Who will abide by the tribunal decision

[coryne]

interesting thought exercise for you.

Substitute "wada code" with "tax obligations", and substitute "Dank" with "any corporate entity".

That kind of attitude is pretty much de rigueur in our society, so the all hand-wringing is probably a bit over the top

So you are happy that Dank has tried to bypass the WADA code to, to access prohibited substances, because if this was a different industry then it would be the norm ???

 

[Big Fozza]

I don't believe anyone at Essendon embarked on this program thinking they were going to use banned substances and it was never their intention to cheat per se. Yes, even dank.

Dank was too clever by half though and operated in the grey areas of the WADA code thinking he had found a loophole(s) to use legally drugs that would achieve results similar to those of banned substances. So he wasn't cheating on an Armstrong level but he was ambivalent as to how close to the line he was to the point where he quite possibly crossed it whilst assuring all and sundry that what he was doing was legit. He was and continues to be deliberately vague about what he did which leaves us with the current uncertainty about what he really did use, the answer to which we will likely never know. Robinson was his dumb accomplice and I believe him when he says as far as he knows nothing banned was used.

i don't agree with this. i think the emails between Dank and WADA indicate that he intended to (and imo probably did) use prohibited substances that were under S0.

imo there is enough evidence to show that EFC players were injected with banned substances, i will need to see some compelling evidence to make me change my mind. with that being said i think it's probably time that this thing is wrapped up. been good for the lols tho.

 

[SterlingArcher]

I know when I and some others say EFC players won't get suspended, we're not necessarily saying it will be 'fixed'. I just reckon there is 2 options

1) Essendon players are found not guilty and that is the correct decision

2) Essendon players are found not guilty and that is manipulated by the AFL

I really don't think they will be suspended considering the evidence - too easy for the AFL to avoid a shitstorm.

I'm not convinced the players did take anything illegal. Convinced that Hird should be sacked. Convinced that the off-field stuff needs an overhaul, and that Dank should never work in AFL again.

But there's a good chance the players get off the charges and with good reason.

 

[fishardansin]

I'm not real, neither are you. Read my damn signature!

I strongly disagree with that. Things and events are real and often distinct.

 

[SterlingArcher]

One thing is for certain - WADA won't get the decision overturned.

 

[neutralguy]

If they are completely exonerated, I will not agree with that decision. Not having records of medications for a start is a breach, AOD9604 is a banned substance so they have been injected with a banned substance.

 

[evo]

I strongly disagree with that. Things and events are real and often distinct.

typical sciencey type.

Proof that IQ =/= wisdom.

 

[legend166]

interesting thought exercise for you.

Substitute "wada code" with "tax obligations", and substitute "Dank" with "any corporate entity".

That kind of attitude is pretty much de rigueur in our society, so the all hand-wringing is probably a bit over the top

Uh, the difference is Dank didn't find a loophole, did he?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Uh, the difference is Dank didn't find a loophole, did he?

I don't really think you're post has much relevance to what I posted, frankly.

But anyway. Didn't he? When is the trial over AOD starting?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If they are found not guilty, I would like to here their evidence that led to that finding, I would still be very sketchy on the whole thing if their defence was: "Well we can't provide anything to show we didn't take PEDs, but you can't provide needle in the arm type evidence we did."

I hope that whatever happened the truth comes out and they are either rightfully punished, or rightfully let off.

Well there's the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. The prosecution does need to produce evidence to support their case. If it's strong and the defendants can't refute any of it convincingly, theyll be in trouble.

 

[Gigantor]

Gough Whitlam and free tertiary education allowed people living in traditional blue collar areas to avail themselves of higher education and from that point on, generational Collingwood supporters living in lower socio economic areas were becoming lawyers, doctors etc etc and moved into the middle class and with it came their relative improved prosperity.

While others got into TV.

 

[Ultimatt]

My opinions made no matter what the tribunal rules. With the amount of leaks over the last 22 months, if there was evidence clearing Essendon then we would've seen it. In contrast EFC haven't been fighting the allegations as much as they're fighting the process, putting up roadblocks at every turn. In my eyes it's clear the players took banned substances and Hird was aware of it.

 

[Gigantor]

One thing is for certain - WADA won't get the decision overturned.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?

Because of the Cronulla outcome?

Because the CAS is a lot more favourable to athletes than what many on here are willing to concede?

 

[Gigantor]

My opinions made no matter what the tribunal rules. With the amount of leaks over the last 22 months, if there was evidence clearing Essendon then we would've seen it. In contrast EFC haven't been fighting the allegations as much as they're fighting the process, putting up roadblocks at every turn. In my eyes it's clear the players took banned substances and Hird was aware of it.

WE have at least one instance of the club captain no less, proclaiming loudly to the world that he was administered a substance which had been declared prohibited by none other than the WADA President himself.

Seeing that it's actually the players who are in the dock, and not the club itself, I have seen no evidence of the players not cooperating or trying to fight the process or in any way acting in a dishonest manner.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I noticed a strong relevance, but I am not looking through a jug of cool aide

"cool aide"?

At least try and get some understanding of your inane cliches

 

[jezzajay]

i will accept the tribunals decision, considering they have the detail in front of them (at least what asada can conjure up, not what essendon have provided) they have a more educated and informed opinion than i will ever have.

but i will not accept the way essendon have handled themselves, some of their support base and some individuals in the media.

people can think what they like about my thoughts...i dont care...im smart enough to see they did do something wrong in the first place for this mess to arise and arent being culpable for their decisions and actions (or lack off).

i look forward to the day we can all move on and enjoy our game for what it is!

 

[jenny61_99]

Things I want to know more about:

• Why didn't the AFL keep a closer eye on Essendon after the peptide warning? Why did Vlad declare war on sports scientists in March 2012? What was it that motivated that line of thinking?
• Why was Hird asking about a non-detectable steroid cream in New York (whether it was to a doctor or pharmacist is irrelevant)?
• Why were there "financials" to do with the AOD project, and why isn't that being followed up?
• Why isn't AOD being pursued? Either by ASADA, WorkSafe or the TGA?
• Why didn't ONE player ask their agent/parent/AFLPA about the substances and increased injections?
• How did a dodgy chiropractor inject 34 players with an unknown substance that was prescribed for someone else and sourced from Mexico at Hypermed without any questions from anyone?
• Why didn't Doc Reid do anything other than write his "hand written" letter proclaiming his doubts over the program - in January 2012 - and then sit back and do nothing? The program ran until at least August.
• Did Doc Reid provide the AFL in 2013 with a full list of all substances the players were given during the previous 12 months as is required by the AFL? If not, what penalty did he receive?
• Why did Thompson demand the injections stop - five times?
• Why were all records either a) never kept, or b) destroyed? - all except for a dodgy picture of thymomodulin and some half arsed spreadsheet by Wallis, not started until the day Dank faked the thymomodulin letter from Alavi? - some 7 months after the start of the program?
• Why hasn't Essendon taken Dank to court for fraud (considering their penchant to do so)? There is evidence of doctored invoices, unapproved blood tests, medicare claims etc. - things the Club apparently knew about much earlier than the February 2013 "shocked to be sitting here" presser given that they sacked Dank in September 2012. Dank also claims he gave nothing prohibited but refuses to come forward with information to clear the Club and players and the Club has done nothing to change that.

So many things I want to know before I decide if the tribunal decision is fair.

I don't think Hird or Essendon set out to deliberately cheat. Dank however, thought he was smarter than everyone, including ASADA. Unfortunately though, I believe that banned substances were ultimately given to players through a series of fundamental incompetencies by ALL concerned - Hird, Dank, Thompson, Robinson, Wallis, Doc Reid and the players themselves. The code is explicit in that whether you intended to cheat or not is irrelevant, if you've taken a banned substance, then you are guilty of a doping violation. Essendon's complete lack of acceptance of responsibility for this cluster *, have made it increasingly harder to feel sorry for anybody. Hirds' arrogance has been disappointing and infuriating.

Bottom line for me is, banned substances were taken by Essendon players. Whilst they were more than likely duped, they contributed to their situation by not following advised protocols for such thing. As such they must be penalised in accordance with the WADA code. I would accept a reduced penalty based on no significant fault, and backdated to now. However, for those in positions of power, I see NO leniency at all. They were all old enough to know better. Minimum 4 year ban - and life for Dank.

TLDR: Of course, regardless of any of the above, I'll have to abide by what ever decision they make.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

There's only two numbers at stake here and they are 1 and 2, that's years by the way not matches.

 

[pablo668]

Well, I'm gonna be brutally honest here. I won't abide by the decision if Essendon get off or get a ridiculously light penalty.

It would all smack too much of the boys club taking care of things, rather than there being any integrity in the process/league/game.

As I've said before, I'll walk away from the game at this level.

 

[Bluesince62]

Well, I'm gonna be brutally honest here. I won't abide by the decision if Essendon get off or get a ridiculously light penalty.

It would all smack too much of the boys club taking care of things, rather than there being any integrity in the process/league/game.

As I've said before, I'll walk away from the game at this level.

So if they get off you think that two former justices are corrupt ?

If that is the way our judiciary is respected we might as well pack our bags and head somewhere overseas as the country is farked.

 

[replicant]

Nobody.

I started a thread here 12+ months ago about how clear the attitude is amongst the asada cultists - it's either guilty, or a fix. Nothing has changed/

No, i'm more cynical than that. I'll think it's a fix either way.

It's gone on too long, there is too much confusion and uncertainty, and the AFL has shown it is hopelessly corrupt.

If the players go down, i'll believe it's because the AFL has manufactured it due to the public perception they are guilty and the need to be seen to be doing something to address the issue.

If the players get off, i'll believe it's because the AFL can't risk the financial hit and legal repercussions.

I have zero belief that the tribunal is truly independent, given that David Jones is head of the AFL Tribunal, which has shown itself as hopelessly inept and influenced by the AFL and public pressure before, and another panel member is an ex-player with all that goes with it.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

To all those who think the afl is going to be corrupt with the decision, if they were going to be corrupt and the evidence is weak as we keep hearing, then why are we at the tribunal stage , wouldn't the ADRVP have stopped it dead in it's tracks.

As for the wet lettuce leaf bans people think will also happen, explain how, the 6 months for substantial assistance has sailed off into the distance, the players didn't ask any questions outside the club, they asked questions inside the club and were then given a consent form in my mind to keep them quiet.

Oh I forgot to add, who has the last say in this matter, ASADA/WADA through cas or the AFL tribunal.

 

[RUNVS]

I am sure everyone else knows but what day is the tribunal to be held?

 

[FuManchu]

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?

Because of the Cronulla outcome?

Because the CAS is a lot more favourable to athletes than what many on here are willing to concede?

While others got into TV.

Only the ones lacking any ability

 

[jenny61_99]

I am sure everyone else knows but what day is the tribunal to be held?

You'd be hopeful!

Hearing starts 15th December, expected to run for 3 weeks.