Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[QuietB]

It's the lack of a definite link between the vials and the needles and the player's arses, that was the problem, as Jake Niall explains.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...idoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html

And I'm not of the same opinion as most here that the tribunal itself was corrupt. The article explains the frustration the judge has with the witnesses not appearing. ASADA, through this in-house process, are toothless tigers. I'm sure they probably even knew this.

The question then is how far up does this have to go for the tiger to get teeth. I've tried to do some research but can't find whether CAS has subpoena powers. They are going to need to have witnesses under oath.

... if it doesn't then ... remember your needle, but forget your pen, because it's open season.

And that is/was 100% stage managed with the AFL's full consent. It is not out of the question that it was the AFL's own work.

 

[philohk]

How & why?

Without powers of compulsion acc: ALAVI, CHARTERS & DANK, on what grounds would any appeal be based? What fresh evidence would be introduced or error in ruling would be grounds for appeal?

Even then, what weight would the evidence of either of these parties be afforded given that their cooperation would need to be in response to immunity to further prosecution* or discounted sentences**; &, given their evidence would effectively end their careers & livelihood in the real world?

*It's an AFL Tribunal so they can't offer immunity as the AFL doesn't influence every other court & tribunal in Australia(apparently...)

** Those 3 morons don't work for or in the AFL so they can't get any sentences, let alone discounted sentences. What's in it for these 3, either way?

Without powers of compulsion or the threat of an even bigger stick for not giving evidence, it's over.

Not necessarily. As my post mentioned, what was presented to the tribunal might be comfortable satisfaction as far as CAS is concerned.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

From experience, workcover is just as corrupt
They don't care about employee welfare, they care about their back pocket
They are there to prevent lawsuits

Sadly, this is true. I stuffed my back in a work incident in June last year. I didn't miss any work, I was placed on light duties and attended rehabilitation sessions. All they gave a s**t about was seeing to be doing something, and they couldn't wait to sign off on my case. Here I am, 9 months later, still disabled with back complaints, struggling to do my job, struggling to get out of bed some mornings, but at least Workcover doesn't have to worry about me anymore. I'm no longer on their books. I don't know what I expected from Workcover, but it hasn't done me any good whatsoever.

 

[Brant]

The whole thing about the players having the right to know what was really injected is a joke though. They know exactly what they were injected with as does the club and Dank (and ASADA). Its all come down to the tip off Vlad game them and thats what saved their sorry drug cheating arses.

Exactly. Everyone knows, but nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt. And now that it's not been proven, saying it is slanderous...

The end...

 

[philohk]

Exactly. Everyone knows, but nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt. And now that it's not been proven, saying it is slanderous...

The end...

They don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt - it's not a criminal trial. It sounds like the tribunal wanted it proven to that level though.

 

[eldorado]

Exactly. Everyone knows, but nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt. And now that it's not been proven, saying it is slanderous...

The end...

Bolded is the contentious bit..."Beyond reasonable doubt" is not the required burden of proof. It is not a criminal case, with custodial sentences riding on it.

This could be a point worth arguing; would a reasonable panel have held that there was insufficient evidence on the 'comfortable satisfaction' onus?

There are avenues for saying it could quite reasonably be taken further...

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think what possibly annoys me most in all of this, is the AFL have sat back for the past 2 years ...... 2 BLOODY YEARS!!! ...... and said nothing, and done nothing. They've known all this time what their stance was going to be, and yet they've allowed this farce to continue. I live for the day that someone calls the AFL to account, and I'm hoping it just may be WADA. We need to remember that there is an existing agreement between WADA and the AFL, and it appears clear to me that the AFL have not lived up to their part in the bargain.

 

[Brant]

They don't have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt - it's not a criminal trial. It sounds like the tribunal wanted it proven to that level though.

Bolded is the contentious bit..."Beyond reasonable doubt" is not the required burden of proof. It is not a criminal case, with custodial sentences riding on it.

This could be a point worth arguing; would a reasonable panel have held that there was insufficient evidence on the 'comfortable satisfaction' onus?

There are avenues for saying it could quite reasonably be taken further...

Surely (not Shirley) this is the kinda thing ASADA squares away prior to the Tribunal Hearing commencing, not once the inevitable loss occurs?
Surely the burden of proof is well known to all parties prior to commencement & if they're not correct or consistent with the Anti-Doping Framework then it's sorted before the hearing commences? Otherwise, why go ahead if the court/tribunal is acting outside it's jurisdiction?

 

[philohk]

Surely (not Shirley) this is the kinda thing ASADA squares away prior to the Tribunal Hearing commencing, not once the inevitable loss occurs?
Surely the burden of proof is well known to all parties prior to commencement & if they're not correct or consistent with the Anti-Doping Framework then it's sorted before the hearing commences? Otherwise, why go ahead if the court/tribunal is acting outside it's jurisdiction?

It's not about jurisdiction - it's just the AFL Tribunal might have a different idea of 'comfortable satisfaction' than a panel that's not associated with the AFL. But yes, I would've thought they'd all be on the same page with it.

 

[eldorado]

Surely the burden of proof is well known to all parties prior to commencement & if they're not correct or consistent with the Anti-Doping Framework then it's sorted before the hearing commences?

At the end of the day, you're still dealing with subjective opinion about how well a case has been proven. All the legal training in the world regarding the definition of 'proved' doesn't mean that everyone will still agree that it has been sufficiently 'proven' or not.

A phrase used in cases like this is that 'no reasonable person' would see the evidence as insufficient.

 

[Brant]

At the end of the day, you're still dealing with subjective opinion about how well a case has been proven. All the legal training in the world regarding the definition of 'proved' doesn't mean that everyone will still agree that it has been sufficiently 'proven' or not.

A phrase used in cases like this is that 'no reasonable person' would see the evidence as insufficient.

Yeh I'm familiar with the the concept & with matters in front of a Mag/Judge/Justice alone (or panel) or Jury - I just don't see how the burden can be argued after the tribunal has convened & delivered it's verdict. The only way I can see this being relevant is if ASADA can effectively say: "OK, we've done the AFL Tribunal which covers off your requirements - we're now escalating to our system...."

Does this require they run to WADA or can ASADA escalate to CAS? Is CAS an international organisation?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Just saw Sam Newmans rant on TFS against ASADA and Co and supporting Hird and the Bombers. This bloke is just as delusional as the rest of the Club and its supporters.

Just part of the boys club.

 

[Roddy27]

I think i've figured out what went wrong with the record keeping. They recorded everything on these paper towels.

 

[zenmasterfu]

Without powers of compulsion acc: ALAVI, CHARTERS & DANK, on what grounds would any appeal be based? What fresh evidence would be introduced or error in ruling would be grounds for appeal?

They don't need to produce new evidence for an appeal. They can simply ask for a new panel to consider the evidence. I'm not sure if they are obliged to do that before WADA step in. If so then they'll appeal and go through the embaressment again. Then WADA should step up. We're looking at another year.

 

[Nuggets73]

One positive ... ASADA still have the 2012 Bombers samples on ice.
.... Currently there is no test for TB4, but that could change in future.

The club should be fully accountable if in future the prove positive test results .. club should be banned for years

 

[Brant]

They don't need to produce new evidence for an appeal. They can simply ask for a new panel to consider the evidence. I'm not sure if they are obliged to do that before WADA step in. If so then they'll appeal and go through the embaressment again. Then WADA should step up. We're looking at another year.

Fresh evidence may be grounds for an appeal - I don't believe new evidence would be.

If all they need do is ask for a new panel then they can effectively keep rolling through dumb (or correct) panels until they find one which rules in their favour, on the same evidence - but then of course Essenscum will appeal. There's no way they can ask for a new panel to hear the same evidence with the same burden of proof under the same regulatory system unless the current panel erred in judgement.

 

[philohk]

Fresh evidence may be grounds for an appeal - I don't believe new evidence would be.

If all they need do is ask for a new panel then they can effectively keep rolling through dumb (or correct) panels until they find one which rules in their favour, on the same evidence - but then of course Essenscum will appeal. There's no way they can ask for a new panel to hear the same evidence with the same burden of proof under the same regulatory system unless the current panel erred in judgement.

I think there are two avenues of appeal left: the AFL Appeals Tribunal (which would likely give the same decision) and CAS, which is an international body. WADA can go to CAS even without fresh evidence - it's viewed as a new case. Not sure if ASADA can do the same. I reckon they'd be mad if they didn't.

 

[Brant]

I think there are two avenues of appeal left: the AFL Appeals Tribunal (which would likely give the same decision) and CAS, which is an international body. WADA can go to CAS even without fresh evidence - it's viewed as a new case. Not sure if ASADA can do the same. I reckon they'd be mad if they didn't.

CAS seems the way to go then.

Do you know the burden of proof at CAS?

 

[Rushed_Behind]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essend...r-health-of-dons-players-20150401-1mcyib.html

This article proves to me its all orchestrated B/S by the AFL.

WTF have the players got to worry for? They're innocent, the club are not guilty and nothing harmful was injected

I have no sympathy for the players either after reading this. They want their cake and want to eat it too. So they are able to play but when they retire they want to sue the club is what i got from it.

 

[philohk]

CAS seems the way to go then.

Do you know the burden of proof at CAS?

I'm only going from googling, but it looks like it doesn't work to that concept explicitly. The judge (or panel) just decides what's most likely on the balance of probabilities and the evidence. If you want some light evening reading:

http://www.marinusvromans.com/court...r-and-rfec-arbitral-award-of-6-february-2012/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

Personally, I'm waiting for Natalie Hickey to enlighten us!

 

[Brishawk]

I'm only going from googling, but it looks like it doesn't work to that concept explicitly. The judge (or panel) just decides what's most likely on the balance of probabilities and the evidence. If you want some light evening reading:

http://www.marinusvromans.com/court...r-and-rfec-arbitral-award-of-6-february-2012/

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNDAULawRw/2012/2.pdf

Personally, I'm waiting for Natalie Hickey to enlighten us!

I just don't see on balance of probabilities how a club can purchase large quantities of banned substances, have those substances prepared for injection and then the probable outcome is anything but doping. They can't even explain the presence of tb4. Can't explain what the players took.

 

[eldorado]

I just don't see on balance of probabilities how a club can purchase large quantities of banned substances, have those substances prepared for injection and then the probable outcome is anything but doping. They can't even explain the presence of tb4. Can't explain what the players took.

The findings are quite bizarre.;

the tribunal admit that Dank bought what he thought was TB4.

They admit that Alavi compounded what he thought was TB4.

They know it was a type of thymosin, and it wasn't A.

But they can't be sure it was "B"...(presumably, they need to have an actual vial of it to be 100%)

It's like people confessing to a murder, someone else confessing to helping destroy the body in acid...but being found not guilty. They may think they murdered that missing person, but without the body there's no proof. They could be wrong, after all...

 

[Brant]

The findings are quite bizarre.;

the tribunal admit that Dank bought what he thought was TB4.

They admit that Alavi compounded what he thought was TB4.

They know it was a type of thymosin, and it wasn't A.

But they can't be sure it was "B"...(presumably, they need to have an actual vial of it to be 100%)

And some how this is less evil than a guy who ordered something on the internet but never got within 30km of picking it up...?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The findings are quite bizarre.;

the tribunal admit that Dank bought what he thought was TB4.

They admit that Alavi compounded what he thought was TB4.

They know it was a type of thymosin, and it wasn't A.

But they can't be sure it was "B"...presumably, they need to have an actual vial of it.

It's like people confessing to a murder, someone else confessing to helping destroy the body in acid...but being found not guilty. They may think they murdered that missing person, but without the body there's no proof.

It's pretty clear cut to me that he used Thymosin. Hell, he even tried to argue last week that it was ever banned...why would he bother if it wasn't used?
The only argument that we've ever had against Thymosin being used was if it was the 'good' or 'bad' one. But then the tribunal threw the entire idea of it being the good one out the window, and in fact, no one represnting the players even bothered to actually argue that it was Alpha at the tribunal.
Emails, consent forms, texts, interviews with Dank declaring use of "Thymosin" and why he'd use it in elite sport, etc etc.

Yet we're told that we just don't comfortably know that it was Thymosin, because it could've been something else.

I get the feeling that even if Alavi and Charter had of turned up, the tribunal would have struck their testimony from the record if they'd confirmed it was TB4, choosing to instead label their testimony untrustworthy(which is pretty much what they've done already).

 

[CD Xbow]

One positive ... ASADA still have the 2012 Bombers samples on ice.
.... Currently there is no test for TB4, but that could change in future.

The club should be fully accountable if in future the prove positive test results .. club should be banned for years

There are lab tests, but complicated, and probably expensive. http://www.cloud-clone.us/ELISA/ELISA-Kit-for-Thymosin-Beta-4-(Tb4)-28284.htm
I don't think these could be done as screening tests. Perhaps we should run a kickstarter project to help ASADA out.