No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[DonsRule]

Not a personal attack (your post is quite valid, the following is a general statement) but:

PEOPLE FOR **** SAKE GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD - DANK CAN NOT CLEAR THE PLAYERS.

I agree with that.

He has had his time, and many chances to help. But has refused. I have no trust him him, and been a long time since I expected him to 'save the day' I struggle personally to see how people could support him considering the damage caused.

 

[MightyDon]

Yes.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...plements-scandal/story-fn2mcuj6-1227034152141

The above is from the August 23, 2014

Cronulla Sharks drugs scandal: Questions still to be answered of deals NRL-ASADA offered to players

Updated 12 Sep 2014

Will NRL act against Stephen Dank?
And what of the other person implicated in this scandal - the sports scientist Stephen Dank, who was at the Sharks for 11 weeks in 2011?

The head of ASADA, Ben McDevitt, has written to the NRL recommending it issue Mr Dank with an infraction notice and ban him for life.

Thus far the NRL has not taken any action against him.

Why hasn't the NRL acted on Ben McDevitt's recommendation?

The NRL issued a statement last month which referred to the need for all club medical, football and coaching staff to be registered or accredited.

"The new accreditation process would ensure the NRL never allows Stephen Dank to have further involvement in the game," the statement said.

But the NRL could take action if it wanted to relating to the period Mr Dank was at the Sharks.

The 2011 anti-doping policy of the NRL states that the policy applies to all "athlete support personnel".

It states: "To be eligible to participate ... in any competition or event in our sport or other activity organised convened or authorised by us or one of our members ... a person agrees to be bound by and to comply with this ADP (anti-doping policy).

"By so participating or assisting, a person shall be deemed to have agreed to be bound by and comply with this ADP."

The description of "athlete support personnel" is surprisingly broad. It includes coaches, trainers and medical personnel as well as parents, indeed any "person working with or treating or assisting an athlete".

If the NRL were to ban Mr Dank, he would subsequently be banned from all local and international sporting organisations for the length of the ban.

There are still so many questions the NRL needs to answer about its approach to the peptides scandal.

Unfortunately, despite repeated requests for the NRL to call the ABC, it has failed to do so.

 

[DonsRule]

Yes.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...plements-scandal/story-fn2mcuj6-1227034152141

Yep, I am pretty sure that is an NRL ban only though that ban is not recorded on WADA/ASADA Resister of Findings (or what ever it is called) So he can still work at other sports, even WADA affiliated ones.Just not the NRL.

 

[84859300]

I would bet you a shiny silver dollar and two casks of my finest rum that the tribunal will (figuratively) violate Dank.

LOL - you are correct, the tribunal might find instance against Dank. But it's a tribunal and being a tribunal, it's not required for the burden of proof to be comprehensive, where something being merely coincidental is enough to be acted on. Where that fits legally is still very much in the air.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not supporting the guy all out - but I am interested in what the process will be from here. In no case did I intend to support that Dank providing evidence will get us off in anyway. Even I understand that his word is tarnished, which is why I couldn't understand why there was such a positive murmuring from his RRR interview - which was basically a lot of not much anyways.

My point of him being in front by not saying anything relates to there is nothing really to discuss in regards of evidence other than "I know the players are ok and when the time comes I'll let you all know". If EFC had taken the same approach from the start, rather than bring in Ziggy, the media relations expert and have Mr Toll * up every interview, we might have even had a result well before now and this would be done and dusted.

 

[84859300]

Hell, Dank isn't even defending himself at the tribunal and he's played this the best of anyone?

**** me, some of you really need to stop clinging to Dank and his word.

If this was directed at me, I never mentioned that he was being tested at the tribunal...

The point to which I answered was:

I just hope we get some closure on Dank at some point.

 

[Mercurial89]

Yeah man because being banned from sport for life will do wonders for your business reputation.

Not that i dont agree with you on Dank (he aint saving anyone from punishment, not even himself), apparantly "Anti Ageing" supplements, drugs sales have increased a fair amount from the media publicity this has gotten, so froma business point of view I doubt people will care if he is involved in sport. Sports people might, but they arent the ones buying stuff off him.

With everything else i agree
**** Dank

 

[DonsRule]

Hell, Dank isn't even defending himself at the tribunal and he's played this the best of anyone?

**** me, some of you really need to stop clinging to Dank and his word.

I'd add to that. Even if Dank walked in and handed over records if Thymomodulin, purchase orders, where is was sourced from etc I''d look at it with great skepticism and doubt as to it;s authenticity.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

You mean the same spreadsheet that was created mid 2012, a day after Dank sent the forms to Alavi to sign retrospectively for February?

Yeah, I bet that was legit.

Is that the one he forged and completely forgot about less than 12 months later In an interview.

You need to stop being fed the narrative by Caro and the campaigners at the AFL.

"Not what we are looking for"
"leave the bits out"
blah blah.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

There is a big difference between the NRL arbitrarily saying "Dank is not welcome in NRL any more" and him being banned by a tribunal. I bet the AFL will not let Dank near the code again but that's not to say he will be banned by the tribunal in the next few weeks.

 

[MiguelM]

There is a big difference between the NRL arbitrarily saying "Dank is not welcome in NRL any more" and him being banned by a tribunal. I bet the AFL will not let Dank near the code again but that's not to say he will be banned by the tribunal in the next few weeks.

Dank probably makes more money off the gym junkies than professional sport anyway. So unless he has done something illegal will still be raking in the dollars.

 

[Mercurial89]

There is a big difference between the NRL arbitrarily saying "Dank is not welcome in NRL any more" and him being banned by a tribunal. I bet the AFL will not let Dank near the code again but that's not to say he will be banned by the tribunal in the next few weeks.

The fact he isnt defending himself will lead to the ban. Whether it is warranted is up to others i guess.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

The fact he isnt defending himself will lead to the ban. Whether it is warranted is up to others i guess.

Sorry, I should clarify, I just meant that there is a difference between a code saying you're not welcome back and being banned by a tribunal.

 

[Mercurial89]

Sorry, I should clarify, I just meant that there is a difference between a code saying you're not welcome back and being banned by a tribunal.

Ahh yeah, I get what you meant now.

Some people seem absolutely certain Dank is going to get banned by the tribunal.I guess an interesting question is, Can they exonerate the players yet still hand Dank a lifetime ban?
Id assume the AFL want him banned, i also assume maybe thats what their submission to the tribunal was for.

But is it possible to have a scenario where the players are let off, yet Dank still gets hammered?

 

[cymarak]

Ahh yeah, I get what you meant now.

Some people seem absolutely certain Dank is going to get banned by the tribunal.I guess an interesting question is, Can they exonerate the players yet still hand Dank a lifetime ban?
Id assume the AFL want him banned, i also assume maybe thats what their submission to the tribunal was for.

But is it possible to have a scenario where the players are let off, yet Dank still gets hammered?

It's an interesting question.

The ban on Dank isn't automatic - even if he offers no defence, the tribunal still has to be convinced to a level of comfortable satisfaction - that he broke the anti-doping code. So ASADA don't get an automatic win - they still have to convince the tribunal enough to get a 'guilty' verdict.

But it'd be hard to explain - to a casual observer anyway - how a 'support person' could be found guilty of administering banned drugs to players, yet for the same players to be found not guilty of having banned drugs administered to them.

And of course that goes in both directions. If the tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the players were administered banned drugs - and hence returns a 'not guilty' verdict - it'd be hard for the tribunal to explain finding Dank guilty.

This is unless they are going after Dank on different charges than simply administering banned drugs - e.g. going after him for possession / trafficking / intent to use / etc. - if this is the case, his verdict could reasonably be different from that of the players.

 

[Dan Cooper]

It's an interesting question.

The ban on Dank isn't automatic - even if he offers no defence, the tribunal still has to be convinced to a level of comfortable satisfaction - that he broke the anti-doping code. So ASADA don't get an automatic win - they still have to convince the tribunal enough to get a 'guilty' verdict.

But it'd be hard to explain - to a casual observer anyway - how a 'support person' could be found guilty of administering banned drugs to players, yet for the same players to be found not guilty of having banned drugs administered to them.

And of course that goes in both directions. If the tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the players were administered banned drugs - and hence returns a 'not guilty' verdict - it'd be hard for the tribunal to explain finding Dank guilty.

This is unless they are going after Dank on different charges than simply administering banned drugs - e.g. go after him for possession / trafficking / intent to use / etc. - if this is the case, his verdict could reasonably be different from that of the players.

Good summary. You may well have hit the nail on the head in your final paragraph.

 

[MightyDon]

This is unless they are going after Dank on different charges than simply administering banned drugs - e.g. going after him for possession / trafficking / intent to use / etc. - if this is the case, his verdict could reasonably be different from that of the players.

And that could be difficult considering he openly sells said substances legitimately in business.

 

[Duckworth]

And that could be difficult considering he openly sells said substances legitimately in business.

And does this not also complicate the he gave 'da playaz drugz' argument.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Looks like the foamers are infesting bombertalk and stalking bruce.

 

[Fear Boner]

So you would choose Neeld,Craig or Harvey as coach over Bomber Thompson? and ftr i do know what's going on maybe not fully as most people but a fair idea.

Given the circumstances of how bomber left the club ....yeah i would mate

 

[AsIfYouCare]

It's an interesting question.

The ban on Dank isn't automatic - even if he offers no defence, the tribunal still has to be convinced to a level of comfortable satisfaction - that he broke the anti-doping code. So ASADA don't get an automatic win - they still have to convince the tribunal enough to get a 'guilty' verdict.

But it'd be hard to explain - to a casual observer anyway - how a 'support person' could be found guilty of administering banned drugs to players, yet for the same players to be found not guilty of having banned drugs administered to them.

And of course that goes in both directions. If the tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the players were administered banned drugs - and hence returns a 'not guilty' verdict - it'd be hard for the tribunal to explain finding Dank guilty.

This is unless they are going after Dank on different charges than simply administering banned drugs - e.g. going after him for possession / trafficking / intent to use / etc. - if this is the case, his verdict could reasonably be different from that of the players.

I think Dank could easily be banned for administering players, without any players being banned - IF the tribunal were comfortably satisfied that (e.g.) TB4 was administered by Dank to some players, but they were not be comfortably satisfied that any individual player was administered TB4. That seems unlikely but not totally fanciful.

 

[fishardansin]

Surely Dank could be done for buying banned drugs with the club's money. Therefore having banned drugs on the premises. That doesn't mean he's given some to any player so they could get off yet he be banned for that.

 

[Cransberg23]

I think Dank could easily be banned for administering players, without any players being banned - IF the tribunal were comfortably satisfied that (e.g.) TB4 was administered by Dank to some players, but they were not be comfortably satisfied that any individual player was administered TB4. That seems unlikely but not totally fanciful.

I'd say it seems likely.

 

[yaco55]

The NAB challenge that we didnt even compete in last year? Unless you count the absolute piss weak attempt at playing we made last year as competing. Our focus was on training, and training hard. If there is a possibility it means we start a little slower and finish hard im happy with that. Lets be realists and assume we probably wouldnt beat Hawks and it would be tough (though knowing sydney early season, not impossible) to beat swans, so we are exactly where we are if we hadnt have been in this situation.

The modified group is fine, we have Jake ramping up his training and each of the players is spending time in there to manage their loads. We have Jobe in their last week, and he is fine. The worry was Hurley but that has been managed and he had already put in a large body of work. Who else is there? Kommer? not the biggest loss.

Im not saying we are obviously going to win the flag this year, but you have been banging on all pre season about how 2015 is ruined before its even begun. Wheres the enjoyment in that? Go in with an open mind, and see how we go.



Pretty simple and was answered at the time for why he stopped helping. He wasnt getting the protection he wanted. Dank has nothing to gain from getting inteviewed, Charter thought he did, simple. When it was evident he wasnt getting help on other charges he ceased all contact with them. Not the grand mystery you paint.

But why should Charter co-operate to save his skin - Don't think the club did enough on this area - No charter and no case.

 

[yaco55]

Dank is fine - he has refused to speak to ASADA - It was Charter's evidence that may hand players - You are targetting the wrong person.

 

[yaco55]

I think some can't see the forest from the trees - There are two key figures that have resulted in the players being charged by ASADA and possibly suspended - Evans and Charter - Evans supports the club and refuses to self report - That means no joint investigation and therefore ASADA must use their limited powers in which players could remain silent. Charter - Have a guy saying one thing and months later changing his story - Remiss of the club not to be on top of the situation. Put the Evans and Charter decisions together and that's why we are at the Anti-Doping Tribunal.