Blame Matrix

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

AstroboyUK said:
to blame for the ongoing bullshit and making it even worse than it had to be.

Hird 75%
Little 20%
Essendon Membership innaction 5%
Click to expand...
I think the AFL is entitled to a slice of the action too.
 
Lets not overthink this. Everyone knows that illegal PEDS are available out there. There are dozens of shysters like Dank who can get you the stuff, devise a program, and have an immediate impact on performance (they'll even provide a shredder if you don't have one). Every leading sports team, every leading athlete, every top-level sporting organisation will have thought about this and considered two questions:

1. 'Is there anyway we can do any of this legally (accordingly to the rules of our sport)? What can we use from this and not get into trouble?'. That's fine.
2. 'OK. Should we still do it, even if it's illegal'? This question has 2 parts.
a) Can we get away with it?
b) 'Even if we can get away with it, should we do it, because - you know - it's cheating'?


EVERYONE involved in this will have considered these basic points. The person at the Bombers who eventually decided 'Yes' to question 2b and brought it into the club is the primary person at fault here. It's not Dank - he's a salesman. Every club has had plenty of Danks contacting them, promising miracles. And, quite possibly, some other clubs have flirted with them, at times.

The players would have gone along with it if the powers-that-be at the Club said 'We're doing this'. So would the coaching staff and the medical staff. In a team sport, your primary loyalty is to the team - not The Integrity Of The Competition. "WE're all in this together". It takes a very brave soul to break ranks at this point. It takes an incredibly brave soul to break ranks AND speak up about it outside the Club.

So who at Essendon made that call - because they are the primary one at fault.
 
The AFL - 30%
(1) When they signed up to the WADA code in 2005 (albeit reluctantly) they failed to do a proper risk assessment and implement satisfactory risk controls - nobody at the AFL saw this possibility.
(2) When they (amongst all signatories) were invited back in 2011 to make submissions to update the WADA code, they failed to do so. They've got no right to whinge about any inapplicability of the code (eg to team sports)
(3) Failed in their duty to make the club's aware of the risks, responsibilities and obligations of clubs to the WADA code. To this day I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it's any more than a lottery that this happened to Essendon and not any other club.
(4) The AFL should never have put itself in a position of running the various tribunals. They had far too much vested interest in the results and the timings to be considered impartial.

ASADA - 5%
(1) Rightly or wrongly, Hird seemed to believe that other clubs were doping. Hird clearly didn't trust ASADA was doing their job of keeping a level playing field - so ASADA should should shoulder some responsibility for that. Some might think I'm being harsh on ASADA for this one, but look at it this way - if Hird & co had believed that ASADA were properly policing the WADA code, would this sorry saga have happened? Probably not.
(2) The ASADA education given to the players was clearly inadequate and ineffective. Again, if their education had been effective, would this sorry saga have happened? No.

The board of Essendon FC - 10%
(1) They're ultimately responsible for the strategic direction of the club, so they're responsible by default.
(2) They failed to hold the right people to account in a timely manner. They clearly failed to understand the gravity of the situation. Compare with the actions of the VW board over their emissions scandal.

Ian Robson - The Essendon CEO - 10%
(1) Failed to appreciate the risks and implement proper risk controls. Failed in providing appropriate oversight. He is responsible by default.

Danny Corcoran - Essendon HOF - 10%
(1) Failed to do his job of providing oversight of the High Performance program.

Dean Robinson - Manager of High Performance program - 10%
(1) Responsible for the program

James Hird - 10%
(1) Appears to be complicit in the drugs program
(2) Delaying tactics through the courts to try and get it quashed on a technicality. Even if he'd won, it would not have been any moral victory.
(3) As a public face of the club, and the main person responsible for the football program, He bears some responsibility by default.

Mark Thompson - 4%
(1) Anybody who had the knowledge and ability to prevent it from happening (but didn't) bares some responsibility by default.

Bruce Reid - 1%
(1) Bad things happen when good people do nothing.

Steven Dank - 10%
(1) Obviously the one at the centre of this, and he carries some responsibility, but i also think he's been a convenient villian who has been used by some people to absolve themselves of responsibility.
 
Last edited:
sherb said:
I think the AFL is entitled to a slice of the action too.
Click to expand...

From the moment the Switkowski report was tabled, the AFL and the board of the EFC have pretty much got off scot free.

IMHO the right thing to do was to isolate the issues, the coaching staff, the health staff and the admin could all have been stood down with pay, the board could have been stood down and an administrator appointed, until all investigation finished and legal action finalised.

Why the EFC board mindlessly and uncritically stood by Hird for so long needs to be answered, and those that did need to stand down and never stand for election again.

Until the AFL and EFC board answer for the way they've handled this mess, it will roll on and on and on and on ..................
 
the_interloper said:
What does this have to do with matrices? This is something I studied in maths at uni, not much to do with this issue I don't reckon.
Click to expand...

I should not have to explain my joke. :$

Let's just say that I am not the only one to have claimed something is a matrix in this saga when it is clearly not a matrix.
 
I think people are too harsh on Dank, yes he was stupid and had no idea.

People make it look like he was out there to intentionally dope. He wasn't as smart as he thought, but he was only trying to bring in the best injection regime like he was suggested to
 
Dude, he was conducting experiments on the players.

I don't blame him for the PED program; that's his thing, and it's well known - the dickheads who allowed him to do it to blame there; but experimenting with different compounds/agents etc, on the players, is unconscionable.

pazza said:
Dank 50%, as he was the key arbiter of the injections, legal or otherwise.
Robinson 20%
Paul Hamilton 10%
Robson 10%
Hird 5%
Board including Evans 2.5%
Players 2.5%
Click to expand...

And if Dank was doing what Hird told him to do?
 
King Elvis said:
Dude, he was conducting experiments on the players.

I don't blame him for the PED program; that's his thing, and it's well known - the dickheads who allowed him to do it to blame there; but experimenting with different compounds/agents etc, on the players, is unconscionable.

And if Dank was doing what Hird told him to do?
Click to expand...

There wouldn't have been a saga now stretching into its 4th year. all Dank had to do was not break the code and if we are lead to believe what happened he failed to do so.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pazza said:
Dank 50%, as he was the key arbiter of the injections, legal or otherwise.
Robinson 20%
Paul Hamilton 10%
Robson 10%
Hird 5%
Board including Evans 2.5%
Players 2.5%
Click to expand...

Pazza, why Hamilton 10% and Hird 5%.
Hamilton's name wasn't even on the Secretive Protocol as a "go-to" person.
 
blame-canada.jpg
 
Privateye said:
Pazza, why Hamilton 10% and Hird 5%.
Hamilton's name wasn't even on the Secretive Protocol as a "go-to" person.
Click to expand...

Because Hamilton was the direct boss of Robinson and Dank in his role as Football Operations Manager. His role here needs to be investigated further - as in why did he cut and run so quickly? This compared to Hird who was in another department entirely.
 
90%- the essendon club as a collective. ie. governance issues, lack of oversight, coaching staff, medical staff. (widely reported doc reid was not happy and sent an e-mail outlining his concerns, he should have been more pro active and sought out players individually/in groups in face to face meetings to put his view forward, i'm sure if this happened many if not all players would have raised concerns as well.
1%- the first and second year players.
9%- the remaining players.
massive case of "stockholm syndrome" here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top