If not guilty doesn't mean innocent...

[GuzzLG]

Nothing can stop you from keeping records of saying you injected vitamins, for example, as opposed to [insert doping substance here]. But, the fact is, that Essendon failed to provide any records at all. Yes, fabricating records is entirely possible, in which case further investigation is required. But the complete absence of records is extremely suspicious; logically, they will have had records, so inability to produce them indicates wilful destruction, which is simply not done for a bit of a laugh; it's for nefarious purposes.
As for providing a record of "not doing something", that is not the point at all. No athlete has to prove what they did not do. They have to prove that, in the scenario that their actions resemble that of doping, what was consumed abides by all rules. Hence harping back to the importance of records. The only reason why Essendon has been singled out is because their activity has caused there to be reason to believe that they may have committed an offence.
Was any other club questioned and placed under this scrutiny? No. Was any other club publicly made to prove what they provided to their players? No.
Why? Because no other club had strong links to banned substances. Hell, there was even admittance of consumption of a schedule 0 banned substance, anyway.






You're playing a bit of the straw man game.

As I stated above, a club or individual only comes into this line of questioning when there is significant reason to believe they have a strong connection with an illicit substance. To address your example, everyone has dinner, so that is insanely far from being comparable.
Not everyone has close ties to banned substances. Essendon did. That's why they're being investigated. That's why they effectively have the onus to prove that this connection is only circumstantial, and did not eventuate in anything.

This is a load of drivel.

Your or anyone else's "reasonable suspicion" does not in any way shift the burden of proof.

 

[2one2]

I have.

But you know, you'd have to accept that the landscape now ... WADA appealing and having Dank's conviction (if it stands on appeal) ... in their back pocket, is very different to when the players first went up.

Dank's conviction of trafficking and attempted trafficking to staff of various clubs and bringing hexarelin onto the premises to traffick to staff is not exactly an ace up their sleeve, particularly when the pertinent charges involving the players weren't upheld

 

[TigerTime3]

Ridiculously poor logic by the OP.

Guilty = Guilty

That's what the trial is about. Guilty or not guilty.

Innocent are all the clubs with full medical records.

 

[GuzzLG]

Ridiculously poor logic by the OP.

Guilty = Guilty

That's what the trial is about. Guilty or not guilty.

Innocent are all the clubs with full medical records.

Only about 6 of them from memory.

 

[threesixpio]

Notwithstanding his appeal, that much is clear. I need to familiarise myself with the 8 charges that were upheld to see if the intention was to dope EFC players.

Maybe, maybe not. My point was that the tribunal knew of the guilt of dank while they handed down the verdict on the EFC players. If the interpretation of the evidence and comfortable satisfaction remain the same then we should expect the same result.
I agree that the landscape is different but I am not picking in which direction.
For me when the players went up it was all about whether the shipment got to EFC and then to individual players. The uncertainty of the provenance of TB4 to begin with changed the landscape markedly, at least for me anyway.

Which means none of us would blame you for being uncertain about which direction this will go

 

[blured]

You can keep going on about it but let's face it, EFC have done the crime (contraventions of the AFL code) and have done overs for the time. In fact still doing time with this joke of a WADA appeal. Meanwhile EFC are getting on with the business of leaving your disgrace well and truly behind it, while your type keep uselessly ruminating.

Get back to me when your club can give us all an honest and frank answer to what the players really got shot up with.