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

[savagelunchbox]

EFA

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's highly probable that it's a duck however to prove it beyond doubt to the AFL Tribunal you will need 100000 photos of said duck, video evidence of it swimming like a duck and quacking like a duck, and evidence it lives in a habit identical to what a duck lives in, but not before said duck gets a 48 hour head start to destroy home, paint feathers and learn to bark like a dog.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's highly probable that it's a duck however to prove it beyond doubt to the AFL Tribunal you will need 100000 photos of said duck, video evidence of it swimming like a duck and quacking like a duck, and evidence it lives in a habit identical to what a duck lives in, but not before said duck gets a 48 hour head start to destroy home, paint feathers and learn to bark like a dog.

Some DNA from the 'duck' would probably be required as well.

 

[savagelunchbox]

Some DNA from the 'duck' would probably be required as well.

And then the case would be thrown out because it wasn't beyond dispute that they were these guys...

 

[Great 2008]

Think about it.

Do you honestly think any sporting team/person/organisation that are doping would keep a clear and/or accurate record of what they have been doing and injecting?

Do you honestly think if there is a chain of evidence that includes buying, transporting and desire to administer banned substances involving multiple people with checkered histories would exist in a club that are actually innocent?

If the bar was set that only those with indisputable evidence proving that they took PEDs were convicted, then there would be close to 0 convictions in WADA's history.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's highly probable that it is a duck. That's WADA way. If Essendon are innocent, then their appeal to a guilty verdict will have stronger evidence as they are the ones who controlled the trail of substances, injections and all the other stuff.

Mate if you have read any of my posts you would know I believe the Bombers are guilty.

If the intelligentsia on the AFL tribunal having full possession of all the facts/evidence (unlike the BF world) could not find, beyond 'comfortable satisfaction' that the Bomber players are guilty of taking anything or breaching the code, I fail to see how WADA could find differently if the same rules of evidence are applied by WADA. The standard of proof being applied incorrectly by the AFL tribunal is the only chance, I can see, of anything more coming from this.

 

[savagelunchbox]

Mate if you have read any of my posts you would know I believe the Bombers are guilty.

If the intelligentsia on the AFL tribunal having full possession of all the facts/evidence (unlike the BF world) could not find, beyond 'comfortable satisfaction' that the Bomber players are guilty of taking anything or breaching the code, I fail to see how WADA could find differently if the same rules of evidence are applied by WADA. The standard of proof being applied incorrectly by the AFL tribunal is the only chance, I can see, of anything more coming from this.

They weren't operating under a 'comfortable satisfaction' pretense, they were looking for 'indisputable proof'.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

WADA don't need to prove WHAT the players were injected with though.

sorry I said I wouldn't but come on, what a load of crap. Where does this fantasy even come from?

Plus, your Demonland guy said ASADA had buckets loads of evidence and the tribunal would find them guilty but apply a wet lettuce leaf so he's actually been wrong every step of the way.

 

[Great 2008]

They weren't operating under a 'comfortable satisfaction' pretense, they were looking for 'indisputable proof'.

Thats my point. How do WADA come to a decision that the wrong standard of proof was applied? Is a new trial required to make this determination? Are they able to base any appeal from examining court transcripts?

Comfortable satisfaction would have to be the lowest burden of proof I have ever heard of after balance of probabilities. If ASADA could not satisfy such a low burden of proof you need to forgive people for being a bit skeptical that WADA will produce anything different.

 

[Great 2008]

sorry I said I wouldn't but come on, what a load of crap. Where does this fantasy even come from?

Plus, your Demonland guy said ASADA had buckets loads of evidence and the tribunal would find them guilty but apply a wet lettuce leaf so he's actually been wrong every step of the way.

Hey Lance Uppercut read these particularly 2 & 8. These are the only two rules under the code I can see even remotely apply.

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

Edit: FWIW in regards to your reply to Savage it does appear some evidence of a prohibited substance is required. Hence my assertion that any link beyond Dank appears a tenuous one. Thank goodness for no records.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

sorry I said I wouldn't but come on, what a load of crap. Where does this fantasy even come from?

Plus, your Demonland guy said ASADA had buckets loads of evidence and the tribunal would find them guilty but apply a wet lettuce leaf so he's actually been wrong every step of the way.

I don't think you get to come here and post that you think something is a load of crap or fantasy, mate.

Our posters certainly don't get that opportunity on your board.

This is our board and sanctuary away from Bomber posters who are impartial, compromised and smug in their eagerness to be completely ignorant as to what happened at Essendon in 2012.

 

[badgrill]

Think about it.

Do you honestly think any sporting team/person/organisation that are doping would keep a clear and/or accurate record of what they have been doing and injecting?

Do you honestly think if there is a chain of evidence that includes buying, transporting and desire to administer banned substances involving multiple people with checkered histories would exist in a club that are actually innocent?

If the bar was set that only those with indisputable evidence proving that they took PEDs were convicted, then there would be close to 0 convictions in WADA's history.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's highly probable that it is a duck. That's WADA way. If Essendon are innocent, then their appeal to a guilty verdict will have stronger evidence as they are the ones who controlled the trail of substances, injections and all the other stuff.

This is comforting - do you wanna forward it on to Mr Whately to ponder?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Glorious couch life]

Thats my point. How do WADA come to a decision that the wrong standard of proof was applied? Is a new trial required to make this determination? Are they able to base any appeal from examining court transcripts?

Comfortable satisfaction would have to be the lowest burden of proof I have ever heard of after balance of probabilities. If ASADA could not satisfy such a low burden of proof you need to forgive people for being a bit skeptical that WADA will produce anything different.

If WADA appeal and lose, then the AFL tribunal - and by extension the AFL, will have done the right thing. And by far the most important thing - they will be SEEN to have done the right thing.
Rightly or wrongly, people don't trust the AFL. I count myself as one who doesn't. Having the case heard in the CAS will give us an impartial judgement. Now this may have actually happened at the AFL tribunal, but the AFL are so on the nose many of us are inclined to doubt that.
If Essendon win at CAS, fair play and good luck to them. But for the sake of impartiality and transparency the game needs an appeal by WADA in my opinion.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Hey Lance Uppercut read these particularly 2 & 8. These are the only two rules under the code I can see even remotely apply.

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

Edit: FWIW in regards to your reply to Savage it does appear some evidence of a prohibited substance is required. Hence my assertion that any link beyond Dank appears a tenuous one. Thank goodness for no records.

But, did the AFL tribunal consider the player testimony of being given 'thymosin' from a brown vial, and that there were also text conversation between players about "thymo"? Did they even consider that "thymosin" was on the consent forms?
No, they didn't, because they decided that they didn't need to consider any of this, as they weren't 'comfortably satisfied' that Thymosin(Beta 4) was ever sourced from China(as it they hadn't had it scientifically verified or tested....so it could've been anything ), despite it being Alavi and Dank's drug of choice, what Charter said he received, what Biochem said they supplied, what the players signed for, what Dank told Robinson was the 'cornerstone' of the program, what Dank wanted to mix with AOD and test on players....the list goes on.

Instead the AFL chose to find that the 34 players were in fact injected with an 'unknown drug'.

The pieces of the puzzle are big and obvious, but whether WADA can cut through the legal jargon put in place by the AFL tribunal(no doubt a key to this outcome taking so long to being released), is another thing.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I don't think you get to come here and post that you think something is a load of crap or fantasy, mate.

Our posters certainly don't get that opportunity on your board.

This is our board and sanctuary away from Bomber posters who are impartial, compromised and smug in their eagerness to be completely ignorant as to what happened at Essendon in 2012.

fair enough, I should have just kept my gob shut. I think it's just as silly on our board when erroneous information is posted and it's not rebutted, I usually do exactly the same there.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

fair enough, I should have just kept my gob shut. I think it's just as silly on our board when erroneous information is posted and it's not rebutted, I usually do exactly the same there.

Well, I hope you tell them all how 'erroneous' they are for saying that 'no one knows what the players were given', because that is by far the biggest fantasy of this entire shebang.

 

[Davo23]

Who else googled "frente album" after reading this?
and Davo23 , you came back to read this, didn't you?

Damn you, damn you to hell!

 

[hawks realist]

But, did the AFL tribunal consider the player testimony of being given 'thymosin' from a brown vial, and that there were also text conversation between players about "thymo"? Did they even consider that "thymosin" was on the consent forms?
No, they didn't, because they decided that they didn't need to consider any of this, as they weren't 'comfortably satisfied' that Thymosin(Beta 4) was ever sourced from China(as it they hadn't had it scientifically verified or tested....so it could've been anything ), despite it being Alavi and Dank's drug of choice, what Charter said he received, what Biochem said they supplied, what the players signed for, what Dank told Robinson was the 'cornerstone' of the program, what Dank wanted to mix with AOD and test on players....the list goes on.

Instead the AFL chose to find that the 34 players were in fact injected with an 'unknown drug'.

The pieces of the puzzle are big and obvious, but whether WADA can cut through the legal jargon put in place by the AFL tribunal(no doubt a key to this outcome taking so long to being released), is another thing.

Under the Wada code all players are responsible for what enters their system so how does "I don't know what I was injected with" not earn these campaigners a 2 year ban anyway?

Just a general question you would think would have been answered by a competent tribunal

 

[Great 2008]

But, did the AFL tribunal consider the player testimony of being given 'thymosin' from a brown vial, and that there were also text conversation between players about "thymo"? Did they even consider that "thymosin" was on the consent forms?
No, they didn't, because they decided that they didn't need to consider any of this, as they weren't 'comfortably satisfied' that Thymosin(Beta 4) was ever sourced from China(as it they hadn't had it scientifically verified or tested....so it could've been anything ), despite it being Alavi and Dank's drug of choice, what Charter said he received, what Biochem said they supplied, what the players signed for, what Dank told Robinson was the 'cornerstone' of the program, what Dank wanted to mix with AOD and test on players....the list goes on.

Instead the AFL chose to find that the 34 players were in fact injected with an 'unknown drug'.

The pieces of the puzzle are big and obvious, but whether WADA can cut through the legal jargon put in place by the AFL tribunal(no doubt a key to this outcome taking so long to being released), is another thing.

I totally agree. I am just trying to see it in a different light and believe me that has taken a big mental shift. I really hope that 'all roads ending at Dank' does not save them.

 

[QuietB]

Some DNA from the 'duck' would probably be required as well.

And the AFL would still find a way to disprove it was a duck. Their official finding would be;

We have determined that it was certainly a swimming bird with web feet, it not only got the hunters amongst us very excited but also sent the dogs into a frenzy. The AFL also found that it is very popular in Chinese restaurants, and in fact found in a number of the favourite dishes of the AFL executive. The AFL has eliminated the possibility it was any other bird or any other animal for that matter, but we cannot be certain it was a duck as it was dead and could not quack.

The records were sent to the Flowerdrum and needless to say they no longer exist.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Under the Wada code all players are responsible for what enters their system so how does "I don't know what I was injected with" not earn these campaigners a 2 year ban anyway?

Just a general question you would think would have been answered by a competent tribunal

That the tribunal could end on "we will never know" is farcical. Agreed.

 

[Taskmaster]

Precedent been set by AFL. Open slather!!

WADA will not appeal

 

[CD Xbow]

And the AFL would still find a way to disprove it was a duck. Their official finding would be;

We have determined that it was certainly a swimming bird with web feet, it not only got the hunters amongst us very excited but also sent the dogs into a frenzy. The AFL also found that it is very popular in Chinese restaurants, and in fact found in a number of the favourite dishes of the AFL executive. The AFL has eliminated the possibility it was any other bird or any other animal for that matter, but we cannot be certain it was a duck as it was dead and could not quack.

The records were sent to the Flowerdrum and needless to say they no longer exist.

Brilliant. I'm looking for some verbal gags for the 3 Stooges series of pics, could I use this? I've got the start and a finish but no meat. I was going to use walks like a duck etc line but it's a bit lame. I was going to caption this picture:

 

[QuietB]

Brilliant. I'm looking for some verbal gags for the 3 Stooges series of pics, could I use this? I've got the start and a finish but no meat. I was going to use walks like a duck etc line but it's a bit lame. I was going to caption this picture:

View attachment 126463

Go for it

 

[JoondalupJ]

This. It does seem that the reason the tribunal weren't comfortably satisfied was because it couldn't be proven is was TB4 they were injected with. WADA have a much lower threshhold for guilt and yes, WADA don't need to prove it was TB4. Essendon are in trouble because they can't prove what it was they were injecting, and this is enough for WADA.

This is true. They have their set of protocols to follow and under their rules they can say we have enough evidence to satisfy "us". And you are going to be charged because we believe we have a strong case.. So who is going to be charged , every one again I guess, that ASADA failed to get or AFL failed to get.

Again I'll say to you Wundo, because others fail to see it from me, I have never argued about guilt or innocence I 've argued about proving it, either way.

And I don't want to call or be called names either. So this is about the subject not anyone in particular.

So once again unless WADA have a much bigger wider range to gather more evidence or know things we don't , and will follow through with it, will that still not result in a long long process of appeals and civil court visits , if the club and the players maintain innocence, and proof gets harder and harder for the world body .
WADA may be able to say we have found you guilty , you are suspended , for life or years or whatever penalty they have available that is suitable.

That won't stop appeals , will it , I see this getting dragged out over years with nothing gained , I also see an opportunity for higher authorities to have a closer look at the AFL from the bottom to the top. So now for me let us have the reckoning with WADA and we can all see how right or wrong we are.

Its the chance to see openly inside the AFL and their secret little kingdom, its a chance to see if other clubs were involved , so it is a chance.

Perhaps the chance is good perhaps its a wrecker for the AFL, and will hurt all of us.

One thing more , if WADA are ready to go to extremes of time to prove the case, then speculation will end and who knows , Essendon may not exist after all.

I would welcome that , if Essendon are drug tacking cheats and it can be proved with out doubt they were.

AND THIS.
News this morning suggesting other clubs were involved with these sports medicos, so it goes on.

 

[JoondalupJ]

These things take time, it's a complex case. You have simply been sucked in by the AFL's media drivel that because the case took so long it must be flawed.

Probably.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Have a read of this, people.

It raises plenty of questions.


http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/bomber-thompsons-aod-comments.1092035/page-7