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

[MightyDon]

Both these guys didn't sign affidavits because ASADA changed the evidence they gave.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

At the end of 2013, when ASADA went 'rogue' and broke from the not-so-called 'joint investigation', following the AFL's club based sanctions, I hoped that the AFL would threaten with withdrawing from the ASADA agreement. At the time the public support was that the proper authorities needed to complete their investigation and find out what happened. So the AFL let this happen, even though potentially the EFC and players could be whacked twice for the same thing.
But now, this has gone on too far. All but the most vindictive nufties are saying this has gone on too long. The evidence has been tried and collected and come up short. It should be over. The players and the club and the league has had this damaging them for too long. Public sentiment is for this to be over and done with. WADA have no new evidence and appear to be appealing this in the blind hope that three new judges will view this evidence in a completely opposite way to the previous three. This is the definition of a legal long shot and for a governing agency to go down this path, considering the further damage it will to to the players, club and league, it is extremely reckless. I believe the AFL should be threatening WADA and ASADA to drop the appeal or they will drop them. The AFL were content with the punishments back in September 2013, everything since then has been damage out of their control and the will have hated every day of it. Another year of this, with potential for horrific sanctions should be enough to stir them into action, and now with public sentiment shifting, it may be more than just Essendon supporters urging them to do this this time.

 

[BrunoV]

Just saw the hird interview on 360 and it wasn't that bad. I think hird was a bit defensive and didn't grasp all of what whately said but I also thought whately misrepresented the tribunal finding at one point. After reading the HTB today I was expecting a dumb-arsed shifty liar and it certainly wasn't that - maybe a little naive at times.

It was a massive misrepresentation.

The Tribunal did not consider whether the players took TB4 because there was insufficient evidence to establish that TB4 was at Essendon.

From an evidentiary point it is the same as saying that the players did not take TB4 because you can't establish the first part of the chain to begin to satisfy yourself that a player took TB4.

The CAS wont simply consider the question of whether the players took TB4 in isolation. If they would, why not just consider whether we took HGH too? They need a basis on which to consider that a player took TB4 because the case is circumstantial and there is no evidence of the administration of the drug.

 

[Bombers36]

Can only imagine whats going through these 34 young men's heads. What a farce - to be dragged through one investigation already, named and shamed, and then supposedly cleared only to then have to endure the same crap all over again. Wouldn't be surprised if some of them walk away from the game, or sue the club. and the AFL coming out and saying - 'the AFL will not get involved its a matter fro the Essendon football club and WADA'...People can only endure so much and there comes a breaking point for us all. Its just wrong

 

[MarkG]

Problem is, an appeal usually involves overturning a previous decision by proving why it was flawed, rather than disregarding it completely and starting again. Does sound like double jeopardy to me as well, but I'm no lawyer, just a poor suffering footy fan.

I suppose double jeopardy only applies in a court of law, rather than this sort of arbitration.

Are they implying that the AFL tribunal members are either incompetent or biased?

Why have they disallowed the players to use David Grace? Is WADA allowed to use the same QCs? If so, why?

Why is the CAS adjudicators viewed as being so much more knowledgeable than those on the AFL tribunal?

 

[tesla1962]

It was a massive misrepresentation.

The Tribunal did not consider whether the players took TB4 because there was insufficient evidence to establish that TB4 was at Essendon.

From an evidentiary point it is the same as saying that the players did not take TB4 because you can't establish the first part of the chain to begin to satisfy yourself that a player took TB4.

The CAS wont simply consider the question of whether the players took TB4 in isolation. If they would, why not just consider whether we took HGH too? They need a basis on which to consider that a player took TB4 because the case is circumstantial and there is no evidence of the administration of the drug.

True and probably more important
but I was more referring to whately saying that thymomodulin had been ruled out by the tribunal, as if it had been ruled out of the program rather than ruled out as being the batch in question. This is common with the foamers. I may actually be wrong on this but I can't see how the tribunal could rule it out of being in the program and it's not how I understood what I saw of the verdict. Happy to be corrected.

 

[Dan Cooper]

McLachlan & Fitzpatrick both running with the "this is only noise" cliche.

But it's an increasingly loud noise - and it threatens to derail another season of AFL football - not just the Essendon football club.

WADA and ASADA are clearly just thumbing their noses at the AFL, their tribunal and the 34 players who have never been found guilty of anything, but have none-the-less had what will be 3 years of their lives ruined by process.

 

[BrunoV]

I would not be so sure that this does not spell the end of AFL being subject to the WADA code.

The Federal Governments in Australia have bigger problems than winning Olympics (i.e. paying off corrupt IOC officials for a chance to win the games).

The AFL plays an important role as an administrator of a lot of public money that has a lot of public benefit.

For every $ that the government is not investing in Auskick and other community programs run by the AFL and its clubs it essentially has to find other ways to distribute that money to children to encourage participation in sport and there is no other body with the Australia-wide reach that AFL has. It becomes an expensive exercise.

 

[Dan Cooper]

I would not be so sure that this does not spell the end of AFL being subject to the WADA code.

The Federal Governments in Australia have bigger problems than winning Olympics (i.e. paying off corrupt IOC officials for a chance to win the games).

The AFL plays an important role as an administrator of a lot of public money that has a lot of public benefit.

For every $ that the government is not investing in Auskick and other community programs run by the AFL and its clubs it essentially has to find other ways to distribute that money to children to encourage participation in sport and there is no other body with the Australia-wide reach that AFL has. It becomes an expensive exercise.

I agree with your sentiment there. But you are forgetting another football code with a different shaped ball who would no doubt love some extra government cash.

 

[BrunoV]

I agree with your sentiment there. But you are forgetting another football code with a different shaped ball who would no doubt love some extra government cash.

It's still a basket case in an organisation sense.

 

[Dan Cooper]

It's still a basket case in an organisation sense.

No argument from me. As I've said too often already, the 34 players have been crucified by process. Whether they are ultimately found guilty or not guilty, the punishment has already exceeded any 'crime' they might have committed.

 

[BrunoV]

These supposed Sport law 'experts' continue to disagree in their interpretations. Here Justin Quill says "there is now a great chance" the witnesses will be forced to appear, but if WADA choose not to go to the Supreme court to subpoena them, the case could be done pre-finals, and "by about Round 19."

Here are some excepts. Shortcut to full article below >


Supreme Court key to appeal

Some people can’t work out why WADA would appeal when the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority decided not to do so. The same burden and standard of proof apply.

So why would WADA think it can win an appeal, when ASADA — it would seem — thought it could not?

In addition, by appealing to CAS, there is now a great chance that key witnesses — namely Shane Charter, chemist Nima Alavi and possibly even Stephen Dank — will be forced to give evidence.

That would change the dynamic of the hearing before CAS and, possibly, the result.

Before the matter was heard by the AFL Tribunal, an application was made by ASADA to the Victorian Supreme Court for an order requiring Charter and Alavi to give evidence. The application relied on the Commercial Arbitration Act applying to the tribunal hearing because that Act of Parliament gives the Supreme Court power to force any citizen to give evidence in appropriate arbitrations. The court knocked back the application and the tribunal hearing went ahead without the evidence.

But it would seem — even just based on the name of the Court of Arbitration for Sport — that another application to the Supreme Court is more likely to be successful. And if it is, the game changes.

Of course, for the Essendon players, even when a decision is known, the saga might not be over because there could be a ban to be served.

And that ban could be up to two years — less the four or five months already served.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/supreme-court-key-to-appeal/story-fni0ffsx-1227353995977

Subpoena away WADA. Subpoena away. That action would all but prove the players defence for them.

Charter and Alavi will be great witnesses. All of those wonderful articules in which they said that they refused to play ball because they were being misrepresented and not being able to tell what they considered to the 'the full story'. Not to mention that Charter's life is almost certainly in jeopardy because of links to the underworld who will not want him explaining anything that he is doing, so he is not going to give any positive evidence.

And Dank, he is going to incriminate himself at this late stage? Please.

If these people are as dishonest and untrustworthy as we are being lead to believe does WADA really think that they would not be dishonest in the witness box to save their respective skins? It's not perjury because one side doesn't like the answer, it would need to be proved (though the notion of proof does not seem to be one that WADA and its minions are really that familiar with).

 

[BrunoV]

No argument from me. As I've said too often already, the 34 players have been crucified by process. Whether they are ultimately found guilty or not guilty, the punishment has already exceeded any 'crime' they might have committed.

I was talking about FFA. They don't have the Australia wide infrastructure or the quality of product. It's a very expensive exercise to replace the AFL as an administrator of the public money that it receives (because much more money than is being spent will be needed to bring Soccer to that level).

 

[Dan Cooper]

I was talking about FFA. They don't have the Australia wide infrastructure or the quality of product. It's a very expensive exercise to replace the AFL as an administrator of the public money that it receives (because much more money than is being spent will be needed to bring Soccer to that level).

Underestimate soccer at your peril. The AFL now have a very healthy respect for their growing rival. But this isn't the place to launch into an AFL vs Soccer debate.

 

[BrunoV]

Underestimate soccer at your peril. The AFL now have a very healthy respect for their growing rival. But this isn't the place to launch into an AFL vs Soccer debate.

It's not a question of underestimating soccer.

There would be a need to for an investment of millions and millions of dollars required to develop the infrastructure. The government can't afford to to spend the sort of money it would take just because it doesn't want to lose the chance to bid for the Olympics.

 

[IriDiuM]

Are they implying that the AFL tribunal members are either incompetent or biased?

Why have they disallowed the players to use David Grace? Is WADA allowed to use the same QCs? If so, why?

Why is the CAS adjudicators viewed as being so much more knowledgeable than those on the AFL tribunal?

Grace will be asked to recuse himself because he is a CAS arbitrator himself. While he obviously has a vested interest in this case so he will not be one of the 3 chosen arbitrators in this case, he is also not able to represent anyone CAS hearings. He can still advise them and their replacement representative, however.

 

[rumply]

WADA’s appeal to place more faith in Dank’s word
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...th-in-danks-word/story-e6frg7t6-1227353992603

• CHIP LE GRAND
• THE AUSTRALIAN
• MAY 14, 2015 12:00AM

To understand why the World Anti-Doping Agency is appealing the case against 34 current and former Essendon players you need to go to back to Windy Hill and the end of the 2012 pre-season, when this mess really got started.

Suki Hobson, a weights coach who came to the club as part of Dean Robinson’s new high-performance team, is feeling run down. Stephen Dank, a sports scientist who previously worked with Robinson at NRL club Manly and more recently the Gold Coast Suns, suggests she try a shot of Hexarelin. Hobson agrees. She takes a vial home and administers it for a few weeks before deciding it is having no effect.

A year later, when Hobson is interviewed by investigators from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, she openly admits to taking Hexarelin, although she says she didn’t know at the time it was banned by WADA.

There is no dispute that Hexarelin, a growth hormone-releasing peptide, is a banned substance. There is no dispute that Dank, who was employed by Essendon on a one-year contract, was covered by the AFL anti-doping policy at the time he supplied a little glass vial labelled Hexarelin to Hobson. It appears a clear case of trafficking a banned substance.


The AFL tribunal which heard the case against Dank and the Essendon players decided it wasn’t. Its reasons for judgment against Dank handed down last month explain why.

Like the Thymosin peptide sourced from China at the end of 2011 by drug importer Shane Charter, prepared by pharmacist Nima Alavi and allegedly administered to Essendon players by Dank, the providence of the Hexarelin-labelled vials Dank kept in his fridge at Windy Hill is unclear.

The only documents ASADA provided to the tribunal relating to Hexarelin were an invoice sent from Alavi’s pharmacy to Essendon in error and a dodgy certificate of analysis that ASADA’s own scientific expert doubts.

“There are no records, apart from the tax invoice from Como, of the compounding or dispensing of Hexarelin to Mr Dank,” the tribunal notes. “Apart from the certificate which the tribunal has referred to, there is no evidence of any analysis being conducted on a substance said to be Hexarelin. In particular, there is no evidence of any analysis of the substance labelled Hexarelin in the vial observed by Ms Hobson.”

It was satisfied Dank gave Hobson what he believed was Hexarelin. As a consequence, he was found guilty of attempted trafficking. However, it was not satisfied that the substance actually was Hexarelin. Not in the case of Suki Hobson. Not in the cases of Sue Anderson and Paul Turk, two other Essendon staff members given something purported to be Hexarelin by Dank.

When WADA reviewed the evidence gathered by ASADA and the reasons of the AFL tribunal, the Hexarelin episode and others like it convinced the global anti-doping body that a rehearsing was needed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

If a tribunal cannot be satisfied that someone who admits to taking Hexarelin from a vial marked Hexarelin after being told by a sports scientist it is Hexarelin has indeed taken Hexarelin, the task confronting anti-doping investigators verges on the impossible.   The standard of proof required for an anti-doping offence is comfortable satisfaction. WADA believes the AFL tribunal demanded way too much satisfaction. A brief statement posted on the Court of Arbitration for Sport website makes this clear: “WADA requests that the CAS issue a new decision based on an appropriate burden of proof and evidentiary standards.”

As colleague Patrick Smith reported in yesterday’s The Australian, WADA will seek a rehearsing of the case against the 34 players, who were all cleared by the AFL tribunal of taking the banned peptide Thymosin Beta-4, and the case against Stephen Dank. Of 34 violations of anti-doping rules alleged by ASADA, only 10 were upheld by the tribunal chaired by retired Victorian County Court judge David Jones.

Although the tribunal’s reasoning in the case of Hobson appears odd, it should not be judged in isolation. The reasons for its decision against Dank and the reasons for its decision against the 34 players, although published two weeks apart, are intended as a single document. When read this way, the tribunal judgment reveals a strong streak of common sense and consistency.

The tribunal, once confronted with the murky, loosely regulated world of peptide dealing, Dank’s ineptitude as a sports scientist and the contradictory accounts of the two other elusive figures at the centre of this scandal — Shane Charter and Nima Alavi — decided to accept little at face value. In particular, anything said by Dank, whether to players, journalists, other club officials or private clients, was given little weight in the absence of corroboration.

As part of its case, ASADA accused Dank of administering Hexarelin to Essendon footballers. This relied on testimony provided by Sandor Earl, a former NRL player who admitted to taking banned drugs supplied by Dank, and Dr Peter Fricker, a respected sports physician and former AIS director who twice met Dank in Qatar during 2012. Both recounted to ASADA conversations they had with Dank about giving Dons players Hexarelin.

The weakness in Earl and Fricker’s accounts is they are based entirely on what Dank told them. In the absence of supporting evidence, neither swayed the tribunal.

ASADA separately accused Dank of trafficking a swag of banned substances by supplying a supplement drink to Essendon players which advertised Growth Factor 1, Mechano Growth Factor, Follistatin and Thymosin Beta-4 among its list of ingredients. When the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory analysed a sample of the product, sold as Humanofort, no banned substances were detected. The drink claimed to be something it wasn’t. Dank was found guilty of attempted trafficking but cleared of trafficking.

Doubting whether a substance marked Hexarelin is in fact Hexarelin may seem overly sceptical but not once you learn that it has been imported from China with the original labels and certificate of analysis deliberately removed, and provided to Dank without any reliable documentation or analytical testing.

For the same reason, the tribunal was not satisfied that Gold Coast Suns defender Nathan Bock took another banned substance, CJC-1295, despite evidence from Dean Robinson that this is what Bock was given. Bock was given a vial purportedly containing CJC-1295 and syringes at Robinson’s house. Bock subsequently admitted to investigators that he injected himself with whatever was in the vial. Again, Dank was found guilty of attempted trafficking but not trafficking.

“The tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Mr Dank provided to Mr Robinson what Mr Dank believed was the prohibited substance CJC-1295,” the tribunal found.

“However, was the substance in fact CJC-1295? This is again a situation where there is no evidence of any analysis of the substance involved. There is no evidence as to the source of the substance.”

The tribunal judgment notes that you don’t necessarily need a certificate of analysis to prove a peptide is what it purports to be. Yet in the end, this is the standard to which ASADA’s case is held.

Of a dozen banned substances that Dank is alleged to have trafficked, the tribunal is comfortably satisfied on only two counts; providing Mechano Growth Factor to Carlton’s tackling coach John Donehue and GHRP-6 to a baseball coach. In both instances, ASADA produced reliable certificates of analysis supporting the providence of those peptides.

WADA hopes that CAS won’t be so exacting next time round, that it will be less troubled by the inconsistencies and evidentiary deficiencies in the case. Perversely, it wants CAS to place more faith in the word of Stephen Dank.

Well laid out piece by Chip & the last line sums it up nicely

 

[Dan Cooper]

WADA’s appeal to place more faith in Dank’s word
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...th-in-danks-word/story-e6frg7t6-1227353992603

Well laid out piece by Chip & the last line sums it up nicely

Interesting article and nicely summarized in the very last sentence >

"WADA hopes that CAS won’t be so exacting next time round, that it will be less troubled by the inconsistencies and evidentiary deficiencies in the case. Perversely, it wants CAS to place more faith in the word of Stephen Dank".

 

[BrunoV]

WADA’s appeal to place more faith in Dank’s word
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...th-in-danks-word/story-e6frg7t6-1227353992603




Well laid out piece by Chip & the last line sums it up nicely

Yes, WADA, it is really difficult to prove a circumstantial case.

It's worth remembering what it took to nail Lance Armstrong, eye-witness accounts of team mates who admitted knowledge of what they were doing and knowledge that Armstrong was doing the same.

Watch the WADA code fall apart if all that is required to convict athletes is proof which is basically at a standard of suspicion of impropriety.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Yes, WADA, it is really difficult to prove a circumstantial case.

It's worth remembering what it took to nail Lance Armstrong, eye-witness accounts of team mates who admitted knowledge of what they were doing and knowledge that Armstrong was doing the same.

Watch the WADA code fall apart if all that is required to convict athletes is proof which is basically at a standard of suspicion of impropriety.

The evidence against Armstrong was, in the end, simply overwhelming. But it took innumerable witnesses and many years to get the case over the line.

There was an endless list of witnesses only too willing to testify against Armstrong, and those people were from all sides of the fence.

There are no witnesses testifying the Essendon players took a banned substance - not a single one - and their case could not possibly be more different than Armstrong's.

Saw "The Armstrong Lie" doco just recently and it is a must watch.

 

[MightyDon]

Without evidence how can a bottle with a label out weigh a spreadsheet labelled Thymosin Alpha? You can't just pick and chose you need to back it up.

 

[MightyDon]

Yes, WADA, it is really difficult to prove a circumstantial case.

It's worth remembering what it took to nail Lance Armstrong, eye-witness accounts of team mates who admitted knowledge of what they were doing and knowledge that Armstrong was doing the same.

Watch the WADA code fall apart if all that is required to convict athletes is proof which is basically at a standard of suspicion of impropriety.

Lance also tested positive on a couple of occasions.

 

[fishardansin]

I don't even think they'd lose that.

The AFL is actually very influential and has a lot of clout publicly.

The govt pulls funding and they'd engage the clubs to start singing about the cash they're being deprived. The media joins in and the govt shit themselves about losing votes. Tugging on footy fans heartstrings is easy politically.

I agree. The AFL relies on Govt assistance to build the big stadiums. At the same time the Govt relies on the AFL to justify building large stadiums for events like Comm games so that they don't lie dormant.

We can see the new ALP govt trying to use the AFL for support with their new public holiday .. ect ect. The Govt needs AFL more than the other way around.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Without evidence how can a bottle with a label out weigh a spreadsheet labelled Thymosin Alpha? You can't just pick and chose you need to back it up.

Perhaps that's why the spreadsheet seems to have conveniently gone missing AFTER Robson handed it to ASADA?

Interesting Bomber remembered the spreadsheet. Even remembered it was A3 size.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

WADA’s appeal to place more faith in Dank’s word
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...th-in-danks-word/story-e6frg7t6-1227353992603




Well laid out piece by Chip & the last line sums it up nicely

So...WADA want to believe Dank when it suits them, but not when he says no banned substances were given to Essendon players and what they think was TB4 was actually Thymomodulin.

Sounds legit. Good plan.