EFC players: Comfortable satisfaction not reached.

[compact72]

I think that it's wrong that Dank hasn't got his decision yet?

I know his is more complicated, but why hear it at once, and give the players special treatment and give it to them early?

 

[fabulousphil]

IN your opinion.


Insufficient evidence may well mean simple ASADA's case was not strong enough

It could mean lack of records, it could mean an awful lot of things.

It probably means insufficient evidence, but probably means they had SFA to start with

 

[Call Me Cake]

You were guilty. Of not keeping records on what was administered to your players. The ruling didn't say Essendon players didn't receive TB4 - just that there was not enough evidence for a conviction to stick. If EFC had kept proper records, none of this would have occurred in the first place (assuming everything administered to the players was legal).

That's how the justice system works.

EVIDENCE.

You on the other hand are ASSUMING.

And the standard of evidence wasn't even "beyond reasonable doubt", it was "comfortable satisfaction", and Essendon was STILL found NOT GUILTY.

Let it go already. ASADA had nothing to stand on, we all knew it was all bluff.

 

[CoastersFlag No.5]

Not surprised. No Shane Carter evidence under cross examination and no mr dank either. No positive tests. Hardly rocket science that this left reasonable doubt. Would have been interesting with that evidence included.

 

[Big Fozza]

I personally will now reserve judgment until we can see how the tribunal came to its decision.

It's just all so convenient to me at the moment.

I could be wrong, but it all just smells so wrong.

In the end if the evidence is just not good enough and due process was followed correctly then justice prevailed.

I just find it hard to accept at this point without having access to everything.

Just seems like a cover up to me until that happens.

yes. all info presented by ASADA should now come to public. just black out names if necessary

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Oh dear Lance. So all those months of reasoned posts were just a façade? Back to being the King of Lilliput, is it?

if you'd been through what we've been through you'd probably allow yourself a little leeway too

 

[blue healer]

they have reserved the decision on him for some reason

Could it be that a guilty decision on Dank in the same breath as a not guilty decision on the players would leave a very sour taste and could take some explaining?

Good luck to the players, i predicted this decision and am not surprised. I've always believed they were guilty of little more than naively following club directives.

On the other hand I have been and will remain disgusted with the club and do believe that banned substances were used but it's hard to prove this when the club fails to provide documentation.

 

[dougyboy]

As I said a long time ago, see you in CAS.

In every appeal the burden of proof goes up. They couldn't get their case over the line at this level. What new evidence do you think they will have on appeal??

 

[FlowersByIrene]

you need to accept that 3 experienced and independant judges UNANIMOUSLY decided the players had no case to answer. Let it go mate, I forgive you

Unanimously decided they couldnt be comfortably satisfied they were injected - because of the shredders. Doesnt mean they didnt dope.. which they did

 

[Oneiros]

nope

Presumably it'll be harder for ASADA at the CAS as the appellant, though? Need to find groups for appeal and then argue on that front.

 

[84859300]

Because insufficient evidence does not clear your players or your club. It means that the lack of records allowed your players to get off on a technicality. nothing more, nothing less. I am pleased for you, because you can finally go back to enjoying your footy, but for me, I feel the integrity of the game has been compromised.

Until (if) evidence is released, you're going to have to cop this decision sweet.

 

[PACatter]

the tribunal found the club guilty did they?

Pretty sure they've already been punished for being guilty. Or was the banning from postseason, fine, and loss of picks for something else?

 

[Art Corvelay]

What was the decision on Dank?

Held over. Wouldn't want to spoil a precious moment by announcing the architect of the program guilty

 

[mxett]

What was the decision on Dank?

more complex case involving more than essendon players. No result yet

 

[Oneiros]

In every appeal the burden of proof goes up. They couldn't get their case over the line at this level. What new evidence do you think they will have on appeal??

You're not normally able to present new evidence on appeal.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

As I said a long time ago, see you in CAS.

you've said a lot of things.

Not many have turned out to be right.

Let's see how you go with this one eh?

 

[Hodginator]

I'm happy for the essendon fans, they must be pleased to see their team win something.

 

[Call Me Cake]

In every appeal the burden of proof goes up. They couldn't get their case over the line at this level. What new evidence do you think they will have on appeal??

And they would look like dickheads.

Two years lol

 

[pablo668]

Wow......this decision proves the GG was right.........

Say it aint so.

 

[neutralguy]

After being in the military for over 20 years, please don't use such photo's to pump up your cause. It detracts from the service; and your club just plays football.

Exactly my thoughts as well, being ex military I find it highly offensive when people use images of any miltary nature in negative ways.

 

[mxett]

Pretty sure they've already been punished for being guilty. Or was the banning from postseason, fine, and loss of picks for something else?

guilty of running an irresponsible supplement program, yep, agreed to that 2 years ago

 

[blackcat]

LOL Essendope are not guilty on based on having no records because they run shambles operation. Well done, AFL hang your head in shame.

that is not a shambles actually.

why do you think paper shredders were invented?

paper shredders, kerosene, and a match

thems good governance. and an integrity officer at each club. with a personal shredder.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

So, as I said, in your eyes we're guilty until proven innocent?

"not enough evidence for a conviction to stick" perhaps, just perhaps, because nothing wrong was done?

The players are not guilty of using TB4. The Essendon Football Club is guilty of gross negligence and incredibly poor management. As a result, the AFL was right to take away your draft picks and kick you out of the finals.

As I note, failure to produce medical records when asked to can kill careers or institutions.

So in response to the original post, yes Essendon do not get back their draft picks.

 

[Malifice]

On what grounds would ASADA appeal.

It looks to me like the tribunal has only considered 'use' and not 'attempted' use.

From a cursory glance. I need to see the reasons in detail.

 

[Call Me Cake]

TWO YEARS LOL

Appeal? GTFOutta here