Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

[LoungeLizard]

Maybe intent requires an a desire to knowingly take banned substances where as they appear to believe players didnt know. who knows. All i know is the players are all holding firm despite what appears to be a very dire looking course of evnts from the outside.

if any players had an injury and were likely to miss preseason and maybe a few games at the beginning of next year surely they would have made a deal long ago.

Surely though the signatures on the consent forms would be enough for intent, if TB4 is proved to be on the premises.
Like you said before, there is something missing

 

[mxett]

Source?

McDevitt, however, says ASADA will always consider a deal with the players.

"ASADA has, and will always, remain open to approaches by athletes from any sport and their legal counsel in relation to their particular circumstances," he said.
http://www.northweststar.com.au/sto...e-most-complex-in-the-world-says-asada/?cs=12

 

[mxett]

Surely though the signatures on the consent forms would be enough for intent, if TB4 is proved to be on the premises.
Like you said before, there is something missing

but the consents only stated thymosin and specifically said all substances were wada compliant, so their intent by signing the document was to take a compliant version of thymosin.

 

[Clems Knee]

McDevitt, however, says ASADA will always consider a deal with the players.

"ASADA has, and will always, remain open to approaches by athletes from any sport and their legal counsel in relation to their particular circumstances," he said.
http://www.northweststar.com.au/sto...e-most-complex-in-the-world-says-asada/?cs=12

That's what I thought. He made a general motherhood statement. Not an offer on the table.

 

[LoungeLizard]

McDevitt, however, says ASADA will always consider a deal with the players.

"ASADA has, and will always, remain open to approaches by athletes from any sport and their legal counsel in relation to their particular circumstances," he said.
http://www.northweststar.com.au/sto...e-most-complex-in-the-world-says-asada/?cs=12

Yes remember when he said, "come and and tell us what you know, and you may get reductions"
That kind of deal?

 

[mxett]

That's what I thought. He made a general motherhood statement. Not an offer on the table.

how can he make a specific offer if no player has approached ASaDa to deal? But he clearly states they are still willing to deal

 

[LoungeLizard]

but the consents only stated thymosin and specifically said all substances were wada compliant, so their intent by signing the document was to take a compliant version of thymosin.

yes mxett , but there is also the the little bit where athletes must know what enters their bodies.
So intent would apply

 

[mxett]

Yes remember when he said, "come and and tell us what you know, and you may get reductions"
That kind of deal?

pretty much. He certainly isnt saying "stuff you Essendon players, dont bother approaching asada, youve had your chance"

 

[Tazmania]

when you put it like that its seems all so elementary. So why the hell arent ANY players, past and present, at the club or at other clubs, willing to deal for a possible light sanction?? Why are they ALL willing to risk a long ban when the veidence we know looks so damning? Why are the AFLPA fully behind their stance?

someting just doesnt add up

Weren't they in India just recently?

I was thinking about that and how yes an end of season trip is a good thing to do to get away from it all but...if I had something so serious hanging over my head would I be off in another country instead of dealing with it?

Leads me to one of two conclusions:
1. They truly believe they have nothing to worry about.
2. They are being advised they have nothing to worry about, eg "leave it all to us and you enjoy your holiday, nothing will come of this."

I suspect the latter is what is occurring, and given the opposite seems to occur every time essendon speaks I'm not sure I would be leaving my career to others. But doing so seems to be symptomatic of the naïveté that got the players into this mess in the first place....eg trust the word of people at the club and all shall be well.

 

[mxett]

yes mxett , but there is also the the little bit where athletes must know what enters their bodies.
So intent would apply

agree, however what is specifically required for intent? An intention to dope or and intention to accidently consume a banned substance? Could Saad have been banned for buying the sports drink but not drinking it because he realised it was banned once he made further enquiries?

 

[mxett]

Weren't they in India just recently?

I was thinking about that and how yes an end of season trip is a good thing to do to get away from it all but...if I had something so serious hanging over my head would I be off in another country instead of dealing with it?

Leads me to one of two conclusions:
1. They truly believe they have nothing to worry about.
2. They are being advised they have nothing to worry about, eg "leave it all to us and you enjoy your holiday, nothing will come of this."

I suspect the latter is what is occurring, and given the opposite seems to occur every time essendon speaks I'm not sure I would be leaving my career to others. But doing so seems to be symptomatic of the naïveté that got the players into this mess in the first place....eg trust the word of people at the club and all shall be well.

what about the non-AFL players like Reimers, Lonegan etc? Also, its their legal counsel telling them to fight the charges, who are supplied by the AFLPA, not Essendon

 

[LoungeLizard]

agree, however what is specifically required for intent? An intention to dope or and intention to accidently consume a banned substance? Could Saad have been banned for buying the sports drink but not drinking it because he realised it was banned once he made further enquiries?

Doesn't apply to Saad because the sports drink isn't banned out of competition days.

 

[mxett]

Doesn't apply to Saad because the sports drink isn't banned out of competition days.

what if he had it in his bag on game day?

 

[LoungeLizard]

what if he had it in his bag on game day?

You tell me, because i really have no idea on that.

 

[onemancyclone]

so exactly what are you saying about Danks reference to thymomodulin regarding Essendon and Melbourne?

I'm saying the bloke who said he used tb4 at Essendon, on national television, used tb4 at Essendon.

I'm not saying a damned thing about Melbourne.

 

[mxett]

You tell me, because i really have no idea on that.

nor do i obviously, just trying to get my head around why, as you say, they havent been done already for signing consents which described a possible banned substance. Maybe the fact that showing the substance was actually TB4 is circumstantial means the link isnt as robust as theyd like.

 

[mxett]

I'm saying the bloke who said he used tb4 at Essendon, on national television, used tb4 at Essendon.

I'm not saying a damned thing about Melbourne.

when did he say thet by the way?

 

[ajb72]

Although I thought the poster in question was treating them as two entirely different things.

Without wishing to descend into a boring discussion about bookkeeping terms, one could argue that debtors and accounts receivable are one and the same thing, and where a distinction is made, it's as much one of choice and preferred practice as anything else.

For arguments sake, you might wish to have everything under the umbrella term "Receivables", or you might choose to have various different groupings, and you might have an account sitting outside of your receivables that you might refer to as "Sundry Debtors", you might actually flip those concepts around. It's just all a matter of preferences, how localised systems are set up, etc, etc

Otherwise, they are both closely related, form part of your liquid assets, and the accounting treatment of each is pretty much identical.

again, quite a few points here are wrong.

Receivables are balance sheet. Debtors are a sub ledger that feeds into receivables and profit and loss.

The funny thing is you've made me think about the alavi/dank situation now, and if you look at it financial system wise it should be obvious to investigators if fraud was done. I don't think dank would've realised.
I'll post an explanation when I've got time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[onemancyclone]

when did he say thet by the way?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-science-of-stephen-dank-20130823-2shhd.html

Remember this? Of course not. Nothing penetrates your skull. Nothing.

 

[mxett]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-science-of-stephen-dank-20130823-2shhd.html

Remember this? Of course not. Nothing penetrates your skull. Nothing.

ok, insults aside, can you show me where it says he stated this on national TV?

 

[Clems Knee]

as for bullying, why would that matter to ex essendon players? in dire circumstances its almost alwas every man for himself, and if the players are no longer influenced or part of Essendon they wouldnt worry about repurcusions

Reimers became a pariah after his revelations. Essendon are in positions of power in the media and in Melbourne life. You would have to have courage to stand against that and tell the truth. But if you can take a ban without anyone knowing, why would you make it public? We don't know if any deals have been undertaken with ex players, and we have no way of knowing.
The culture at Football clubs, particularly those who buy in to the Leading Teams programme, is of all for one and one for all. I can easily imagine that players decide to stick fat to the end of this process.
Two players are represented by seperate counsel. Does that mean that the group isn't as united as you say?

 

[onemancyclone]

ok, insults aside, can you show me where it says he stated this on national TV?

24 frames per second with audio.

 

[mxett]

Reimers became a pariah after his revelations. Essendon are in positions of power in the media and in Melbourne life. You would have to have courage to stand against that and tell the truth. But if you can take a ban without anyone knowing, why would you make it public? We don't know if any deals have been undertaken with ex players, and we have no way of knowing.
The culture at Football clubs, particularly those who buy in to the Leading Teams programme, is of all for one and one for all. I can easily imagine that players decide to stick fat to the end of this process.
Two players are represented by seperate counsel. Does that mean that the group isn't as united as you say?

ASADA were evry vocal when spruking the NRL deals. Theyre obviously very keen to justify their epic investigation. I cant see them letting deals and findings go unnoticed.

As for the two players represented by other lawyers, intersting they seem to be taking the same 'reckless' approach

 

[mxett]

24 frames per second with audio.

stop defelcting. show me where and when Dank said he used TB4 on national TV, as youve claimed on numerous occasions

 

[BlueWorld]

how can he make a specific offer if no player has approached ASaDa to deal? But he clearly states they are still willing to deal

If he was desperate to have them take a deal he would be offering them one, not waiting for them to maybe contact him. The Cronulla deals did not go down well with WADA so I would say that will not happen again- tough luck for your club. If only they had taken the 6 months on offer in June (reported by Caro and according to Lance she could not be wrong about that). Mcdevitt's reaction to the AFLPA's demands sounds like he's not in the mood to deal any longer.