What I don't understand about the idea of "ASADA have to undeniably prove that each player attempted to take banned drugs" is this:
I'm charged with a crime. I go to court for the case to be heard. The case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I reckon I'm completely innocent so I don't even provide a defence. How do you see that going for me?
The idea that EFC players won't have to mount a defence and the onus is 100% on ASADA is laughable.
I think there are a couple of accounts on here that are consistently bringing up misleading 'facts' to somehow raise the bar in this case.
Comfortable satisfaction does not mean that ASADA must prove that each and every player had a banned a drug enter their veins. ASADA has to be able to demonstrate that it is 'more than likely' that the players were given a banned substance. Having a supply trail from the original supplier, through the importer to the compounding chemist and then onto a sports scientist at the Essendon goes a long way to achieving this. Being able to demonstrate that the players have signed documentation stating they are agreeing to being injected with Thymosin and there is no viable alternative form of Thymosin to TB4 adds to the strength of the case. Details like injection schedules and admissions made by players in their interviews provide corroborative support to the evidence previously dicsussed.
What it will come down to is the panel looking at the evidence that we know of and the evidence that we don't yet know and making certain decisions.
1. Was there TB4 at Essendon? There probably was
2. Was it supplied to the players? Again, it probably was.
Note, the answers were not "yes, it definitely was" to either question because the level of proof required isn't that rigorous.
I would suggest that to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction' ASADA may be able to show there was a supplements program that involved banned substances and that the 34 players were involved in that program will be sufficient.
Comfortable satisfaction is at the level of "it probably happened and in my opinion it did". All the talk of having to show for each individual that its was definitely injected and it definitely happened on such a date(s) and so many times etc is complete rubbish. The level of proof required is nowhere near that specific.
Thats not to say the defence cannot question the links in the chain but there are those on here who are completely exaggerating how robust the ASADA needs to be.