ignorant biases.
 
The AFL's mouthpiece is at it again...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...arity-lunch-a-big-blunder-20140307-34cwa.html

Stephen Dank booking to speak at charity lunch a big blunder

Caroline Wilson
Chief Football Writer for The Age

The sad implications behind Dean Wallis' decision to lure Stephen Dank to a sportsman's lunch on the day Essendon opens its 2014 season has not been lost on any of the major players as the aftershocks of the drug scandal continue to impact on the AFL.

Wallis left the Bombers bitter and disenchanted last October, a small player in the whole sorry saga and perhaps considering himself collateral damage amid the carnage.

All the major players charged and then punished by the competition for their role in the program that saw Dank allowed to carry out his cavalier and potentially illegal doping regime received some form of payout or contract extension from the club or, in the case of Mark Thompson, promotion.

th-Steve-Dank-interview-on-7-30-20130211232723855881-300x0.jpg

Stephen Dank.

But Wallis, who was firmly of the view that the pitfalls of the club's pharmacalogically experimental environment were exaggerated, was removed by the club and has not found re-employment in the AFL.

Advertisement
He is reportedly connected with Riddell Football Netball Club and assisting with setting up its pre-season March 21 fundraiser for networking purposes more than financial reward.

He has made a monumental blunder in hiring Dank.

Apart from the occasional doorstop and unpaid interviews with key journalists, Dank has repeatedly refused to shed light on just what drugs he fed and injected Essendon players. He claims he was shown no respect by the AFL or ASADA and the latter has chosen to proceed towards a conclusion without him. Dank though will have his day in court. That a country football club would agree to hire him and justify the dash for cash on fundraising for grassroots facilities is cynical and laden with double standards. This is a man who disregarded the health and welfare of some 40 young men who trusted him.

This is a man who was allowed to oversee a shambolic and chaotic program which has ended the AFL careers of some of the game's most senior men and damaged the brand of one of football's most famous names - the men that allowed it to happen.

Dank has said publicly he wants to stand up for James Hird, but it is far too late for that - he had his chance to do as much in 2013.

Clearly Wallis has no regard for the club at which he became a premiership player. A club that might have ultimately discharged him but stood by him as an assistant coach after he was banned for 14 matches for placing a bet involving his own team.

Wallis placed his bet at a TAB while wearing his Essendon uniform. He was initially untruthful when questioned by the AFL and Essendon continued to employ him during the ban and then for another 1½ seasons.

Clearly there is bad blood now, but the decision to hand Dank a microphone for financial or professional reward is a wounding blow to the Bombers on the day they take on North Melbourne in their season-opener at Etihad Stadium.

Wallis' personal issues aside, this disappointing scenario demonstrates yet again how painfully clubs and their stars can break each others' hearts. He did not respond to an approach from Fairfax Media to discuss the function. As the Bombers continue to pick up the pieces from the mistakes of recent years, they will have some work to do rebuilding relationships within the club as well as outside.

The function has also placed the other star attractions in a difficult position. Former Bomber Mark Harvey said on Friday he was completely taken aback to learn that Dank would be appearing and is now considering his position. So too Brian Taylor, who is hosting the event and must interview Dank.

It has been reported that the AFL wrote to Riddell Football Club and made certain threats should Dank appear, although the league has vehemently denied this.

The VFL, too, had no jurisdiction over Riddell, but its local league - Riddell District Football League - has reportedly warned the club it could face a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.

The club has already damaged its reputation and all those involved at the Crown lunch on March 21 face being tarnished by working alongside a man who has become the face of so much that is bad about modern sport.

If Taylor or Harvey - along with fellow panelists Wayne Carey and Dermott Brereton - knew Dank was going to be hired as the main attraction when they signed on then all should refuse to appear on principle.

Riddell should cut its losses now. Essendon deserved much of what it received last year but it doesn't deserve this on the very day it begins to start again in a competitive sense.

And the Bombers need to work towards some form of resolution with Wallis despite this extremely poor error of judgment.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...arity-lunch-a-big-blunder-20140307-34cwa.html
 
I don't think it's any kind of stroke of genius on the part of Wally organising Dank as a speaker. But as much as Caro criticizes the Dank speaking engagement, you can bet your life she'll have a plant in the audience feeding back to her every word that comes out of Dank's mouth ;)
 
The timing of Dank's speaking engagement is far from ideal for us. Hard to deny Caro has a point there.
 
rines said:
There will be no case to answer for TB4. That has actually been cleared up with evidence provided by the club, also they would not be able to prove that without Dank's evidence.
Click to expand...

Rines,
What evidence was provided by the club that destroys that case? And when did we provide it? After or before being thrown out of the finals?
 
Stiggitupem said:
Rines,
What evidence was provided by the club that destroys that case? And when did we provide it? After or before being thrown out of the finals?
Click to expand...

Being 'thrown' out of the finals had nothing to do with doping. Not a single thing.

TBH if you had read this thread and followed the case you would know why.

Hence why the club TRIED to make sure that the AFL confirmed it wasn't about cheating or drugs at the 'hearing'.. but the public care not.

We just have to wait for ASADA... and who knew they would take 1.5 years??? Well anyone who has ever dealt with them should have known they make cement drying look speedy....
 

Remove this Banner Ad

If Dank actually appears and says anything noteworthy I'll be very surprised.
 
OzBomber said:
Doing sports law this semester at uni. Guess what the main topic will be over the course of the 12 weeks? Yup, this rubbish.

Lecturer already thinks Hird was banned for 'being a drug cheat' and that the players are 'drug cheats' and that all 'drug cheats' deserve 'life bans'. Called him out on it and asked for his proof and why players haven't been banned yet, then he just said something along the lines of 'what about that Mexican stuff'.

Room was tense and had to stop myself haha. Expecting it to be a long semester, especially when your homework tasks are to read the Switskowski report and the charge sheet (the original one, not the new one...) and one of your major assignments is to argue whether or not James Hird should be paid.
Click to expand...
Absolutely wear your guernsey to every lecture.
 
Loonerty said:
Absolutely wear your guernsey to every lecture.
Click to expand...
Basically waved my membership in his face when he wondered out loud "it makes you wonder whether or not Essendon members can still support the club and Hird."

Wouldn't be surprised if be posted on BF.
 
Last edited:
OzBomber said:
Basically waved my membership in his face and when he wondered out loud "it makes you wonder whether or not Essendon members can still support the club and Hird."

Wouldn't be surprised if be posted on BF.
Click to expand...

Professor Ian W?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I hoping AFL/ASADA don't want Dank to speak. Might prove them wrong and open up a can of worms for other clubs. Now that would be a bad look.
 
Does anyone remember the email between Dank and Melbourne doctor? Any chance of posting it again. Would love to look again and fwd it to a few.
 
kelvin_sheedy said:
Surprise surprise.

Vlad doesn't want Dank to talk at the lunch and now Caro is writing a piece on it and trying to get public opinion to sway in the direction required.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I wish the AFL would stop using propaganda to push their point of view.
 
There was this article today in The Australian by P Smith
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...g-demetriou-out/story-e6frg7uo-1226848604375#
Evidence points to commission pushing Demetriou out
603862-b575c0cc-a599-11e3-ba3c-257e5cae2633.jpg

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou at Adelaide Airport. Source: News Corp Australia

EVERYBODY had done his or her homework. The AFL had made Andrew Demetriou available for interview on February 19 and there was much to talk about, much to prepare, much to get on record. The most powerful administrator in Australian professional sport was coming off the worst year in his code’s history. His thoughts, please?

The coverage would be extensive. Digital media warmed to the task and grabs were made for this platform and that. All aboard the 2.11pm from Docklands. Photographers took their pictures, journalists asked their questions and everybody held their collective tongue and send button until the clock clicked past 10pm that night. Embargo over.

But this would be no tell-all from Demetriou, who had tromped to the top of the AFL from first representing the players (1998-2000), then to football manager of the AFL (2000-2003) then to running the circus altogether, a position which gave him a spot on the commission. The bloke had clout.

The interviews with Demetriou were tame. He got sections of the media titillated with a gratuitous attack on Richmond footballer Jake King and his club for something no more heinous than the company the enthusiastic little Tiger seemed very rarely to keep. Given the turmoil of the previous season it was a canny, planned distraction.

To the obvious question which had to follow Demetriou’s fumbling, embarrassing and ultimately flailing end to the Essendon supplement scandal — how long have you got left in the job? — Demetriou would give everybody much the same answer. “I get the same question every year. People are more interested in what’s happening on the field and what’s happening with the players and their teams. I enjoy the role and there are still some challenges ahead.”

Mmm. Interesting. Might get the same question every year but it has never been answered so blandly before. And as Demetriou was so fond of saying it was “bullshit” too. More than two weeks before Demetriou had met the media for the customary season mood-setter, the chief executive had told his chairman Mike Fitzpatrick — or was that John Wylie — that he would quit the job this season. That is Demetriou’s version of a meeting between the pair while in the US for the Super Bowl. Well, they had to go overseas somewhere for a freebie — what with no Olympics.

That was February 2 and by February 17 — two days remember before briefing time with the media — Demetriou had told his fellow commissioners that he would be quitting the job.

All of this, of course, meant that the media day would be mostly a collection of disingenuous answers because it was not until March 3 — just last Monday — that Demetriou and Fitzpatrick would once again sit down together, this time in Melbourne and in public with no Super Bowl to distract them, to announce that the chief executive was quitting. Two days later it was announced that, in the worst year in AFL history, Demetriou had earned a salary of $3.8 million.

That figure, which is slightly more than Tasmania’s annual revenue, included a $2 million bonus as reward for the $1.25 billion TV rights deal and the establishment — even if a little shakily — of the new teams GWS and the Gold Coast Suns.

After all this has finally played out, the time is now right to ask if Demetriou’s exit was planned by him or encouraged by the commission. That he had to go was inevitable. That it was rushed — and not a managed work in progress since 2012 as Demetriou suggested — is obvious. If it was hurried and not a sweetly timed thing overseen to the second by the AFL media department then the league has learned nothing from its opaque and ham-fisted dealings with Essendon, ASADA and, especially, the fans last year.

If Demetriou wished to exit would he not have wanted to go on his terms? Planned and underlined.

With his reputation bruised blue from his rattled and ill-judged attack on The Australian’s journalist Chip Le Grand last year; to his plainly inaccurate and now infamous claim of going to his grave knowing that James Hird would not be paid for season 2014, Demetriou needed a clean, plain and unfussed last farewell.

Instead, he went through a day of interviews, happy snaps, and digital dalliances knowing that he was only speaking in half-truths. He could not expand on his future plans honestly and would not recall crisply why his career had unravelled late last year. The bloke was on silent running.

Because of the inherent lack of transparency in Demetriou’s position on February 15 the day only served to reinforce the lack of respect and faith in what the AFL tried to do in managing a deal with Essendon in August last year. If this exit was Demetriou’s call and his alone it is inexplicable that he would once again place himself in a position where his judgment was so easily and fundamentally questioned.

But if it was the commission’s call then his exit and its manner makes more sense.
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...g-demetriou-out/story-e6frg7uo-1226848604375#
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

RedmanWasHere
    • Like
Delisted 47: Oskar Smartt - Delisted as of 22/09/25
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
16K
DERO
DERO

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom