"Jobe Watson never cheated" - Hird

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
60sbomber said:
It's the other way round.
The prosecution needs to establish that they were injected within the relevant timeframe in order to use the line of argument about the doping control forms.
Click to expand...
ASADA refuse to provide the relevant time frames under FOI. The case has more holes in it than the proverbial Swiss ........ 15 out of 34 players tested in 2012. CAS says hang on, that means all players failed to report on the DCF. What a joke.
 
SonofSamsquanch said:
Wouldn't the incompetent buffoon be the one who lead the players defence? Surely if all the holes exist that are being posted here, the CAS, the Swiss court or the UNHCR would have thrown out the WADA appeal if a half decent defence was run?
Click to expand...

That is so naïve.
It didn't matter what defence was run. CAS supported WADA's need for a conviction and was prepared to make whatever leaps of faith were necessary to justify it.
If you had read the judgement, not even all the detail that Le Grand is coming out with now, you would have understood this.
If you were an Essendon supporter, and you read the judgement with a critical eye, it is pretty obvious.
The Swiss court and the UNHCR didn't get a look in. The only grounds for appeal were procedural. CAS was able to make a mockery of the evidential requirement and to make the interpretation of "comfortable satisfaction" whatever it liked with impunity.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

takenoterock said:
.On first reading this is another example of the panel generalising or being lazy and failing to be specific. As the panel had access to the players’ doping control forms it should have taken the extra minute to quantify how many of the 34 players didn’t fill in their forms correctly. On closer reading, we discover that once again the panel was being extraordinarily liberal with the truth. Only 21 players were drug tested during the period. As can be seen below, at least eight of the nine players I have information for filled out their forms correctly.


The horrifying aspect of the panel’s claim is it had no idea what it was talking about. The panel cannot substantiate that the 21 players didn’t reveal the receipt of injections. As Thymosin is the only banned substance, it is clearly the substance that concerned the panel that it had allegedly been omitted from the players’ doping control form. The players were required to list all substances taken within seven days of their test. The panel cannot name a single date that a specific player was injected. Consequently, it is astounding that the panel claimed that the players failed to follow the rules. The onus was on WADA to provide evidence that the players failed to record that they had received an injection within seven days of their test. WADA failed to offer any evidence to that effect. Unconscionably, without any evidence to support its determination, the panel implied that the players had colluded with each other and had lied when filling out their forms.

The outrageousness of the panel’s negative judgement of the players arising from this issue is exemplified by the following seven players who were cross-examined by the CAS panel:
1. Scott Gumbleton did not have a doping test in 2012.
2. Brent Prismall was tested on 6 December 2011. Prismall hadn’t received an injection at that stage and therefore he had nothing to declare on his doping control form.
3. Jobe Watson was tested in January 2012 and 12 July 2012. Watson hadn’t been injected before February 2012 and refused to be injected by the end of April. Consequently, he cannot be accused of failing to fill out his form correctly.
4. David Hille was tested on 14 May 2012. Like Watson, he too, refused injections before the end of April.
5. Cory Dell’Olio was tested on 14 July 2012. As he had not received an injection in the previous seven days he had nothing to declare on his doping control form
6. Mark McVeigh was tested on 23 January 2012. McVeigh had not been injected at that stage and therefore had nothing to declare on his doping control form.
7. Ricky Dyson was tested on six occasions in 2012. As I don’t know, and the panel doesn’t know, when Dyson received his Thymosin injection, it is impossible to say whether he failed to fill out his form correctly.

Although Dyson Heppell and Ben Howlett were not required to appear at the hearing, they were in the same boat as the first six players listed above in that they were tested before (23 January 2012) receiving any injections.. As they had not been injected at that stage they had nothing to declare on their doping control forms.

Seven of the remaining 12 players testified that they were never administered a Thymosin injection. Therefore, only a maximum number of five players may not have filled out their doping control forms correctly. I cannot comment on those five players because I have not seen their doping control test forms, despite having made a FOI request to ASADA for those forms on 22 June 2016.

My command of the English language is poor and my mathematical skills are worse. But in my book, five out of 34 doesn’t reconcile with the panel’s claim that “the complete failure of the vast majority of Players who had to fill in a doping control form ("DCF") during the season to reveal the receipt of injections does not encourage confidence in their statements as to the limited or sporadic nature of what they were injected with”.

Shamefully, this statement was one of the major reasons the panel found the players guilty.
Click to expand...

That is a nice example, but only one example, of the CAS manipulation of the evidence that was put before it.
Manipulation that can only lead you to one conclusion - that CAS wanted to reach a decision that supported WADA, and was prepared to work the reasoning to suit the purpose.
 
Bombfire said:
ASADA refuse to provide the relevant time frames under FOI. The case has more holes in it than the proverbial Swiss ........ 15 out of 34 players tested in 2012. CAS says hang on, that means all players failed to report on the DCF. What a joke.
Click to expand...

Please.

We all know that almost certainly, not all players doped. But I think we all know, that almost certainly some did.

You guys surely still aren't arguing that are you?


What we also know is, that the players believed they could weasel out of it if they 'stuck fat' and were all heard together, as opposed to individually. They thought 'If we're heard as one case, if they can't prove that we all did it - then they'll have no choice but to let us all off'.

And what we all know, is that was the biggest * up of the entire saga.

CAS went the other way, and effectively said 'yeah, we know that not all of you did it - but seeing as you insisted on being heard as one case, we know some of you did it so we have no choice but to find you all guilty'.


You can't blame CAS for that. It's obvious some, if not most of them took PEDs. And I applaud CAS for calling them on their attempt at weaseling out of it through a loophole/technicality.



So this whole argument that you're putting up is void as the players chose this approach - all or nothing. Not CAS. They were merely adjudicating as per the rules.

And it backfired on them. Badly.
 
60sbomber said:
That is so naïve.
It didn't matter what defence was run. CAS supported WADA's need for a conviction and was prepared to make whatever leaps of faith were necessary to justify it.
If you had read the judgement, not even all the detail that Le Grand is coming out with now, you would have understood this.
If you were an Essendon supporter, and you read the judgement with a critical eye, it is pretty obvious.
The Swiss court and the UNHCR didn't get a look in. The only grounds for appeal were procedural. CAS was able to make a mockery of the evidential requirement and to make the interpretation of "comfortable satisfaction" whatever it liked with impunity.
Click to expand...

Ahhh. I see. CAS are corrupt and they prosecuted a case based on lies against the * players. Why would they do that?
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Please.

We all know that almost certainly, not all players doped. But I think we all know, that almost certainly some did.

You guys surely still aren't arguing that are you?


What we also know is, that the players believed they could weasel out of it if they 'stuck fat' and were all heard together, as opposed to individually. They thought 'If we're heard as one case, if they can't prove that we all did it - then they'll have no choice but to let us all off'.

And what we all know, is that was the biggest **** up of the entire saga.

CAS went the other way, and effectively said 'yeah, we know that not all of you did it - but seeing as you insisted on being heard as one case, we know some of you did it so we have no choice but to find you all guilty'.


You can't blame CAS for that. It's obvious some, if not most of them took PEDs. And I applaud CAS for calling them on their attempt at weaseling out of it through a loophole/technicality.



So this whole argument that you're putting up is void as the players chose this approach - all or nothing. Not CAS. They were merely adjudicating as per the rules.

And it backfired on them. Badly.
Click to expand...
What rubbish. If it was so obvious that PEDS were taken why were the players found not guilty in the first instance
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Please.

We all know that almost certainly, not all players doped. But I think we all know, that almost certainly some did.

You guys surely still aren't arguing that are you?


What we also know is, that the players believed they could weasel out of it if they 'stuck fat' and were all heard together, as opposed to individually. They thought 'If we're heard as one case, if they can't prove that we all did it - then they'll have no choice but to let us all off'.

And what we all know, is that was the biggest **** up of the entire saga.

CAS went the other way, and effectively said 'yeah, we know that not all of you did it - but seeing as you insisted on being heard as one case, we know some of you did it so we have no choice but to find you all guilty'.


You can't blame CAS for that. It's obvious some, if not most of them took PEDs. And I applaud CAS for calling them on their attempt at weaseling out of it through a loophole/technicality.



So this whole argument that you're putting up is void as the players chose this approach - all or nothing. Not CAS. They were merely adjudicating as per the rules.

And it backfired on them. Badly.
Click to expand...
Let's get serious- we know with a great degree of certainty that CAS lowered the evidentiary standard to an appalling level. A laughable level really.
 
takenoterock said:
.On first reading this is another example of the panel generalising or being lazy and failing to be specific. As the panel had access to the players’ doping control forms it should have taken the extra minute to quantify how many of the 34 players didn’t fill in their forms correctly. On closer reading, we discover that once again the panel was being extraordinarily liberal with the truth. Only 21 players were drug tested during the period. As can be seen below, at least eight of the nine players I have information for filled out their forms correctly.


The horrifying aspect of the panel’s claim is it had no idea what it was talking about. The panel cannot substantiate that the 21 players didn’t reveal the receipt of injections. As Thymosin is the only banned substance, it is clearly the substance that concerned the panel that it had allegedly been omitted from the players’ doping control form. The players were required to list all substances taken within seven days of their test. The panel cannot name a single date that a specific player was injected. Consequently, it is astounding that the panel claimed that the players failed to follow the rules. The onus was on WADA to provide evidence that the players failed to record that they had received an injection within seven days of their test. WADA failed to offer any evidence to that effect. Unconscionably, without any evidence to support its determination, the panel implied that the players had colluded with each other and had lied when filling out their forms.

The outrageousness of the panel’s negative judgement of the players arising from this issue is exemplified by the following seven players who were cross-examined by the CAS panel:
1. Scott Gumbleton did not have a doping test in 2012.
2. Brent Prismall was tested on 6 December 2011. Prismall hadn’t received an injection at that stage and therefore he had nothing to declare on his doping control form.
3. Jobe Watson was tested in January 2012 and 12 July 2012. Watson hadn’t been injected before February 2012 and refused to be injected by the end of April. Consequently, he cannot be accused of failing to fill out his form correctly.
4. David Hille was tested on 14 May 2012. Like Watson, he too, refused injections before the end of April.
5. Cory Dell’Olio was tested on 14 July 2012. As he had not received an injection in the previous seven days he had nothing to declare on his doping control form
6. Mark McVeigh was tested on 23 January 2012. McVeigh had not been injected at that stage and therefore had nothing to declare on his doping control form.
7. Ricky Dyson was tested on six occasions in 2012. As I don’t know, and the panel doesn’t know, when Dyson received his Thymosin injection, it is impossible to say whether he failed to fill out his form correctly.

Although Dyson Heppell and Ben Howlett were not required to appear at the hearing, they were in the same boat as the first six players listed above in that they were tested before (23 January 2012) receiving any injections.. As they had not been injected at that stage they had nothing to declare on their doping control forms.

Seven of the remaining 12 players testified that they were never administered a Thymosin injection. Therefore, only a maximum number of five players may not have filled out their doping control forms correctly. I cannot comment on those five players because I have not seen their doping control test forms, despite having made a FOI request to ASADA for those forms on 22 June 2016.

My command of the English language is poor and my mathematical skills are worse. But in my book, five out of 34 doesn’t reconcile with the panel’s claim that “the complete failure of the vast majority of Players who had to fill in a doping control form ("DCF") during the season to reveal the receipt of injections does not encourage confidence in their statements as to the limited or sporadic nature of what they were injected with”.

Shamefully, this statement was one of the major reasons the panel found the players guilty.
Click to expand...

And the cut n paste begins again, sigh.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bombfire said:
In February 2012, the Crameri family searched for ‘thymosin’
Click to expand...

Where did they search? Under the bed? Because it was super clear when googling thymosin that there were two varieties... one obviously for use by athletes, one for very sick people. Thymomodulin wasn't brought up until they realised thymosin alpha 1 wasn't really a valid option (I'll give you a clue: it was for hepatitis B and C, or AIDS sufferers).
 
jenny61_99 said:
Where did they search? Under the bed? Because it was super clear when googling thymosin that there were two varieties... one obviously for use by athletes, one for very sick people. Thymomodulin wasn't brought up until they realised thymosin alpha 1 wasn't really a valid option (I'll give you a clue: it was for hepatitis B and C, or AIDS sufferers).
Click to expand...

I don't know about you Jen but i have the distinct feeling of deja vu
 
peppy la pew said:
I don't know about you Jen but i have the distinct feeling of deja vu
Click to expand...
Yep... and I'm over it. They, like the players, will never see the facts that are staring them right in the face. No point in arguing and more I think. It's all done and dusted now.
 
60sbomber said:
What rubbish this is.
Data sheets? If I ring my doctor and tell him the chemist, or my wife, or the nurse at my workplace, has given me something, what is it and is it ok? Does he ask for "data sheets"? Of course he doesn't. He believes that the person who is responsible for dispensing whatever it is, is not lying or being devious, and he tells me what it is and whether it is ok. Dank told the players he was giving them the legal form of thymosin. When they asked Doc Reid or anyone else was this ok, the answer would have been yes.
Where did the "human use" bit come from? This is a favourite line thrown in as often as possible by people who want it to look and sound bad. Thymosin, and thymomodulin, which Dank claimed to be giving the players, is used on infants.
Click to expand...
Your deluded.
The fact they did not let Dr Reid know about what was happening means the legally qualified person to make the judgement did not have thr chance to warn them.
I bet some of the stuff Dank used would have sent Reid to the computor to download data sheets to see what the substances were. Common practice, all Drs keep a MIMs at their desk or on line to refer to , explains all aspects of every type of medication. Yeah Dank dispensing medications to Reid, hah your funny.
You keep saying Dank told them. This is the problem, Dank was not qualified to make such statements . The players knew this and they were also not to tell Reid who should have been the one signing off on all supplements.
Human use, Dank sourced his goods via charters via a Asian factory that does not make The quality fit for human use. Charter was warned of this but alls good.
Continue your outrage at people who do care about the players and the game.
 
60sbomber said:
That is so naïve.
It didn't matter what defence was run. CAS supported WADA's need for a conviction and was prepared to make whatever leaps of faith were necessary to justify it.
If you had read the judgement, not even all the detail that Le Grand is coming out with now, you would have understood this.
If you were an Essendon supporter, and you read the judgement with a critical eye, it is pretty obvious.
The Swiss court and the UNHCR didn't get a look in. The only grounds for appeal were procedural. CAS was able to make a mockery of the evidential requirement and to make the interpretation of "comfortable satisfaction" whatever it liked with impunity.
Click to expand...
Seriously, do we have to do all this again? Perhaps looking at the bright side will help you guys move on:

-EFC had a weekend to get their house in order before ASADA swooped, I'm sure they used it wisely.
-EFC were let off scot-free for AOD694
-Thanks to delaying tactics (Hird/EFC) and slow response (ASADA), EFC got to play a MCG elimination final against North in 2014 when the players would normally already have been banned.
-Those weeks of glory on BF after the AFL tribunal decision and before CAS COTT.
-No talk of retrospectively awarding the 2012 wooden spoon to EFC (that I have heard)
-Fletcher got to 400 when he otherwise might not have (and I don't see how they could kick him out of Club400 now)

that's just off the top of my head, a whole bunch of stuff that has gone to EFC's advantage. So why not take the bad with the good and move on?
 
imperial_oz said:
I have and I know, somewhat better than you. but thanks for the suggestion. Maybe take your own advice
Click to expand...

Well he did claim hysterically ... “Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements."

Hysterical - bit like the HTB regulars.

Of course we now know the time frames and he was just full of it, actually we knew that earlier.

He looks like a goose now and moving on he will look even sillier.
 
Here is what the hysterical but jubilant Ben said after the verdict.

ASADA conducted 30 testing missions at Essendon during the time in question between February and September 2012, 30 testing missions. Each time players subjected to tests were asked the standard questions by our doping control officers which were to declare any substances that they had taken, be it Panadol, Ibuprofen, protein powder, but in 30 tests- in 30 approaches only one player declared a supplement injection and declared that was for vitamin B.

Benny taking the piss, 30 testing missions, 30 testing missions, 30 approaches, 30 tests.

BUT BUT BUT Benny how many fit the time frames, but but but Benny please release the time frames for us to look at, why wont you do that - i know, because you haven't and cant match up the time frames.

Benny claim no injecting records exist but can match up time frames.
 
Garlic muncher said:
Well he did claim hysterically ... “Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements."

Hysterical - bit like the HTB regulars.

Of course we now know the time frames and he was just full of it, actually we knew that earlier.

He looks like a goose now and moving on he will look even sillier.
Click to expand...

So, quoting facts makes you hysterical does it? not as hysterical as yours posts, you can be sure
 
Garlic muncher said:
Here is what the hysterical but jubilant Ben said after the verdict.

ASADA conducted 30 testing missions at Essendon during the time in question between February and September 2012, 30 testing missions. Each time players subjected to tests were asked the standard questions by our doping control officers which were to declare any substances that they had taken, be it Panadol, Ibuprofen, protein powder, but in 30 tests- in 30 approaches only one player declared a supplement injection and declared that was for vitamin B.

Benny taking the piss, 30 testing missions, 30 testing missions, 30 approaches, 30 tests.

BUT BUT BUT Benny how many fit the time frames, but but but Benny please release the time frames for us to look at, why wont you do that - i know, because you haven't and cant match up the time frames.

Benny claim no injecting records exist but can match up time frames.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Even if they neglected to mention the substances during just one test that's cause for concern.

There are some really "special" people on this board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top