Quote Lockyer4President!="Lockyer4President!"There's no need for conspiracies. Flanagan was head coach and it happened under his watch. He might be a great guy but he's still responsible. If the Sharks were not a total joke and had a CEO during that period then he or she would be facing sanctions aswell.
Might seem harsh on Flanagan and Nulla now but just wait and see what WADA do to the AFL...'"
Call it what you want, but going on current facts in the public domain, taking Manly and Sharks in isolation with this issue, the way I see it;
Manly - Employed Dank for a whole season, but could prove they had governance procedures in place (However, as has been witnessed at Essendon, if the people in charge of the team and managing the governance procedures set up by the club were happy to hide 'unknown' substances that are being supplied, any governance procedures are irrelevant). There is no proof that any illegal substances were used.
Sharks - Employed Dank for 11 weeks, had no governance procedures in place. There is no proof that any illegal substances were used (though granted there are 2 individual players taking action against the club for injuries sustained due to the supplements programme).
So, the Sharks and Flanagan have been hammered for not having governance procedures in place 2 years ago. There is no proof any illegal substances were or were not taken during this time.
Based on the current facts, I disagree that Flanagan is responsible - if, as he claims, Elkin and Dank changed things without his knowledge/hid things from him, it should be they that are charged, and not Flanagan. Yes the club should have had governance procedures in place, but surely it's not the role of head coach to set these procedures up. For me, those culpable should be the people who hid/supplied the 'unknown' supplements, and the CEO/club for not setting up correct governance procedures (although the Sharks didn't have a CEO at this time). So, in the Sharks case, it's Elkin, Dank and whoever was running the club at the time - the problem is, the person who was running the club at the time is no longer around. It seems to me that the NRL are wanting to be seen to have punished Cronulla as a club (and rightfully so), but that they want an individual to take the blame, unfortunately, the ones who are to blame are no longer at the Sharks, so they've nailed Flanagan.
What I can't stomach is that the NRL are happy to nail Cronulla, but then take the word of Manly that their governance procedures were in place, so nothing was happening that shouldn't.