Dank to not be pursued

[mxett]

Read the cas award, thats exactly the argument put forward by the defence.

1. We shouldn't be found guilty for reasons xyz
2. In the event that we are found guilty we should have no significant fault for reasons xyz.

the idea that if dank was able to help in either of those points that they wouldn't have used what he has to say is absurd.

The reason they didn't make a complaint is because he can't help in either or both those points.

cant or wont?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

cant or wont?

The answer is most probably won't but then the questions that arises is "why?" Then the answer probably is because he can't get the players off.

 

[Chameleon75]

if many PEDs were used why did none of the players test positive to target testing?

Testing is ineffective, its a redundant argument.

No positive tests should be the new Godwin.

 

[Chameleon75]

cant or wont?

can't, dont forget where this discussion started, with players making a complaint for assault.

 

[Just interested]

Having a bit of inside knowledge about ASADA, I can tell you they have quite a bit of evidence. The problem arises that none of it could nail individual players. They knew many PEDs were used, but TB4 via the consents gave the the platform they required to have chance at successfully prosecuting without a positive AAF. They did not want these other PEDs to become the focus of the defence and ultimately without anything linking them to individual players, they knew that the case would have no legs. So they focussed on the TB4 and that has been proven to have been a winner for them (eventually).

I'll happily support your contention (and, similarly, with a little inside knowledge myself) that they do have quite a bit of evidence that hasn't yet met the bright light of the midday sun.

But, I do believe they had substantial evidence to pursue beyond TB-4, and that includes tying it to individual players. We know about the AOD, and the stacking is more complicated, but the IV Drips and Melanotan II have received little or no mention, or explanation.

And, Skinovate kept records that were adequate enough for the Interim Report to note "at least" 155 IV Drips had been administered. And, it's a Method, not a Substance, charge and, ergo, a lot easier to stand up (it's the 50 ml threshold that makes it relatively easy).

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I'll happily support your contention (and, similarly, with a little inside knowledge myself) that they do have quite a bit of evidence that hasn't yet met the bright light of the midday sun.

But, I do believe they had substantial evidence to pursue beyond TB-4, and that includes tying it to individual players. We know about the AOD, and the stacking is more complicated, but the IV Drips and Melanotan II have received little or no mention, or explanation.

And, Skinovate kept records that were adequate enough for the Interim Report to note "at least" 155 IV Drips had been administered. And, it's a Method, not a Substance, charge and, ergo, a lot easier to stand up (it's the 50 ml threshold that makes it relatively easy).

I don't think we'll hear anymore from ASADA with respect to this. They got their man Dank. WADA got the players. They don't want to go further with melanotan II or the IV drips or any other PED.
That doesn't mean more won't come out from other sources or from possible court cases though.....

 

[Just interested]

I don't think we'll here anymore from ASADA with respect to this. They got their man Dank. WADA got the players. They don't want to go further with melanotan II or the IV drips or any other PED.
That doesn't mean more won't come out from other sources or from possible court cases though.....

I reckon you're right on ASADA putting their cue in the rack. But, I would also think, and would hope, that when Howman or his emissary sit down with Ley, the Health Minister, to review the whole shemozzle (and Howman has already given Ley more ticks than he has McDevitt), the broader picture makes it onto the table.

There are also various pollies wanting to conduct things like Senate enquiries. It's mostly grandstanding, of course (e.g. Di Natali) but, if they want to open the door, it might be very interesting to see who walks in.

 

[Just interested]

For those who might not have seen it, Jake Niall has written a cracker of an article on the WADA, in or out? question. The link's over in the poll thread on the same question.

 

[chelseacarlton]

if many PEDs were used why did none of the players test positive to target testing?

Shane Charter.
Jeez,his MO has been widely discussed.
LA only failed one test in his career,blackcat help please to straighten out this bent argument!.

 

[Bombfire]

Believe what you like. I have nothing to gain by saying lies though. It's not like I'm going to be famous as an alias!!! My story has been consistent from the start though.

You're just like Dank. You have produced nothing and justify a throwaway line that your mate was told by Dank he used many PED's on Essendon players and your mate then told you, by saying it builds a case. In addition, the only one of all the "many PED's" you and your mate have direct evidence about, and which gets a geurnsey in the ASADA case against the players, was thrown out by the AFL Tribunal. Spell it out, otherwise it's not worth a crumpet.

 

[The 747]

You're just like Dank. You have produced nothing and justify a throwaway line that your mate was told by Dank he used many PED's on Essendon players and your mate then told you, by saying it builds a case. In addition, the only one of all the "many PED's" you and your mate have direct evidence about, and which gets a geurnsey in the ASADA case against the players, was thrown out by the AFL Tribunal. Spell it out, otherwise it's not worth a crumpet.

Dude it's over, y'all lost.

 

[chelseacarlton]

You're just like Dank. You have produced nothing and justify a throwaway line that your mate was told by Dank he used many PED's on Essendon players and your mate then told you, by saying it builds a case. In addition, the only one of all the "many PED's" you and your mate have direct evidence about, and which gets a geurnsey in the ASADA case against the players, was thrown out by the AFL Tribunal. Spell it out, otherwise it's not worth a crumpet.

That crumpet of which you talk is fully buttered and lightly smeared in vegemite.
WADA,ASADA,AFL and the greater public are enjoying the fluffy goodness of buttery ju-ju-mite.
You lost!!.
It's OVER.

 

[Bombfire]

Dude it's over, y'all lost.

The fun has only just begun.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You're just like Dank. You have produced nothing and justify a throwaway line that your mate was told by Dank he used many PED's on Essendon players and your mate then told you, by saying it builds a case. In addition, the only one of all the "many PED's" you and your mate have direct evidence about, and which gets a geurnsey in the ASADA case against the players, was thrown out by the AFL Tribunal. Spell it out, otherwise it's not worth a crumpet.

I think I've already spelt it out. Not sure what else you want me to say. If the guy right in the middle of all of this mess directly tells someone I know that he was giving the Essendon football players substances that then I discovered were banned, I would have thought that that is pretty much game, set and match in relation to this guys guilt. Proving it obviously is another thing but the CAS have proved it to a level of comfortable satisfaction and thus have banned the players. I would have thought that was plainly obvious for all to see. Even a deaf and blind Essendon follower I know understands this. I'm not sure what that makes you dear crumpet.

 

[evo]

The fun has only just begun.

Ahhhh, the smell of misplaced Bomber hubris. It never gets old.

 

[Bombfire]

I think I've already spelt it out. Not sure what else you want me to say. If the guy right in the middle of all of this mess directly tells someone I know that he was giving the Essendon football players substances that then I discovered were banned, I would have thought that that is pretty much game, set and match in relation to this guys guilt. Proving it obviously is another thing but the CAS have proved it to a level of comfortable satisfaction and thus have banned the players. I would have thought that was plainly obvious for all to see. Even a deaf and blind Essendon follower I know understands this. I'm not sure what that makes you dear crumpet.

Ok- so Dank discloses to your mate he gave many PEDS to Essendon players to effectively destroy his own career and that of the players without fear of incrimination.. Your mate then makes a public disclosure to you about all the PED's Dank gave to Essendon players. We now have the perfect opportunity for a whistle blower like yourself to spell everything out to the public and yet you shy away from all those incriminating details on this forum. What's holding you back?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Ok- so Dank discloses to your mate he gave many PEDS to Essendon players to effectively destroy his own career and that of the players without fear of incrimination.. Your mate then makes a public disclosure to you about all the PED's Dank gave to Essendon players. We now have the perfect opportunity for a whistle blower like yourself to spell everything out to the public and yet you shy away from all those incriminating details on this forum. What's holding you back?

Dank did not say they were PEDs. He just told him the peptides he was giving them. He actually told him they were permitted substances. It was only after my friend asked me if I knew anything about these peptides that I found out that they were banned. I just performed an ASADA check at home. I emailed my friend back this information - an email I still hold today - time/date stamped March 2012. He rang Dank immediately, who paused on the phone and then in typical Dank fashion, said he never said such a thing. I don't have to spell anything else out in public as this information is available to the public already. It is in the CAS report if you care to read it.

 

[blackshadow]

Mate-you know nothing, and I suppose someone had to photocopy the CAS report for all stakeholders.

Ancient Tiger has been adamant the whole way through and his accounts have been backed up by the CAS decision.

Do you seriously think ASADA and WADA just went on a witch hunt because they don't like Essendon?

 

[Bombfire]

Dank did not say they were PEDs. He just told him the peptides he was giving them. He actually told him they were permitted substances. It was only after my friend asked me if I knew anything about these peptides that I found out that they were banned. I just performed an ASADA check at home. I emailed my friend back this information - an email I still hold today - time/date stamped March 2012. He rang Dank immediately, who paused on the phone and then in typical Dank fashion, said he never said such a thing. I don't have to spell anything else out in public as this information is available to the public already. It is in the CAS report if you care to read it.

Listen pal- go back to your post. You said Dank told your mate he gave the players PED's. Now you're backtracking. Dank could have told your mate anything.

Tell us which peptides Dank said to your mate he gave the Essendon players, and what you subsequently looked up.

Tell us how he came across Dank's phone number.

Give us all a copy of the email you sent to your mate.

Spell it out the CAS stuff again for the sake of the ignorant out there, one more time.

Your integrity is on the line.



.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Ancillary Tiger has been adamant the whole way through and his accounts have been backed up by the CAS decision.

Do you seriously think ASADA and WADA just went on a witch hunt because they don't like Essendon?

That bloke's been helping me all the way!

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Listen pal- go back to your post. You said Dank told your mate he gave the players PED's. Now you're backtracking. Dank could have told your mate anything.

Tell us which peptides Dank said to your mate he gave the Essendon players, and what you subsequently looked up.

Tell us how he came across Dank's phone number.

Give us all a copy of the email you sent to your mate.

Spell it out the CAS stuff again for the sake of the ignorant out there, one more time.

Your integrity is on the line.



.

I'd rather stay anonymous thank you. By forwarding the email, my name and that of the witness becomes public (although he is mentioned in the CAS report).
He was a person that obviously had dealings with Dank and that is why he had his phone number. I've already told this story a zillion times.

I'm not backtracking either. He told him he was giving peptides that I found out were banned. That is the same thing, in effect, as someone saying they gave them peptides that actually were banned (PEDs). For example. Someone tells you they are giving player X GHRP but it is permitted. You go home and find out GHRP is banned. You then tell another friend that the first guy admitted to giving player X a PED. You haven't actually changed the story because he did tell you it he gave a substance that is known to be a PED. Just because he told you it was permitted, doesn't change the fact that it is a PED and he told you he gave it. Does that make sense?

 

[jenny61_99]

I'd rather stay anonymous thank you. By forwarding the email, my name and that of the witness becomes public (although he is mentioned in the CAS report).
He was a person that obviously had dealings with Dank and that is why he had his phone number. I've already told this story a zillion times.

I'm not backtracking either. He told him he was giving peptides that I found out were banned. That is the same thing, in effect, as someone saying they gave them peptides that actually were banned (PEDs). For example. Someone tells you they are giving player X GHRP but it is permitted. You go home and find out GHRP is banned. You then tell another friend that the first guy admitted to giving player X a PED. You haven't actually changed the story because he did tell you it he gave a substance that is known to be a PED. Just because he told you it was permitted, doesn't change the fact that it is a PED and he told you he gave it. Does that make sense?

You don't need to justify yourself. You've been consistent with this from the get go.

 

[Bombfire]

I'd rather stay anonymous thank you. By forwarding the email, my name and that of the witness becomes public (although he is mentioned in the CAS report).
He was a person that obviously had dealings with Dank and that is why he had his phone number. I've already told this story a zillion times.

I'm not backtracking either. He told him he was giving peptides that I found out were banned. That is the same thing, in effect, as someone saying they gave them peptides that actually were banned (PEDs). For example. Someone tells you they are giving player X GHRP but it is permitted. You go home and find out GHRP is banned. You then tell another friend that the first guy admitted to giving player X a PED. You haven't actually changed the story because he did tell you it he gave a substance that is known to be a PED. Just because he told you it was permitted, doesn't change the fact that it is a PED and he told you he gave it. Does that make sense?

Ok- you refuse to admit you embellished the facts which is evidenced by your refusal to disclose what your mate told you Dank was giving the players.

Ok- your mate is in deep manure for disclosing confidential medical records of the players. I trust you are also concerned about your involvement, evidenced by your reluctance to spell it out.

 

[Bombfire]

You don't need to justify yourself. You've been consistent with this from the get go.

He doesn't need a cheer squad petal.

 

[Satan]

He doesn't need a cheer squad petal.

You seem to be rattled