Bruce Francis

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Tazmania said:
GB please expand on this for all our sakes... but mainly Gigantor's
Click to expand...

What do you want me to expand on. My post is pretty self explanatory. It is not from the interim report. It is clear evidence that an Essondon player admits to taking TB4 and he witnessed other players doing the same. The player in question, I believe, was under the impression that TB4 was not banned at the time he took it. The point is, that it would seem that players lied to ASADA. Yes, they did not know it was banned but they still lied. This in itself is not a game changer but it does point to some pretty insidious stuff going on at Essendon. In addition, there are a whole host of financial entries that Essendon did not conceal, that correlate to Alavi's own financial records some of which include banned substances including, but not limited to TB4. I do not think that Essonden are screwed but they do have some explaining to do. From what I can tell, there were at least 14 different orders of peptides to Essendon. Many of them may have been legal but it does seem that at least 8 different orders contained TB4.
 
Go_Blues! said:
What do you want me to expand on. My post is pretty self explanatory. It is not from the interim report. It is clear evidence that an Essondon player admits to taking TB4 and he witnessed other players doing the same. The player in question, I believe, was under the impression that TB4 was not banned at the time he took it. The point is, that it would seem that players lied to ASADA. Yes, they did not know it was banned but they still lied. This in itself is not a game changer but it does point to some pretty insidious stuff going on at Essendon. In addition, there are a whole host of financial entries that Essendon did not conceal, that correlate to Alavi's own financial records some of which include banned substances including, but not limited to TB4. I do not think that Essonden are screwed but they do have some explaining to do. From what I can tell, there were at least 14 different orders of peptides to Essendon. Many of them may have been legal but it does seem that at least 8 different orders contained TB4.
Click to expand...

It might not be a game changer but it is definitely a criminal offense
 
Go_Blues! said:
What do you want me to expand on. My post is pretty self explanatory. It is not from the interim report. It is clear evidence that an Essondon player admits to taking TB4 and he witnessed other players doing the same. The player in question, I believe, was under the impression that TB4 was not banned at the time he took it. The point is, that it would seem that players lied to ASADA. Yes, they did not know it was banned but they still lied. This in itself is not a game changer but it does point to some pretty insidious stuff going on at Essendon. In addition, there are a whole host of financial entries that Essendon did not conceal, that correlate to Alavi's own financial records some of which include banned substances including, but not limited to TB4. I do not think that Essonden are screwed but they do have some explaining to do. From what I can tell, there were at least 14 different orders of peptides to Essendon. Many of them may have been legal but it does seem that at least 8 different orders contained TB4.
Click to expand...
In b4 some editing
 
Go_Blues! said:
What do you want me to expand on. My post is pretty self explanatory. It is not from the interim report. It is clear evidence that an Essondon player admits to taking TB4 and he witnessed other players doing the same. The player in question, I believe, was under the impression that TB4 was not banned at the time he took it. The point is, that it would seem that players lied to ASADA. Yes, they did not know it was banned but they still lied. This in itself is not a game changer but it does point to some pretty insidious stuff going on at Essendon. In addition, there are a whole host of financial entries that Essendon did not conceal, that correlate to Alavi's own financial records some of which include banned substances including, but not limited to TB4. I do not think that Essonden are screwed but they do have some explaining to do. From what I can tell, there were at least 14 different orders of peptides to Essendon. Many of them may have been legal but it does seem that at least 8 different orders contained TB4.
Click to expand...

Bam! There goes any discounts to the penalties....and they probably breached their contracts by lying to the afl at the same time.
 
Tazmania said:
Bam! There goes any discounts to the penalties....and they probably breached their contracts by lying to the afl at the same time.
Click to expand...

I think it would be hard to prove they lied though. If one player remember being told what he received it is still going to be hard to prove everyone else could remember 12 months later
 
Go_Blues! said:
What do you want me to expand on. My post is pretty self explanatory. It is not from the interim report. It is clear evidence that an Essondon player admits to taking TB4 and he witnessed other players doing the same. The player in question, I believe, was under the impression that TB4 was not banned at the time he took it. The point is, that it would seem that players lied to ASADA. Yes, they did not know it was banned but they still lied. This in itself is not a game changer but it does point to some pretty insidious stuff going on at Essendon. In addition, there are a whole host of financial entries that Essendon did not conceal, that correlate to Alavi's own financial records some of which include banned substances including, but not limited to TB4. I do not think that Essonden are screwed but they do have some explaining to do. From what I can tell, there were at least 14 different orders of peptides to Essendon. Many of them may have been legal but it does seem that at least 8 different orders contained TB4.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for the special audit .if efc was so worried about sacking Dank for over spending,where was the audit?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

People can try to nuance, and over interpret or under interpret, or try to put any and all kinds of nitpick to Go Blues, Table Tennis and The Prosecutors info........but if it is as THEY present it.....EFC and at least a reasonable proportion of the 34 players are absolutely forked.

And these are 3 longterm sympathetic supporters of the players throughout this saga.
 
sonnywalters said:
Are you still pushing the idea this is a govt/afl conspiracy? why do u care about holmes? are you trying the investigator cant be the adjudicator? in admin law this is known as the stollery principle. Are you an admin lawyer? Im certain you arent.
Are you still seeking something to avoid the fact your boys got busted cheating?
Click to expand...

I am merely pointing that Holmes is a gun for hire - He decides if he takes on a brief.
 
sonnywalters said:
dude really? who cares about timelines. if u cheated just own it. cop a few weeks penalty and move on . ffs. noone will care in 18 months from now. honestly. its not a big deal. noone has died. noone is up on actual charges. this is all just afl tribunal stuff. the health stuff is overblown. relax.
Click to expand...

We are trying to have a construction discussion about a piece of information. I am not the only person asking a time-line. Your post adds little to the discussion.
 
JP2 said:
There could be any number of reasons.

Firstly, there is no "normal procedure" for this. I'm unaware of any clear parallels in Australian sport, perhaps not even world sport. As efc fans have repeatedly told us, the lance Armstrong case isn't particularly applicable here and there probably aren't many conclusions we can draw from the way that trial was run.

Secondly, there's no hint that the individual cited as a witness in that alleged asada excerpt must be a player. It could also refer to a member of staff, someone at dank's clinic or so on.

Thirdly, if it was a player who made the allegations, then there could be any number of reasons why he wasn't immediately "charged and sentenced". In the best case for efc fans, perhaps the claim was qualified or uncertain in a way that doesn't come through in that document, in which case Asada would still need the rest of their evidence to properly charge him. It could also be a preference - either from asada's side or the player's side - to have continued to prosecute the case as part of a group. What would be the sense in isolating him if they had to prosecute the other 33 with the same evidence anyway? Why go through two trials? Or perhaps the admission came late, after the scns / ins had already gone out. Or perhaps there are procedural reasons for not prosecuting individuals who have been caught up in team doping scandals. Again, that it was done differently in the Armstrong case doesn't mean anything.

I'm not 100% convinced about the document that's been posted here yet, but there aren't any convincing reasons to just dismiss it out of hand.
Click to expand...

I haven't discussed the document out of hand - Far from it - I have asked pertinent questions - So the inference is that a player at stage has allegedly made a confession to ASADA - What puzzles me is wouldn't the player advise his legal representatives ?
 
yaco55 said:
I haven't discussed the document out of hand - Far from it - I have asked pertinent questions - So the inference is that a player at stage has allegedly made a confession to ASADA - What puzzles me is wouldn't the player advise his legal representatives ?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily if that rep was also representing all the other players and didn't want them to know.
 
bing181 said:
Not the least being, a) there was no trial or hearing of any sort and b) the US system is completely different to ours, there are no SCN's, no ADRVP, no tribunal, no ROF etc. etc. USADA are police, prosecution, judge, jury and executioner.
Click to expand...

So why do posters and the media continually reference the Armstrong case for comparisons - According to your post the systems are completely different.
 
yaco55 said:
I haven't discussed the document out of hand - Far from it - I have asked pertinent questions - So the inference is that a player at stage has allegedly made a confession to ASADA - What puzzles me is wouldn't the player advise his legal representatives ?
Click to expand...

How do you know he hasn't
 
Tazmania said:
Not necessarily if that rep was also representing all the other players and didn't want them to know.
Click to expand...

There are only 2 legal teams represented - So if you are implying its the legal team representing 2 players Wouldn't it be incumbent on the lawyer to advise the other player ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top