CAS verdict

[Grazz]

Hird answering the Audience questions after the ABC interview. I think the audience did a much better job.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/james-hird-answers-questions-from-the-audience/7096276

[j959]

Dank in the interview a few posts above said James knew exactly what the players were getting. Dank freely spoke of TB4 right up untilll he was told it was a banned substance under the WADA code. When contacted by the Age saying they were going to press with the story and interview he asked could there be no mention of TB4, when the Age so no to that he recanted TB4 and said it was Thymomodulin not TB4 and then he went underground for months, one would summise someone said hey idiot shut your mouth will you. Ever since then this has been the defence it was TB4 it was something else.

Well i'm sorry but Dank screwed up he believed TB4 was good to go and would be no issue for WADA but as we now know he was wrong. I believe everyone at Essendon believed this also, I think they honestly thought it was all good off the back of Danks knowledge and when he was proven to be wrong they were as gobsmacked as anyone.

How the Bombers proceeded to handle it after that was poor, deny deny deny. Maybe Dank had also told them Nuh it's ok ASADA told me it was all good, the get out of jail card he has never produced. His texts to Shane Charter saying TB4 is the corner stone of the Bombers supplements program is damning also. For me this is where the story starts and ends but nobody for the life of me would or could Dank to speak again about it. I don't understand how he gets to not have to answer to those statements, to anyone not the AFL not ASADA not the AFL Doping tribunal not WADA, why the hell not.

the way the legal trail is likely to go, I would assume he's going to have to answer in various compo claims from club/players against him at some stage ... :P

[Grazz]

Dank in the interview a few posts above said James knew exactly what the players were getting. Dank freely spoke of TB4 right up untilll he was told it was a banned substance under the WADA code. When contacted by the Age saying they were going to press with the story and interview he asked could there be no mention of TB4, when the Age so no to that he recanted TB4 and said it was Thymomodulin not TB4 and then he went underground for months, one would summise someone said hey idiot shut your mouth will you. Ever since then this has been the defence it was TB4 it was something else.

Well i'm sorry but Dank screwed up he believed TB4 was good to go and would be no issue for WADA but as we now know he was wrong. I believe everyone at Essendon believed this also, I think they honestly thought it was all good off the back of Danks knowledge and when he was proven to be wrong they were as gobsmacked as anyone.

How the Bombers proceeded to handle it after that was poor, deny deny deny. Maybe Dank had also told them Nuh it's ok ASADA told me it was all good, the get out of jail card he has never produced. His texts to Shane Charter saying TB4 is the corner stone of the Bombers supplements program is damning also. For me this is where the story starts and ends but nobody for the life of me would or could Dank to speak again about it. I don't understand how he gets to not have to answer to those statements, to anyone not the AFL not ASADA not the AFL Doping tribunal not WADA, why the hell not.

the way the legal trail is likely to go, I would assume he's going to have to answer in various compo claims from club/players against him at some stage ... :P

One can only hope  mate. I want to know but there's people in front of me like the players the parents families supporters etc etc then i'm some way down the line but like other AFL fans we deserve to know what went on also. He can't hide from legal action like he has with everybody else wanting to ask him questions surely can he, you would think not but I wouldn't want to be putting money on it after what iv'e seen over the last 3 years.

[Ricochet]

Hird answering the Audience questions after the ABC interview. I think the audience did a much better job.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/james-hird-answers-questions-from-the-audience/7096276

much much better mate. Again, makes me feel like Hird has been dragged through the mud a bit. Cannot understand why ABC didn't show this

[Ringo]

Hird answering the Audience questions after the ABC interview. I think the audience did a much better job.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/james-hird-answers-questions-from-the-audience/7096276

much much better mate. Again, makes me feel like Hird has been dragged through the mud a bit. Cannot understand why ABC didn't show this

I agree why did not the ABC show this section as well.  Quite some more interesting facts or otherwise here especially with only 21 of the 34 being tested positive.  Will have to relisten again.

[Barra13]

Thing is though, you don't need to test positive to be banned for doping.

[Capper]

They were told by Steven Dank that everything was compliant. What else could they have done?

That is absolute Bullshower James. They could have asked the team doctor for starters

[Capper]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

[Ricochet]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

I believe Hird answered that in the above Audience Q&A link man. I can't remember exactly what he said though sorry

[Capper]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

I believe Hird answered that in the above Audience Q&A link man. I can't remember exactly what he said though sorry

was it, will re watch it

[DazBurg]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

I believe Hird answered that in the above Audience Q&A link man. I can't remember exactly what he said though sorry

is it just me or is the audience a bit hard to hear?

i keep stopping from watching it as i listen fro about 30 seconds cannot hear and think i'll try again later

[Ricochet]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

I believe Hird answered that in the above Audience Q&A link man. I can't remember exactly what he said though sorry

is it just me or is the audience a bit hard to hear?

i keep stopping from watching it as i listen fro about 30 seconds cannot hear and think i'll try again later

Ha yeh and the person who sounds like they're dying doesn't help either

[Ringo]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

I believe Hird answered that in the above Audience Q&A link man. I can't remember exactly what he said though sorry

is it just me or is the audience a bit hard to hear?

i keep stopping from watching it as i listen fro about 30 seconds cannot hear and think i'll try again later

Ha yeh and the person who sounds like they're dying doesn't help either

It does improve as you get into it as they seem to get mics around those asking the question but the first 2 questions definitely hard to hear.

[DazBurg]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

I believe Hird answered that in the above Audience Q&A link man. I can't remember exactly what he said though sorry

is it just me or is the audience a bit hard to hear?

i keep stopping from watching it as i listen fro about 30 seconds cannot hear and think i'll try again later

Ha yeh and the person who sounds like they're dying doesn't help either

It does improve as you get into it as they seem to get mics around those asking the question but the first 2 questions definitely hard to hear.

it does improve

nice might have to re watch it then if it is a bit more revealing like you guys are saying

[GCSkiwi]

here is an interesting question.....

3. Why were Essendon players asked to sign consent forms before participating in the supplements program?

If the supplements program in place at Essendon in 2012 was legal and designed with the players’ long-term health in mind, why were they required to sign a consent form?

Furthermore, the consent form stated the program was WADA compliant, which has since been proven not to be the case.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/james-hird-interview-five-questions-former-essendon-coach-wasnt-asked-by-tracey-holmes/news-story/918172e762d448e8143712c36f9fa5c9

Haha I just read these and honestly I think that's the easiest one to answer... Essentially any injectable you'd want to get consent for if not being given by a doctor. Docs have their own liability insurance if something goes wrong, scientists extremely rarely have the same sort of cover. So it'd be fairly standard and reasonable to get an informed consent and probably also personal liability waiver so if someone had an adverse reaction they couldn't go after the individual without evidence of gross negligence. Sounds a bit sketchy but it's fairly standard practice I would have thought.