If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...

[threesixpio]

What's with all this trolling in the last few hours?

A slow day at work or are you chasing attention?

The same tribunal that found the players not guilty were aware of Dank's activities and found him guilty. You need to read the judgement to understand why but it's neither a logical error or proof that EFC players doped. In fact if Dank's appeal to the AFL tribunal is upheld on his 8 or so charges then that may even weaken WADA's case.

Btw I think it's entirely possible to get Dank for attempted trafficking of TB4 and the players get off. Have argued as much on my board. BUT - what's interesting to me is that Dank didn't get done for simply attempting to purchase TB4 - he got done for doing it for the purpose of using it on Essendon players. It's begs the question what evidence was presented to satisfy the tribunal that this was his intention? In the event CAS rule its TB4 (and it's entirely possible they won't) I'd get a bit worried given that the tribunal were so willing to except that this purchase was for players at Essendon. One possibility is that in the Dank case they were satisfied as to where it ended up. Maybe not in the arms of individual players but possibly at the club. I'm guessing but trying to work out why /how they were convinced of Dank's intended destination/purpose

 

[tesla1962]

Btw I think it's entirely possible to get Dank for attempted trafficking of TB4 and the players get off. Have argued as much on my board. BUT - what's interesting to me is that Dank didn't get done for simply attempting to purchase TB4 - he got done for doing it for the purpose of using it on Essendon players. It's begs the question what evidence was presented to satisfy the tribunal that this was his intention? In the event CAS rule its TB4 (and it's entirely possible they won't) I'd get a bit worried given that the tribunal were so willing to except that this purchase was for players at Essendon. One possibility is that in the Dank case they were satisfied as to where it ended up. Maybe not in the arms of individual players but possibly at the club. I'm guessing but trying to work out why /how they were convinced of Dank's intended destination/purpose

Yep
I always thought the two hills for asada to climb were did it make it to EFC given dank's other interests and could you put it into 34 players. I didn't even consider the uncertainty over what it was to start with. It would be interesting to read the judgement and work out if the TB4 attempted trafficking related to the 20 odd vials and whether the tribunal were satisfied they were destined for EFC players.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

I rest your Honour,off to the gallows with this disgusting drug cheating human filth!.

I

Agreed. As soon as they put pen to paper this resulted in Thymosin Beta-4 entering their bodies.

No the TB4 had been entering their bodies well before signing the consent forms

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

You guys are the experts and seem to know. You tell us.

You should get a job with the EFC legal team...that has pretty much been their defence too.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I'd certainly miss the guaranteed 4 points.

Back on topic, why aren't we discussing what the incontrovertible GUILTY verdict against an Essendon club employee for multiple doping offences means?

Guilty at the AFL tribunal?

Well they're a bunch of corrupt insiders, so it means nothing.

 

[Jesse Custer]

You should get a job with the EFC legal team...that has pretty much been their defence too.

Likewise on the prosecution team. You're guilty but we don't really have anything atm.

 

[threesixpio]

Guilty at the AFL tribunal?

Well they're a bunch of corrupt insiders, so it means nothing.

There are posters on this board trying to argue that CAS/WADA are corrupt before there has even been a ruling!

 

[GuzzLG]

There are posters on this board trying to argue that CAS/WADA are corrupt before there has even been a ruling!

Well they breached the WADA code 34 times by publishing the players names. By not being punished for the breach it by definition means there is corruption. Who polices the police?

 

[threesixpio]

Well they breached the WADA code 34 times by publishing the players names. By not being punished for the breach it by definition means there is corruption. Who polices the police?

There is very likely an individual remedy. The players might have it up their sleeve for later.

 

[Hot tigers]

Well they breached the WADA code 34 times by publishing the players names. By not being punished for the breach it by definition means there is corruption. Who polices the police?

Thats not corrupt, have a look at a dictionary!!!

Id say that was a big FU to the AFL and Dons for their corrupt findings!

 

[threesixpio]

Well they breached the WADA code 34 times by publishing the players names. By not being punished for the breach it by definition means there is corruption. Who polices the police?

But how do we know someone hasn't been disciplined for it? It's a total f&ck up. Unlikely someone wasn't reprimanded

 

[threesixpio]

Thats not corrupt, have a look at a dictionary!!!

Id say that was a big FU to the AFL and Dons for their corrupt findings!

Incompetence. Unlikely deliberate

 

[Hot tigers]

Incompetence. Unlikely deliberate

Actually agree but what would they care to be honest

 

[GuzzLG]

But how do we know someone hasn't been disciplined for it? It's a total f&ck up. Unlikely someone wasn't reprimanded

If ASADA did it it's 2 years imprisonment for the offender. CAS answers to nobody. A law onto themselves. Absolute power. Corrupts absolutely.

 

[threesixpio]

If ASADA did it it's 2 years imprisonment for the offender. CAS answers to nobody. A law onto themselves. Absolute power. Corrupts absolutely.

You sure it's two years and if so is that only for deliberate breaches? Would be flabbergasted if someone could be imprisoned for two years for a mistaken confidentiality breach. Also bear in mind that's likely the maximum penalty. Sounds very "large fine-ish" without priors to me. But yeah - there should be a consequence for the f@ck up -no argument there

 

[threesixpio]

If ASADA did it it's 2 years imprisonment for the offender. CAS answers to nobody. A law onto themselves. Absolute power. Corrupts absolutely.

Anyways - players could sue. Law of confidence is essentially the same law as trade secrets. Can only assume wherever CAS are based or whomever made the breach can be sued

 

[threesixpio]

Actually agree but what would they care to be honest

"They" being the players? They've certainly cared so far in other court/tribunal matters.

 

[Xtreme]

Bit of a difference between a full 'not guilty' and a 'not enough evidence' ruling.

Lets wait for the case, it is positive that an independent court is ruling on this, as it should have been at the start. Won't say whether they are guilty or not, not sure anyone knows. Lets wait for the case. There is no rush, lets get the decision right.

I'll say it for you, they are 100% guilty!

Everything adds up, to what they did. OJ Simpson was innocent as well but we all know that was a farce.

 

[MaddAdam]

Guilty at the AFL tribunal?

Well they're a bunch of corrupt insiders, so it means nothing.

I don't accept that. The tribunal ruled on the players and as it stands they are not guilty of taking PEDs. As you know I fronted up on the big day and wore that I was wrong.

But Dank WAS found guilty.

I think the only logical position to take is that quite frankly, no campaigner knows how its going to turn out from here.

But Dank getting done probably won't play well in the Land Of Nazi Gold.

 

[Red_Emperor]

I don't accept that. The tribunal ruled on the players and as it stands they are not guilty of taking PEDs. As you know I fronted up on the big day and wore that I was wrong.

But Dank WAS found guilty.

I think the only logical position to take is that quite frankly, no campaigner knows how its going to turn out from here.

But Dank getting done probably won't play well in the Land Of Nazi Gold.

Dank has appealed- in case you forgot again.

 

[Cronos]

Dank has appealed- in case you forgot again.

And he remains found guilty until overturned by appeal. Or are the rules different in your opinion when it goes the other way?

 

[Hot tigers]

"They" being the players? They've certainly cared so far in other court/tribunal matters.

WADA

 

[MaddAdam]

What's with all this trolling in the last few hours?

A slow day at work or are you chasing attention?

The same tribunal that found the players not guilty were aware of Dank's activities and found him guilty. You need to read the judgement to understand why but it's neither a logical error or proof that EFC players doped. In fact if Dank's appeal to the AFL tribunal is upheld on his 8 or so charges then that may even weaken WADA's case.

I like the way pointing out facts is "trolling".

I've accepted the tribunal verdict on the players.

I also wait to see what comes of the WADA appeal.

 

[tesla1962]

I like the way pointing out facts is "trolling".

I've accepted the tribunal verdict on the players.

I also wait to see what comes of the WADA appeal.

It seems that you haven't accepted the tribunal's verdict on the players, and neither has WADA. The reason you keep pointing out to us is to do with Dank being found guilty. Posts like 'But Dank getting done probably won't play well in the Land Of Nazi Gold.' suggests that you, like many in here, think the tribunal got it wrong. I wait to see what comes of the appeal also (if it makes it to CAS). For now I prefer to line up on the side of the tribunal judges and those that have read the judgement. Most down at Bomberland seem more frustrated than anxious.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It seems that you haven't accepted the tribunal's verdict on the players, and neither has WADA.

WADA wasn't involved in the first trial, they are the governing body (or whatever you wish to call them). They have a right to appeal a decision and that is where the case is now. The players are presumed innocent and thus it is WADA's onus to prove it otherwise. How about we wait for the trial and stop whinging that a governing body 'appeals a decision', when they have every right to appeal if they choose to do so.