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

[Beerfish]

I see this going on for a long time yet unless the government steps in to push this along.

Besides the fact they can just blame the previous Labor government anyway, it's not an election year.

 

[vast]

Neutral or the AFL's agenda has changed? Don't think the AFL want this going into another season.

This has got Gil written all over it. It must have killed her not write so many words that didnt include sack Hird among them. Its probably hidden in there in code.

 

[Doss]

This has got Gil written all over it. It must have killed her not write so many words that didnt include sack Hird among them. Its probably hidden in there in code.

White text.

Like this.

 

[vast]

White text.

Like this.

Haha her articles are probably probably filled with psycho rants in white text.

"No Hird talk at work makes it a dull day"

 

[TheFrenchCut]

Forgetting for a moment the merits (or lack of) of ASADA's evidence and the likely outcome of tribunal hearings, I am wondering what might be the real truth of what happened.

Dank did one of these three things:-
1. Used TB4 with a reckless and arrogant disregard for the fact that it was banned.
2. Used TB4 under the misapprehension that it was legal, and then tried to pass it off as thymomodulin when he discovered his mistake.
3. Used thymomodulin only and has been falsely accused of using TB4.

ASADA have contended 2. above. They said (in the interim report from memory?) that Dank only became aware that TB4 was banned at his ACC interview in May 2012, and immediately began trying to cover his tracks by passing it off as thymomodulin. They had a credible narrative that this could have happened, but have bugger all evidence to support it, seemingly only Charter’s evidence regarding the Dec/Jan order and delivery of a small amount of something that may have been TB4, may have been compounded by Alavi, and may or may not have been destroyed or used somewhere by Dank without paying for it.
The theory also is consistent with the greyness surrounding when TB4 was officially pronounced as banned (I have posted on this previously – don’t want to regurgitate it here).

The whole thing is mysterious because of the lack of invoices for either TB4 or thymomodulin.
There is no claim by EFC that neither was used, so there should be invoices for one of them.

Speculating now, the lack of invoices could be due to
1. Dank, and by association EFC, were playing clever by not paying for the stuff through the club’s books. If so, this indicates 1. above, not 2. ie being shifty with payments indicates an awareness of illegality from the start.
2. A thorough job by EFC of covering their tracks by destroying invoices and records of payment for TB4. This would be almost impossible, and would be discovered by any reasonably thorough auditing process.
3. Dank buying his stuff from other, probably illegal, suppliers on the black market. This could have been either TB4 or thymomodulin. If the latter, Dank can’t disclose it because it would get him in trouble legally. If the former, he wouldn’t want to disclose it anyway. What is still unexplained (whether it was TB4 or thymomodulin) is how EFC paid for it, and if they didn’t pay for it, were they complicit in the illegal supply (unlikely) or just negligent?
4. Some other (wilder?) possibilities. Eg Dank obtained the stuff illegally, it was paid for by bikie gangs, who expected some future return from Dank in some form. Again, doesn’t explain WTF EFC were doing – they must have expected to have to pay at some point, surely governance/record keeping could not have been that bad.

Complicating all this speculation is Dank’s “sacking” in late 2012, and Hamilton’s departure, and whether it was in any way due to impropriety by Dank on the money side of things, or by incompetence by Hamilton in failing to keep any sort of stewardship of the money side.

Plenty of room for speculation, and no-one is going to give us the answers to this now.
But the invoices/money are the key to knowing what really happened.

Obviously, I could be seen as biased, yet from what I've read, I believe 3 is the case. Jobe's testimony of thymomodulluin, the on site presence of thymomodulin, along with the supplier's distinction between thymosin and thymosin beta 4, are three key points, among others. I think there's a very serious chance that Dank and Alavi had been committing medicare fraud, with the former using efc to purchase supplements for his own clinic.

 

[kfc1]

Well that is astounding.

Are you shocked to be sitting here?

 

[Bennett.]

I'll never forget the night my local member actually replied to me..

 

[Doss]

Haha her articles are probably probably filled with psycho rants in white text.

"No Hird talk at work makes it a dull day"

Right, someone needs to whip up a The Shining ASADA-themed poster.

 

[Bennett.]

Heeeeeeere's Caro

 

[Walesy]

Plenty of room for speculation, and no-one is going to give us the answers to this now.
But the invoices/money are the key to knowing what really happened.

Would be very interested to see the detailed evidence from that guy who reviewed the interim report/sc evidence.

You know, the 0.25 grams of Thymosin Beta 4 ingredients coming through customs and the seperate Thymosis AND TB4 references coming through from the suppliers.

For mine it reeks of enough evidence to issue SC's as it 'may' have happened, but not enough evidence to actually convict for the offence.

ie- everyone wins

(except the mud that sticks over two years- but then, he was meant to be isolated and gone by now- thus everything moving forward is clean).

 

[Dave]

Which other troll thread in particular?

The one about connely's article on bomber.

 

[dougyboy]

Illinois Nazi

 

[fishardansin]

View attachment 89043 View attachment 89044


Illinois Nazi

Nah, doesn't look Jewish enough!

 

[rumply]

View attachment 89043 View attachment 89044


Illinois Nazi

wow, undeniable

 

[rines]

I, for one, am very sick of the references to our case and Lance Armstrong. The latest is Coates (lolz right there) who suggests that it took USADA 2 years to get him because no positive test etc etc.

Well, for one, it has almost taken two years for ASADA and they are still not even past step one in the process.
Second: Our players co-operated fully and promptly with the process, Armstrong and his 'camp' did not
Third: USADA had to investigate a period that spanned close to 10 years, the EFC case involves a 6 month program at most
Fourth: USADA had to investigate possible violations in over 26 different countries and events, EFC competes in one country and one competition
Fifth: USADA had to gain co-operation by members of a sport that, unfortunately, is still known for its open 'doping'.. there were conspiracies and coverups that involved entire teams, groups of teams and entire events. EFC had no background or history in this regard.

Sixth: Catching Lance Armstrong was prompted by the fact that rumours had been swirling for YEARS about his possible doping, because it was almost an 'open secret' amongst any of his team about what was happening. There was almost a feeling of 'when' rather than 'if'. This was the single biggest case USADA had ever attempted and they made sure they got it right. In the end there were multiple confessions, documented evidence and a very strong paper trial that supported the allegations. This case, the EFC case, is so far away from that scenario it isn't funny. We are talking about a group of players who may, at the most, have been given a single dosage of a substances without their consent that was on the banned list. There is no intention to cheat, it was not prolonged, it did not span years, decades and involve close to 100 different people.

The scary thing.. it still only took USADA to start, and finish, their investigation into Armstrong.. meanwhile ASADA are at 20 months and counting and still no closer to resolution.

It is a disgrace and a joke.. and not for Hird or EFC.. this lands squarely at the feet of ASADA.

*I am wondering whether McDumbnuts is posturing so bad in the media right now because he knows that even if the players don't defend.. ASADA still might not have enough to get the rubber stamp by ADRVP such is the weakness of their case? It appears no one wants to touch it with a barge pool at the moment.. the AFLPA lawyers are ripping in hard and have (at least on the surface) no fears whatsoever.. one can only hope they are not bluffing however you would think they aren't.. with such lenient bans on the table and ready to go.. and yet not one players looks like jumping..

 

[Go_Blues!]

ASADA arn't enforcing law no more than an umpire in a tennis match enforces law (rules of sport), however I would like to know about a player using law to question restriction of trade if they try to stop someone playing whilst waiting for an outcome

Tennis rules are not an act of parliament so I think it is different.

I fail to believe that any of your players will be ineligible to play because of an IN. I understand this is standard procedure but that is usually because ASADA have strong circumstantial evidence such as a failed drug test. However, restraint of trade does not apply here because of the contract that your players (and all players from all clubs) entered when they sign a standard AFL contract.

What really concerns me is that ASADA/AFL will use the threat of immediate suspensions, pending tribunal hearings, as a hook to ensure a guilty plea and therefore minimal suspensions. ASADA can request 3 adjournments, each of which can take a year. Legally, they can issue IN's, suspend the players pending the hearings, apply for their adjournments and none of your players can play for 3 years. Not suggesting that this will happen but if it did happen, it is a pretty compelling reason to plead guilty and take a deal.

 

[Go_Blues!]

I, for one, am very sick of the references to our case and Lance Armstrong. The latest is Coates (lolz right there) who suggests that it took USADA 2 years to get him because no positive test etc etc.

Well, for one, it has almost taken two years for ASADA and they are still not even past step one in the process.
Second: Our players co-operated fully and promptly with the process, Armstrong and his 'camp' did not
Third: USADA had to investigate a period that spanned close to 10 years, the EFC case involves a 6 month program at most
Fourth: USADA had to investigate possible violations in over 26 different countries and events, EFC competes in one country and one competition
Fifth: USADA had to gain co-operation by members of a sport that, unfortunately, is still known for its open 'doping'.. there were conspiracies and coverups that involved entire teams, groups of teams and entire events. EFC had no background or history in this regard.

Sixth: Catching Lance Armstrong was prompted by the fact that rumours had been swirling for YEARS about his possible doping, because it was almost an 'open secret' amongst any of his team about what was happening. There was almost a feeling of 'when' rather than 'if'. This was the single biggest case USADA had ever attempted and they made sure they got it right. In the end there were multiple confessions, documented evidence and a very strong paper trial that supported the allegations. This case, the EFC case, is so far away from that scenario it isn't funny. We are talking about a group of players who may, at the most, have been given a single dosage of a substances without their consent that was on the banned list. There is no intention to cheat, it was not prolonged, it did not span years, decades and involve close to 100 different people.

The scary thing.. it still only took USADA to start, and finish, their investigation into Armstrong.. meanwhile ASADA are at 20 months and counting and still no closer to resolution.

It is a disgrace and a joke.. and not for Hird or EFC.. this lands squarely at the feet of ASADA.

*I am wondering whether McDumbnuts is posturing so bad in the media right now because he knows that even if the players don't defend.. ASADA still might not have enough to get the rubber stamp by ADRVP such is the weakness of their case? It appears no one wants to touch it with a barge pool at the moment.. the AFLPA lawyers are ripping in hard and have (at least on the surface) no fears whatsoever.. one can only hope they are not bluffing however you would think they aren't.. with such lenient bans on the table and ready to go.. and yet not one players looks like jumping..

Firstly, the Lance case took 7 years. Secondly, there actually are no similarities. The USADA relied on similar direct evidence but was much more compelling. Much more compelling because much of the evidence was given by ex-teammates who were facing bans for providing testimony. However, Lance Armstrong and his teams were undertaking a individually motivated, complex and sophisticated doping program. No one is accusing Essendon of doing this. Lance was open about his drug taking. He believed he was too big to bring down. None of this is at all similar to Essendon.

However, I woudl not assume that ASADA have nothing. I don't know that they don't have nothing but I don't assume it either.

Let me ask a question..... If the ASADA case is so weak, and perhaps it is, then should Dank walk? If the case really is that weak, then surely Dank should be allowed to continue his practice at sporting clubs like Cronulla and Essendon? I dont think any of us want this but if nothing bad happened, then why should he not return to AFL clubs??

 

[letstayunited]

Tennis rules are not an act of parliament so I think it is different.

I fail to believe that any of your players will be ineligible to play because of an IN. I understand this is standard procedure but that is usually because ASADA have strong circumstantial evidence such as a failed drug test. However, restraint of trade does not apply here because of the contract that your players (and all players from all clubs) entered when they sign a standard AFL contract.

What really concerns me is that ASADA/AFL will use the threat of immediate suspensions, pending tribunal hearings, as a hook to ensure a guilty plea and therefore minimal suspensions. ASADA can request 3 adjournments, each of which can take a year. Legally, they can issue IN's, suspend the players pending the hearings, apply for their adjournments and none of your players can play for 3 years. Not suggesting that this will happen but if it did happen, it is a pretty compelling reason to plead guilty and take a deal.

All this reinforces that it was a disaster that the AFL signed up to the WADA code.

And I'm not convinced that it would have affected funding from Federal Government. Let's face it, any Federal Government make funding decisions based on winning votes. Withdrawing funding for a sport that Millions of people love lose votes, I would have thought.

Having said that, we're stuck with it.

The NFL, EPL and NBA didn't sign up/won't be pushed around. They probably had a good old laugh when they read the legislation.

"So let me get this straight. Our whole competition could be thrown into turmoil just from the alleged use of a peptide that probably shouldn't even be banned. Where do I sign?"

 

[rines]

Firstly, the Lance case took 7 years. Secondly, there actually are no similarities. The USADA relied on similar direct evidence but was much more compelling. Much more compelling because much of the evidence was given by ex-teammates who were facing bans for providing testimony. However, Lance Armstrong and his teams were undertaking a individually motivated, complex and sophisticated doping program. No one is accusing Essendon of doing this. Lance was open about his drug taking. He believed he was too big to bring down. None of this is at all similar to Essendon.

However, I woudl not assume that ASADA have nothing. I don't know that they don't have nothing but I don't assume it either.

Let me ask a question..... If the ASADA case is so weak, and perhaps it is, then should Dank walk? If the case really is that weak, then surely Dank should be allowed to continue his practice at sporting clubs like Cronulla and Essendon? I dont think any of us want this but if nothing bad happened, then why should he not return to AFL clubs??

As I've said for a long time... I have no idea why Dank has been 'informally' banned from NRL and AFL.. right now there is zero reason why he is facing bans.

I'm not sure why 'nobody' would want this.. except for the fact that Dank has been played as the 'rogue man' from the start in a very convincing narrative. Secondly the moment the Cronulla boys pleaded out.. then Dank becomes guilty by association.

Anyway I don't care either way.. but your first post was exactly what I think ASADA are planning to do.. and believe they will do. Essentially we will force you out of the game for no reason.. so plead guilty and this will be over quicker...

 

[dougyboy]

Tennis rules are not an act of parliament so I think it is different.

I fail to believe that any of your players will be ineligible to play because of an IN. I understand this is standard procedure but that is usually because ASADA have strong circumstantial evidence such as a failed drug test. However, restraint of trade does not apply here because of the contract that your players (and all players from all clubs) entered when they sign a standard AFL contract.

What really concerns me is that ASADA/AFL will use the threat of immediate suspensions, pending tribunal hearings, as a hook to ensure a guilty plea and therefore minimal suspensions. ASADA can request 3 adjournments, each of which can take a year. Legally, they can issue IN's, suspend the players pending the hearings, apply for their adjournments and none of your players can play for 3 years. Not suggesting that this will happen but if it did happen, it is a pretty compelling reason to plead guilty and take a deal.

Suggest a read of this -- http://www.aflbarwon.com.au/fileadm..._Standard_Forms/2014_AFL_Anti-Doping_Code.pdf

Section 4.2
AFL retains all functions and powers relating to this Code, including
all functions and powers relating to the issuing of an infraction notice

 

[dougyboy]

y14.7 Commencement of Ineligibility Period
Except as provided below, the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing
decision providing for Ineligibility or, if the hearing is waived, on the date Ineligibility is
accepted or otherwise imposed. Any period of Provisional Suspension (whether
imposed or voluntarily accepted) shall be credited against the total period of Ineligibility
imposed.
(a) Delays Not Attributable to the Athlete or other Person
Where there have been substantial delays in the hearing process or other
aspects of Doping Control not attributable to the Player or other Person, the
Tribunal determining the sanction may start the period of Ineligibility at an
earlier date commencing as early as the date of Sample collection or the date on
which another Anti Doping Rule Violation last occurred.

Is that 2012? Could be the reason for all the smoke and mirrors. Hirdys court case could have stopped the clock.

 

[Beerfish]

View attachment 89043 View attachment 89044


Illinois Nazi

I hate Illinois nazis.

 

[rumply]

I hate Illinois nazis.

What about New Mexico ones?

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

What about New Mexico ones?

Based Meth Damon.

 

[Jade]

Based Meth Damon.

seegrv pls