Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
replicant said:
Don't they already have his statement on record, and supposedly have texts and emails between him, Alavi and Dank, as well as files form the drug manufacturer?

I mean, sure, an affadavit would be good, but in it's absence, surely that evidence doesn't become invalid does it?
Click to expand...
his evidence doesn't become invalid, as such, but put it this way: if he's not even willing to so much as sign a stat dec to affirm it when requested by ASADA, how is that going to look to a tribunal? Opposition silks will have a field day with that. They will tear it to shreds. And that's not even getting started on where there might be perceived holes that testimony could cover off.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lance Uppercut said:
well who is to argue with the great court of public opinion eh?

Certainly not me. The amount of ****s I give regarding what you or others think hovers somewhere south of zero. We have a robust legal system, and if ASADAs case is good enough they'll get it up, if not they won't
Click to expand...
Am I sensing a little excitement from you that Charter won't testify?
 
Echols said:
Am I sensing a little excitement from you that Charter won't testify?
Click to expand...
not at all. I hope he does. I want all the evidence tested.

I just don't think he will. From the day he got issued criminal charges for a similar issue the possibility that he would went out the window.
 
coryne said:
Unless if one of the substances in the "Mexican cocktail" (along with other things like various amino acids etc) was TB4.
Click to expand...
SCN against players talk about players receiving injection from Dank in his office, so it can't be the Mexican cocktail that was administered by the dodgy chiropractor at Hypermed.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
there's no doubt that's why they want a closed hearing. And that's fair enough IMO.

But even if it's closed, it all comes back to that one word: why?

Why on earth would he?
Click to expand...
ASADA want a closed hearing because of confidentiality for the players, not because they don't have diddly evidence. You seriously believe they've got nothing? Who wrote the Australian article ? Old Mate Chip would be my guess.
 
jenny61_99 said:
ASADA want a closed hearing because of confidentiality for the players, not because they don't have diddly evidence. You seriously believe they've got nothing? Who wrote the Australian article ? Old Mate Chip would be my guess.
Click to expand...
what is wrong with your comprehension skills lately?

How in gods name did you imply that I think confidentiality is wanted because they have no evidence? wtf is up with you lately?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
what is wrong with your comprehension skills lately?

How in gods name did you imply that I think confidentiality is wanted because they have no evidence? wtf is up with you lately?
Click to expand...

ASAGA fatigue.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
what is wrong with your comprehension skills lately?

How in gods name did you imply that I think confidentiality is wanted because they have no evidence? wtf is up with you lately?
Click to expand...

Keyser Soze said: Without him their case gets a whole lot harder to prove I would've thought and it was never a slam dunk with his evidence. It also might explain why ASADA want a closed hearing as it might help encourage him to appear.
To which you replied: there's no doubt that's why they want a closed hearing.

What part did I get wrong? o_O

Never mind... I read the first part.. not the second. :drunk: Sorry Lance... fatigue does that to ya.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
his evidence doesn't become invalid, as such, but put it this way: if he's not even willing to so much as sign a stat dec to affirm it when requested by ASADA, how is that going to look to a tribunal? Opposition silks will have a field day with that. They will tear it to shreds. And that's not even getting started on where there might be perceived holes that testimony could cover off.
Click to expand...
That's only true if he's not testifying because he no longer believes the evidence he gave, i.e. he lied.

Now he could lie in two ways:
1. He could have lied about bad stuff going to Essendon, and now won't confirm.
2. He may have told lies about his involvement, trying to cover-up. Given the evidence from the Chinese supplier, he might now have been caught out in a cover-up of his involvement. In which case he would never sign a stat dec, because he knows he'd be in legal trouble.

Given that his lawyer is advising him not to sign the stat-dec, my internal cynic says option 2 is more likely, i.e. he could be in trouble if he sings the stat-dec and it's lies and ASADA know it. (But i'm speculating, as always).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jenny61_99 said:
Keyser Soze said: Without him their case gets a whole lot harder to prove I would've thought and it was never a slam dunk with his evidence. It also might explain why ASADA want a closed hearing as it might help encourage him to appear.
To which you replied: there's no doubt that's why they want a closed hearing.

What part did I get wrong? o_O

Never mind... I read the first part.. not the second. :drunk: Sorry Lance... fatigue does that to ya.
Click to expand...
thank christ for that!
 
Lance Uppercut said:
his evidence doesn't become invalid, as such, but put it this way: if he's not even willing to so much as sign a stat dec to affirm it when requested by ASADA, how is that going to look to a tribunal? Opposition silks will have a field day with that. They will tear it to shreds. And that's not even getting started on where there might be perceived holes that testimony could cover off.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not sure how it would look to the tribunal - things may be a little more relaxed at the tribunal than in a normal court.

Can anyone explain how much latitude legal representatives have when questioning evidence before the tribunal?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
jenny61_99 said:
ASADA want a closed hearing because of confidentiality for the players, not because they don't have diddly evidence. You seriously believe they've got nothing? Who wrote the Australian article ? Old Mate Chip would be my guess.
Click to expand...


Chip not so Grand :cool: gets all his good info from the Hird PR Machine


:cool:One very simple question any Bombers supporters should be asking themselves.

If it the drugs taken were not performance enhancing why take it.

If Dank had all the information why not simply produce it .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top