Have a look at the spindle shanks on Jimmy boy back when he started with Charters. Ended up with massive thunder thighs later in his playing days. Reckon there might have been some pep in his step.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Essendon = Entitlement
- Thread starter Number8
- Start date
Nothing to see here Zips ... Different rules for Geelong.
This stuff gets thrown around all the time but there are huge holes in that.
Firstly, peptides are much more complicated than that certainly not automatically illegal. There wouldn't be many players to this day who aren't consuming peptides as they are ubiquitous in things like protein shakes that are perfectly legal. Whey Powder is a peptide for example.
Secondly, the notion that James Hird would have the knowledge to understand a substance was a peptide is just absurd. As is the idea that someone like Dank would explain the make-up of supplements to him in those terms. It is much more likely that Hird's understanding was that of most laypeople, who use this buzz term 'peptide' and picture it like a little magic pill you take and get faster and stronger. I'd bet that was also the basis of the question to the AFL.
Right so Hirdly being ignorant of peptides asked a bunch of questionably connected gentlemen across to run a legal peptide program that will push the boundaries of the AFL and ASADA drug codes. He was adament that other clubs were up to illegal shennanigans but he wanted a clean program. He didn't try and educate himself with what they were up to or try to protect himself with keeping records. He just paid the bills and was excited by the outcome. He knew these questionable gentlemen were jabbing the team offsite as the one bloke who would've understood the goings on, the doc was dead against it. So they deliberately kept him out of the loop and got the players to sign NDAs. Do I have this right? Yet you think he's not responsible, Dank was a lone rogue operator?
On March 9, they reportedly had the following exchange:
Hird: "Good work today mate, the boys were up and about, we have a lot to work with.
Dank: "IVs start next week and Thymosin with Uniquinon. We will start to see some real effects.
Then between March 27-28:
Dank: "That is the IV list that will be completed by Wednesday night.
Hird: "Good work mate, (name deleted) rang me tonight and said how good he felt after he saw you."
On April 3, Dank detailed more substances:
"We have cerebrolysin, we will re-oxygenate and re-circulate the brain. We will also be getting Solcoseryl."
Also in April:
Dank: "All IV and injections completed.
Hird: "Great work mate, it would be a great effort to have them feeling fresh for Anzac Day."
On May 11, Dank talks about an unspecified project.
"financials ready for you and David for AOD project. These financials cover all possible revenue streams, where the project applies."
Was TB4 & AOD-9064 approved for use by WADA/ASADA for athletes when it was almost certainly injected into the majority of Essendon players? Simple question, and a one word answer of either yes or no will suffice as an answer.
Fair enough, I'll tell you what I think for your interest and everyone else can just ignore it.
Apologies for the long post but there's a lot of ground.For what it's worth here my take on it all is two things happened, one, Essendon were made a scapegoat for competition wide issues and two, the wrong people were punished for the sake of appearances.
On the first point, there is no doubt there were issues at most of the clubs in the competition in terms of potentially operating outside the drug codes and the AFL knew it. My personal view is there were three other clubs who were on the 'Essendon' tier, and then 10-12 others who had at least some degree of question around their conduct in this area, either on a club wide or individual player basis.
So by my take, there were up to 15 of the 18 clubs who were dirty, and four that were filthy. The former part of that is on public record, the latter is my educated guess based on things that I now know. (Full disclaimer the club I worked at was in the second group).
My view is that the AFL knew there was an issue and wanted to put a stop to it and rather than blow up the competition selected Essendon as the fall guy.
Why Essendon? Like most questions in this saga the answer is Stephen Dank. He was the differential between Essendon and the other clubs on the same level, because he was an unqualified moron who was running wild. There were also unquestionably links to organised crime there which made Essendon a good choice for the AFL/federal government relationship.
Had the codes been applied to the letter I believe the 2014 season would have been destroyed, 4 clubs unable to play at all and a large percentage of players across the entire competition suspended. It would have taken a very long time to recover. Hence the scapegoat.
On Essendon itself, what happened was absolutely diabolical. When you are in a position to understand the trust that young men and their families put in clubs to protect them and be responsible for their welfare, it makes you sick in the guts to think about what was allowed to happen to them. Disgrace doesn't even begin to cover it.
Having said that I absolutely believe that there was never anything but the right intentions from anyone at Essendon, including Dank.
In terms of actions (As opposed to process, procedures and governance) , Dank was the entire issue at Essendon.
The problem was he had no training or qualifications for the position, nor the knowledge or expertise to perform it, as well as being incapable of performing the critical tasks of the role. In short he was a buffoon playing at being a sports scientist who never should have been there. The fact that he was there is a combination of Essendon's poor process and him being a skilled con man.
So who is responsible for him being there in the first place? Ultimately the chain here goes the board, the CEO (Ian Robson), the Head of Football (Paul Hamilton), High Performance Manager (Dean 'Weapon' Robinson) and then Dank. So if Robinson brought Dank in to the club, then Hamilton and Robson had to sign off on his job. If the guy was not qualified and didn't have the skills to do the tasks he was charged with aren't they responsible for that? Remind me what sanctions they copped again?
Then you get to what actually happened at the club. You've got this unqualified buffoon running around the place, getting hold of all sorts of supplements, thinking they will do all sorts of things and saying he is doing things he isn't like keeping records, or paying attention to and understanding the codes. So how does that happen?
Firstly the guy who was his direct manager could be politely described as a meat head. When the underling is the smarter person, the manager finds it very hard to challenge them. Again who is supposed to be making sure Robinson is capable of, and actually is managing Dank. Hamilton and Robson. The only plausible explanation for Dank being able to run amok is that wasn't happening.
So where does Hird fit in all this? People outside clubs have a view that the AFL coach is the all-powerful being in the footy club, that nothing happens without their say so but that is just not the case. Hamilton is Hird's boss. Hird sits as an equivalent to Robinson in terms of organisational rank, he just has a more glamorous role.
Everything I have seen and heard reported or attributed to Hird in this is absolutely consistent with every other coach I have ever seen in sport in terms of their relationship with sports science or medical teams.
To a person they want their players faster, stronger, fitter and healthier than the opposition and they want you to use an legal means necessary to do so.
Hird's role in this is closer to the players. He trusts these guys implicitly to do their jobs at the highest level because these are the people his club has carefully selected to guide them. A football coach doesn't have the time, capacity or expertise to understand the drug codes, the sports science or the chemistry involved in these programs, legal or not and nor should they have to because it is not their place in the chain to have oversight.
Hird's role in the organisation is football. If his players are fit and healthy and performing well he is happy. When Dank texts him and says he is going to use Thymosin with Uniquinon he may as well tell him he is going to use blue tic tacs for all it means to Hird. Unless the word is panadol, Hird is out of his depth.
Hird doesn't care, his players are playing well and feeling good. This bloke wouldn't be giving them anything that wasn't right, or safe, or helpful or legal. He's the expert, right?
So whatever these guys do Hird has implicit trust. As he should be able to. As the players should be able to. But they have all been horribly let down by the chain of command I outlined earlier.
At this point people say what about them going off site? or having heaps of injections? Or using IVs? Or signing disclaimers? Or cutting out Doc Reid? Hird must have known that was dodgy.
My answer to the procedural things is why would he? Again he is trusting the 'experts' and if they say this is the way we need to do it why would he challenge that? It would be like Dank popping out to training and telling the team he had a new kick in strategy he wanted them to try. As for Reid, the simple answer I think is Hird was dealing with a con man and a moron managing him and they worked him over. Dr Reid is old school, this is cutting edge stuff and he doesn't understand it. We know what we are doing, this is best practice in the industry now. It's an easy story to sell.
Then people get to player welfare. Why didn't Hird care about his players and watch what was happening to them? Again why would he and how would he even manage that given his workload as an AFL coach. Do we expect coaches to head into the canteen and make sure the food handling is up to scratch? Or to pop into the property office and make sure the drink bottles are cleaned properly? Sit in on player's surgery and make sure the ACL is repaired correctly?
Once again they trust other people in the organisation to perform their roles and that their managers are having the correct oversight to make sure that occurs.
Hird is one thing but how they ever came to the decision to penalise Mark Thompson beggars belief. It's like when Stewart cleaned up Prestia they gave Joel Selwood two weeks just for being there.
No question in my mind the outcome should have been the Essendon board, Robson, Hamilton, Robinson and Dank all copping sanctions. Hird's culpability is tiny, Thomson's even less. I'm not sure where Danny Corcoran even fits in to be honest.
Understand most people will dismiss all that and be adamant Hird is the worst bloke around and got what he deserved and that's fine. That is my opinion, based on 30 years working in professional sport and with a reasonable understanding of what happened at Essendon. Other people think differently and that's fine with me.
Yeah they were banned, TB4 outright and AOD under the blanket prohibition of substances not approved for human use. The second half of that question is highly speculative though, I'd suggest.
If the point here is should the players have been banned, then yes they should. They are responsible for the substances they take under the codes and should have demanded more information and accountability. Again they thought they were trusting experts, not buffoons.
I reckon brad scott being considered for the essendon job
Is an even bigger debarcle than Hird.
1 . Brad Scott ran Norf into oblivion,
2. Then let rhyce shaw take the fall, while
3. He took an AFL job to
4. Change the rules of the game, so
5. He could coach again, with current systemic, strategic, organisational, financial etc insights and IP only one other bloke in clubland has, and thats his brother.
He's still in the *smile* job - Essendon could ask the question at the interview 'so where do you see the game going?'
And he could answer
'Where would you like to see it go?'
Is an even bigger debarcle than Hird.
1 . Brad Scott ran Norf into oblivion,
2. Then let rhyce shaw take the fall, while
3. He took an AFL job to
4. Change the rules of the game, so
5. He could coach again, with current systemic, strategic, organisational, financial etc insights and IP only one other bloke in clubland has, and thats his brother.
He's still in the *smile* job - Essendon could ask the question at the interview 'so where do you see the game going?'
And he could answer
'Where would you like to see it go?'
Fair enough, I'll tell you what I think for your interest and everyone else can just ignore it.
For what it's worth here my take on it all is two things happened, one, Essendon were made a scapegoat for competition wide issues and two, the wrong people were punished for the sake of appearances.
On the first point, there is no doubt there were issues at most of the clubs in the competition in terms of potentially operating outside the drug codes and the AFL knew it. My personal view is there were three other clubs who were on the 'Essendon' tier, and then 10-12 others who had at least some degree of question around their conduct in this area, either on a club wide or individual player basis.
So by my take, there were up to 15 of the 18 clubs who were dirty, and four that were filthy. The former part of that is on public record, the latter is my educated guess based on things that I now know. (Full disclaimer the club I worked at was in the second group).
My view is that the AFL knew there was an issue and wanted to put a stop to it and rather than blow up the competition selected Essendon as the fall guy.
Why Essendon? Like most questions in this saga the answer is Stephen Dank. He was the differential between Essendon and the other clubs on the same level, because he was an unqualified moron who was running wild. There were also unquestionably links to organised crime there which made Essendon a good choice for the AFL/federal government relationship.
Had the codes been applied to the letter I believe the 2014 season would have been destroyed, 4 clubs unable to play at all and a large percentage of players across the entire competition suspended. It would have taken a very long time to recover. Hence the scapegoat.
On Essendon itself, what happened was absolutely diabolical. When you are in a position to understand the trust that young men and their families put in clubs to protect them and be responsible for their welfare, it makes you sick in the guts to think about what was allowed to happen to them. Disgrace doesn't even begin to cover it.
Having said that I absolutely believe that there was never anything but the right intentions from anyone at Essendon, including Dank.
In terms of actions (As opposed to process, procedures and governance) , Dank was the entire issue at Essendon.
The problem was he had no training or qualifications for the position, nor the knowledge or expertise to perform it, as well as being incapable of performing the critical tasks of the role. In short he was a buffoon playing at being a sports scientist who never should have been there. The fact that he was there is a combination of Essendon's poor process and him being a skilled con man.
So who is responsible for him being there in the first place? Ultimately the chain here goes the board, the CEO (Ian Robson), the Head of Football (Paul Hamilton), High Performance Manager (Dean 'Weapon' Robinson) and then Dank. So if Robinson brought Dank in to the club, then Hamilton and Robson had to sign off on his job. If the guy was not qualified and didn't have the skills to do the tasks he was charged with aren't they responsible for that? Remind me what sanctions they copped again?
Then you get to what actually happened at the club. You've got this unqualified buffoon running around the place, getting hold of all sorts of supplements, thinking they will do all sorts of things and saying he is doing things he isn't like keeping records, or paying attention to and understanding the codes. So how does that happen?
Firstly the guy who was his direct manager could be politely described as a meat head. When the underling is the smarter person, the manager finds it very hard to challenge them. Again who is supposed to be making sure Robinson is capable of, and actually is managing Dank. Hamilton and Robson. The only plausible explanation for Dank being able to run amok is that wasn't happening.
So where does Hird fit in all this? People outside clubs have a view that the AFL coach is the all-powerful being in the footy club, that nothing happens without their say so but that is just not the case. Hamilton is Hird's boss. Hird sits as an equivalent to Robinson in terms of organisational rank, he just has a more glamorous role.
Everything I have seen and heard reported or attributed to Hird in this is absolutely consistent with every other coach I have ever seen in sport in terms of their relationship with sports science or medical teams.
To a person they want their players faster, stronger, fitter and healthier than the opposition and they want you to use an legal means necessary to do so.
Hird's role in this is closer to the players. He trusts these guys implicitly to do their jobs at the highest level because these are the people his club has carefully selected to guide them. A football coach doesn't have the time, capacity or expertise to understand the drug codes, the sports science or the chemistry involved in these programs, legal or not and nor should they have to because it is not their place in the chain to have oversight.
Hird's role in the organisation is football. If his players are fit and healthy and performing well he is happy. When Dank texts him and says he is going to use Thymosin with Uniquinon he may as well tell him he is going to use blue tic tacs for all it means to Hird. Unless the word is panadol, Hird is out of his depth.
Hird doesn't care, his players are playing well and feeling good. This bloke wouldn't be giving them anything that wasn't right, or safe, or helpful or legal. He's the expert, right?
So whatever these guys do Hird has implicit trust. As he should be able to. As the players should be able to. But they have all been horribly let down by the chain of command I outlined earlier.
At this point people say what about them going off site? or having heaps of injections? Or using IVs? Or signing disclaimers? Or cutting out Doc Reid? Hird must have known that was dodgy.
My answer to the procedural things is why would he? Again he is trusting the 'experts' and if they say this is the way we need to do it why would he challenge that? It would be like Dank popping out to training and telling the team he had a new kick in strategy he wanted them to try. As for Reid, the simple answer I think is Hird was dealing with a con man and a moron managing him and they worked him over. Dr Reid is old school, this is cutting edge stuff and he doesn't understand it. We know what we are doing, this is best practice in the industry now. It's an easy story to sell.
Then people get to player welfare. Why didn't Hird care about his players and watch what was happening to them? Again why would he and how would he even manage that given his workload as an AFL coach. Do we expect coaches to head into the canteen and make sure the food handling is up to scratch? Or to pop into the property office and make sure the drink bottles are cleaned properly? Sit in on player's surgery and make sure the ACL is repaired correctly?
Once again they trust other people in the organisation to perform their roles and that their managers are having the correct oversight to make sure that occurs.
Hird is one thing but how they ever came to the decision to penalise Mark Thompson beggars belief. It's like when Stewart cleaned up Prestia they gave Joel Selwood two weeks just for being there.
No question in my mind the outcome should have been the Essendon board, Robson, Hamilton, Robinson and Dank all copping sanctions. Hird's culpability is tiny, Thomson's even less. I'm not sure where Danny Corcoran even fits in to be honest.
Understand most people will dismiss all that and be adamant Hird is the worst bloke around and got what he deserved and that's fine. That is my opinion, based on 30 years working in professional sport and with a reasonable understanding of what happened at Essendon. Other people think differently and that's fine with me.
Many thanks TBR, that's a terrific run down & has certainly a lot of merit. Covers a lot of things that haven't been clear previously.
Your answer is much appreciated.
Gee, the AFL looks for a single scapegoat and sweeps the rest under the carpet? Who's have thought? Clearly cutting their losses in terms of the PR as they make a fuss about one team while drawing attention away from any other goings on.
Having read the Boys' Club recently the clear impression I got was that Hird was the scapegoat. Unfortunately for him, whether he knew or understood what was going on, he is the Head Coach and therefore the public face of the football side of the club, so he was always going to cop a fair bit of the blame, in public at least.
The things that really get me are the leak to Essendon so they could do a mea culpa before they got caught, and the way that all the records just disappeared and this is accepted.
In terms of Hird as coach, I just can't see the coaching record being good enough given time out of the game. But Essendon do love a messiah, especially a home-grown messiah.
DS
Having read the Boys' Club recently the clear impression I got was that Hird was the scapegoat. Unfortunately for him, whether he knew or understood what was going on, he is the Head Coach and therefore the public face of the football side of the club, so he was always going to cop a fair bit of the blame, in public at least.
The things that really get me are the leak to Essendon so they could do a mea culpa before they got caught, and the way that all the records just disappeared and this is accepted.
In terms of Hird as coach, I just can't see the coaching record being good enough given time out of the game. But Essendon do love a messiah, especially a home-grown messiah.
DS
Let’s hope Hird gets a 5 year coaching contract . It will mean 5 years of missing the finals . Happy with that . They call him the messiah , but the messiah has 50 % win rate . Even Brad Scott has a 58%
Hire is no messiah
Actually give him 7 years
Hire is no messiah
Actually give him 7 years
My biggest worry is the with Walls on the coaching sub committee , he may allow he’s hatred of the Bombers allow him to pick who he thinks is the worst candidate and we all know Robert is so far out of date with his analysis of the game that he will actually pick the best candidate 
We must all continue to pray that Dudoro long remains the greatest myth in AFL and VFL history, actually in Sporting history, what a fraud
We must all continue to pray that Dudoro long remains the greatest myth in AFL and VFL history, actually in Sporting history, what a fraud
Ohh yeah
Remember the media slapping themselves when he was on the interchange bench during games.
"There's the Weapon"
Thanks for your take TBR. The use of performance enhancing drugs was not new to Australian sport and was a subject of concern for the AFL and Aust govt well before the Essendon saga.
Yet you believe there were 13? other clubs seeking to rort the system, to gain an unfair advantage, at the same time as Essendon.
That is a pretty wild idea for which you simply offer ‘cover up’ as an explanation.
I accept that Gil has a bit to answer for but what you are suggesting in regard to 13 other clubs, without supporting evidence, is very very difficult to accept.
There was as I recall, sufficient evidence to establish that Dr Reid had been excluded from any oversight as to what Dank and the club were doing.
What do you say concerning Dr Reid and his efforts to notify Hird and the board about concerns he had about that arrangement, and then about what he had subsequently found out from players, about Dank and his activities.
If Hird was as ill informed about the use of peptides as you believe would you expect he would rely on both Thompson who had worked with Dank, and Reid to ensure that his players were being properly protected? Did Thompson lie to Hird or
if he, Hird, maintained such a concern throughout, and certainly after Reid’s caution,- would you have expected him to speak out within the club to ensure that Dank could do no further harm?
For most it is hard to accept that Hird didn’t know what was going on and yet was prepared to accept a huge penalty for accepting publicly, that he did.
Yet you believe there were 13? other clubs seeking to rort the system, to gain an unfair advantage, at the same time as Essendon.
That is a pretty wild idea for which you simply offer ‘cover up’ as an explanation.
I accept that Gil has a bit to answer for but what you are suggesting in regard to 13 other clubs, without supporting evidence, is very very difficult to accept.
There was as I recall, sufficient evidence to establish that Dr Reid had been excluded from any oversight as to what Dank and the club were doing.
What do you say concerning Dr Reid and his efforts to notify Hird and the board about concerns he had about that arrangement, and then about what he had subsequently found out from players, about Dank and his activities.
If Hird was as ill informed about the use of peptides as you believe would you expect he would rely on both Thompson who had worked with Dank, and Reid to ensure that his players were being properly protected? Did Thompson lie to Hird or
if he, Hird, maintained such a concern throughout, and certainly after Reid’s caution,- would you have expected him to speak out within the club to ensure that Dank could do no further harm?
For most it is hard to accept that Hird didn’t know what was going on and yet was prepared to accept a huge penalty for accepting publicly, that he did.
Last edited:
I heard get it Hird...
Essendon will have Hird coach, Solomon assistant coach, Paul Barnard defence coach, Alan Ezard Foward coach, Ryan O'Connor Ruck coach and Adam McPhee & David Grenvold looking after the canteen
If they were taking pills, rather than how many injections a week was it I forget? 20 or 30? Maybe more, It was significant. your argument would hold some water. If the club had kept good records, or any records, of what, when and how much was injected, like any professional organisation that believed it was innocent would, your argument would hold some water. If Hird and Goodwin weren't on record being cavalier about taking PEDs themselves, your argument would hold some water.
If only one of the above were true, you might still make a case to a sympathetic ear, but all three? And there are more. Paddy Ryder's personal testimony is damning on many levels.
And even forgetting all of the above, I just don't buy the argument that the buck doesn't stop with the bloke it is meant to stop with. Pulling the Sco mo "I don't hold a syringe", This was a core football matter, he was the head coach.
