Remove this Banner Ad

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
rines said:
It shouldn't be the case.. but I really think that what we have seen in the public domain is very close to the mark.. Remembering that ASADA can have 'compelling' evidence Dank ordered TB4.. and they can have 'compelling evidence' that Dank took possession of TB4.. but all that means jack shit in a doping case.. because what they need is 'compelling evidence' of exactly HOW MUCH TB4 was injected in each player and WHEN and WAS IT WITH CONSENT...

So fantastic.. they appear to have built a really strong case that Dank asked Charters about TB4.. and a really really really strong case that a Chinese factory made some TB4.. and a great case to suggest that the TB4 was brought to Australia.. and a very convincing case that TB4 was, at some point, at Alavis Chemist....

Then it gets a little murky.. because they still haven't been able to find any evidence that the TB4 was ever destined for EFC, in fact there appears to be no record of the TB4 after it leaves Alavi's.. which doesn't mean they can go 1+1=4... it may have been destroyed.. it may have been onsold.. it may have been used in Dank's clinic.. it may have been given to Melbourne FC players for all we know...

So even if the tribunal accepts there is a 5% chance it ended up at EFC.. they have no evidence of players being given any injection labelled directly as TB4. They have no evidence of players admitting to receiving TB4.. the closest they have is "that sounds familiar" and "maybe, I don't know, maybe" oh and let's not forget the "he said there was good Thymosin and bad Thymosin and this was the good one".

But yeah that sums compelling and 'almost beyond reasonable doubt' to me..
Click to expand...
Which makes the likelihood of this response, "I'm sorry, I can't recall", very strong. Ain't that delicious.
 
Harlequin said:
Hird's comment was made fairly early.
I remember on AFL360 where GW asked Thompson would he stand down if the players received suspensions as James had said he would.
Click to expand...

cheers!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

spartanwa said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...strike-a-deal-with-asada-20141018-1184sm.html

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

While there is no suggestion Ryder believes he was administered anything illegal and, if he did, he was an unwitting victim of the Bombers'
Click to expand...


If that's the case then players shouldn't cop bans.

It's understood Ryder has been told if he was to do a deal, he should not fear public backlash, for it's felt most people would understand he had been duped during the supplements program run by Stephen Dank. The former sports scientist, however, insists the players were not given any banned substances. The AFLPA is of the belief the players were not administered anything illegal.
Click to expand...

Haha yeah right
 
It's understood Ryder has been told if he was to do a deal, he should not fear public backlash, for it's felt most people would understand he had been duped during the supplements program run by Stephen Dank.
Click to expand...

lololololol

So none of Ryder, Dank or the AFLPA believe he took anything illegal, but he should take a deal anyway? Strong logic ASADA.
 
BombaMan said:
Wouldn't that destroy their reputations?. Heppell for example...The way he is going he could become an amazing AFL player but he would never be recognized as a all time great player outside of Essendon just a drug cheat =/.
Click to expand...

As for their reputation as I have said before that ship has sailed long ago they will always be called drug cheats unless its categorically proven that they did not take any banned substances. I dont think that can happen.
 
The Speaker said:
lololololol

So none of Ryder, Dank or the AFLPA believe he took anything illegal, but he should take a deal anyway? Strong logic ASADA.
Click to expand...
Considering what happened to Jobe when he admitted to taking a non-prohibited substance, Ryder would have to be an even bigger idiot than I thought to take this deal
 
Matthew_Lloyd said:
Considering what happened to Jobe when he admitted to taking a non-prohibited substance, Ryder would have to be an even bigger idiot than I thought to take this deal
Click to expand...

There isn't actually any evidence in that article that says he will take the deal. Pierik is just going off the general feel for Ryder's move to Port. I really doubt that Ryder, having only gotten the SC notice yesterday, and in the middle of his own wedding today, would have already made his mind up. And if he has already made his decision before really going through the evidence, then he's an idiot.
 
vast said:
As for their reputation as I have said before that ship has sailed long ago they will always be called drug cheats unless its categorically proven that they did not take any banned substances. I dont think that can happen.
Click to expand...
as far as I'm concerned a bunch of dick heads calling my team drug cheats with no evidence while we drink from the premiership cup holds no weight.. if we take deals, what we are drinking from the cup will taste like Melbourne bitter (no offence to MB drinkers)
 
Last edited:
FBDonkey said:
The last paragraph of that article indicates that ASADA may be able to "prove" that TB4 was actually at Windy Hill. I hadn't heard that before.
If they can place it on the premises rather than just given to Dank at some point then that does seem to make the circumstantial case stronger
Click to expand...
My way of thinking is that unless ASADA can prove that a supplement/drug that has been found in a players sample is a known masking agent for TB 4, any circumstantial evidence up to that point is redundant.

If they can prove a masking agent was present, presence of TB 4 on-site does look decidedly worse.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

So know that ****face has left the bombers he isnt a drug cheat anymore just a victim of the evil EFC.

Could the media even be bothered saying that message would have been relayed to all players not just the ones that left EFC.

Go ahead Paddy throw your former team mates under a bus.
 
spartanwa said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...strike-a-deal-with-asada-20141018-1184sm.html

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is such a poor article by Pierik and a weak as piss attempt to sell further (BREAKING!!) news on the back of Ryder's exit.

First of all - and Ryder has made this abundantly clear - he is not a Bomber.

The article is based purely on Pierik's imagination that Ryder could be first player to strike some sort of deal. It could very well have been titled 'Prismal could be the first player...'

Ryder was unavailable for comment. So, no confirmation to back up the assumption.
Port gave Ryder the option of going his own way with ASADA, as they did with Monfries already.
Prismal & Crameri are already being represented by their own lawyers, having broken ranks with the EFC boys.

Then he goes on to regurgitate the SCN news, which applies to all 34 players.

Next he states that Ryder could actually fight the charges with the rest of the players. (ie. Not striking a deal)

We then hear that both Ryder & Monfries are keen to have this over & done with. I guess the other 32 are pretty happy with the situation is dragging out to the 2 year mark?

"It's understood Ryder has been told if he was to do a deal, he should not fear public backlash". Good luck with that one. You'll be labeled a drug cheat for life. And told by who? Caro?

The rest is further rehash of Dank & AFLPA stating that no illegal substances were administered.


Absolute dreck.
 
rumply said:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...oping-cases-against-them-20141017-117yk6.html

Player representatives told Fairfax Media on Friday night that they had not in the preliminary examination unearthed any smoking gun in the show-cause letters, which averaged 350 pages per player and were delivered via computer disc to the legal team assembled by the players' union.
...
McDevitt is expected to offer deals to players seeking to further hasten their fates in the coming days, but no player has yet moved to negotiate despite two – Western Bulldog Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall, now playing in the VFL – seeking independent advice. ASADA has suggested any deal would involve at least a short suspension.


If true then it's likely nothing has really changed from what has already been disclosed publicly. So circumstantial case & unlikely to be able to prove to comfortable satisfaction that TB4 was injected? I suspect so.
Click to expand...

This is not really material but I think that there is a misconception on here that firstly; ASADA are relying on circumstantial evidence and secondly; that circumstantial evidence is somehow less robust than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is, in a criminal sense, where facts need to be inferred where as direct evidence is where facts do not need to be inferred. So DNA samples, finger prints or a positive drug test are all examples of circumstantial evidence. Conversely, a witness statement or a defendant's admission in a statement are considered direct evidence. To revert to a doping parlance, clearly a failed drug test is compelling although circumstantial whereas the testimony of a witness such as Shane Charters, may be entirely questionable but is direct evidence. I don't think this changes the discussion in any way and is really just clarification around terms. Often the most compelling evidence is circumstantial and this is certainly the case in doping where a positive test is almost incontestable where as a case based on direct evidence, say a witness who knew the contents of a syringe testifies that they saw an athlete inject the substance, can be contested on a number of factors.

I think in this case, there is a mixture of circumstantial and direct evidence but, from what is available publicly, neither the circumstantial nor the direct evidence would appear to be robust.
 
vast said:
So know that ****face has left the bombers he isnt a drug cheat anymore just a victim of the evil EFC.

Could the media even be bothered saying that message would have been relayed to all players not just the ones that left EFC.

Go ahead Paddy throw your former team mates under a bus.
Click to expand...
I noticed that too. He has suddenly gone from being a drug cheat to an innocent victim, according to the age:)
 
The Scales said:
My way of thinking is that unless ASADA can prove that a supplement/drug that has been found in a players sample is a known masking agent for TB 4, any circumstantial evidence up to that point is redundant.

If they can prove a masking agent was present, presence of TB 4 on-site does look decidedly worse.
Click to expand...
Known masking agents would be on the banned list themselves. So, we would've heard about positive tests to banned substances if that were the case.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Towno78 said:
Known masking agents would be on the banned list themselves. So, we would've heard about positive tests to banned substances if that were the case.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, McDropbear and his army of wee testers should have a mighty task convincing anyone of EFC's intention to cheat.

350 pages of intimidation, ???? pages of relevance. Bring it, mo - fo's.
 
Towno78 said:
Known masking agents would be on the banned list themselves. So, we would've heard about positive tests to banned substances if that were the case.
Click to expand...
Shane Warne got picked up for having a diuretic in his system and a diuretic is a masking agent so we would have no doubt heard had any of our players got picked up with a masking agent
 
Harlequin said:
Shane Warne got picked up for having a diuretic in his system and a diuretic is a masking agent so we would have no doubt heard had any of our players got picked up with a masking agent
Click to expand...

Which was completely coincidental that he had just come back from a shoulder reconstruction to bowl leg spin at an international level in just 3 months (I suggest you try to bowl leg spin and see how hard it is on the shoulder).

That said this is an argument for me why PEDs should be allowed. Cricket as a whole was better with Warnie playing. Similarly AFL footy would have been richer if Lloyd had have had roids through the rehab of his hammy so he didn't lose those yards of pace off the mark.
 
pepsi said:
Wow that is in depth. I got a quarter of the way through, but too long for me.

Who is the author of the post?
Click to expand...

Its at the top of the page!!! Bruce Francis.

Reading through that I think that once Hird loses his appeal, but hopefully wins enough to have the costs ruling overturned, the club should go after ASADA for harassment. If that is a fair assessment of ASADA's evidence, lets be clear that is written without any of Alavi's testimony, then it's criminal that ASADA has pursued Essendon and the players for this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

RedmanWasHere
    • Like
Delisted 47: Oskar Smartt - Delisted as of 22/09/25
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
16K
DERO
DERO

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom