Don’t hold yours breath waiting for any result. The AFL will do all they can, to can this so it never sees the light of day.
Allan Hird: How can ASADA accept Dean
Robinson’s Sydney Roosters appointment?
Allan Hird, Herald Sun, July 7, 2017 8:02pm
MICHAEL Warner and Mark Robinson recently have reported on the
appointment of Dean Robinson to a position of fitness consultant with NRL club, the Sydney Roosters.
Both highlight his time at Essendon as Stephen Dank’s boss. They also refer to the testimony he gave to ASADA that in 2010 he supplied the Gold Coast Suns Nathan Bock with a WADA anned substance.
Effectively at the time Robinson was an AFL employee, as the AFL owned the Gold Coast Suns.
ASADA alleged Dank gave 34 Essendon players the WADA banned substance TB4 and charged them and Dank. Even though it was Robinson’s job to supervise Dank he was not charged.
The players were first cleared by the AFL Tribunal but subsequently, after a decision by CAS, forced to miss the 2016 football season.
Dank has been banned for life.
Stephen Dank has been banned for life.
According to Warner, Dean Robinson, in his testimony to ASADA, admitted providing a WADA banned substance to Bock in 2010. ASADA has neither charged Robinson nor Bock.
The Warner and Robinson articles allege that ASADA has an understanding with Dean Robinson, presumably because of assistance he has provided.
Thus, despite Dean Robinson being centrally involved in Essendon’s supplement program and admitting to supplying a banned substanceto Bock a Gold Coast Suns player, ASADA has decided to look the other way.
ASADA, as Warner reports, has done a Pontius Pilate and washed its hands of the whole affair. ASADA believes it is fine for Robinson to work with the Sydney Rooster players.
But how can it be acceptable for a man who admitted giving an athlete a banned substance again be employed in a position with athletes.
If ASADA believes Stephen Dank should be banned for life and the Essendon players deserved to be banned for the 2016 season, why didn’t it pursue Robinson? After all he was Dank’s boss and he did admit to supplying a banned substance to Bock.
ASADA’s purpose is to keep sport drug free. How then can it accept Dean Robinson’s appointment with the Sydney Roosters?
But it appears it has.
Surely Greg Hunt as the responsible Minister must use his powers under section 24 of the ASADA Act to ask the ASADA CEO for a full explanation.
How indeed? I guess the same way as the AFL can employ someone whose violence on the footy field never affected his Management position with the AFL, until his king hit on a player from behind and The Herald Sun highlighted and made their position on the matter untenable. The major problem with organisation whose enquiry into their own practices, by one of their own, will always come up smelling like roses. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you must be losing your touch. People are now beginning to notice your double standard policies.
Its only a matter of time before Dean Robinson will be working in the AFL. Probably in the Integrity Unit, he’d make a worthy replacement for Clothier.
Culbert’s comments about Jim Hird being unsuitable to present the Norm Smith are deplorable. Culbert purports to represent purity in sport yet the arbiters that he has so often espoused, ASADA & WADA, have never charged Hird with anything and in fact, ASADA said he was an excellent witness. They were very quick to find guilt in 34 men so I’d reckon if there was any whiff of guilt about Hird, they would have gone him too. Culbert is an outspoken disgrace
Culbert is an unsuitable creature to be sharing the planet with decent humans. Dead set scum sucking oxygen thief.
People were also giving James a ripe royal serve in The Roar this morning. It is a disgrace. I hope it doesn’t open up old wounds and make him a target all over again. Jimmy and his family do not need any more of these bullying tactics. I thought I was well and truly over this “get James Hird” however it has me well and truly wound up.
The media have done a superb job of mass hypnosis in the negative on the Essendon saga and a lot of what they consider to be the facts are so far from left base. The Truth might be out there but a lot of people are simply not interested in hearing it.
How can Dean Robinson be employed in the NRL? Easy peasy!!!
He can work any where he likes because he did a deal with the AFL and ASADA. He has never been charged with anything. He is as clean as a whistle that has been dropped in horse poo.
A courteous, appreciative, confident, magnanimous, noble, generous, kindly, ungrudging and selfless James Hird is just what the “Hird haters” don’t want.
These haters won’t be able to stand in the resplendent light and will cringe and beg for the darkness, shadows and slime from which they were spawned.
I hope Culbert treats Gil with the same disdain. Gil was in charge when his underlings Lethlean and Simkiss did whatever they did. And I mean what they actually did, not what we are being told!
I’d like to bare knuckle fight the sanctimonious ■■■■
The real scumbag is Bartlett who has used every opportunity he can to denigrate Hird and allow the scum he associates with on his program to spew forth their boring predictable ill-informed AFL spin.
Maybe some one needs to do some serious digging about him and see what dirt they can come up with. Self righteous people like him are seldom without stench.
And; I bet there’s more to that story than is being told. Power corrupts there’s no way two ways about it. If a person
has not and is not in touch and at ease with that very powerful self inside them, then they will use it, abuse it and
eventually lose it. Karma has an elasticity about it that never wears with time.
Run outta likes
I don’t know who he is, but so, so true.
(anyone remember Jimmy Swaggert and or Jim Baker )
Kevin Bartlett…yep reckon he has done enomous damage loading
Bullets for others to pull the trigger on
Definitely worth reading this blog fully. Excerpts posted here.
David Forbes, Barrister & Mediator
Is the AFL obeying our Corporations and tax laws?
“The two most misunderstood terms in Australian rules football are “AFL Commission” and “member”. Almost nobody knows what these terms really mean. And that’s because so few people understand what, from a legal point of view, “the AFL” really is. Whether you are an AFL “member”, a club “member” or a journalist seeking to shed light on the many controversies concerning the AFL, understanding precisely what “the AFL” is is the foundation for understanding these other terms…”
• What is the AFL?
“… It is a company, an Australian company to be precise. Its full name is Australian Football League Limited ACN 004 155 211…”
• Who controls the AFL?
“… The people do who ultimately control the AFL are those who are members for the purpose of the Corporations Act, which in this case means the AFL’s guarantors because it is a company limited by guarantee, not by shares. The AFL’s 2013 Financial Report lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission discloses that it has 239 members including 221 life members. The other 18 members are appointees of the 18 clubs who field teams in the competition…”
• Is the AFL allowed to distribute money to the clubs?
“… The AFL seems to get around this prohibition by having nominees of the Clubs serve as the members of the Clubs instead of the Clubs being members directly. Article 5 of the AFL’s Articles of Association requires that this person be the Club President, Vice-President or Director. Article 10 says the appointees are not to act as trustees or agents of their nominating Club but “but shall act independently for the encouragement and promotion of football in accordance with the objects of the League set out in its Memorandum of Association”. But does anyone really believe that these appointees don’t represent the interests of their Clubs? And if the clubs were named as members, they would have to appoint somebody to speak for them at the AFL AGM’s anyway.”
• Why doesn’t the AFL pay Income Tax?
"The AFL doesn’t pay income tax. The AFL’s 2012 financial report lodged with ASIC says “The Company and its controlled entities are exempt from income tax under Section 50-45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 as amended, as the activities are solely the promotion, administration and development of Australian Rules Football.”
“Err, that is not quite what s. 50-45 says…”
Most interesting …how do they manage to operate outside of the rules other businesses must abide by?? In all things …how do they get to have a propaganda machine - afl media? where they can actually deny people their right to work if they don’t print what they are told ?? Why are we putting up with this ?
To note that Life Members are not entitled to vote. Apart from the 18 members with voting rights, the AFL CEO and Commissioners have voting rights. Where votes are required, they often require a weighted percentage to succeed. The only true voting powers of the club appointed members relate to de- registration and moves interstate. Even in those cases, the rights are diminished by clubs financially dependent on the AFL and AFL owned clubs ( member appointments made by AFL).
Probably classified as a religion so no income tax
Gil has certainly been sounding like a Christian conservative lately.
Pontius Pilate: knows Hird is innocent but kills him anyway.