What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Organised crime and drugs in sport investigation part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

BrisVegas

Juniors
Messages
892
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3814522.htm

Cullen: Sharks' board displayed poor governance

Martin Cuddihy reported this story on Tuesday, July 30, 2013


MARK COLVIN: The Cronulla Sharks rugby league club is again without a chief executive after Bruno Cullen decided to walk away yesterday.

The NRL appointed Mr Cullen to run the club but he resigned when the Cronulla board made decisions without consulting him.

Trainer Mark Noakes, doctor David Givney, football manager Darren Mooney and physiotherapist Konrad Schultz were all sacked for not informing the Cronulla board about potential problems with the Sharks' supplements program.

But the club's board has reappointed them.

The departing chief executive Bruno Cullen spoke to Martin Cuddihy.

BRUNO CULLEN: Unfortunately, I just felt as though I wasn't being given the courtesy or the confidence of the board in regards to this particular item of the reinstatement. I came here four months ago and read the full reports and the legal advice given to the previous board about why they terminated these guys. I wasn't part of that decision-making process. That was done prior to me coming here.

But unfortunately, for whatever reason, the board now didn't advise me, the company secretary, or the chief operating officer of their advice and the reasons, if you like, why they'd taken the decisions they've taken.

So that's poor governance, it's a lack of confidence I think, in the CEO, and I just thought that it was probably time to move on.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: So that poor governance, that's the reason why you quite the club?

BRUNO CULLEN: Well yes, on top of the fact that I'd given my opinion and my advice, and the readings that I had already undertaken with regard to the original decision was that the board should at least wait until the ASADA investigation's completed before they made any decisions in that regard.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: So do you think the board has acted recklessly in this instance?

BRUNO CULLEN: I wouldn't say recklessly. See, the thing is, one of the things I can't do is comment on the decision that they've made, whether it's a good or bad one, because they haven't, as I said, I haven't been given the courtesy of the information that helped them make that decision, which is as I said very, very strange.

We, as operators, the CEO and particularly the company secretary, have to make sure everything's legal and above board and everything's recorded and etc.

We haven't been privilege to any of that, so we can't really comment whether it's reckless, whether it's good, whether it's bad, or otherwise, because we just simply don't know why they made the decision.


MARTIN CUDDIHY: The actions of the board, does that leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth though, the fact that they didn't actually consult you and just decided to take this action without consulting you at all?

BRUNO CULLEN: Yeah, well that's the whole crux of it, and that's what I can't understand. It's obvious, now, they were a pretty much aware of how I thought because I'd expressed my views to them very early in their new tenure, when we talked about things that had happened in the past and historically.

And as I said, I'd been privileged under confidence sign off to all of the documentation, including the company report and all the ASADA investigations and both legal and QC - I know QC's legal, but - both legal recommendations and QC endorsement of those recommendations.

So I was very much aware of all of what happened prior to and subsequent to the dismissal of these people, and I was able to advise them of that, and I was pretty passionate about that I suppose, about, you know, we should really let this thing play out, the ASADA investigation, because who knows? If ASADA come back and say whatever, this current board might actually be made to look a little bit foolish if they've jumped the gun, so to speak.


MARTIN CUDDIHY: What about the ASADA investigation? Where is that up to with Cronulla at the moment?

BRUNO CULLEN: We've locked in all of the - they've started the interview process again, and remembering that ASADA did call off the process, Cronulla didn't.

So they called off the process some time ago now, but they've now asked for it to be reinstated. We've fully cooperated with that and the players have all locked in their interviews commencing next week.

MARTIN CUDDIHY: What's the atmosphere like at Cronulla now? Is there, for want of a better way of describing it, a cloud hanging over the club?

BRUNO CULLEN: Well, there's a mixture of course of emotions and situations, both operationally and perceived.

I mean, from an operational sense, both the leagues club and the footy club have suffered dramatically through loss of revenue, through branding and all the like. So they are struggling financially because they're probably down - there have been costs associated with all of this so far to the tune of around half a million dollars, but there's also been a lack of support in a corporate sponsorship regard, and that's anywhere between $2-3 million.

So the club really is suffering financially because of it all.

MARK COLVIN: Former Cronulla Sharks CEO Bruno Cullen speaking to Martin Cuddihy.
 

madunit

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
62,358
You know something is getting pretty bad for an AFL side when the Vic media start digging around to find out more.

Essendon has denied an allegation controversial sports scientist Stephen Dank was recruited to run a supplement program described as "black ops".

Former high performance manager Dean Robinson, who quit the club on the weekend, said in a Channel Seven interview to be aired tonight that he was present when Dank was interviewed for the Essendon sports scientist position.

Robinson, who was stood down by the club amid investigations in February, said coach James Hird and head of football Danny Corcoran were present when Dank questioned whether he was being asked to conduct "black ops".

"They put a scenario to Steve and Steve said to Danny and James, specifically, 'what you're asking me to do is black ops'," Robinson said.

"I was sitting in the room."

'Nonsense and slanderous'

The Bombers released a statement on Tuesday evening dismissing Robinson's claim, asserting Hird always maintained any supplement program used by the club must be legal.

"James Hird emphasised that the 2012 supplements program run by Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson must be legal according to WADA and the AFL, must be approved by the club doctor, must be given with the consent of the player and must not harm the player," the statement read.

"Contrary to reports, James Hird and Danny Corcoran never said the programme should be run as a 'black op'. This is nonsense and categorically rejected by the club.

"This assertion is slanderous."

The ASADA and AFL joint investigation into the club's supplement program last year is expected to be finalised next week. The AFL has declined to comment on the allegation made by Robinson.

In the Channel Seeven interview an emotional Robinson reveals the impact his treatment by Essendon has had on him.

"I'm in tears, I'm shaking. And the worst thing is - sorry (pause, emotional) worst thing is walking in and seeing my kids and realising that everything I've worked for, everything that I tried to do for my family, Essendon is targeting me."

Meanwhile, the ABC's 7.30 program has accessed a series of text messages between Hird and Dank allegedly revealing the Essendon coach was a central figure in the creation of the club's supplements program.

It has been alleged Hird hosted a meeting at his house in 2011 where he instructed Dank to concentrate on a program that would help the Bombers match the physical development of their rivals.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...resh-allegation-about-2012-supplement/4854328
 

Red Bear

Referee
Messages
20,882
Can we all just take a minute to appreciate how terrible a journalist Phil Rothfield really is?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l-the-off-season/story-fni3fh9n-1226687814598

:lol:
:crazy: oh my.
Surely the Dogs (and Melbourne) examples show that the right thing to do is what is best for the integrity of the game overall, regardless of the damaging short-term consequences.

What a moron.

This is the part that gets you about the Gordon story:
"he was also given a vial with the label ''for equine use only'' and ''not for human consumption'' to be taken orally each morning and night."

FFS
if you are given something that says for horses only why the f**k would you take it and then try for compensation later when surprise surprise the horse drugs may have been harmful to you?
If you have a substance 'for horses only' why the hell are you giving it to your players?

Will be interesting to see how this all pans out tbh.
 
Messages
4,980
:crazy: oh my.
Surely the Dogs (and Melbourne) examples show that the right thing to do is what is best for the integrity of the game overall, regardless of the damaging short-term consequences.

What a moron.

If you have a substance 'for horses only' why the hell are you giving it to your players?

Will be interesting to see how this all pans out tbh.

Maybe he just has a really large c**k? I'm sure BunniesMan would be able to clarify for you.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Messages
4,980

"All six bottles contained the same substance or same formulation, and only the labels differed".

And one was for "equine use only". So if they were all the same product, doesn't that automatically make all of them "for equine use only", even if not specifically marked as such and some body builders use it to get huuuuuge?

On another note, it seems like things are unravelling over at Essendon. No letter from ASADA confirming the legality of AOD9604, instead:

"The spokesman said the club had instead relied on an email sent to its former sports scientist Stephen Dank by the company that developed the drug and which ''specially references that AOD9604 is not a banned substance by any drug-testing authority''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dons-told-drug-was-not-legal-20130730-2qxqq.html#ixzz2abazVUjy


So they effectively believed a sales pitch from the manufacturer. I wonder who is going to take the Bombers spot in the AFL finals this year?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top