Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

[imperial_oz]

You left out the most important point - ASADA must prove an individual used TB4, not just a group of players.

My point is that is not actually required. Don't listen to those who keep setting the bar very high.

IF, and this is the critical point, IF the tribunal is satisfied that player X took part in the supplements scheme and IF the tribunal is satisfied that TB4 was used in that supplements scheme, they can be satisfied that player X used TB4. They do not have to prove on an individual basis that each player had used TB4. That would raise the level of proof required to 'beyond reasonable doubt' and that is far higher than the actual level required.

Comfortable satisfaction is much easier to achieve than some on here would have you believe.

The Tribunal hearings are individualised and if a player wished to make case for not being part of any doping scheme, he could introduce evidence there to exclude himself, assuming he didn't already do so that the SCN stage.

 

[imperial_oz]

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?

Thats not a like for like example. The drink that Saad was only banned on game day.

He's quite entitled to both buy it when he likes and consume it on any other day but game day and its all good. Trying to show intent would require something to indicate he only would consume it on game day.

 

[BlueWorld]

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.

They got criticized for that by WADA so I wouldn't expect them to be doing that again.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

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

I can only assume the players felt they all asked the right questions and were assured that the drugs were ok. They feel that they just did what the club asked them to do. I assume that the club has continually told them this has been a stuff up by ASADA and it will all blow over. They have been told that they will be ok if they stick together. If anyone breaks ranks everybody becomes vulnerable.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Interesting that he specifically used thymosin with essendon and thymomodulin with melbourne. Surely if he was using the same drug at both he'd use the same name?

Really couldn't win could we?

If he started using thymomodulin at Melbourne before finding out TB4 was banned, it's "interesting he had two names for the same drug." (ignoring the fact that thymomodulin is part of the thymus family and sometimes referred to as just "thymosin")

If he started using thymomodulin at Melbourne after finding out TB4 was banned, it's "because he now knew TB4 was banned and couldn't knowingly use it again at another club."

 

[mxett]

I can only assume the players felt they all asked the right questions and were assured that the drugs were ok. They feel that they just did what the club asked them to do. I assume that the club has continually told them this has been a stuff up by ASADA and it will all blow over. They have been told that they will be ok if they stick together. If anyone breaks ranks everybody becomes vulnerable.

that would make perfect sense if all player affected were still at Essendon and Essendon lawyers were their legal counsel. but the AFLPA are, and theyve certainly not sided with Essendon

 

[mxett]

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.

which is not consistent with what he said a week ago. He openly claimed they were open to deals, yet no player wants a bar of it. Theyd rather take on the charges in a seemingly high risk stretegy which is destined for failure based on the information we know. Maybe that information isnt as complete as we think

 

[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.

crickets from you....wheres the national TV reference?

 

[onemancyclone]

crickets from you....wheres the national TV reference?

That's just mind blowing.

 

[mxett]

That's just mind blowing.

deflecting again i see. Concede you were speaking rubbish?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

that would make perfect sense if all player affected were still at Essendon and Essendon lawyers were their legal counsel. but the AFLPA are, and theyve certainly not sided with Essendon

I wouldn't be surprised if that still is the message to players that have left the club. When you are on your own, the world is a lot scarier. It is a much more formidable force when you band together. Rule number one is fragment the opposition and they weaken considerably. The AFLPA know this and have advised the players accordingly.

 

[mxett]

I wouldn't be surprised if that still is the message to players that have left the club. When you are on your own, the world is a lot scarier. It is a much more formidable force when you band together. Rule number one is fragment the opposition and they weaken considerably. The AFLPA know this and have advised the players accordingly.

but the AFLPA and their legal team wouldn't care what instructions Essendon gave players, their job is to look after the players interests. If their lawyers believed ASADAs case was as convincing as the public are led to believe there would have been deals done long ago surely

 

[BlueWorld]

which is not consistent with what he said a week ago. He openly claimed they were open to deals, yet no player wants a bar of it. Theyd rather take on the charges in a seemingly high risk stretegy which is destined for failure based on the information we know. Maybe that information isnt as complete as we think

Saying they are open to deals and actively putting a deal forward to the players are a lot different.

High risk strategy destined for failure based on the information we know- yes that would apply to the EFC players.

 

[Armchair Critic]

but the AFLPA and their legal team wouldn't care what instructions Essendon gave players, their job is to look after the players interests. If their lawyers believed ASADAs case was as convincing as the public are led to believe there would have been deals done long ago surely

The same lawyers backed Essendon in the court case and even represented the players and requested relief during the hearing. Essendon are also the ones paying the legal fees, massive conflict of interest

 

[onemancyclone]

deflecting again i see. Concede you were speaking rubbish?

That's just mind blowing.

 

[mxett]

Saying they are open to deals and actively putting a deal forward to the players are a lot different.

High risk strategy destined for failure based on the information we know- yes that would apply to the EFC players.

maybe what we know isn't as complete as we think

The same lawyers backed Essendon in the court case and even represented the players and requested relief during the hearing. Essendon are also the ones paying the legal fees, massive conflict of interest

so the strength of asadas case is glaringly obvious to every novice or occasional onlooker, but not to the players at the centre of the scandal or the legal team employed to examine and advise in fine detail? yeah, nah

 

[imperial_oz]

maybe what we know isn't as complete as we think

so the strength of asadas case is glaringly obvious to every novice or occasional onlooker, but not to the players at the centre of the scandal or the legal team employed to examine and advise in fine detail? yeah, nah

That is one of the points I've been making for a long time. I am also of the belief that the players do not yet know everything as they haven't been given copies of the source documents or the brief of evidence to be used. It MAY be that the their lawyers are not giving them the best advice based on lack of knowledge or a potential conflict of interest. Unless you're on the inside here, the best you can do is an educated guess.

 

[Armchair Critic]

maybe what we know isn't as complete as we think

so the strength of asadas case is glaringly obvious to every novice or occasional onlooker, but not to the players at the centre of the scandal or the legal team employed to examine and advise in fine detail? yeah, nah

Speaking of novices, you have proven yourself just that. There are 2 legal teams involved and ASADA's signed off on the SCN's. It's funnyASADA's legal Teams advice

ASADA's lawyer just declared your argument is "Nonsense on Stilts.".

 

[BlueWorld]

maybe what we know isn't as complete as we think

so the strength of asadas case is glaringly obvious to every novice or occasional onlooker, but not to the players at the centre of the scandal or the legal team employed to examine and advise in fine detail? yeah, nah

No different to the players and EFC believing they would win the Federal court case and the matter would be ended.

 

[SugarCoat]

The issue for me is it is clear Dank had too much control.
You may well say Hird sent an e-mail to him stating his peptides must be WADA approved.
But he wasn't kept in check and what he was using wasn't researched enough by Hird and those in charge of the football dept.
If it was, he would have been immediately pulled up.
That is why I have little sympathy for the Essendon players.
They are complicit and they will receive bans.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

maybe what we know isn't as complete as we think

so the strength of asadas case is glaringly obvious to every novice or occasional onlooker, but not to the players at the centre of the scandal or the legal team employed to examine and advise in fine detail? yeah, nah

How many hours did the stunned Essendon lawyers and their clients spend talking amongst themselves after the Middleton verdict?

 

[fleabitten]

There are a few different definitions, but usually in Australia it's referring to the lack of a fault (mens rea) element.

Sorry, I had to.

 

[Tiger2709]

I was reading bits of an article called An Overview of Non-Analytical Positive & Circumstantial Evidence Cases in Sports and it would seem the type of case we have with Essendon has not been dealt with before, where a team is involved but there are no positive samples only strong circumstantial evidence, the case will be difficult to prosecute which would explain why ASADA would do deals and also why the players and lawyers think they have a reasonable chance of being cleared.

I imagine this is why McDevitt has been away visiting WADA to see how far they will push this and whether they will except deals in a case that if successful they will be able to use to help prosecute teams in other sports.

This would also be a part of the reason that the case is taking so long.

This bit was interesting and again may explain the delays in this case, well at least the ones not caused by Essendon/Hird

It remains to be seen how CAS will apply the comfortable satisfaction
standard of proof in non-analytical positive cases. The cases to date have
adequately determined the burden and standard of proof but have given
virtually no guidance on what must be proven in an entirely circumstantial
evidence case involving a non-analytical positive. The sports world waited in
anticipation for the Montgomery and Gaines decisions to provide instructions
on what is required to prove non-analytical positives. However, the decisions
ultimately turned on direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence. The
CAS panels in those cases declined to offer opinions as to whether the
available circumstantial evidence would suffice to prove a doping offense.
scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=sportslaw

 

[threesixpio]

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.

This is going to be their argument. I still think that if you are signing something stating Thymosin and you are given a description of what the intended benefits are, and IF these benefits are not achieveable by taking the legal form of Thymosin, you have not been mislead about anything other then its legal status. Intent is taking the substance. If you don't know it's banned or are mislead as to its legal status I think this is irrelevant to intent. Anyway, it's strict liability. Saad got 18 months for what he did. Essendon is an interesting comparison. On the one hand they are provided with far more information placing them on notice to make checks BUT one can equally raise that this provision of information was (possibly) misleading. Given the strict liability nature of the offence you would think they're in trouble.

 

[jenny61_99]

Really couldn't win could we?

If he started using thymomodulin at Melbourne before finding out TB4 was banned, it's "interesting he had two names for the same drug." (ignoring the fact that thymomodulin is part of the thymus family and sometimes referred to as just "thymosin")

If he started using thymomodulin at Melbourne after finding out TB4 was banned, it's "because he now knew TB4 was banned and couldn't knowingly use it again at another club."

Thymomodulin is very rarely called thymosin. Very rarely.