ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[Bombfire]

??? Go read the AFL charge sheet in relation to the lack of pre-employment checks made on dank. Stop blaming the AFL. They didn't hire him, EFC did.

Go read the Interim Report silly.

 

[Lizardempire]

Re

10 posts on big footy - you have have about 500,000 to read on this board.

Relevance?

 

[telsor]

You are missing the point. It's not okay which is why EFC got fined $2m, lost draft picks, kicked out of finals etc. heaviest penalties in afl history. But this is about banned substances under WADA code.

Do you think essendon have gotten away with it - injecting non TGA approved substances? Given they received the heaviest penalty in afl history I don't think they got away with anything!

Please go on and explain how they got away with it?

Heaviest in history is wrong...Carlton copped far worse.

Also, you might want to check what that fine was for....It was for having a poorly documented/controlled, experimental supplement program ('governance issues' & health and safety), absolutely nothing about what was taken.

If/when players get done for a club run doping program, EFC should cop far worse...That (by itself) should be the toughest penalty ever.

 

[Bombfire]

You say that it must have gone to one of his other businesses. The more relevant question is why haven't EFC pursued Dank if he can prove the TB4 went to one of his other businesses?

ASADA need to prove their case silly, why haven't they covered off on Dank?

 

[telsor]

Re


Relevance?

You're repeating nonsense that has already been slapped down many times before.

 

[Ants]

Saying "we can't be sure" is actually saying you can't meet that level of proof (as in you, not ASADA. Don't know their evidence).

We as in EFC. Seems to be their sole defense. We have no records, good luck proving it ASADA.

I don't know if its their sole defence. I don't know what ASADA's evidence is. But I would point out that proving a negative is extremely hard - it is why the onus of proof is on the prosecution/plaintiff. If ASADA can't produce proof then the court case will be lost. There is no onus on EFC to prove ASADA's case for them. Whether innocent or guilty, they would be idiots to help ASADA make a case.

I suggest watching this video by a US professor explaining why whether innocent or guilty you should not talk to the police. It is good advice generally, but also is relevant in this discussion.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Relevance?

After reading the 500,000 posts, you will probably realise the only answer is Dave's.

 

[Tigerland]

Like on the first day when ASADA spent all of it talking about other clubs and substances, did anyone in the defence spring up and shout: I object! Relevance???

My goodness, you've gone from someone that seemingly had a clue that had a completely different point of view to me, to a person that clearly has NFI whatsoever.

I guess it's hard to keep up a charade for such a long time.

Lying Goose of the year 2014.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Re


Relevance?

You asking all these questions asking people for facts and answers and to respond and we have done it all before. Go and read stuff.

 

[Dave]

Dank ordered TB4, receipts have been found, invoices have been found, it was received by EFC, the players consented to it but EFC supporters would have us believe that after it went to EFC it went to one of his other businesses. I doubt the tribunal will be as gullible.

An you call others out for posting about stuff they do not know about.

 

[Lizardempire]

You're repeating nonsense that has already been slapped down many times before.

Sorry for providing an alternative opinion to most non-EFC supporters. They all obviously have no bias where I clearly do.

My nonsense is obviously factually incorrect because we all know exactly what happened right?

 

[BlueWorld]

Re


Relevance?

Good post- you're up to 13 now. You still have a lot of catching up to do. All your points have been debated many times before.

 

[Magruder]

Same s**t different poster. Been slapped down, resuscitated, recycled and buried repeatedly.

Ask him whether Charter and Alavi not appearing at the tribunal is good or bad for Essendon.

 

[BlueWorld]

An you call others out for posting about stuff they do not know about.

Sorry I forgot you know everything that happened. That is ASADA's evidence as outlined in the charge sheet. It's been posted about 1000 times. Yes you think it's all made up. We shall see what the tribunal think.

 

[BlueWorld]

I don't know if its their sole defence. I don't know what ASADA's evidence is. But I would point out that proving a negative is extremely hard - it is why the onus of proof is on the prosecution/plaintiff. If ASADA can't produce proof then the court case will be lost. There is no onus on EFC to prove ASADA's case for them. Whether innocent or guilty, they would be idiots to help ASADA make a case.

I suggest watching this video by a US professor explaining why whether innocent or guilty you should not talk to the police. It is good advice generally, but also is relevant in this discussion.

But if ASADA can provide enough evidence to satisfy the tribunal it will require the EFC players to refute that or come up with evidence that contradicts that. Do you think it likely that ASADA have spent 3 days so far with more to come if they cannot present a strong case?

 

[BigJoeD_]

Same s**t different poster. Been slapped down, resuscitated, recycled and buried repeatedly.

Ask him whether Charter and Alavi not appearing at the tribunal is good or bad for Essendon.

What is your opinion on that Magdaddy?

 

[Magruder]

What is your opinion on that Magdaddy?

depends what's in the interviews. I know that sounds silly but the very thing, (lack of court status), that enables them to refuse to appear ensures that interviews etc are admissible but not examinable. The level of credence attached to the content of those interviews is solely at the discretion of the tribunal without the players having the right to cross-examine.

Some may see this as procedurally unfair and to some extent they are right.

My honest opinion is that C&A's interviews, as far as they damage the players, are probably further circumstantial tid-bits; a small detail here, reference to a conversation/text/email there, perhaps a small detail in relation to instructions to or from another party. Nothing bombshell like but just more drip, drip drip of circumstantial info.

I believe that the potential damage to C or A is much greater, particularly if they were to appear at the tribunal or go on the record in any way that could be submitted to a court when the ACC come knocking for them.

They have done you no favours by choosing to not appear but they are understandably looking to avoid some interesting bracelets

 

[carlton2dabone]

ASADA need to prove their case silly, why haven't they covered off on Dank?

You are missing the point entirely.

We know that Dank sourced a whole bunch of TB4, we know that EFC players signed consent forms stating they will be receiving injections of 'Thymosin' and we know that EFC players admitted in interviews that they actually received those injections of 'Thymosin'.

So the only relevant thing that ASADA have to really prove is that the 'Thymosin' that was listed on the consent forms and the 'thymosin' that they players admitted they received, was actually the TB4 that Dank sourced.

Bow, the only way EFC can refute this is if they come up with a supply chain, receipts and other evidence that shows the players were injected with Thymodullin.
Do you think that EFC have or can come up with such evidence?


Because otherwise ASADA present to the Tribunal the admissions of the players and the consent forms, alongside the evidence of the TB4 supply chain and receipts and ask the tribunal as to which version is more believable.
ASADA's version which actually has paper trails to back it up, or EFC's version which has no paper trail along with the fact that even EFC admitted that it wasn't sure what was injected into the players.

Capish?

 

[telsor]

ASADA need to prove their case silly, why haven't they covered off on Dank?

You know, there is a word for defense lawyers who don't try and find evidence that gets their clients off.

Unemployed.

 

[Dave]

Sorry I forgot you know everything that happened. That is ASADA's evidence as outlined in the charge sheet. It's been posted about 1000 times. Yes you think it's all made up.

Again with the strawman. I've never claimed to know everything. If a charge sheet was considered proof of something occurring, everyone who ever went to court would be convicted. You spend a lot of time telling people they don't know all of ASADA's evidence yet you claim there is proof Essendon received TB4, despite there being nothing in the public domain that would support that. Some would view that as hypocrisy.

We shall see what the tribunal think.

About the only sensible thing you've said so far.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Here is an exercise for all those EFC supporters on here that refuse to understand just how much crap their club and players are in.

Imagine you were in a criminal court in front of a jury, defending yourself against charges of trafficking illicit drugs.
Remember in a criminal court, the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt', meaning the prosecution has to convince the jury that there is no reasonable person who can doubt that you were trafficking drugs.

The cops have evidence that a supply chain of illicit drugs existed, they have paper records that such drugs were ordered by one of your employees. The cops also have paper records signed by you that say that you intended to traffick a substance with a name that closely resembles the illicit drug for which the cops uncovered the supply chain. The cops also have testimony from your employees that they trafficked the substance that was on the paperwork you signed.

Now the prosecution presents its evidence to the jury and asks the jury to accept the fact that the substance which you actually trafficked was really the illicit substance for which a supply chain existed.
They ask the jury to accept this as fact because after extensive investigation, not one shred of credible evidence exists that the legal substance which you claim you were selling actually existed.
And you yourself are unable to come up with any credible evidence to back up your alternate theory.

Now under this reasonable doubt standard of proof, do any of you EFC supporters actually believe for one second that the jury would not side with the prosecutor and find you guilty?

Lastly, now juxtapose this scenario where a higher burden of proof exists to the situation which EFC is in where ASADA has a lesser burden of proof to satisfy. Now realise your club is farked.

 

[Gigantor]

Here is an exercise for all those EFC supporters on here that refuse to understand just how much crap their club and players are in.

Imagine you were in a criminal court in front of a jury, defending yourself against charges of trafficking illicit drugs.
Remember in a criminal court, the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt', meaning the prosecution has to convince the jury that there is no reasonable person who can doubt that you were trafficking drugs.

The cops have evidence that a supply chain of illicit drugs existed, they have paper records that such drugs were ordered by one of your employees. The cops also have paper records signed by you that say that you intended to traffick a substance with a name that closely resembles the illicit drug for which the cops uncovered the supply chain. The cops also have testimony from your employees that they trafficked the substance that was on the paperwork you signed.

Now the prosecution presents its evidence to the jury and asks the jury to accept the fact that the substance which you actually trafficked was really the illicit substance for which a supply chain existed.
They ask the jury to accept this as fact because after extensive investigation, not one shred of credible evidence exists that the legal substance which you claim you were selling actually existed.
And you yourself are unable to come up with any credible evidence to back up your alternate theory.

Now under this reasonable doubt standard of proof, do any of you EFC supporters actually believe for one second that the jury would not side with the prosecutor and find you guilty?

Lastly, now juxtapose this scenario where a higher burden of proof exists to the situation which EFC is in where ASADA has a lesser burden of proof to satisfy. Now realise your club is farked.

I object your honour!! Relevance???

 

[carlton2dabone]

I object your honour!! Relevance???

Relevance is that if such evidence would be enough to convince a jury tasked with the 'beyond reasonable doubt' burden of proof, then similar evidence would surely be enough to satisfy a tribunal tasked with a lesser 'comfortable satisfaction' burden of proof.

Translation, EFC and its players are farked.

 

[Gigantor]

Relevance is that if such evidence would be enough to convince a jury tasked with the 'beyond reasonable doubt' burden of proof, then similar evidence would surely be enough to satisfy a tribunal tasked with a lesser 'comfortable satisfaction' burden of proof.

Translation, EFC and its players are farked.

There is not even any hard evidence of one player having been administered TB4, let alone all 34.

 

[BlueWorld]

Again with the strawman. I've never claimed to know everything. If a charge sheet was considered proof of something occurring, everyone who ever went to court would be convicted. You spend a lot of time telling people they don't know all of ASADA's evidence yet you claim there is proof Essendon received TB4, despite there being nothing in the public domain that would support that. Some would view that as hypocrisy.



About the only sensible thing you've said so far.

Thank you. If you listened to Charter on radio not long ago he said that ASADA have proof of purchase receipts of TB4 for Dank which there was no way he could refute, nor did he believe it was necessary for him to attend the tribunal when there was such clear evidence. Nothing in the public domain? Read the charge sheet or the post that Malifice put together the other day. Yes it's an allegation. This forum exits for discussion of these allegations. Yes we shall see what the tribunal decide.