Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”

This x 1000.

2 Likes

In all honesty why hasn’t someone followed this up?
Not ASADA or the AFL as it is not in there interest but why not someone on our side?

but the members are part of the club and some of us are not happy he doesn’t have to go public he just has to tell us the members what his excuses are

2 Likes

For those who don’t know what you are saying I’ll ask this so you can spell it out…

JBOMBER what are you getting at? Are you saying the AFL with the assistance of Evans broke into the the EFC and destroyed the records?

You certainly don’t have to be there… but history is full of accounts from people who were. That’s what makes it credible. First hand evidence in court is given weight for that very reason. Hearsay is dismissed as simply that.

The players and their families were well informed, to suggest otherwise is lunacy. That is why ‘Sarah’ is so unbelievable.

People rewrite history all the time, those who study it will tell you that it’s not the tale that is important, it’s the source. You and others here have long ago decided on your version of events and you’re sticking to it. James Hird himself could say otherwise and you’d find a way to spin it to suit your narrative. It’s high level hipocracy and if it wasn’t so very predictable it would be astounding.

Of course we don’t know the “full story.” Jesus. But this idea that “we weren’t there” so we can’t know anything, is garbage. Also, the other idea that “Heppell was there” so what he thinks must be right, is also garbage.

Heppell WAS NOT present when Evans “asked” Hird to withhold information from ASADA. In fact, Heppell WAS NOT present at ANY of the meetings that took place where I think bad decisions were made. On the hand, Hird was present for most of those meetings. And, I believe he gave honest and accurate accounts of those meetings.

So, there IS enough information available, provided by a person who was actually there, for me to question the decisions made by David Evans (and a number of others).

Now, where I probably differ with some on here is that I DON’T want to crucify Evans. But, I DO want an explanation. And I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

26 Likes

It’s not unreasonable at all.

1 Like

Is the shredded records theory so unbelievable? So far we have had

-Dean Wallis being responsible, according to Chip, for keeping records of supplements with Dank upon Reid’s insistence, which Wallis received from Dank at the end of each week then checked with Dank each Monday

-Hird telling Tracy Holmes records were missing from documents prepared by Dank when Hird went to check them (Holmes didn’t ask, to me, what was the obvious follow-up: did Hird mean he thought they were removed or just never there)

-John Elliott saying his computer had records deleted shortly after the ASADA review began

-Hird say Evans told him to lie to investigators

-the AFL Tribunal ADRVP Hearing find that the players couldn’t be found to have used TB4 given the record keeping was so poor (in other words working exactly as Evans might have hoped if records had been removed or destroyed, particularly if he had been spooked into thinking something was there)

Of course some players may be telling porkies but we have people saying records went missing and a pretty clear motive for someone to make them go away. Despite the derision of some regarding breaking in and sneaking past the old Hall of Fame guards, it is not that difficult to destroy (or just keep hidden) records if you are calling the shots.

11 Likes

Agree with that but would add - he shouldn’t come back to the club until he is prepared to respond to members questions about his actions during the saga.

5 Likes

The idea that there were no records is laughable. We KNOW that the AFL seized something. We know that within minutes of those records being siezed that the media were listing all the"exotic" substances the players had been given and logic tells me they weren’t guessing. If anyone can give me a logical explanation of how that is possible IF the club was a complete shambles and there was no records then I will consider it. Also while you’re at it maybe someone can explain how guys like Robson and Hamilton can be soooo completely inept at EFC but waltz into positions of responsibility elsewhere even the AFL.

Again, the narrative of the clubs governance being to blame was the AFLs plan to clear the players. This is why we were punished soooooo severely. It was supposed to be the pound of flesh. Instead we paid in that and every other way possible and it delivered the players right into ASADAs hands. The decision to go along with the AFLs plans was Evans’ decision. He is absolutely positively the person responsible for compromising the clubs chance of a fair investigation let alone any hope of innocence.

23 Likes

Evans walking back into the club, without a beg your pardon, smacks of arrogance and contempt by the club of its supporters.
End. Of. ■■■■■■■. Story.

Maybe he did nothing wrong.
Maybe he did everything he could.
But until he apologises, until he gives an account for his ■■■■■■■ position, he can ■■■■, right, off.

53 Likes

I’ve run out of likes.

3 Likes

Demetriou after ACC made him ■■■■ his pants about their ‘investigations’ at multiple clubs convinced Evans we’d taken banned substances.

The “tip off”.

Rather than listen to Hird who said “no we hadn’t make them prove it”, Evans did as Demetriou had told him to do in order to supposedly get the players off.

Conveniently this rogue operators strategy and blaming support staff also meant the EFC president, board and CEO also avoided all scrutiny.

Removing records wasn’t just to try get players off, it was to protect his own hide. As he was 100% on board with what was occurring, the offer from the AOD manufacturer - metabolic pharmaceuticals - to invest in their company indicated as much.

Evans had to put himself at risk if he didn’t back the AFLs narrative, but he didn’t. He did exactly as they wanted which resulted in stitching up Hird in the process and inevitably costing the players given their rights were abrogated by the joint investigation that Evans allowed to happen.

I personally have no doubt whatsoever either Evans or Robson were responsible for removing much of the paper records, and the AFL through Deloitte removing the majority of data records & only giving ASADA minimal information.

AFL then welcomed ASADA in knowing/hoping they wouldn’t have the records to prove the players were administered banned substances, but AFL still got to penalise the club as if they had of.

But had Evans had a spine and put his own balls on the line for the club at the start and told Demetriou to jam his rogue operator narrative (which he knew full well wasn’t the case) and listened to Hird things would have been very different.

All the key parties who knew there were records and/or knew it wasn’t a rogue operator situation except Dank has been looked after by the AFL.

Evans - completely protected.
Robson - allowed free path to CEO of Melb Victory
Hamilton - now working directly for the AFL
Robinson - $1mil payout (after trying to subpoena AFL execs & Lukin) & job at AFL partner KPMG
Lukin - now working directly for the AFL

17 Likes

Sorry stir fry, that doesn’t make sense. If EFC had no need to destroy the Thymomodulin invoices, what happened to them?
Go back to the weekend preceding the announcement. Evans admits he spends the whole weekend down at the club doing what? What was the information he received that compelled him to check things out. It was early Feb 2013- Evans doesn’t know thymomofulin will bring us down but he is concerned about something smelly at the club. Very plausible that certain documents or records were put aside for safe keeping until it all gets settled after the self report goes through and all the other deals are done and dusted. ASADA spoils the party, records don’t materialise.
The audit trail and the provenance of the invoices gets very murky if you throw in Charters, Dank and his business on the side. Dank might value freedom above financial gain.

1 Like

A very plausible theory Speedy and no one could argue re ‘the jobs for the boys’ as it is fact…

1 Like

Exactly. And all the accounts we are reading are from people that were there. Chips book is full of accounts from people that were there. The court cases are full of accounts from people that were there
Another part of writing history is the analysis of those accounts, given that quite often eye witness accounts of events can be diametrically opposed to each other. Combine that with the fact that we only remember our last memory of an event and you can see that the version of someone who was there isn’t necessarily the most accurate version.
Neither is it the most complete version. Every version of a person who was there is coloured firstly by their own prejudices and secondly by what they were there for, and when and where they were.
History isn’t what happened, it’s what people remember happening, as well as an analysis of all the versions of what people remember happening.
Look at any historical event and you will see there are a multitude of versions and each one is just as valid as any other.
My mothers version of World War II wasn’t any less valid than my fathers becasue she wasn’t in New Guinea. She had letters from my father every day, as well as all the other sources available at the time including other eye witness accounts and reports from eye witnesses in the daily media.
She had a much wider perspective tha did my father.
One of my first history assignments was the conquest of Mexico. Read four eyewitness accounts and write what happened. I read the first two and thought, this is fairly straightforward. Read the next two and realised that they said completely the opposite. Eye witnes accounts.
So don’t accuse me of hypocrisy and don’t tell me about reading and writing history. My undergraduate degree is in exactly that.
I read, I listen, I analyse. And I am always prepared to change my mind when new information comes to light.
So far there has been none from the likes of David Evans. He is more than welcome to put forward his eye witness version of events. I look forward to hearing it.

13 Likes

We are forgetting that if Evans refused to have a joint investigation players would have been cleared As under ASADAs legislation at the time player’s could remain silent. ASADA only charged players pn the basis of reveiving injections at their interviews.

Evans sold the players to the devil.

20 Likes

Dont always agree with you Wimm, life would be boring if I did, however in my opinion you are spot on here.

1 Like

Dyson and Belcho might join him.

New information continually comes to light, but as it doesn’t fit your narrative you ignore it or make light of it. You’ve chosen your position on Evans, that much is very clear, which of course you have every right to do. But please, don’t dress it up as some intellectual analysis. I stand by the word hipocracy, one of my degrees is in English, and in this case it’s spot on.

1 Like