The possibility of Essendon innocence: a travesty of justice or conspiracy theory for the ages?

[LoungeLizard]

Yes. That does tell me a lot about you

And what does it tell you.

That i don't waste my time on someone assuming or guessing?

 

[Bombfire]

He didn't want to testify because of the perceived repercussions to himself and his family. We are talking about underworld involvement, probable death threats and in the end, what would be the benefit to him of going ahead? He was happy to direct ASADA but he couldn't jeopardize his family just to get a conviction to satisfy the public. He would never ever feel safe if he did testify. I initially was annoyed he didn't testify, but putting myself in his shoes, I would have probably done the same. His problem wasn't just the Dank confession. He was known by some pretty shady characters too and would have been perceived as dobbing them in as well, or at the very least, unfairly utilizing his relationship with them to involve them with the authorities against their will.

So he was happy to direct ASADA-what does that actually mean?

 

[Bombfire]

Unbelievable comment. CAS lowered the burden of proof threshold so low, that it was impossible for any defence to stop their ultimate aim, to nail the players.

The same strategy was successful at the AFL-ADT, where ASADA's own evidence and approach was shot down. It was ASADA that chose not to appeal because they had no chance to convict with their flimsy, unsubstantiated accusations in this country.

So that's what they mean by "verdict shopping" !
ASADA opted out of an appeal and actually went out there via AUSTRALIA funded WADA and shopped for a verdict.

 

[ChipnPotato]

And what does it tell you.

That i don't waste my time on someone assuming or guessing?

Well clearly not that. It hasn’t stopped you from reading and regurgitating the assumptions and guesses that WADA and ASADA have made.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Well clearly not that. It hasn’t stopped you from reading and regurgitating the assumptions and guesses that WADA and ASADA have made.

Most people think they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It is you that keeps regurgitating assumptions.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Well clearly not that. It hasn’t stopped you from reading and regurgitating the assumptions and guesses that WADA and ASADA have made.

Show me where i have assumed and guessed.

If you're talking about what Dank said, it was an interview he did, not something ASADA or WADA said.

But you have put it in print, that you are just assuming and guessing, exactly what you are accusing ASADA and WADA of doing, you do know there is a word for that?

Hypocrite.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

So he was happy to direct ASADA-what does that actually mean?

To tell them who he knew was involved. He met these people and they told him things and he passed that information on to ASADA. However, it wasn't worth putting himself and his family in danger by testifying and repeating what he was told. He stood to gain nothing except the wrath of of some pretty nasty dudes.....

 

[Bombfire]

To tell them who he knew was involved. He met these people and they told him things and he passed that information on to ASADA. However, it wasn't worth putting himself and his family in danger by testifying and repeating what he was told. He stood to gain nothing except the wrath of of some pretty nasty dudes.....

Dobbing in a guy who was mixed up with some pretty nasty dudes wasn't really a smart thing to do was it, given what we know about leaky ASADA.
No doubt your mate would have been called in to discuss this intel with the Australian Crime Commission given his links with these nasty dudes.

 

[JoondalupJ]

What's definitely guess work is one of the weakest defenses ever put up at CAS. Not one shred of evidence that what was taken was permitted. Not one invoice of anything allegedly bought that was permitted.

About CAS ? That sounds like CAS didn't allow evidence to be used, and still called out 34 players on what?
Even that information is confusing, as to what happened inside the CAS sport court?

I'm no legal eagle what so ever but when they brought down the judgement, it floored me , because no one really knew what or who had done anything.
In the public eye this was all hearsay , I mean everyone has had a point to make, especially here on BF , all sort of opinions.
I don't know the story any more than the thousands who have wached it, that the problem in itself was kept so " behind doors", all of it.

The whole basis of my opinion when it all first happened , my feeling was that no one could say anything about supplements or drugs or sport fitness experts or doctors or the coaches, it was like a blind investigation, and the thing is , even today no ones the wiser, its like being charged by the KGB you are dead man!
Guilty or not.

The thing about all of this stuff , is we could go on and on and talk this into the ground , but I suspect that we waste our time unless someone finally goes to court and pushes the envelope really hard , because there is for everyone a sneaking suspicion that this whole supplement thing was a stuff up FROM THE BEGINNING in all areas, and somebody, I reckon ASADA , had to follow through or look totally stupid. In court even Demetriou Mclachlan, Danks, ASADA, all involved from the club, they'd all have no choice but tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And that hasn't happened yet?

 

[ChipnPotato]

If the burden of proof was at the level Chip wants it at, Lance Armstrong would be a 7 time Tour De France winner. It would ensure sports people remained ignorant to what they were injected with, knowing they can just pin it all on the sports scientist.

Lance Armstrong's 2013 confession to doping:
He admitted that he used erythropoietin, diuretics and human growth hormone, and that he had blood doped as well as falsifying documents saying he passed drug tests. Doping helped him for each of his seven Tour de France wins, Armstrong told Winfrey.

Then there were two positive tests, first in 1999 for a banned steroid and again in 2005 for EPO. His Doctor lied get him off in 99 and a technicality in 2005 where the standard process wasn't followed for the test (ironic that - standard process!).

Add to this whistleblowers galore - former teammates and associates who witnessed or shared in Armstrong's alleged doping. He did this over 10 years right under the nose of USADA.

The similarities are compelling! I'm surprised this comparison doesn't come up more often!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Lance Armstrong's 2013 confession to doping:
He admitted that he used erythropoietin, diuretics and human growth hormone, and that he had blood doped as well as falsifying documents saying he passed drug tests. Doping helped him for each of his seven Tour de France wins, Armstrong told Winfrey.

Then there were two positive tests, first in 1999 for a banned steroid and again in 2005 for EPO. His Doctor lied get him off in 99 and a technicality in 2005 where the standard process wasn't followed for the test (ironic that - standard process!).

Add to this whistleblowers galore - former teammates and associates who witnessed or shared in Armstrong's alleged doping. He did this over 10 years right under the nose of USADA.

The similarities are compelling! I'm surprised this comparison doesn't come up more often!

Jobe Watson's 2013 confession to using banned subsances:

Bomber Watson admits taking banned drug

Essendon captain Jobe Watson has made the stunning admission that he took an anti-obesity drug banned by WADA.

www.abc.net.au

Hows that for similarities?

 

[ChipnPotato]

Show me where i have assumed and guessed.

If you're talking about what Dank said, it was an interview he did, not something ASADA or WADA said.

But you have put it in print, that you are just assuming and guessing, exactly what you are accusing ASADA and WADA of doing, you do know there is a word for that?

Hypocrite.

We need to elevate this conversation on a higher level. I read, absorb and make up my own mind when somebody assumes or alleges.

I was not referring to a specific comment but more to the bias in your commenting. I am assuming that you subscribe to the CAS finding, which was underpinned by a collection of assumptions and accusations that led the CAS to be 'comfortably satisfied', which is a probability of assumptions.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a matter of fact. Everyone in this thread is commenting based on assumptions.

 

[ChipnPotato]

Jobe Watson's 2013 confession to using banned subsances:

Bomber Watson admits taking banned drug

Essendon captain Jobe Watson has made the stunning admission that he took an anti-obesity drug banned by WADA.

www.abc.net.au

Hows that for similarities?

Good one! All this tells me is that you read head titles. That's all I need to know.

 

[LoungeLizard]

We need to elevate this conversation on a higher level. I read, absorb and make up my own mind when somebody assumes or alleges.

I was not referring to a specific comment but more to the bias in your commenting. I am assuming that you subscribe to the CAS finding, which was underpinned by a collection of assumptions and accusations that led the CAS to be 'comfortably satisfied', which is a probability of assumptions.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a matter of fact. Everyone in this thread is commenting based on assumptions.

LMAO, you are assuming that i was assuming, that takes the cake.

For one, i haven't said a word in here about the findings, so i have no idea where you get your assumptions from.

 

[ChipnPotato]

Most people think they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It is you that keeps regurgitating assumptions.

The CAS didn't.

 

[ChipnPotato]

LMAO, you are assuming that i was assuming, that takes the cake.

For one, i haven't said a word in here about the findings, so i have no idea where you get your assumptions from.

So you continued to read past my assumption? You broke your own rule!

Look you could be right. I'm not going to go fishing over your comments. Maybe it's the fact that you follow Collingwood and you may have an ingrained hatred of Essendon.

So I stop assuming on your behalf, how about that CAS finding ay?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The CAS didn't.

Because they didn't have to.....

 

[LoungeLizard]

So you continued to read past my assumption? You broke your own rule!

Look you could be right. I'm not going to go fishing over your comments. Maybe it's the fact that you follow Collingwood and you may have an ingrained hatred of Essendon.

So I stop assuming on your behalf, how about that CAS finding ay?

There you go assuming again, because i follow Collingwood, therefore i hate Essendon, therefore, anyone who follows Collingwood, hates Essendon.

Sounds a lot like what you are saying about the CAS findings.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

About CAS ? That sounds like CAS didn't allow evidence to be used, and still called out 34 players on what?
Even that information is confusing, as to what happened inside the CAS sport court?

I'm no legal eagle what so ever but when they brought down the judgement, it floored me , because no one really knew what or who had done anything.
In the public eye this was all hearsay , I mean everyone has had a point to make, especially here on BF , all sort of opinions.
I don't know the story any more than the thousands who have wached it, that the problem in itself was kept so " behind doors", all of it.

The whole basis of my opinion when it all first happened , my feeling was that no one could say anything about supplements or drugs or sport fitness experts or doctors or the coaches, it was like a blind investigation, and the thing is , even today no ones the wiser, its like being charged by the KGB you are dead man!
Guilty or not.

The thing about all of this stuff , is we could go on and on and talk this into the ground , but I suspect that we waste our time unless someone finally goes to court and pushes the envelope really hard , because there is for everyone a sneaking suspicion that this whole supplement thing was a stuff up FROM THE BEGINNING in all areas, and somebody, I reckon ASADA , had to follow through or look totally stupid. In court even Demetriou Mclachlan, Danks, ASADA, all involved from the club, they'd all have no choice but tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And that hasn't happened yet?

And why don't you think that's happened?

There is only one logical reason. Essendon do not want the truth to come out because they know the truth. The players should have taken Dank to court for assault. But they were happy to get an insurance payout and probably agreed not to pursue this any further as part of the conditions of the payout. They also would be taking the club to court as he was their employee.

I know if I had been banned for taking something I didn't agree to, I'd be doing everything to clear my name. But all we get is deathly silence.

 

[ChipnPotato]

There you go assuming again, because i follow Collingwood, therefore i hate Essendon, therefore, anyone who follows Collingwood, hates Essendon.

Sounds a lot like what you are saying about the CAS findings.

I am more than comfortably satisfied that the average Collingwood supporter has an innate dislike for Essendon.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I am more than comfortably satisfied that the average Collingwood supported has an innate dislike for Essendon.

You're starting to get the gist of it, keep going.

 

[ChipnPotato]

And why don't you think that's happened?

There is only one logical reason. Essendon do not want the truth to come out because they know the truth. The players should have taken Dank to court for assault. But they were happy to get an insurance payout and probably agreed not to pursue this any further as part of the conditions of the payout. They also would be taking the club to court as he was their employee.

I know if I had been banned for taking something I didn't agree to, I'd be doing everything to clear my name. But all we get is deathly silence.

Essendon I'm sure do know the truth, as does Dank. They opened their door to ASADA and the AFL. If anyone is hiding anything it's the latter.

They had to play within the WADA guidelines, they appealed to the highest legal avenue afforded within those guidelines.
Who are they going to sue? Dank? He was not found guilty of injecting banned substances into the Essendon players. What exactly are they going to sue him for? They settled with the club regarding WorkSafe. Until they clear their name, there is no one else they can sue.

Nathan Lovett Murray may appear to be fighting a one man war at the moment, but it only takes one to unravel the mess.

 

[ChipnPotato]

You're starting to get the gist of it, keep going.

I put that in just to appease you.

 

[ChipnPotato]

I say let them have their royal commission. Let's put Dank, Charters, Alavi, Hird, Evans etc on the stand remembering that a Royal Commission would have access to all the ACC surveillance evidence that landed Essendon in this pickle and that a Royal Commission has coercive powers and that lying to a Royal Commission is a criminal offence that can result in jail time...

ASADA might not have been perfect and they'd cop and they'd cop a bit of a bollocking but any the royal commission findings would likely bankrupt Essendon (great outcome IMHO) and highlight the efforts the AFL went to to get Essendon off.

We're shivering in fear

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Nathan Lovett Murray may appear to be fighting a one man war at the moment, but it only takes one to unravel the mess.

Isn't he the one suing Essendon for the damage these peptides might have done to his (then) unborn child?