Bruce Francis

[Armchair Critic]

Which makes the players interviews secondary evidence because of alleged bad record keeping.proper records in existence should have cleared this up years ago

Not having records is not evidence though.

 

[Armchair Critic]

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 ?

No ,have you never heard of legal privellage

 

[yaco55]

How do you knoe w he hasn't

What I am saying is that there are 2 groups of lawyers representing either 32 players or 2 players - So either the player hasn't informed his lawyer which i find puzzling or the lawyer the other group of players.

 

[Armchair Critic]

What I am saying is that there are 2 groups of lawyers representing either 32 players or 2 players - So either the player hasn't informed his lawyer which i find puzzling or the lawyer the other group of players.

He is not allowed to under legal privellage .There are two groups of lawyers representing the players but they are representing each Individual as it is 34 cases.Anything a player says is covered by legal privellage

 

[Tazmania]

8 delivers of tb4 to essendon....so we can start ignoring that whole 26 into 34 argument then. It's probably 26 x 8 deliveries.

 

[yaco55]

No ,have you never heard of legal privellage

I've heard of legal privledge - But I imagine this goes out the window if you are representing more than one player.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I've heard of legal privledge - But I imagine this goes out the window if you are representing more than one player.

No,it does not.

Edit:I am fairly certain

 

[bing181]

So why do posters and the media continually reference the Armstrong case for comparisons - According to your post the systems are completely different.

Different systems, though that's also the case with many/most Olympic sports. But one big similarity: no positive test result (AAF). That's why the comparisons have been made.

 

[Thrawn]

How are the players lying to ASADA not a game changer?

They lied to both a government department investigating them and the league itself. Doing the former is a criminal offence, and the tribunal isn't going to take a good view of the latter.

 

[Argy]

That the evidence would be deemed admissible was never in doubt, what remains a mystery is the weighting the Tribunal will place on such evidence.

Hang on a minute. Didn't you say only a few weeks ago that ASADA had no evidence?

 

[Argy]

They lied to both a government department investigating them and the league itself. Doing the former is a criminal offence, and the tribunal isn't going to take a good view of the latter.

"The latter" is a breach of contract. They're stuffed both ways.

 

[yaco55]

He is not allowed to under legal privellage .There are two groups of lawyers representing the players but they are representing each Individual as it is 34 cases.Anything a player says is covered by legal privellage

I doubt your claims about legal privlege - And even if true as if a lawyer hasn't unofficially broken legal privlege in this case - And the lawyer can indirectly break legal privlege by suggesting things to a defendant based on information from another defendant.

 

[yaco55]

Different systems, though that's also the case with many/most Olympic sports. But one big similarity: no positive test result (AAF). That's why the comparisons have been made.

Yes - But you don't make the comparison only if it suits a particular argument - Consistency is required.

 

[bing181]

Yes - But you don't make the comparison only if it suits a particular argument - Consistency is required.

What are you talking about (bangs head against wall)?

For starters, I didn't make any comparisons, you did. You then asked me why other people were drawing comparisons, and I pointed out why that would be.

One more time (with feeling): The Armstrong case involved the prosecution of an athlete in the absence of an AAF. Identical situation to this one. The code is identical (WADA). The burden and standard of proof is identical. The ultimate arbiter is the CAS, also identical in both cases. Thus the comparisons. That people have been making.

You're not doing yourself any favours here yaco ...

 

[bing181]

I doubt your claims about legal privlege - And even if true as if a lawyer hasn't unofficially broken legal privlege in this case - And the lawyer can indirectly break legal privlege by suggesting things to a defendant based on information from another defendant.

Translation?

 

[Muggs]

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 ?

As noted in the Hird appeal judgements lawyers were in the room during interviews..

And if it was used as evidence during the tribunal the defense would of been given a copy...

 

[Muggs]

Different systems, though that's also the case with many/most Olympic sports. But one big similarity: no positive test result (AAF). That's why the comparisons have been made.

Another big similarity is Amstrong decided not to contest the charges, just as Dank decided not to test his.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

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.

What do you intend on building yaco grollo?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

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.

I'm wondering what this says about the 6 WADA banned drugs that Dank was emailed about early in his time at the EFC.

 

[MaddAdam]

If comfortable satisfaction was the threshold, Rocco Arico would be doing time for the murder of Richard Mladenich.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I'm wondering what this says about the 6 WADA banned drugs that Dank was emailed about early in his time at the EFC.

Use your imagination.
And you don't have to try hard!

 

[Percel]

Should I crack that other red

I did, and it was worth it

 

[wowlace]

They should do and I would expect them too but I don't actually see him physically record it for me.

Ever see him bash the keyboard at the pc? He isn't posting on big footy, he is keeping records.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Didn't ASADA also fail to get a sworn statement from their other key witness?

That's two out of two.

I'm reading your posts. Obviously you are convinced 100% Essendon are innocent and the players will get off.

I have two questions: What chance, if any, do you think the players will get suspended? Why didn't Hird let the case run it's course?

 

[LanceRomance]

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.

If what you are saying is true, How could they not be screwed?