Bruce Francis

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
yaco55 said:
So why was EFC not charged for using AOD ? This was a perfect test case ? I am right about SO - It's hardly been a roaring success in 4 years, and one in which ASADA has treaded warily.
Click to expand...
Thought there was consensus opinion here that asada likely stuffed up by giving ACC information that AOD ok in sport, ACC published it in Aperio blackest day report, thereby giving an arguable out for users that they could've been told it was legal. Be interesting if a sport person calls asada now to inquire about AOD what advice is given.
 
Crankyhawk said:
Thought there was consensus opinion here that asada likely stuffed up by giving ACC information that AOD ok in sport, ACC published it in Aperio blackest day report, thereby giving an arguable out for users that they could've been told it was legal. Be interesting if a sport person calls asada now to inquire about AOD what advice is given.
Click to expand...

It is banned in sport and was in 2012, prior to WADA's announcement in 2013 this information was not accessible to Australian sports persons (eg ASADA didn't understand the WADA code in relation to AOD9604 )
 
gjt80 said:
'both asada and the afl said at the time there was no justification to issue SCNs' I can't recall that being said by either party. ASADA do not issue SCNs, so no such statement would have been issued by them. Besides that, ASADA did not release all the evidence they had to the AFL, only sufficient for the AFL issue a charge of poor governance.
Click to expand...

It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gigantor said:
It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.
Click to expand...
They also said "...at this time"

That's even more significant, yet you keep ignoring it.
 
Gigantor said:
We know the witness list.

We know the listed witnesses have been dropping like flies.

We know none of the key witnesses will be present and none provided sworn statements.

We know that none of the witnesses had direct knowledge of Essendon's supplements program.
Click to expand...

We also know that at least one of the potential witnesses, Dank's business partner, withdrew because he was frightened of Dank suing him for defamation.

Now that leads us to ask. Was he frightened of being sued because he

A. intended to paint Dank in a good light with no charges to answer and all round great guy

B. intended to give evidence that would paint Dank as someone who really shouldn't be operating in a professional sport environment
 
Albert Ross said:
We also know that at least one of the potential witnesses, Dank's business partner, withdrew because he was frightened of Dank suing him for defamation.

Now that leads us to ask. Was he frightened of being sued because he

A. intended to paint Dank in a good light with no charges to answer and all round great guy

B. intended to give evidence that would paint Dank as someone who really shouldn't be operating in a professional sport environment
Click to expand...

Can you be sued for telling the truth?
 
Gigantor said:
It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.
Click to expand...
What has happened since the interim report that has changed ASADA's mind, do you think?
 
Gigantor said:
It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.
Click to expand...
Quite significant, it's a clear indication that there were 15 months between the interim report and infraction notices being issued.

Seriously, you are scraping the bottom of the jar.
 
Gigantor said:
It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.
Click to expand...

Big deal they know that the AFL uses a panel on thier tribunals like this. Nothing significant here. Still dated 6 months before the final report.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Albert Ross said:
Depends if there was malice, and an ex-business partner might be cause for arguing that the comments were malicious.
Click to expand...

In any event, a competent investigative team would normally have its sworn statements well and truly filed away long before the brief of evidence lands on the prosecutor's desk.

That didn't happen here.

People can excuse it whichever way they want, but it's an indicator of gross incompetence, and perhaps also a clue that the CEO never truly intended to go all the way to tribunal (and was hoping more for a Cronulla-like outcome, which never eventuated).
 
Gigantor said:
It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.
Click to expand...

Well ain't it lucky the tribunal wasn't being held at the time of the interim report. Things progress and change over time. Are you aware that we now have colour TV?
 
Last edited:
Brett33 said:
So worst case scenario players are suspended for 2 years...what next GG?

Are you willing to admit you were wrong or were they set up?
Click to expand...

JUmping the gun a bit.

Just as two year suspensions never eventuated for the use of AOD, they will not eventuate here as well, even in the unlikely event that the tribunal finds the players guilty of using TB4.
 
Gigantor said:
JUmping the gun a bit.

Just as two year suspensions never eventuated for the use of AOD, they will not eventuate here as well, even in the unlikely event that the tribunal finds the players guilty of using TB4.
Click to expand...
Hence the words "Worst case scenario"

Stay Strong GG. Even though the building is coming down around you. All signs point to HA!
 
Muggs said:
To the comfortable satisfaction of the panel, would suggest any afl tribunal panel hearing the charges...what
panel do you think it means?
Click to expand...

Seeing that the next step for ASADA would be to present the evidence before the ADRV Panel, then I would think that that is the panel they are talking about.

ASADA does not automatically lead the prosecution to present evidence before the AFL anti-doping tribunal, it was invited by the AFL to do so on this occasion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top