<
Red, I am puzzled why you would say "someone like you could keep it civil". How dare you assume you know me or even anything about me.I was hoping someone like you could keep it civil, but then you bring up crap about Barrett and other scum, but back to your queries.You obviously are not familiar with internal control procedures. Go and have a listen to Jobe's responses to Lyon on FC about what was going on with Dank and his injection program. The lack of internal control procedures in the footy department were abysmal.So the internal control procedures were not shambolic?So what you are saying is that under Little there has no been no remedial action taken by the club to fix up the shambolic internal controls governing the footy department?Another factor I’m not sure if anyone else has touched on is the welfare of the players. If we assume that at least some of them did love Hird & we acknowledge that they are mentally hurting already because of the WADA appeal then how exactly is lobbing the coach getting sacked going to help the players mental state. It would appear from everything coming out of the club for 3 years that Hird has been a rock for the players so now we pretty much sell the message that its because of the players performance that Hird has gone. Do we really think this is a good move for the players now?
Has anything the board’s done suggested they give a ■■■■ about the players?Strangely enough the Ziggy report hasn’t been the panacea for all our ills. One might think improving the club wasn’t the real reason for his report. Hmmmmm
No, the procedures were not shambolic, procedures are simply procedures. I’ve seen no evidence the procedures instructed people to not follow management lines & to act on their own volition. The management which is ultimately controlled by the board through the CEO & management chain they implement was shambolic & everything the board has done since then has continued to indicate the board is shambolic therefore the management of the club has not improved hence why the Ziggy report was a failure in every way possible & the need for another review now after yet another poorly handled season off-field.
Procedure are merely pieces of paper telling someone how to complete a task. Procedures are prepared , reviewed and audited by the senior management team (in most companies this task is handled by a QA Department). Therefore the CEO, Football Operations Manager, Chief Medical Officer, Fitness Manager are responsible for ensuring that procedures are followed and the necessary documents generated by the procedures, completed and reviewed.
The fact that Jobe says that Dank’s supplement program was disorganised is a reflection of the poor management skills of Robinson, an employee of the EFC and who was Dank’s direct supervisor. Robinson reported to Hamilton who reported to Robson. The performance of these people should be monitored by the Board. If the Board did not monitor these people then they failed in their duty to the shareholders. If they did monitor what was going on but allowed the program to continue then they are negligent again. Hamilton, Robson and Evans jumped ship early because they knew they were in trouble. Robinson has kicked a big goal for himself despite his tears.
The AFL themselves do not provide standardised documentation or protocols but instead allowed the clubs “to do their thing”. There were 11 other clubs that were shown to not have proper procedures in place for their supplements programs, had no lines of responsibility or accountability - I think it has been referred to as “lack of governance”
This entire saga happened under the watch of many people still on the Board. This is not about “internal control procedures” or lack of them. It is about the people who were entrusted with the responsibility of running our club.
I think we all know the lines of reporting at EFC weren’t clearly delineated and Robson failed in this respect. As a consequence, you had a situation arising where the coaches got involved in what was going on with Dank and Robinson. Robinson’s email to Hird bout the new protocols to be established in January 2012 is testament to that, and Bomber chiming in on a few occasions is further evidence the management lines were all over the shop.
Apportionment of blame for Dank being allowed to run around unfettered at Windy Hill during 2011/2012 and the ensuing 3 year saga is a grey area and debatable.
I don’t think Hird has ever come out and absolved himself of any coach/employee links to Dank, and that probably hangs him.
-
Emails travel back and forward between people in an organisation all the time with requests, information or an instruction. Hird told Robinson that the supplement program had to be WADA Compliant and from all the evidence presented so far it was.Why the hell would Hird need to absolve himself of links to Dank? Dank was employed by the EFC as a contractor working for the Football Department under Hamilton, and would have come in contact with Hird. There have been many, many people with much stronger links to Dank than Hird is this saga but for some reason that “crime” has been shouldered by Hird.
Red, I get it that you are not a Hird supporter but really some of your rants are becoming a lot like the stuff preached by Wilson, Barrett, Smith and Co.
Firstly, why would Hird need to, or instruct Weapon about compliance?
Secondly, in answer to your question, because most of the footy industry misguidedly thinks Hird, as the coach, had significant and overarching responsibility for the management of Dank who was a rotten egg at Windy Hill.All I’m saying is Robson’s ineptitude lead to cloudy lines of responsibility and management in the broader footy department, and Hird, along with Thompson got caught up to some extent with dealing, engaging and managing Dank during his time at the club. That effectively means they shoulder some, read some, part of the blame of allowing Dank to run a less than vigorously monitored program. I buy in to the proposition that Hird and Thompson and Reid took their eye off the ball when it came to Dank. I don’t buy in to the proposition that the head coach under the circumstances prevailing at Windy Hill is totally blameless. Unfortunately, this small measure of blame has been allowed to manifest by the AFL, ASADA and most of the press into 3 years of misery and scapegoating. Is getting rid of Hird the easy option? Probably. Is it better for the club than not letting him go? Probably.
If you take exception to my comment about some of the contents of your anti-Hird rants being like the stuff preached by Wilson et al, then so be it. Perhaps you need to read and review your comments before you post them as I sense the tone of your posts has escalated as more and more Blitzers have become critical of your comments. But I’m sure you can look after yourself.
To answer you other comments
Have you not read any of the information that has come into the public domain throughout this saga? The Middleton Trial transcript, The ASADA Report, the AFL Tribunal report, Chip LeGrande’s book etc., where Robinson sent a communication to Hird informing him of his plan to introduce Supplements program at the club. Hird’s response " … must be WADA Compliant…" Sounds like normal inter-departmental communication to me.
Your second response " … most of the footy industry misguidedly thinks Hird …" What do you actually think? Or are you just stating what we already know?
Agree 100% about Robson.
You say " Hird, along with Thompson got caught up …managing Dank…" Is this a statement or your opinion? If it is a statement then where is your evidence? If this is your opinion it is still only an opinion. Then, in your next sentence, you make a conclusion based on either your first sentence being a statement or an opinion. If your conclusion is based on your statement then where is the evidence?
The rest of your comments/propositions/theories are not unreasonable and we have heard them before.
Look Red I don’t for one minutes think that anyone involved in this entire saga is entirely blameless, including Hird but many who have transgressed have done so illegally yet escaped scrutiny or sanction. Hird was made the face of the saga by Vlad when Hirdy dobbed him in to ASADA about the tip-off. Nobody in my living memory has been treated so badly by so many in Australia (maybe Lindy Chamberlin is up there) than James Hird and for what. Running a supplements program (not drug program) that was legal with supplements well documented as being safe.
All your points noted- allow me to make two comments.
The communication from Robinson to Hird; Hird’s response can be construed as an instruction to Robinson to be compliant, and I believe you have used the term instruction before in connection with this communication. If you agree it’s an instruction/directive/command/order, in my view it implies Hird had some managerial discretion over Robinson, which muddies the lines of reporting. You have previously advised the lines of reporting clearly absolved Hird from any responsibility over Robinson, and in turn, Dank. I disagree.
You say Hird is not blameless and has been maligned like no other. I agree. He’ll be the EFC President one day, hopefully while Gil is still around.
So, Hird giving instructions to Dank gives him managerial discretion over him? His supplements program would directly affect his ability to coach. Of course he’s going to have instructions! That doesn’t mean Dank didn’t report to Robinson from then on and it shouldn’t mean giving general instructions obliges Hird to manage the specifics of implementing said instructions.
I mean, what you’re really arguing is Hird should be blamed for the program being non-compliant with ASADA because he got involved by telling the people involved that everything had to be compliant with ASADA. That would be damn ironic if it weren’t tremendously absurd.
I said the instruction is evidence of some managerial discretion on the part of Hird in relation to the program. If he gave that instruction I would be surprised if he didn’t actually follow up on it at some point given the cutting edge nature of the program, and his awareness of it. It also implies the lines of reporting at the club were not clearly delineated. The club did a review last year and identified issues in relation to lines of authority and reporting, and implemented improvements.
It’s not Hird’s job to delineate lines of reporting. His interest in the subject doesn’t mean those lines change and it certainly didn’t warrant the repercussions he faced.