Drugs/doping in AFL

[Sheeza69]

hirds leak stinks of a last ditch effort to save his arse

didnt work. back fired on his president. something tells me hird is done

18 yrs ago Defacto, when i first got info that Hird was using performance enhancing substances..

Do the crime do the time Hird the golden boy..your sh.t does stink..!

 

[sauce_head]

I'd prefer Demetriou's head rolls. Why the hell is he calling people when under confidentiality? That stinks. Melbourne got done for disrepute without evidence if cheating, just appearing to do the wrong thing. Sack the prick before he gets the chance to jump

Hird's time will come later after the report is released.

 

[Sheeza69]

I'd prefer Demetriou's head rolls. Why the hell is he calling people when under confidentiality? That stinks. Melbourne got done for disrepute without evidence if cheating, just appearing to do the wrong thing. Sack the prick before he gets the chance to jump

Hird's time will come later after the report is released.

I'm not happy until we see the architects of this illegal program, & the Godfather of the AFL's scalp on a platter..

Only then have we seen justice, & we the supporters who finance our game, rebuild some faith with the AFL..

Because right now, thousands of supporters of our great game are suspicious of the agenda of one Andrew Demetriou..

He will go to any lengths to "protect" the brand of the AFL, at the expense of the AFL's integrity..!!

 

[God Save Max King]

AD is the bane of the AFL. He does everything to protect the integrity of the game yet somehow he himself brings the game into disrepute. The whole ASADA saga has compromised the 2013 season and it has compromised the players' well-being both mentally and physically. The seriousness of this situation cannot and WILL NOT be forgotten by the fans. AD isn't going to sweep this under the rug, especially with WADA watching carefully. The entire situation is a mess, but I have some confidence that in less than 15 days it will no longer be an issue of when and what the punishment will be, rather whether or not it was too soft/hard.

Going back to AD, if he does not handle this problem well, he HAS to go. No two ways about it, the AFL's off-field indiscretions are being handled poorly by the head-office and some of this has to be his fault. If he tries to give them a simple fine, WADA will step in and slam the Dons and slam them hard. In terms of power, AD < < WADA. He should know how to handle this. The chief has been farcical, no doubt; but I have a feeling he will satisfy most of the parties in the inevitable punishment.

 

[Half Back Pocket]

I agree, will he see out the season?

 

[Q TRAIN]

Andy D and the AFL wont even be giving the Essendon shamozzle a second thought.
All they will be worried about is more ways to the keep mothers of junior players happy because there was 95,000 people at the G last night wearing Soccer tops and Andrew is paranoid about people watching any other sports other than his.
Expect another 10 changes to our Rules next week.

 

[sauce_head]

Well he is going to turn the true fans off the way it is going. The rules now encourage head slamming, you cannot tackle even if the other player instigates contact, the game is so fast there is no contested possession except if you flood (due in part to rules instigated to speed up the game), the competition is uneven with the distribution of marquee timeslots and therefore increasing the gap to in favour of rich clubs which they in turn use for off field advantages and now there is even a systematic drug programmes that he is obviously, obviously, trying to water down as much as possible. It's just time for him to go.

 

[Baldur]

Demetriou without meaning to has pretty much admitted he tipped them off. His story is that he returned Evans call and told him "I don't know which club it is".

Now this means that Evans knows that there is an AFL club about to be outed. Which one? It takes no genius to work out the one that the media has been sniffing around for months. Essendon after all knew what they had done, they knew they were going to cop it if what they did got out.

By even admitting that a club was being investigated, Vald tipped them off. What he should have done is not take any calls from Evans at all and if he did by mistake, brush him off "I am too busy now, phone me back in a couple of days".

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Even the rats are not wanting to stay on this stinking ship.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

From 'TheOtherThommo' via Saintsational

An absolute brilliant piece.... Thommo happy to share it around via Twitter/FB/email

It's long.. So make yourself a cuppa & let it slowly sink in.

-----------

This is the letter I wrote to WADA, ASADA and the ACC;

Good morning WADA, ASADA and the ACC,
I am a 57 year old Melbournian and have been a member of an AFL club for over 35 years. My sporting interests extend well beyond the AFL arena and my broader interests extend well beyond sport. Having watched the evolution of sport in an increasingly globalised and corporatized world, I have followed the development of the WADA Code into a bulwark against those who would seek to exploit the fundamental tenets of sport, and its participants.

I also have a profound interest in how societies are governed and the institutions designed and empowered to watch over the governance of civil societies, and provide opportunities and protections for people participating in those societies. I take a keen interest in how influence is exerted, maintained and extended by interests, vested, or not, both within and without, those institutions.

Broadly, I am writing to you to as an ordinary member of society who has become increasingly frustrated by, what I have concluded to be, an increasing deviation from the best principles of governance and institutional integrity.

I began following the investigation into PED’s in AFL football from the time of the announcement and release of the ACC report on drugs and crime in sport in Australia, earlier this year. The level of my interest began below keen, but at more than passing. As the months went by I found myself getting increasingly frustrated by the quality of the information and commentary being disseminated into the public arena. I have found much of the information to be the product of either, sloppy and ill disciplined reporting and commentary, or the channeling of vested and conflicted interests.

A major portion of my frustration derives from the failure of those charged with maintaining an informed public to develop a frame of reference, against which they can compare the relevance of what it is they propose to disseminate into the public arena. In short, I felt very few understood what the WADA Code was designed to achieve and how the Code was managed in pursuit of those goals. I also felt there was little understanding of how ASADA fitted into the pursuit of those objectives. Once the ACC became involved, the potential for complete analytical paralysis and dissembled opinion was multiplied, primarily because so few people bothered to develop a view of the ‘big picture’, of how the 3 agencies were working to achieve broadly similar goals, albeit with 2 of them operating within a much narrower field; sport. But, the general principles driving their efforts were the same, entirely complementary and vital to the oversight of a civil society.

The picture being presented to the public in the main was, however, disjointed, poor framed, at times thoroughly disingenuous, certainly ill disciplined and, increasingly, dominated by interests more particular than those of the ‘greater good’. In short, those earning or being rewarded by the industry under investigation had become the voice of that industry. Or, the people with access to gather and disseminate information were incapable of conceptualizing the aforementioned ‘big picture’. The information provided for public consumption descended to gossip, rants about agency intentions and competence, political innuendo, pursuit of legalistic loopholes and escape routes, exploitation of interest conflicts, expressions of privilege, resorts to pop psychology and culture and high rhetoric borne of influence and ignorance – all symptoms of irrelevance.

So, frustration led me to look deeper, to see if I could develop my own conceptual framework to use as a reference for deciding if the agencies’ fundamental roles were being adhered to, and reasonably operated. I began my deeper examination with one underlying suspicion; this cannot be as chaotic as it is being presented, it has to be simpler.

I began with a relatively concise view of the roles of your 3 agencies;
- The ACC was designed to gather high level intelligence and develop a view of systemic or organized efforts to exploit weaknesses in crime prevention and the enforcement of laws. Having identified commonalities or patterns of exploitation of sovereign laws, the ACC would disseminate that information to investigative and enforcement bodies relevant to the particular commonalities identified.
- WADA owns the WADA Code, which is designed to protect athletes from exploitation and harm, and protect the integrity of the fundamentals of sport(s).
- ASADA is the agency charged with the responsibility to implement and maintain the preeminence of the WADA Code as a behavioral code, in sport in Australia.

Straightforward and simple. I then decided to look deeper into 2 documents; the ACC Report and the WADA Code. First, the ACC Report.

I chose to use 1 example, to see if I could piece together a representation of how the pursuit of the fundamental objectives of the 3 agencies looked in operation. I chose AOD9604, because it had received the most coverage in the reporting and commentary of events since the original press conference in Canberra. I also chose AOD9604 because it was the primary vehicle being used to confuse the public and create doubt about the veracity of the investigative process, and the competence, intentions, coherence and cohesion of the agencies.

I was given a clue to where to start by reading a contribution to a public forum on AFL football. The contributor had perused the ACC Report and come across a categorization of AOD9604 in a column headed “Border Status”, in a table on Page 40 of the report. The “Border Status” entry for AOD9604 shows “Schedule 7A (Prohibited Imports) Regulations”, which seems to be covered by Customs’ Law. In summary, those regulations specify AOD9604 can be imported for certain purposes, but shows a specific exclusion for sportspeople and athletes covered by the ASADA Act of 2006, and all people associated with sportspeople and athletes covered by that Act (e.g. managers, coaches, those who treat and develop the athletes).

I assumed the ACC Report to be correct, and have no reason to doubt it is correct. By my interpretation, the scheduling of AOD9604 within the “7A” regulations is designed to prevent it being supplied into sport if imported into Australia. I understand many laws and regulations contain varying degrees of reliance on voluntarily compliant practice by those involved (often licensed) in relevant supply chains i.e. self regulation. However, it seems to me the sovereign laws of the land are trying to prevent AOD9604 being supplied into sport in Australia and, if it has, in fact, been supplied into sport in Australia, then sovereign law has been infringed to some degree.

I then chose to examine the reported “not approved for human use” categorization of AOD9604. I wanted to find out if that categorization was specific and represented within legal and regulatory frameworks in Australia, or more nebulously. On page 41 of the ACC Report there is various information held specific to AOD9604. The first status mentioned is “Scheduling Status (SUSMP) “,”Not yet approved for human use, about to enter the final phase of clinical human trials”.

As with the Customs regulations, it was not difficult to find out what “SUSMP” stood for, or where it fitted in the legal and regulatory framework. The “Standard for Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons” is managed by a committee of experts within the Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”). Although I am far from an expert in this field, so scheduling AOD9604 in the SUSMP seems to be designed to prevent it being used for therapeutic purposes not covered by exemptions for specific purposes, and previously issued.

To my inexpert eye, the scheduling of AOD9604 under Customs and TGA laws and regulations suggest the sovereign laws of the land were seeking to prevent AOD9604 being used therapeutically in sport (at least). But, it seems those laws and regulations failed to keep AOD9604 from making its way into sport for therapeutic use. And, so to the WADA Code.

I read the WADA Code to understand its essence and, in doing so, hoped to understand how it might complement, conflict with or contradict jurisdictional regimes. To summarize, I concluded;
- The Code exists beyond sovereign jurisdictions and does not seek to interfere within jurisdictions.
- The Code is behavioral and has a mandate granted by voluntary signatories.
- The Code is not bound by common law and can operate so by virtue of inviting voluntary signatures.
- The Code operates outside common law because it punishes Code violations by mere exclusion from participation with compliant signatories, not as common law would punish (e.g binding orders, incarceration or death).
- By signing the Code voluntary signatories accept responsibility to understand the Code, comply with the behaviors specified and allow WADA to assess any violations according to the Code.
- The Code is based on “strict liability”, with ultimate responsibility for what enters an athlete’s system remaining with the athlete. The Code could not operate any other way.

Again, straightforward and simple. Signatories do so voluntarily and, once they do, they assume responsibility for adhering to the Code and hand authority to WADA, solely, to determine if they have violated the Code and, if so, whether they should be allowed to continue to participate with Code compliant signatories.

In exchange for the voluntary signatures and adherence to the Code, signatories receive accreditation, an imprimatur, as an ethical and honest participant in sport. Voluntary signatories assume the right to promote and market themselves to potential participants, sponsors, broadcasters and public funding streams, by using WADA accreditation as a symbol of good governance and principled participation within, and across, societies.

Having looked at AOD9604 within the jurisdictional framework, and found it had made its way into sport (despite sovereign protections clearly designed to prevent it from doing so), I then felt I needed to understand how the WADA Code would protect sports and participants. It has been claimed, extensively, that contradictions exist between how the various agencies have represented AOD9604’s acceptability for use in sport in Australia.

I found these claims of conflict or contradiction, in how AOD9604 is scheduled, to be entirely disingenuous or ignorant. The WADA Code cannot seek to schedule every substance, at every stage of its life cycle, in definitive and precise categories of approval or prohibition. The WADA Code assumes, rightly, that jurisdictional processes will act as the first line to prevent substances that have not completed proper evaluations of their efficacy, and safety for human use, from entering the therapeutic market within those jurisdictions. The pharmaceutical industry, globally, has a responsibility not to introduce substances into any market, without proper evaluation.

And, WADA Code voluntary signatories have accepted the responsibility to understand the Code (which must include how the Schedules are premised). I am not a participant in a sport operating under the WADA Code. Yet, it took me less than 2 minutes to comprehend how WADA constructs and manages the schedules, and the implications of those schedules.

Having acknowledged the proliferation of substances with potential to enter the therapeutic market generally, and their various points in their development and life cycles, it is nigh on impossible to conclude the WADA Code could operate with any success, without a Scheduling category designed to capture what the “S0” category captures. It requires only a scintilla of intelligence to understand it is the “S0” category that completes the circle of protections against abuse.

Yet, the vast majority of the reporting and commentary on the prohibition of AOD9604 has been designed to portray doubt or, even worse, a perception that AOD9604 may have been approved, or interpreted as approved, by the agencies involved in the investigation. I can come to only 2 possible conclusions as to why such portrayals have been fed to the public. It is either flat out stupidity or a deliberate attempt to discredit the agencies. I cannot decide which of the 2 options I find more distasteful but, luckily, both are irrelevant. But, you can only recognize the irrelevance if you have bothered to read and understand the WADA Code and how it operates; if you have built yourself the frame of reference for the investigation.

By voluntarily signing the WADA Code, signatories have accepted the WADA Code and agree to be bound by it. Such acceptance implicitly includes the scheduling of substances and how those schedules are constructed. To borrow from John Fahey last week – “Full Stop”.

Similarly, “strict liability” must be inviolable. Many a vested interest has proposed discarding the principle of “strict liability” in the case of AFL footballers, based on them being subject to instruction from an employer, often with the added compromise of being “young” or “immature”. Such a argument is not only shabby, it is offensive and displays a sense of entitlement. I have often heard jingoistic media cheering when a young (e.g.) Chinese swimmer has been found to have violated the Code. Young people who grow up in far more restrictive circumstances than Australian footballers are rarely afforded consideration as victims in the media of developed and democratic nations. Judgement is invariably swift and supported by fine sentiments as to the inviolability of the WADA Code, and all it stands for. Yet, when a local participant in a popular sport is found to have violated the very same WADA Code, the vested and captured interests are only too willing to opine on the validity of seeking exemption or leniency beyond the principles of the Code. Such preference seeking is offensive, as there are few athletes more able to exercise free will than those who develop and participate in Anglo Saxon democracies. All athletes who are found to have violated the Code are victims of people who seek to exploit them, to varying degrees. The point of exclusion upon a finding of violation is not to replicate the punitive measures found in common law, and it doesn’t. It is merely a removal of the right to participate with people who have not been found to have violated the same voluntary behavioral code.

I have also been extremely disappointed by the failure of most media practitioners to adequately represent what constitutes a Code violation. When I read the Code I was struck by the emphasis placed on both substances and methods of administering as potential bases for violation. This is as it should be. Many pharmaceuticals display both efficacy and safety differentiations according to the method of administering. This fact, and the Code’s recognition of the reality, have received scant attention.

There have been numerous “gossip” pieces reported about AOD9604 through various media in Australia. We have been presented with reports of “ASADA investigators” telling some about to be questioned that AOD9604 “never was banned and never should have been banned”. More lately, this has morphed into “legal opinions” sought by ASADA that concluded a “very, very, very low probability” of successfully prosecuting a violation for use of AOD9604.

Understanding the responsibilities and authorities of those involved in the investigation, and ultimate tribunals, leaves me concluding such references, even if true and in context, are, again, irrelevant. Such information is mere distraction, either designed as such, or borne of ignorance. Again, as John Fahey said last week “the WADA Code is the only document that matters”. So it is.

I will say, however, if the legal advice, on the probability of a successful prosecution via AOD9604, was as reported, if I were ASADA I’d find another lawyer! AOD9604 was categorized in Australian sovereign law and regulations as prohibited from import and supply into sport, and not approved for human use by the TGA. In effect, WADA shouldn’t even need to get involved! But, it is these types of circumstances where WADA are vital.

I have come to describe WADA as “the last line of defence”. When those seeking to exploit weaknesses in jurisdictional protections manage to wriggle through loopholes or flaws in sovereign regimes, it is WADA, by virtue of having voluntary signatories to their behavioral code, who prevent harm to sports and participants, by holding signatories to their accepted responsibilities. Again, to me, the simplicity of the whole regime is stark and the agencies roles are complementary.

But, I continued to find myself wondering about the different motivations of the peddlers of influence and rent seekers operating with access to the various media and portraying the investigation in a negative and compromised light. I found it necessary to look into AOD9604, beyond the protections against abuse inherent in the sovereign regime and the complementary WADA Code.

I went and looked for publicly available documentation pertaining to AOD9604. I went back to references about the substance’s original development at Monash University in the 1990’s. I worked my way through its subsequent development and promotion as a weight loss drug, and understood its basis to be as a segment of the Human Growth Hormone. As I progressed through the documented development, I noticed some references to potential beyond the weight loss arena. My research was certainly not exhaustive, but it was indicative. I noted references to a black market supply, seemingly in China, accompanied by anecdotal references to effects beyond weight loss. I saw references to osteoporosis and osteoarthritis. At various points I saw mentions of potentialities in tissue, bone and cartilage repair. I read of the clinical trial failure as an agent of weight loss, in around 2006/2007.

Then I read this document published in April of this year http://www.evaluategroup.com/Universal/View.aspx?type=Story&id=419857

This document plugged many a hole in my understanding, albeit a number of those plugs were merely questions raised by the information in the document. Prior to reading this document, it had become reasonable to conclude AOD9604 may be in a development hiatus. But, the attributed statements in this document suggest AOD9604 remained on a development path, within the corporate plans of the patent holder. And, the document suggests the planned development path was outside the field of weight loss, and in the field of cartilage, muscle and joint disorders, when combined with “progenitors or other ingredients designed to enable a repair to occur”. Work on such a development is said to be pre-clinical. The drug retained its clinical trial status on the SUSMP.

David Evans, the President of the Essendon Football Club, recently presented a defence (it was 1 of a number) against allegations of violating the WADA Code, by suggesting AOD9604 had proven to be totally ineffective. If so, why construct forms for potential recipients to sign, consenting to the administering of AOD9604?

The document mentions a period of 2 years, since when AOD9604 has been under consideration for evaluation as an agent of repair. This period precedes Mr Evans statement of the drug’s status as ineffective. Indeed, Mr Evans and James Hird met with Calzada in early 2012, at a presentation arranged by Stephen Dank. It is not difficult to construct a basic time line that shows pre-clinical work on AOD9604 commencing around 2011, followed by the presentation arranged by Mr Dank in early 2012, followed by players at the EFC being presented with forms consenting to AOD9604 being administered. Where Mr Dank’s involvement with the EFC began is not specifically apparent, but seems to lie sometime after the Calzada presentation being made to Mr Evans and Mr Hird.

I have every confidence the investigating agencies are applying sufficiently rigorous standards throughout the investigation to ensure a proper outcome. My concern is the thoroughly inadequate coverage of the issues at stake via the investigation. It was those inadequacies which last week prompted by deeper look into the publicly available information, with the aim of forming a better view of what was taking place than that being offered me by a media I see to be increasingly compromised and incompetent.

Beyond the matters being investigated under the auspices of the WADA Code, I see numerous questions requiring resolution. If AOD9604 has made its way into sport in Australia, despite the protections existing via Customs and TGA laws and regulations, where has it come from? Calzada claim in the earlier linked document to have never made, distributed or sold AOD9604. Calzada sold limited patent rights to Phosphagenics and Phosphagenics claim to operate according to those rights. But, the AOD9604 is coming from somewhere. Does the information in the previously linked document, where Calzada indicate a possible development path for AOD9604 as an agent of repair (in combination), bear any relation to the possibility of involvement by compounding pharmacists in the import, preparation and delivery of AOD9604 into sport in Australia? Is there a coexisting market for AOD9604 beyond WADA accredited sports in Australia? Are there any published studies on the efficacy and safety of AOD9604 beyond weight loss?

I am not posing those questions because I believe they are unique to my understanding. I pose them as an indication of my understanding as to why the ACC are involved. The current investigation has been informed by the ACC and is being conducted under the auspices of the WADA Code. But, there do seem to be questions beyond the scope of the WADA Code and its voluntary signatories. Abuse and exploitation are not confined to those participating in sports operating under the WADA Code. And, it would not be unusual for some to seek to exploit sports and activities beyond the umbrella of WADA compliance, by using exploitation within WADA bound sports as a marketing and promotional basis to extend the capability to monetize the access they have to substances of questionable efficacy and safety.

I am one of an increasing number of people who have become disillusioned with the presentation of this matter by those responsible for informing us. We lack a platform or access to be heard, we are less conflicted and we are quieter. Last week, after I had dug a little deeper, I tried to engage with some who have been presenting the public with news and commentary on this matter. Initially I approached those in the field of sports reporting and commentary, selecting some who had either a reputation for independence, or had shown a willingness to break from the pack and look at matters through a more analytical eye. I presented them with facts my own digging had revealed, but not been reported. That was a most dissatisfying route. Subsequently, I decided to try and engage with journalists outside the sports sphere and who were dedicated to the best traditions of investigative journalism. The 2 journalists I chose were Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie from Fairfax Media. That route has been proven to be a far better choice. There is a mutually keen interest in finding the truth and adhering to what we agree is a valuable defence against exploitation of sport and sportspeople. We are similarly keen to see matters extending beyond the governance of the WADA Code properly investigated, in pursuit of greater protection of those people and institutions not protected by the WADA Code.

So, each of the 3 agencies addressed here should know there are a lot of people keen to see you uphold both the WADA Code and your responsibility to help protect the people and civil institutions that define our society.

To put it another way; it is simple and we get it. And, it was Tyson Gay who showed he got it, with his response to the positive test on his A sample recently. His mea cup displayed an understanding of the WADA Code and his ultimate responsibility for what enters his system. He did not deflect or baulk, he took responsibility.

 

[Saint Ray]

i posted the same letter on this thread

HAVE THE BOMBERS COMPROMISED 2013 AND DAMAGED THE GAME?

It's on the main board.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Andy D and the AFL wont even be giving the Essendon shamozzle a second thought.
All they will be worried about is more ways to the keep mothers of junior players happy because there was 95,000 people at the G last night wearing Soccer tops and Andrew is paranoid about people watching any other sports other than his.
Expect another 10 changes to our Rules next week.

But that's the issue. Drugs factor into that.

As I've said before, if I've got a son who's considering either playing soccer or Aussie Rules, in the wake of Essendon getting off (should that occur), there is NO WAY IN HELL my son will play Aussie Rules. Hell no. I do not want my son to play at any level in a sport that openly supports unethical drug-taking. If he shows any talent for it, I'll be even more adamant about him not playing Aussie Rules. Because you play soccer in Australia, you make an okay pay, but you don't have to risk being injected with synthetic monkey brain hormone or something.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Martin Luther:

If my main weapon in a battle is poo, whether I win or lose, I'll still stink.

Every time I think of Essendon now, I think of that quote.

 

[Q TRAIN]

But that's the issue. Drugs factor into that.

As I've said before, if I've got a son who's considering either playing soccer or Aussie Rules, in the wake of Essendon getting off (should that occur), there is NO WAY IN HELL my son will play Aussie Rules. Hell no. I do not want my son to play at any level in a sport that openly supports unethical drug-taking. If he shows any talent for it, I'll be even more adamant about him not playing Aussie Rules. Because you play soccer in Australia, you make an okay pay, but you don't have to risk being injected with synthetic monkey brain hormone or something.

Yeah i also think that Andy D is so arrogant and paranoid about looking bad on 'his watch' that he would do anything he can to sweep this blatant cheating under the carpet.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Yeah i also think that Andy D is so arrogant and paranoid about looking bad on 'his watch' that he would do anything he can to sweep this blatant cheating under the carpet.

And to hell with the poor bloke who has to follow him, and clean up that mess when it starts to seep out from under that carpet.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

And to hell with the poor bloke who has to follow him, and clean up that mess when it starts to seep out from under that carpet.

Perse with the amount of blood that will soon be spilled, you may find that the carpet is beyond repair and is completely replaced.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Companies and businesses will change their name if it is no longer an accurate descriptor of their business, or has limited them to an area, or type of business, from which they have expanded. If we accept that the Essendon name possibly does not reflect the modern Essendon, what names might they consider more appropriate:

- Jimmy & the Injectors

- Flying High

- Chemical City

- the Supplements

Others?????

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Yeah i also think that Andy D is so arrogant and paranoid about looking bad on 'his watch' that he would do anything he can to sweep this blatant cheating under the carpet.

Too late for that QT........Andy D is a disgrace anbd the sooner he and his administration is gone the better the league will be IMO!

 

[Smoke_Me_AKipper]

Winmar2Lockett - great letter. Fantastic stuff. The wider audience that can see this letter the better!!

 

[goodie23]

How exactly would we rid the AFL of Demetriou? Who has the power to get rid of him?

 

[Squizz]

An AFL Commissioner was caught out going to the home of Hird. Totally inappropriate. As is them expecting us to believe there isn't more secret dealings and attempts to cover up.

Check out the cash splash for a few months of "vitamin shots":

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQqQIwAA&url=http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/robinson-set-to-sue-dons-20130726-2qq0x.html&ei=GynzUb_UFsv_lAXktYCwDA&usg=AFQjCNFd8rs4c0GdBrEgpWWuBnQOdDjfYQ&sig2=SwPwagMr5qdcwuel6v-fLA&bvm=bv.49784469,d.dGI

Dean Robinson is planning to sue the club that stood him down in February ... with the Bombers insisting on apportioning significant blame to Robinson for the supplements scandal.

On February 5, football boss Danny Corcoran asked Robinson to sign a confidentiality agreement that banned him from speaking publicly about Essendon and having any contact with players, officials or staff.

David Galbally in May threatened an injunction delaying the release of the Ziggy Switkowski report after that investigation chose not to interview Robinson.

Robinson received an official warning from Essendon in August last year after it emerged that Stephen Dank had racked up a bill of about $60,000 at the South Yarra clinic Hypermed.

The Bombers claimed that the (Dank) had come to Essendon at the "insistence" of Robinson. However, it has also emerged that Corcoran looked to hire Dank during his brief tenure as football boss of the Melbourne Rebels in 2010.

 

[Sir Robert]

Imagine if this was St Kilda and not Essendon. Andy D would have strung up our list across the bay. Still makes me furious after 6 months!

 

[Defacto]

andy d currently pursuing legal action against the HUN

about ****ing time someone did this

 

[sauce_head]

David Evans has just resigned. Announced on Fox.

 

[Sir Skid]

David Evans has just resigned. Announced on Fox.

Big news! Well Sourced Sauce