No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[Dan Cooper]

Actually, if it was TB4 then surely the text abbreviation would've been TB4? Would seem strange not to.

One thing for sure, ASADA have ended any chance of athlete cooperation in investigations in the future.

ASADA will be completely overhauled after this debacle is finally concluded. The government will have little choice.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Almost Doc Martin retweeted

Scooter @ScooterMcNeice · 16h16 hours ago
AFL tribunal asks ASADA to just get to the point where TB4 goes from Alavi to EFC so it can hear the important evidence. ASADA case rests


> ASADA can talk for as long as they like - looks like they will be for the first 3 days - but if they can't join all the dots their accusations won't amount to jack sh_t.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Richard Ings @ringsau · 46m46 minutes ago
@Brilateral Technically. Reality is tribunals want to be damn sure before they scrub athletes out when there is no +ve.

This is true and there was a case mentioned in The Age (one of the articles written by a lawyer as opposed to the usual hacks) that cited a case where a cyclist avoided conviction despite vials with a banned substance listed on the label being found in his hotel room. There were no traces of the substance left in the vial and the prosecution couldn't prove the vials had actually contained a banned substance. Presumably a similar level of proof would be needed here.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Chip Le Grand @Melbchief · 25m25 minutes ago
Let's be clear: most of the players didn't know one Thymosin from another. They signed up after being told it was permitted and safe.

 

[Dan Cooper]

This is true and there was a case mentioned in The Age (one of the articles written by a lawyer as opposed to the usual hacks) that cited a case where a cyclist avoided conviction despite vials with a banned substance listed on the label being found in his hotel room. There were no traces of the substance left in the vial and the prosecution couldn't prove the vials had actually contained a banned substance. Presumably a similar level of proof would be needed here.

They can split hairs all they want using fancy words to describe the level of satisfaction the tribunal need to be convinced to.

But the reality is if the 3 man judging panel are not convinced - and with only circumstantial evidence at their disposal ASADA will have to dot every i and cross every t of every part of what they are accusing the players of - ASADA's case will fail

 

[Old Campaigner]

They can split hairs all they want using fancy words to describe the level of satisfaction the tribunal need to be convinced to.

But the reality is if the 3 man judging panel are not convinced - and with only circumstantial evidence at their disposal ASADA will have to dot every i and cross every t - ASADA's case will fail

Yes. While the peanut gallery have been licking their lips at the thought of easy bans due to ASADA only needing to prove to the court's 'comfortable satisfaction', the reality is that the level of proof required to comfortably satisfy a court will be a lot closer to 'beyond reasonable doubt' than not due to the severity of the consequences.

Circumstantial evidence can be easily countered with circumstantial counter claims, and with Dank owning a couple of clinics selling TB4, Charter claiming to have imported thymomodulin, thymomodulin appearing on a spreadsheet at the club and whatever else has been dug up there should be plenty there to put doubt in a judge's mind.

 

[Smokin]

This is true and there was a case mentioned in The Age (one of the articles written by a lawyer as opposed to the usual hacks) that cited a case where a cyclist avoided conviction despite vials with a banned substance listed on the label being found in his hotel room. There were no traces of the substance left in the vial and the prosecution couldn't prove the vials had actually contained a banned substance. Presumably a similar level of proof would be needed here.

it was the mark French case - I read the CAS judgement.

Basically, what I took is that the court needs a 'finding of fact' that the drug was what it was.

No idea how you can do this without testing it?

 

[BrunoV]

Yes. While the peanut gallery have been licking their lips at the thought of easy bans due to ASADA only needing to prove to the court's 'comfortable satisfaction', the reality is that the level of proof required to comfortably satisfy a court will be a lot closer to 'beyond reasonable doubt' than not due to the severity of the consequences.

Circumstantial evidence can be easily countered with circumstantial counter claims, and with Dank owning a couple of clinics selling TB4, Charter claiming to have imported thymomodulin, thymomodulin appearing on a spreadsheet at the club and whatever else has been dug up there should be plenty there to put doubt in a judge's mind.

On a circumstantial case with doping infractions on the line I think that there would be little meaningful difference between the standards of beyond reasonable doubt and comfortable satisfaction.

The other thing everyone should remember is that ASADA needs to prove TB4 going into a syringe being injected into a player's stomach/arm/arse at a time on a specified date. It's an enormous burden on what has been made available to us (which presumably is the best parts of the case because if there was more it is likely to have been leaked to increase the pressure on players to deal).

 

[cymarak]

it was the mark French case - I read the CAS judgement.

Basically, what I took is that the court needs a 'finding of fact' that the drug was what it was.

No idea how you can do this without testing it?

That case was pre-ASADA and pre-AFL Anti-Doping Code wasn't it ?

Not sure if rules / principles / accepted standards have changed since then.

 

[Smokin]

That case was pre-ASADA and pre-AFL Anti-Doping Code wasn't it ?

Not sure if rules / principles / accepted standards have changed since then.

No idea really - but why would they change? Not sure it is ASADA or WADA's job to determine certain elements of the case - such as burden of proof.

The current 'comfortable satisfaction' is taken from the Briginshaw case in the 1930's isnt it? I would assume it is only the Court (CAS) to decide on which rules of evidence/standards of proof apply. Could WADA can overule this? ASADA simply apply the WADA code, so not sure how they can?

 

[Old Campaigner]

The WADA code simply operate within our existing legal framework. Just because its WADA doesn't mean rules of evidence fly out the window, the only reason they don't apply here is because the AFL tribunal doesn't need them for its normal week to week tasks. However the nature of the evidence is still taken into account.

 

[Smokin]

The WADA code simply operate within our existing legal framework. Just because its WADA doesn't mean rules of evidence fly out the window, the only reason they don't apply here is because the AFL tribunal doesn't need them for its normal week to week tasks. However the nature of the evidence is still taken into account.

I agree, and surely the AFL tribunal should be adopting the rules of evidence and legal frameworks/standards as the CAS - because that is ultimately whom an appeal will go to. If they dont, the whole exercise is a waste of time isnt it?

 

[Smokin]

Interesting reading here

In conclusion:

v conclusion
while Cas has stated that it is not bound by the rules of evidence, it
is required to examine and apply standards, burdens of proof and
presumptions. it is suggested that the manner in which this is done is
consistent with that of the common law, with the one minor departure
being the establishment of a clear third standard of proof, that of
comfortable satisfaction, which is defined as being between the two
common law standards. the standard of proof for the athlete is,however,
based upon the balance of probabilities, which Cas has defined as being
51 per cent.

Most of the cases heard by Cas rely on direct analytical, documentary
or testimonial evidence, which is again consistent with the common
law, though in blood profiling cases the analytical evidence is used in
an indirect way, that is, as circumstantial evidence. thus, while Cas is
not bound by the rules of evidence, it certainly operates in a way that
is little different to how a common law court operates in the admission
and use of evidence. it could also be argued that the success of Cas as
an international sports arbitration body indicates that it operates in a
manner consistent with both the civil and common law systems, and
perhaps provides evidence that the common law and civil systems have,
in recent times, become closer in how they operate.

On this, how do we reda the first bold point - the standard of proof for the ATHLETE is different?

 

[rumply]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...thymo-injections/story-fnca0u4y-1227157241236

ASADA alleges that Alavi told one of its investigators he believed the first batch of peptides was Thymosin Beta-4. This is at odds with what Alavi told The Australianearlier this year, when he said that because the peptide wasn’t tested, he didn’t know what form of Thymosin it was.

Pity they didn't get a sworn statement to that effect when he said that, isnt it...

According to Holmes’ outline, Alavi compounded the first batch of Thymosin into clear vials and the second batch into amber vials. A sample of the first batch was sent to a US lab for testing but no result was returned. The remainder of the first batch was provided to Dank.
The ASADA case outline does not make clear what happened to the second batch of Thymosin.

What does that actually mean 'no result was returned'? - the lab received & tested the sample but didn't receive payment for their services so never tested it or never forwarded the results? Surely the lab would still have a record of this exchange if it did indeed happen?

Anyone know how these type of lab's work with regard to payment?

 

[Walesy]

ASADA alleges that Alavi told one of its investigators he believed the first batch of peptides was Thymosin Beta-4. This is at odds with what Alavi told The Australianearlier this year, when he said that because the peptide wasn’t tested, he didn’t know what form of Thymosin it was.

Pity they didn't get a sworn statement to that effect when he said that, isnt it...

According to Holmes’ outline, Alavi compounded the first batch of Thymosin into clear vials and the second batch into amber vials. A sample of the first batch was sent to a US lab for testing but no result was returned. The remainder of the first batch was provided to Dank.
The ASADA case outline does not make clear what happened to the second batch of Thymosin.

What does that actually mean 'no result was returned'? - the lab received & tested the sample but didn't receive payment for their services so never tested it or never forwarded the results? Surely the lab would still have a record of this exchange if it did indeed happen?

Anyone know how these type of lab's work with regard to payment?

What's the bet that the results of the second batch is that it was tested and was thymomodulin and was delivered to the club.

Makes sense to leave that out.

 

[rumply]

What's the bet that the results of the second batch is that it was tested and was thymomodulin and was delivered to the club.

Makes sense to leave that out.

indeed

 

[kfc1]

Old article but seems to have been forgotten. thanks andrewb

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...case-on-aod-9604/story-fnca0u4y-1226634260355

A SERIES of emails between controversial sports scientist Stephen Dank and the World Anti-Doping Agency appear to demonstrate his reluctance to seek to deal with ASADA.

The emails were revealed last night on the ABC's 7.30 program and are an exchange between Dank and WADA's manager for research and prohibited listings, Irene Mazzoni.

In another exchange, Dank asked about three other substances - PFC thymomodulin, Thymex-L and Cerebrolyson.

"I want to confirm that the following products would be permissible for use in the therapeutic treatment of athletes," he wrote.

WADA's response: "Dear Steve. Please address your inquiry to ASADA as they would be in a better position to assess medications sold in Australia. WADA only provides information to federations and anti-doping organisations. This is why you must contact them directly."

 

[Dan Cooper]

What's the bet that the results of the second batch is that it was tested and was thymomodulin and was delivered to the club.

Makes sense to leave that out.

According to Charter ASADA like leaving things out.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Whatever happened to the finding of Hird's appeal? Is that said to be due pre-Christmas?

 

[Dan Cooper]

Almost Doc Martin @MartinHardieUni · 2h2 hours ago

ASADA's 3 witnesses are now only 2 ( and no one in ASADA or the Tribunal told me that)

 

[Walesy]

Old article but seems to have been forgotten. thanks andrewb

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...case-on-aod-9604/story-fnca0u4y-1226634260355

That is some quality track covering- asking about the non-banned substance to lay the ground work early for the cover.

 

[boncer34]

Almost Doc Martin @MartinHardieUni · 2h2 hours ago

ASADA's 3 witnesses are now only 2 ( and no one in ASADA or the Tribunal told me that)

I've asked for something less cryptic from him.

 

[MightyDon]

I've asked for something less cryptic from him.

It rules out the one witness that is sitting on the tribunal, 50/50 chance for guessing out of the other two.

 

[fishardansin]

Just realised that these thymo texts are after the time Dank was meant to be covering his tracks!! Oh the twisted logic the accusers in this case are using!!

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

That is some quality track covering- asking about the non-banned substance to lay the ground work early for the cover.

Would be interesting to know the date of that email to WADA...