Well said CJ. I want to read it again, but haven’t had the time yet. Hopefully over the weekend.
Thanks CJ. With yours and Scorpio’s review, maybe I will order the book to read for myself.
Finished late last night Chip’s book and it certainly gives you a roller coaster of emotions
Key observations
Much of Chip’s story at what happened at Essendon is through Doc Reid’s eyes which is often back up by Hird’s discussion with ASADA or interviews with Corcoran and Bomber. So if this story outlined by Chip is not believed you would have to have to pretty much agree that all these four are liars and covering themselves and putting it all on Dank, Robson and in some degree Evans - to a lesser extent also Hamilton and Robson. So I ask myself do I believe the character of Hird and Doc Reid who are the key story tellers. For me and what I know of them…absolutely!!! The passion Reid is telling the story is not a made up tale…it’s a man still frustrated and hurt at what happened in 2012 and 2013.
Dank and Robinson: Yesterday after just reading half the book by 4pm I was incredibly angry. The manner in which these clowns thought they were king of the world when it came to sports science/fitness and the contempt they saw Reid as an old guy who lacks boldness to openly view new techniques and science is incredible. Both pretty much have a view of constructing ways of getting around Reid to get the outcome they want. However not asking the doctor on how players should be treated was a critical error as you had examples of players being ill after injections due to ongoing health issues only Doc Reid new of…(Gumby back issues and another anonymous who got ill were some examples). To have a situation where players go to Reid sick and he has no idea why and they explain that Dank injected them and advised Reid was ok with it horrified the Doc…obviously he new nothing of the sort… As you read example after example of what they did without anyone in the club knowing it really is deplorable…no other way of looking at it…it’s backed up to by player accounts interviewed with ASADA. The red flags however that were presented to Hamilton once brought to attention by Hird, Corcoran and Reid and the lack of courage to take action also just as frustrating. This is where I also see Reid, Bomber, Corcoran and Hirds main failing and have already verbally said this on occasions. They should of acted further once they brought issue correctly to Hamilton and he didn’t carry it through. They naturally assumed Hamilton would bring this up to Robson and eventually Evans but that didn’t seem to be the case. Hamilton believes he brought up issues with Robson but Ian says that didn’t happen…bit of a heresy moment. Dank was still however designated to be the gate keeper for products to be WADA approved and his sloppiness in this area is telling. I don’t believe we took illegal substances but it maybe due to luck rather than careful checking and processes. One interesting note was the one person who actually challenged Dank on use of Thymosin(Thymomodulin) was Jobe…he went to him and challenged on its status. Jobe comes out of this with almost the greatest credibility.
Hird: You only can shake your head at how tough this man is. Chip has a great line saying that some of the criticism on his stubbornness and toughness through this saga on him as coach is actually his likely strength as a future coach of Essendon. Hird was under-estimated by all parties on his convictions and strength. Was he naïve at times on trusting others…possibly and that’s expected as his first coaching gig. Hirds model is to trust others completely(very similar to his model at Gemba)…each person has a role and guidelines to adhere to and he expects people to carry them out and if any issues go to your direct reporting manager. He is there to coach the team to get better and do analysis on our performance and upcoming opposition teams during the week.
The anger by AFL on their favourite friend Evans being ignored by Hird was the catalyst of a campaign to punish Hird like no one ever has. It’s actually quite confronting the level of anger AFL displays and to this day it’s crazy that some AFL key staff are actually still employed with the evidence already put forth. Even late in 2014 Fitzpatrick sees Hird and asks “why haven’t you stood down yet?” Hird replies “because we didn’t cheat” Hird believes strongly no one set out to cheat(including Dank and Robinson) and no one actually did. it’s this conviction that lets no one make him think otherwise as he feels strongly he knows the truth. Evidence shows that Dank and Robinson likely never wanted to cheat but were more incompetent and lazy in how they went about their business. With no real records it’s then hard to know what players took even though the club knows the high probability considering their outlined program.
Reid: By the end you just want to hug the guy. Heart breaks for him and front and centre of this story is his love for the players and their health and well being. This is what still angers him today on what could of happened to his boys. Personally I have grown to like the guy even more and more than happy he is our club doctor. Some great moments in the book of him taking on the AFL:)
Corcoran: I have some sympathy for Corcoran as his wife through this was terminally ill and passed away during the ordeal. He acknowledges his mind was not focused due to wife and I think hearing his story you cant really blame him for that. He was the first to take the AFL punishment as he felt he deserved it which shows some real credibility to me even though I feel he is blaming himself a bit too much. What was interesting is that he recommended we don’t hire Dank as he met him a year earlier and was not impressed. He was overruled and Dank was hired by Hamilton and Robson with strong recommendation by Robinson.
Bomber: I got the feeling he was a bit all over the place through the ordeal. Ziggy report I thought was damning as it stated Hird as a first year coach had very little support or management to help him. Considering Bombers role as mentor I thought that spoke some volumes. Bomber though did try and stop Robinson and Dank a few times forcefully and you cant see how he could been charged by the AFL.
Evans: Feb 2013 - Two sides to choose and whatever he picks he loses one close relationship for good. He chose Demetriou…this was the catalyst to almost everything being a long drawn out mess.
It’s a hard book to read and there’s lots I am not putting in about investigation and ASADA. There’s so much in this book you could write for days. Definitely a good book to read and I wonder like me you come out think…what an amazing group of players we have at Essendon. Their unbelievable loyalty should not be played down after reading this…it is huge and it’s a big part on why our club is surviving. No one comes out a winner from this. It’s a sad tale that needs to end as there is only one result that can come from the WADA appeal…and it’s Not Guilty…strangely I think WADA know this but the anti-doping message is the last of what they want to convey through this appeal
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
If you are charged by the police and a judge agrees you can be locked up until your case is heard and the result given. So in law you can also be “provisionally suspended” until proven innocent.
Were that pertinent to this scenario, we’d have to assume the players were either a flight risk or a further danger to society. Even then, criminals may be able to post bail and go free depending on what’s decided.
Which is probably how they get the majority of their wins especially when the evidence isn't clear cut. People either give up and just take the smaller punishment deal or they cave and get the maximum because they cant financially afford to fight it. Either way it isn't a good look for asada or wada.(Ings) Nice line from Richard Redman regarding the evidence ASADA has in the Cronulla matters.
So who was advising the NRL players who ended up taking the deal?
Redman. Sounds like he advised them not to but …
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
If you are charged by the police and a judge agrees you can be locked up until your case is heard and the result given. So in law you can also be “provisionally suspended” until proven innocent.
Mainly because you’d be a flight risk, at risk of re-offending or tampering with evidence/witnesses.
So the provisional suspension stops them from taking more drugz and snuffing out Charters’ bunny?
Or is it based on some bullshit dogma about sport must be clean at all times and therefore you must not compete while there’s even the slightest chance you’re guilty because you would damage the purity of sport which is just about the only pure thing on earth we have left if you ignore the crooked men that run just about every one of them.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
If you are charged by the police and a judge agrees you can be locked up until your case is heard and the result given. So in law you can also be “provisionally suspended” until proven innocent.
If you are potentially a danger in society…
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
If you are charged by the police and a judge agrees you can be locked up until your case is heard and the result given. So in law you can also be “provisionally suspended” until proven innocent.
I think that would be when you have a doping equivalent of a positive test.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
If you are charged by the police and a judge agrees you can be locked up until your case is heard and the result given. So in law you can also be “provisionally suspended” until proven innocent.
aren’t there some check the evidence and see if it stacks up steps along the way in that situation?
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?Because NRL would issue infraction notices. Then players would be unable to play until after the tribunal players.
The NRL were only interested in current NRL players. The non NRL players appear to havensure escaped sanction.
This ‘provisionally suspended’ bit seems to be a big weakness in the process in regards to natural justice. It’s like being guilty until proven innocent, and results in the law being used as a weapon against the players.
Another stupid anti-doping rule (is there any other kind?) made for a positive drug test with no logical thought to how it applies to any other scenario.
If you are charged by the police and a judge agrees you can be locked up until your case is heard and the result given. So in law you can also be “provisionally suspended” until proven innocent.
If the players win their appeal and then WADA re appeal, and win, can the players then re re -appeal and if they win can WADA then re re re appeal, making way for the players to re re re appeal opening up the prospect of WADA re re re re re appealing. Or somewhere in this mess is there a law preventing a re re re re re appeal? What a mess!
Can’t quite put my finger on it, but something about that sounds very appealing.
How could WADA appeal if the Swiss Court finds that they originally had no right to appeal in the first place?WADA always had a right to appeal but 34 are arguing only on the grounds of an error of law or procedure in the AFL tribunal hearing rather than a re-hearing of the case.
So if 34 win, WADA can try their luck within that “error of law” framework, which is much more difficult task for them.
At a guess if players won the Swiss court appeal then WADA would do as they were meant to before the de novo change came in and appeal the AFL tribunal decision against an error of law.
One might hope they just fark off but you just know they won’t. From the day ASADA had the EFC served up on a player by the AFL I think WADA has seen this as their opportunity to make an example of a sports team.
The AFL tribunal finding was very very carefully written however such to be appeal proof hence it took so long IIRC from one posters comments.
And we still will have plenty going on in the background in interim with complaint to Ombudsman, Danks legal challenges, The senate enquiry likely to be initiated etc.
By the time WADA got to re-appeal case they may have nothing to move forward with nor any ability to if government / AFL chooses to move away from the code which surely has to be getting serious consideration right now.
At a guess if players won the Swiss court appeal then WADA would do as they were meant to before the de novo change came in and appeal the AFL tribunal decision against a rule of law.One might hope they just fark off but you just know they won’t. From the day ASADA had the EFC served up on a player by the AFL I think WADA has seen this as their opportunity to make an example of a sports team.
The AFL tribunal finding was very very carefully written however such to be appeal proof hence it took so long IIRC from one posters comments.
And we still will have plenty going on in the background in interim with complaint to Ombudsman, Danks legal challenges, The senate enquiry likely to be initiated etc.
By the time WADA got to re-appeal case they may have nothing to move forward with nor any ability to if government / AFL chooses to move away from the code.
I don’t reckon they’d go around again, firstly because they’d be hard pressed to find an error in law, … but mainly because they’ve made their point well & truly without getting a full conviction in the end.
They’ve shown the power they have to destroy your life & cost you a fortune if you don’t just say yes sir … 3 bags full sir, should you be unlucky enough to have them suspect, & then say you took a banned substance, without any proof.
If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?because most of them were poor kids with a once in a lifetime shot to earn a comfortable life if they’re allowed to play professional football for the next few years and that was going to be taken away from them if they didn’t admit to doing something they never intentionally did?
A few of the end of their career big names probably signed because it wouldn’t hurt them so much and the poor kids didn’t get the deal if big names weren’t in the press taking the deal.
maybe some players even took the deal because they knowingly cheated. I guess we’ll never know because of all the justice.
and they had ■■■■ all money
Still no positive tests. If TB4 was administered they would have been able to get it in the tests. Am I out of line in saying that fark all this speculation, if there are no positive tests then all that probably, maybe bull crap doesn't have any weight?
.
Ask the players how they feel. Ask Hird how he feels. I'm sorry I disagree with you.I found the CHIP extracts fascinating.In particular, I found these paragraphs interesting:
Evans hears the drums as well. Three days before the meeting at Evans’ house, the club chairman arrives unannounced on the doorstep of Dr Bruce Reid. Evans asks outright, “Do you reckon we have taken prohibited substances?” Reid is taken aback. He doesn’t know where this has come from. “No, I don’t,” he says. Evans presses further. “Can you guarantee it?” The doctor pauses to think, too long for Evans’ comfort. “No, I can’t guarantee it.” Evans’ face falls. It is not the answer he wants.Two things trouble him about what Reid tells him next. The first is Reid’s discomfort with what went on at Windy Hill the previous season. Reid is the club’s senior medical officer. The treatment of players is his responsibility. Yet he is telling Evans about practices he didn’t condone, injections he didn’t authorise. It is the first time Evans is hearing any of this. The second is Reid’s description of a letter he wrote the previous summer, setting out his concerns about substances that Stephen Dank was giving players – a letter Evans has neither seen nor previously been told about. While the friends talk, Reid searches for the letter but cannot find it.
As Evans is driving back home, Reid calls. He has found the letter and reads it over the phone: “I have some fundamental problems being club doctor at present. This particularly applies to our administration of supplements.” As Reid continues reading Evans does well to keep his car on the road. “It is my belief in the AFL that we should be winning flags by keeping a drug-free culture … I think we are playing at the edge.” Reid is pleased to have found the letter. Once it is read to him, Evans knows it is far from good news. Whatever Essendon is caught up in, it is too big for the football club to deal with alone. Over coming days he makes a decision. He will go to the AFL.
For quite a while I have had a problem with the groupthink on here that Evans betrayed the Club, particularly in respect of the decision to “self-report”. That he should have backed his staff who were saying that we didn’t have a problem.
I’ve never been of that view and think that under the circumstances, he made the decision that the vast majority of senior administrators would have made.
The quotes above support the following:
- Evans is told by Vlad that we took prohibited substances (PES);
- When Evans asks Reid if we have taken PES, he states that he can’t guarantee that we haven’t (the lack of guarantee is particularly significant given that Reid had overall oversight of the program; and
- Reid shows Evans the letter he wrote 12 months earlier raising concerns about the program, including the statement that we were ‘playing at the edge’.
Now - I agree that in hindsight self reporting wasn’t the right call, but as an administrator, if you were confronted with the scenario that Evans was confronted with, you would pretty safely assume that there was a pretty good chance we had a problem. Yes, its true that Hird said we were fine, but, as we’ve argued here countless times, he wasn’t responsible for the program in its totality so from Evans’ perspective, Hird’s view on the matter would have been worth a lot less than Reid’s.
The bashing of Evans on here needs to stop. He made the only decision he could have at the start - its unfortunate and proved to be fatal in the end but thats what the circumstances demanded at the time.
i agree
Evans didn’t have bad intentions when he was in change he just did the best he could under the circumstances
Evans may have made the wrong decisions but that doesn’t mean he didn’t care
I found the CHIP extracts fascinating.In particular, I found these paragraphs interesting:
Evans hears the drums as well. Three days before the meeting at Evans’ house, the club chairman arrives unannounced on the doorstep of Dr Bruce Reid. Evans asks outright, “Do you reckon we have taken prohibited substances?” Reid is taken aback. He doesn’t know where this has come from. “No, I don’t,” he says. Evans presses further. “Can you guarantee it?” The doctor pauses to think, too long for Evans’ comfort. “No, I can’t guarantee it.” Evans’ face falls. It is not the answer he wants.Two things trouble him about what Reid tells him next. The first is Reid’s discomfort with what went on at Windy Hill the previous season. Reid is the club’s senior medical officer. The treatment of players is his responsibility. Yet he is telling Evans about practices he didn’t condone, injections he didn’t authorise. It is the first time Evans is hearing any of this. The second is Reid’s description of a letter he wrote the previous summer, setting out his concerns about substances that Stephen Dank was giving players – a letter Evans has neither seen nor previously been told about. While the friends talk, Reid searches for the letter but cannot find it.
As Evans is driving back home, Reid calls. He has found the letter and reads it over the phone: “I have some fundamental problems being club doctor at present. This particularly applies to our administration of supplements.” As Reid continues reading Evans does well to keep his car on the road. “It is my belief in the AFL that we should be winning flags by keeping a drug-free culture … I think we are playing at the edge.” Reid is pleased to have found the letter. Once it is read to him, Evans knows it is far from good news. Whatever Essendon is caught up in, it is too big for the football club to deal with alone. Over coming days he makes a decision. He will go to the AFL.
For quite a while I have had a problem with the groupthink on here that Evans betrayed the Club, particularly in respect of the decision to “self-report”. That he should have backed his staff who were saying that we didn’t have a problem.
I’ve never been of that view and think that under the circumstances, he made the decision that the vast majority of senior administrators would have made.
The quotes above support the following:
- Evans is told by Vlad that we took prohibited substances (PES);
- When Evans asks Reid if we have taken PES, he states that he can’t guarantee that we haven’t (the lack of guarantee is particularly significant given that Reid had overall oversight of the program; and
- Reid shows Evans the letter he wrote 12 months earlier raising concerns about the program, including the statement that we were ‘playing at the edge’.
Now - I agree that in hindsight self reporting wasn’t the right call, but as an administrator, if you were confronted with the scenario that Evans was confronted with, you would pretty safely assume that there was a pretty good chance we had a problem. Yes, its true that Hird said we were fine, but, as we’ve argued here countless times, he wasn’t responsible for the program in its totality so from Evans’ perspective, Hird’s view on the matter would have been worth a lot less than Reid’s.
The bashing of Evans on here needs to stop. He made the only decision he could have at the start - its unfortunate and proved to be fatal in the end but thats what the circumstances demanded at the time.
i agree
Evans didn’t have bad intentions when he was in change he just did the best he could under the circumstances
Evans may have made the wrong decisions but that doesn’t mean he didn’t care
Maybe kep reading on Evans as book goes on
“6.9K new”
rolf. or whatever you kids do.