Coach Bomber's coaching (PLAY NICE)

[efcboy]

Don't hide behind the spurious argument that I or others are influenced by the media and their hangers on. It gets tiresome after a while !

First - I am no ' Johnny Come lately ' in relation to Essendon's fitness and conditioning program. I have been critical since at least 2010 and I never got caught up in the hype around ' the Weapon '. I posted at that the time that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In saying that I've been happy with the fitness program in the last two years - We are on an upward trajectory.

Seriously - Bomber in his interview on Footy Classified the day officials were fined/suspended discussed the meeting in August 2011. Bomber inferred why the AFL didn't intervene into the supplements program.

I am big enough and ugly enough to independently form my own opinions based on available information. You seem to forget that the players are still fighting Show Cause notices - The players are far more important than Hird or any other Essendon official.

I will raise some more pertinent questions

1) Why was the deal between ASADA and the AFL broken ?
2) Why did Dank leave the GC ? Was it an independent decision by GC? or Did the AFL pressure the GC to release Dank ?
3) If it was the latter did EFC have endorsement to employ Dank ?
4) Do you think the AFL/ASADA would have target tested/sent samples to Germany if Dank wasn't employed by EFC ?

Finally, whether its wrong or right the AFL though Essendon was cheating in 2012 - Under these circumstances it's no surprise that the AFL would prefer Hird doesn't return - And I unsure how you or I could change the AFL's opinion.

Answers:

1. The deal should never have been done - it was unethical for the AFL and ASADA to ever enter in such a deal.

2. Dank was never employed by Gold Coast. Dean Robinson was employed by GC and left for more money at EFC. Dank acted as a consultant but was never an employee at GC.

3. Refer to answer 2.

4. Possibly as Hird and EFC had touted the idea of running a program including peptides albeit legal ones. Whether they would have gone down this path without Dank is a hypothetical question that cannot be answered as it is not reality. I don't know that the ACC had released any information to the AFL relating to Dank prior to 2013. Prior to then he was viewed as a leader in the industry hence why multiple professional organisations utilised his services and despite drama continue to (see IPL and rugby in England).

If the AFL hierarchy view EFC as cheating without any conclusive evidence then perhaps its them that need to go and not Hird. We've already seen Demetriou, Andreuska and Lawler go - all CEOs of AFL, ASADA and ACC when this all broke as well as Lundy and Clare..does that not tell you that there is a stench to how this has unfolded.

 

[eth-dog]

Lundy and Clare going out is completely irrelevant to the ASADA investigation.

 

[Beerfish]

Answers:

1. The deal should never have been done - it was unethical for the AFL and ASADA to ever enter in such a deal.

That's not what he asked.

 

[efcboy]

That's not what he asked.

The deal was broken because it was unethical. ASADA should never have agreed to it in the beginning.

 

[efcboy]

Lundy and Clare going out is completely irrelevant to the ASADA investigation.

Absolutely is not irrelevant - these politicians did all the grandstanding calling the national press conference creating a circus and hysteria all about nothing. Where is all the evidence they spoke of? The day Lundy and Clare called a national press conference was the beginning of denying natural justice as it made what should be a confidential process extremely public. And when the going gets tough they push them into a new role - no accountability.

 

[Beerfish]

The deal was broken because it was unethical. ASADA should never have agreed to it in the beginning.

Apologies. I appear to be having some reading and comprehension issues this morning.

 

[Jade]

Apologies. I appear to be having some reading and comprehension issues this morning.

 

[eth-dog]

Absolutely is not irrelevant - these politicians did all the grandstanding calling the national press conference creating a circus and hysteria all about nothing. Where is all the evidence they spoke of? The day Lundy and Clare called a national press conference was the beginning of denying natural justice as it made what should be a confidential process extremely public. And when the going gets tough they push them into a new role - no accountability.

So basically the ASADA saga is the reason Labor lost the election?

 

[efcboy]

So basically the ASADA saga is the reason Labor lost the election?

No - the Labor party lost the election because they were a national embarrassment with their in-fighting and back stabbing changing leaders etc. Different discussion. Were Lundy and Clare part of that poorly functioning organisation? Yes. Were Lundy and Clare irresponsible calling a press conference outlining what are supposed to be confidential processes and investigations? Yes.

 

[eth-dog]

No - the Labor party lost the election because they were a national embarrassment with their in-fighting and back stabbing changing leaders etc. Different discussion. Were Lundy and Clare part of that poorly functioning organisation? Yes. Were Lundy and Clare irresponsible calling a press conference outlining what are supposed to be confidential processes and investigations? Yes.

Lundy only stopped being Minister for Sport after Labor lost the election. So you've just contradicted yourself. Lundy not being sport minister is because Labor lost the election.

 

[bombermick]

Forgive me, but now we're playing decent footy I'd rather not think of the ASADA s**t. Our defense has been as good as anyone lately, atm we're playing top 4 footy.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Absolutely is not irrelevant - these politicians did all the grandstanding calling the national press conference creating a circus and hysteria all about nothing. Where is all the evidence they spoke of? The day Lundy and Clare called a national press conference was the beginning of denying natural justice as it made what should be a confidential process extremely public. And when the going gets tough they push them into a new role - no accountability.

The Labor fanbois defend Lundy and Clare while bashing Howard for setting up ASADA in the first place. Everyone else calls a spade a bloody spade and points out a a piece of governmental grandstanding which would have occurred regardless of party but in this instance happened to be done by Labor. Imagine the uproar if a less popular in the media government (such as the current one) had done the same to cover up a backflip on, say, the copayment.

 

[efcboy]

Lundy only stopped being Minister for Sport after Labor lost the election. So you've just contradicted yourself. Lundy not being sport minister is because Labor lost the election.

Nah Lundy had already changed roles in a shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic..

 

[efcboy]

Lundy only stopped being Minister for Sport after Labor lost the election. So you've just contradicted yourself. Lundy not being sport minister is because Labor lost the election.

Lundy not being sports minister was solely due to internal politics between Gillard and Rudd. Had nothing to do with losing the election as change had already been made. In case you wanted me to prove it see the below article:

http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/mi...t-day-in-sport-given-punt-20130701-2p7lc.html

So eth-dog I did not contradict myself - it was you that did not get your facts correct.

 

[jaguaress]

But Ben its just a contract, we are winning games cant we just tear it up and put Bomber in? I mean whats a contract? whats a favourite son's career? We are winning games of football, thats all that matters yeah?

/sarcasm

Have people listened that much to the media that they dont want Hird back? If people dont want him back as coach its only because we are winning currently and are afraid that if he comes back we will start losing. If people were as disgusted with Hird as they claim to be they would be calling for Goodwin, Bomber, the current medical team and the High performance team gone because they were all involved too in 11/12 too.

Good point, why dont we have both?

 

[rines]

I think it might be wise just to sit back.. let the media have their field day and write their opinion pieces.. and then see how the two men themselves handle it...

from what I can tell.. there doesn't appear to be a lot of angst internally about the whole scenario.. and there hasn't been from the beginning...

I think both men are old enough to sort it out themselves and the best outcome will be reached.

I think we will see both of them heavily involved in the club next year.. irrespective of 'titles'...

 

[yaco55]

Answers:

1. The deal should never have been done - it was unethical for the AFL and ASADA to ever enter in such a deal.

2. Dank was never employed by Gold Coast. Dean Robinson was employed by GC and left for more money at EFC. Dank acted as a consultant but was never an employee at GC.

3. Refer to answer 2.

4. Possibly as Hird and EFC had touted the idea of running a program including peptides albeit legal ones. Whether they would have gone down this path without Dank is a hypothetical question that cannot be answered as it is not reality. I don't know that the ACC had released any information to the AFL relating to Dank prior to 2013. Prior to then he was viewed as a leader in the industry hence why multiple professional organisations utilised his services and despite drama continue to (see IPL and rugby in England).

If the AFL hierarchy view EFC as cheating without any conclusive evidence then perhaps its them that need to go and not Hird. We've already seen Demetriou, Andreuska and Lawler go - all CEOs of AFL, ASADA and ACC when this all broke as well as Lundy and Clare..does that not tell you that there is a stench to how this has unfolded.

Point 2 - Consultant is nor different to being employed - A number of clubs have hid behind this defence. No-one wants to be associated with Dank post Feb 2013.

 

[yaco55]

The deal was broken because it was unethical. ASADA should never have agreed to it in the beginning.

I expect that when our club is forced to self report for REASONS unknown, that the Governing body and our board do everything in their power to protect their prime assets the players. And I believe this even more after the Harcourt revelations.

 

[yaco55]

No - the Labor party lost the election because they were a national embarrassment with their in-fighting and back stabbing changing leaders etc. Different discussion. Were Lundy and Clare part of that poorly functioning organisation? Yes. Were Lundy and Clare irresponsible calling a press conference outlining what are supposed to be confidential processes and investigations? Yes.

My theory is that the deal was broken because the opposition got wind of the proposal, and pressured the Government of the day - And of course the AFL is seen to have Labor sympathies - I reckon I am close to the mark.

 

[efcboy]

Point 2 - Consultant is nor different to being employed - A number of clubs have hid behind this defence. No-one wants to be associated with Dank post Feb 2013.

The question was raised did the AFL forced Gold Coast to sack Dank? You don't need to sack consultants unlike employees. You just don't renew contracts of consultants so don't need to dismiss unlike an employee.

There's your difference to being employed.

 

[efcboy]

I expect that when our club is forced to self report for REASONS unknown, that the Governing body and our board do everything in their power to protect their prime assets the players. And I believe this even more after the Harcourt revelations.

No doubt but is it legal and/or ethical to disregard due process and manipulate an agenda for a manufactured outcome?

 

[efcboy]

My theory is that the deal was broken because the opposition got wind of the proposal, and pressured the Government of the day - And of course the AFL is seen to have Labor sympathies - I reckon I am close to the mark.

You can speculate all you want as to the political reasons behind deal or no deal. However more importantly IMO the question should be raised was it ethical/legal for the AFL/ASADA to ever consider such a deal? Adding to that if they promised such a deal to coerce players/staff into making admissions and then reneged on said deal then they have broken many laws.

 

[yaco55]

No doubt but is it legal and/or ethical to disregard due process and manipulate an agenda for a manufactured outcome?

e
Do you have a manufactured outcome when 'self reporting' is show only - That is you self report to appease the AFL and the masses - I'd argue that the manufactured outcome was actually self reporting.

 

[yaco55]

The question was raised did the AFL forced Gold Coast to sack Dank? You don't need to sack consultants unlike employees. You just don't renew contracts of consultants so don't need to dismiss unlike an employee.

There's your difference to being employed.

Again you are falling into the trap of believing that Dank was never employed by anyone - Even Cronulla stated that dank wasn't on their payroll - Unless the world has changed consultants get paid - So my question why Dank didn't continue at GFC is relevant, unless one wants to hide behind the umbrella of semantics.

 

[fishardansin]

My brother attended a Bomber Thompson lunch the other day. Bomber said he will make sure he eats a sandwich in the box before year end bc that's what the fans want. Stay tuned.

I want him to eat a plastic lobster in the box.