Play Nice James Hird rushed to hospital - suspected overdose

Remove this Banner Ad

[QUOTE="Bobby Shaftoe, post: 48452141, member: 177814"

You believe David Evans was not pushed aside?

What else?[/QUOTE]

Nah mate

Essendon great Tim Watson says the resignation of club chairman David Evans was solely due to health reasons and he was burnt out by stress caused by the ASADA investigation into the Bombers' supplements program.

Evans was suffering from a combination of stress, jet lag and exhaustion when he was given medical attention in the Essendon rooms on Friday night.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

andrewb said:
Erm...

The CAS panel was comfortably satisfied that they used TB4. The list of drugs for which we were prosecuted is not 'unknown and possibly far above six'.

Hird admitted to melanotan only.

Dank never 'came out in the newspaper'. He said TB4 and then retracted it.

Are you deliberately peddling misinformation?
Click to expand...

Just quoting people. I reckon they both got it right the first time.

Funnily enough Hird took full responsibility and then retracted it.

Do you not believe that Dank changed his story after he let the cat out of the bag, just to cover his tracks? He stuffed up and spilled the beans. Are you saying you fully trust that his changed version of the interview is the truth and that you actually buy that?


"Hird admitted to melanotan only." Did he actually deny using other goodies?
 
lethalselbow said:
Just quoting people. I reckon they both got it right the first time.

Funnily enough Hird took full responsibility and then retracted it.

Do you not believe that Dank changed his story after he let the cat out of the bag, just to cover his tracks? He stuffed up and spilled the beans. Are you saying you fully trust that his changed version of the interview is the truth and that you actually buy that?


"Hird admitted to melanotan only." Did he actually deny using other goodies?
Click to expand...

Here's where I've landed on what happened. My opinion only:

Dank and Robinson always wanted to go right to the edge of the WADA code but not over. With Essendon, with GC, with Cronulla, etc. They thought they knew the WADA code better than WADA. Hence the texts with Robinson re: the new S0 clause.

The S0 clause was introduced to cater for stuff that hadn't been added to the WADA list yet. Stuff that they'd been using for a while. In fact, I reckon that Dank and Robinson had built a career on using what would be classified as S0 substances: Hexarellin, SARMS, MGF, CJC, etc., and thought that on their reading of the WADA code that those substances were legal. So, the S0 clause was basically written for people like them.

When we hired them in 2012 the new clause was part of the code, and once they realised they couldn't use stuff like those listed above they started to look for workarounds like AOD. I don't think that the program (AOD, Thymosin (regardless of variant), Cerebrolysin, Colostrum and Tribulus) that they designed in 2012 worked without the products above and I think that Robinson's weights program without those products led to catastrophic soft tissue injury rates.

I think that the AFL were briefed by the Feds and we self reported on the basis that we'd taken Hex, SARMS, MGF, CJC, etc. Products which we didn't use. I think that we used two products that were right on the edge or over: AOD and a Thymosin variant.

AOD was super embarrassing for ASADA for reasons that haven't come to light, but the Dank interview with Baker & McKenzie tipped off the feds on a borderline substance called TB4. I'm not sure whether it was used or not but I lean towards thinking that it was. So the case changed to TB4.

I think that Dank's methods were a MASSIVE risk for WADA and that they needed a scalp in this space - people that are using substances that are potentially performance enhancing but don't appear on a list because they're too new. They were embarrassed about AOD because AOD is clearly S0 and also potentially a GH activator -> exactly the type of substance that they were trying to legislate against with S0. I think that also this case had become globally relevant in anti-doping, mainly because of the government briefing and the AFL/Hird camp's actions.

I think the evidence was too soft for a conviction, certainly under Australian law, but I think that this case was far too important to WADA's objectives for it not to stick and far too public.

Did we take TB4? Possibly.. I'd lean towards yes.
Do I expect a coach to know enough about chemistry to know the difference between TB4 or TBA? No.
Do I expect the coach and the management of the club to be a bit smarter about risk management? Damn right I do.
Am I happy with the way Hird handled things after we self reported? No.
Am I happy with the way that the AFL/ASADA handled the investigation? No.
Am I comfortably satisfied that WADA's panel were fair and reasonable? No.

Complex story. How Robinson managed to escape punishment still eludes me. And scapegoating Hird for what was clearly Robinson and Dank's IP, built over 10 years of skirting the edges of WADA, is ridiculous.
 
andrewb said:
Here's where I've landed on what happened. My opinion only:

Dank and Robinson always wanted to go right to the edge of the WADA code but not over. With Essendon, with GC, with Cronulla, etc. They thought they knew the WADA code better than WADA. Hence the texts with Robinson re: the new S0 clause.

The S0 clause was introduced to cater for stuff that hadn't been added to the WADA list yet. Stuff that they'd been using for a while. In fact, I reckon that Dank and Robinson had built a career on using what would be classified as S0 substances: Hexarellin, SARMS, MGF, CJC, etc., and thought that on their reading of the WADA code that those substances were legal. So, the S0 clause was basically written for people like them.

When we hired them in 2012 the new clause was part of the code, and once they realised they couldn't use stuff like those listed above they started to look for workarounds like AOD. I don't think that the program (AOD, Thymosin (regardless of variant), Cerebrolysin, Colostrum and Tribulus) that they designed in 2012 worked without the products above and I think that Robinson's weights program without those products led to catastrophic soft tissue injury rates.

I think that the AFL were briefed by the Feds and we self reported on the basis that we'd taken Hex, SARMS, MGF, CJC, etc. Products which we didn't use. I think that we used two products that were right on the edge or over: AOD and a Thymosin variant.

AOD was super embarrassing for ASADA for reasons that haven't come to light, but the Dank interview with Baker & McKenzie tipped off the feds on a borderline substance called TB4. I'm not sure whether it was used or not but I lean towards thinking that it was. So the case changed to TB4.

I think that Dank's methods were a MASSIVE risk for WADA and that they needed a scalp in this space - people that are using substances that are potentially performance enhancing but don't appear on a list because they're too new. They were embarrassed about AOD because AOD is clearly S0 and also potentially a GH activator -> exactly the type of substance that they were trying to legislate against with S0. I think that also this case had become globally relevant in anti-doping, mainly because of the government briefing and the AFL/Hird camp's actions.

I think the evidence was too soft for a conviction, certainly under Australian law, but I think that this case was far too important to WADA's objectives for it not to stick and far too public.

Did we take TB4? Possibly.. I'd lean towards yes.
Do I expect a coach to know enough about chemistry to know the difference between TB4 or TBA? No.
Do I expect the coach and the management of the club to be a bit smarter about risk management? Damn right I do.
Am I happy with the way Hird handled things after we self reported? No.
Am I happy with the way that the AFL/ASADA handled the investigation? No.
Am I comfortably satisfied that WADA's panel were fair and reasonable? No.

Complex story. How Robinson managed to escape punishment still eludes me. And scapegoating Hird for what was clearly Robinson and Dank's IP, built over 10 years of skirting the edges of WADA, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
All pretty good Andrew- l would have preferred a bit more commentary on the explicit responsibility of Hird for the program which l believe was a lot less than what the campaigners refuse to acknowledge. Hird agreed to a program to be set up by Robinson and wanted it compliant. Was he supposed to micro manage it? Hell no. He was the footy coach. Should he have accepted some of the blame? Yes- he was part of the team that handled the players. Has he accepted some blame? Yep.
 
Bombfire said:
All pretty good Andrew- l would have preferred a bit more commentary on the explicit responsibility of Hird for the program which l believe was a lot less than what the campaigners refuse to acknowledge. Hird agreed to a program to be set up by Robinson and wanted it compliant. Was he supposed to micro manage it? Hell no. He was the footy coach. Should he have accepted some of the blame? Yes- he was part of the team that handled the players. Has he accepted some blame? Yep.
Click to expand...
Amazing that you actually believe this.

Hird as the coach was responsible for the people put in place and the program undertaken. His attempt to sheet blame to others does him no credit.
 
andrewb said:
Here's where I've landed on what happened. My opinion only:

Dank and Robinson always wanted to go right to the edge of the WADA code but not over. With Essendon, with GC, with Cronulla, etc. They thought they knew the WADA code better than WADA. Hence the texts with Robinson re: the new S0 clause.

The S0 clause was introduced to cater for stuff that hadn't been added to the WADA list yet. Stuff that they'd been using for a while. In fact, I reckon that Dank and Robinson had built a career on using what would be classified as S0 substances: Hexarellin, SARMS, MGF, CJC, etc., and thought that on their reading of the WADA code that those substances were legal. So, the S0 clause was basically written for people like them.

When we hired them in 2012 the new clause was part of the code, and once they realised they couldn't use stuff like those listed above they started to look for workarounds like AOD. I don't think that the program (AOD, Thymosin (regardless of variant), Cerebrolysin, Colostrum and Tribulus) that they designed in 2012 worked without the products above and I think that Robinson's weights program without those products led to catastrophic soft tissue injury rates.

I think that the AFL were briefed by the Feds and we self reported on the basis that we'd taken Hex, SARMS, MGF, CJC, etc. Products which we didn't use. I think that we used two products that were right on the edge or over: AOD and a Thymosin variant.

AOD was super embarrassing for ASADA for reasons that haven't come to light, but the Dank interview with Baker & McKenzie tipped off the feds on a borderline substance called TB4. I'm not sure whether it was used or not but I lean towards thinking that it was. So the case changed to TB4.

I think that Dank's methods were a MASSIVE risk for WADA and that they needed a scalp in this space - people that are using substances that are potentially performance enhancing but don't appear on a list because they're too new. They were embarrassed about AOD because AOD is clearly S0 and also potentially a GH activator -> exactly the type of substance that they were trying to legislate against with S0. I think that also this case had become globally relevant in anti-doping, mainly because of the government briefing and the AFL/Hird camp's actions.

I think the evidence was too soft for a conviction, certainly under Australian law, but I think that this case was far too important to WADA's objectives for it not to stick and far too public.

Did we take TB4? Possibly.. I'd lean towards yes.
Do I expect a coach to know enough about chemistry to know the difference between TB4 or TBA? No.
Do I expect the coach and the management of the club to be a bit smarter about risk management? Damn right I do.
Am I happy with the way Hird handled things after we self reported? No.
Am I happy with the way that the AFL/ASADA handled the investigation? No.
Am I comfortably satisfied that WADA's panel were fair and reasonable? No.

Complex story. How Robinson managed to escape punishment still eludes me. And scapegoating Hird for what was clearly Robinson and Dank's IP, built over 10 years of skirting the edges of WADA, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I lean quite closely to that.

But I think what Dank and Robinson were doing, was 'mimicking' HGH.

The cocktail of AOD, TB4 and the other drug (I forget its name) was their thing.

That's the cocktail that Robyn Wilcourt was spruiking to conferences in the US as the superdrug for enhancing tissue repair

And, depending on how you administer it, and depending the rules surrounding S0 - it's legal.

Highly immoral, dangerous and against the spirit of the game - but technically not a breach if the code. Or so they thought.


I think Hird knew about other clubs doing similar stuff with HGH. I have no doubt at least two other clubs had been doing it. And I don't doubt that the AFL knew about it and covered it up.

I think this is the ace up Hird's sleeve - but it would mean he'd have to fess up to attempting to wriggle around the code himself (not blatant cheating - but exploring the loopholes which is still very dodgy at best).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lavender Bushranger said:
But I think what Dank and Robinson were doing, was 'mimicking' HGH.

The cocktail of AOD, TB4 and the other drug (I forget its name) was their thing.

That's the cocktail that Robyn Wilcourt was spruiking to conferences in the US as the superdrug for enhancing tissue repair
Click to expand...

Entirely possible but I think it was a failure. Teams that are on HGH probably don't suffer the kind of soft tissue issues that we had.

I also think Hird still has to come to terms with some of the ethical aspects of the program of which he was clearly aware.

Unfortunately, by leaking a bunch of stuff that didn't happen, the AFL created a situation where Essendon people can ignore the underlying ethics and focus on the untruths.

If what was reported was the stuff that I've written above, which in the main no one who was involved disagrees with, then they wouldn't be able to hide behind what has been written and they would have to confront the truth, which is: We implemented a program that at the very least was against the principles of the WADA code and we exposed the club and the AFL brand to catastrophic risk. The risk to the players has been significantly overstated but we also exposed players to health risks that are outside established medical ethics boundaries.

The AFL, Patrick Smith, Caro and others have done EVERYONE a huge disservice by reporting crap. And they should apologise for it.

How Caro could watch Watson hand in his Brownlow and still look at the Walkley on her shelf without a tinge of irony and self loathing is beyond me.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
You can laugh it off all you want, but Hird chairing out of hours meetings at his home with Dank and Robinson whom don't even closely report to him - is highly unusual and irregular.
Click to expand...
Is that where after the meeting Dank became responsible for designing and implementing the supplements program. thus allowing Hirdy to coach the football team, comfortable that the program was in good hands- Robinson's hands? And Robinson was in good hands- Hamiltons' hands?
 
Why should Patrick Smith and Caroline Wilson apologise.

What about Mark Robinson, Chip LeGrand, Graeme Cornes. Aren't they also guilty of writing crap.

Haven't they done everyone a disservice and shouldn't they apologise
 
Demon in Hell said:
Why should Patrick Smith and Caroline Wilson apologise.

What about Mark Robinson, Chip LeGrand, Graeme Cornes. Aren't they also guilty of writing crap.

Haven't they done everyone a disservice and shouldn't they apologise
Click to expand...
Because they haven't been part of an orchestrated PR campaign that may have contributed to what looks like a suicide attempt and has also caused significant pain to 34 past and present players.

Smith doubling down on his position is the height of hubris. What an animal
 
andrewb said:
Because they haven't been part of an orchestrated PR campaign that may have contributed to what looks like a suicide attempt and has also caused significant pain to 34 past and present players.

Smith doubling down on his position is the height of hubris. What an animal
Click to expand...
Lol,wasn't Robbo fed infro by a paid legal?
 
LoungeLizard said:
Easy just to say it's the clubs fault hey?
Hird was the bloke who met Charter in Queensland, now if that didn't put a doubt it his mind .......... well.
Robinson stated that Hird sought and found an undectectable PED, then asked him to look into it, twice.
We could call Robinson a liar, but the trouble is, after he stated that, he was paid out a large sum of money.
So they hire 2 blokes to take them to the edge, they let them loose without check, they keep no records, and you think that's not dodgy?
Click to expand...

There is an ADRV for intention to dope. Sounds like you are suggesting Hird intended to dope. If what you are saying is fact then why didn't ASADA prosecute that and why didn't the CAS mention it in their findings? Why didn't the AFL charge Hird with any doping related charges?
 
Lizardempire said:
There is an ADRV for intention to dope. Sounds like you are suggesting Hird intended to dope. If what you are saying is fact then why didn't ASADA prosecute that and why didn't the CAS mention it in their findings? Why didn't the AFL charge Hird with any doping related charges?
Click to expand...
Thy hasn't Robinson been charged?
 
andrewb said:
Because they haven't been part of an orchestrated PR campaign that may have contributed to what looks like a suicide attempt and has also caused significant pain to 34 past and present players.

Smith doubling down on his position is the height of hubris. What an animal
Click to expand...
So those writing anything favourable to Hird and Essendon are above reproach and anyone balancing that with a contrary view are somehow pariahs.

Perhaps there needs to be an acceptance that the contrary view is at least as valid.
 
andrewb said:
Hird engaged PR once the AFL media strategy kicked in. Tried to fight the big house: faildd
Click to expand...
Did he, or was it the other way round?
Same thing is happening now by the looks of things.

Caro, you like to bag her (everyone does)
But remember the time Robbo was going to leak the names of 12 players?
Caro, reports he is about to release them, also says the EFC is going to have a crisis meeting next day.
How the hell did she get that info?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top