Now the Herald-Sun have a secret tape of Hird, Corcoran, Bomber et al?

[efcboy]

The AFL were quite wrong to levy a punishment against the club prior to doping allegations being resolved.

It was done as a window dressing exercise to show that they 'were doing something', which is typical AFL in my view. F*** integrity, lets try and look good. All this while trying to negotiate the players out of being held responsible under the code. I can't see that the AFL has acted any better than Dank throughout this entire saga and that includes the Commission and the current AFL management

And ironically the offical charge from the AFL was governance when they were breaking due process themselves...

 

[efcboy]

Yep. McDevitt even personally mentioned Doc Reid as someone who was deliberately sidelined by Essendon. I had always assumed he was in it up to his ears. Especially when there was all the talk about the consent form and him being in the room.

Turns out that was the last time he was in the room, and everyone spent the next 9 months avoiding him.

Complete fiction.

In the evidence there are many examples of Doc Reid being involved. For example Lovett-Murray received an injection - prior Lovett-Murray questioned what he was getting with Reid. Reid said in my opinion it won't help you but it won't harm you either and Lovett-Murray went ahead and consented to injection.

 

[efcboy]

Apparently Dank never had an employment contract, nor a formal induction.
Another governance lapse, sadly.

Source? prove it?

 

[efcboy]

In a court of law, majority rules. No different in an arbitration. It's why they have odd numbered panels. It also goes to show that TWO of the three judges saw it differently, so you could argue the third panelist saw it incorrectly.

I might just add, that panelist agreed banned substances had been taken, he just didn't feel it should have been applied to all players. But because the players chose to have their case heard as a collective, he had no grounds to stand on.

This is incorrect. A jury needs to be unanimous in a court of law. This is where we have the term hung jury. A civil case can be different.

 

[Moquo]

Source? prove it?

It's in chips book. And "There is no personal file to his name".

No idea if it's true.

 

[efcboy]

?


From the AFL Tribunal findings....

“Having considered all the evidence relating to the credibility and reliability of Mr Alavi, Mr Charter and Mr Dank … the Tribunal finds that the credibility of each of these principal participants is at a low ebb and each man in acting as he did in his own way and for his own motive saw a golden opportunity to “feather his own nest.” Their lack of credibility is reflected when their reliability is called into question and the Tribunal is satisfied that on a number of important issues their evidence on those issues was not only unreliable but also … dishonest.”

Yep so the earlier comments that they proved a chemist (Alavi) had compounded the substance TB4 is incorrect as they themselves even discredited this chemist let alone being able to state or prove that he did.

 

[efcboy]

The Tribunal comfortably accepted:

Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to Alavi;

Alavi believed that what he was compounding was TB4;

Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Dank;

Correspondence between Alavi and Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;

And Alavi’s lab technician Vania Giordani compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank.

It notes on multiple occasions: “It is possible but the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied.”



As for what came into Alavi’s possession and was then delivered to Dank experts for both sides agreed the substance was not Thymosin A1, which had subsequently been claimed.

This is the prosecutors assumption and interpretation - no sworn statements, affidavits or proof mean the above should have been struck out.

 

[efcboy]

Dank and Hird traded SMSs talking about Reid getting in the way and what to do about it. As to why the players followed the orders, they were from Hird. Of course they followed them.

Stupid or otherwise, players often blindly follow the directions of the coach.

Incorrect. Hird became aware of issues and requested Danny Corcoran sort the issues out between Reid and Dank. Not long after Hird, Corcoran and Reid all requested that Dank be sacked but Evans wouldn't do it.

 

[efcboy]

If there was ANY chance of them being legit, there is NO way he would destroy anything to prove it.

Risk management - how stupid would you have to be to believe that...

You're talking about the same David Evans that released the Ziggy report which gave the AFL and ASADA leverage they didn't have before. Pretty stupid to give your prosecutor and the general public details that don't help your position. So yes I believe there is a chance David Evans may have been stupid enough to destroy documents that may have helped them.

 

[Muggs]

This is incorrect. A jury needs to be unanimous in a court of law. This is where we have the term hung jury. A civil case can be different.

Then when it goes to appeal to a full bench, non jury trial its a majority of judges...

Then if you get leave to appeal to the high court the high court again is majority.

Even criminal trials in Australia, in most jurisdictions, will accept 1 (or 2 depending on state) Jury members disagreeing, the two expecptions being murder and treason. http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/report/prejudicialpublicity/01D51067F436DB6CCA257060007D13DA.html

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This is the prosecutors assumption and interpretation - no sworn statements, affidavits or proof mean the above should have been struck out.

And that's why Armstrong would have got off.

Even though they accepted the word of these guys, they weren't 'comfortably satisfied' it was actually TB4.


So they would have accepted the word of those that dobbed in Armstrong, but wouldn't have accepted it as fact that he actually took the drugs they said he took.

 

[efcboy]

It's in chips book. And "There is no personal file to his name".

No idea if it's true.

Personal file or personnel file? Dank was officially on the payroll at Essendon as an employee so of course he had an employment agreement.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yep so the earlier comments that they proved a chemist (Alavi) had compounded the substance TB4 is incorrect as they themselves even discredited this chemist let alone being able to state or prove that he did.

??

They said they believed that Alavi thought he was compounding TB4 and that Alavi believed he gave the TB4 to Dank. They just weren't certain it actually was TB4.

So Armstrong would have got off using the same principle.

 

[efcboy]

And that's why Armstrong would have got off.

Even though they accepted the word of these guys, they weren't 'comfortably satisfied' it was actually TB4.


So they would have accepted the word of those that dobbed in Armstrong, but wouldn't have accepted it as fact that he actually took the drugs they said he took.

Rubbish. The case against Lance Armstrong had sworn and signed statements from teammates that he cheated taking banned substances. And the evidence also contained positive drug tests that had previously been covered up. The case against Armstrong was a slam dunk case - sworn statements and positive tests.

The EFC 34 case had neither - no positive tests or sworn statements from anyone that they took banned substances.

 

[efcboy]

??

They said they believed that Alavi thought he was compounding TB4 and that Alavi believed he gave the TB4 to Dank. They just weren't certain it actually was TB4.

So Armstrong would have got off using the same principle.

No there were sworn statements signed off against Armstrong and positive tests. Armstrong had no chance of being found not guilty with the evidence uncovered against him in the end when corruption and cover ups were exposed in the industry.

 

[Muggs]

Personal file or personnel file? Dank was officially on the payroll at Essendon as an employee so of course he had an employment agreement.

According to Chip's book he never signed it and had no personnel file. Last page chapter 4

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No there were sworn statements signed off against Armstrong and positive tests. Armstrong had no chance of being found not guilty with the evidence uncovered against him in the end when corruption and cover ups were exposed in the industry.

Doesn't matter if they were sworn - the AFL Tribunal accepted their word as fact.

If they hadn't have accepted their word because it wasn't a sworn testimony, then you'd have a point. But they didn't, so you don't.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No there were sworn statements signed off against Armstrong and positive tests. Armstrong had no chance of being found not guilty with the evidence uncovered against him in the end when corruption and cover ups were exposed in the industry.

Positive tests for Armstrong??

 

[imperial_oz]

This was one example of many instances where they used evidence of one player against others. You've then gone out on a limb interpretating this as only one player in the whole array of evidence.

I can keep reminding you of what you actually posted as often as you like. You said this

The club and the AFL encouraged the players to do it as a group to get cleared as a group. I strongly believe this was a mistake and the players received a lot of bad advice. As it stands they used evidence only relative to one player against all 34 - that wasn't fair on each individual. Should have been 34 individual cases as it affected 34 individuals livelihoods.

So lets not pretend it was 'one example', it was a definite statement. A statement that is entirely untrue and has been repeatedly disproven.

There was individual evidence against each of the 34. Although it was a group defence by the players definite choice, which you now use to criticise CAS because 'its unfair, there was evidence to link each of the 34 as individuals. That is why the entire playing group wasn't charged, only those where there was evidence. That is why one of the CAS panel members wasn't convinced for a couple o charged players.

Repeating bullshit dosn't give it credibility. Trying to rewrite history won't work because people will keep quoting what you 'really' posted. Your contention about unfairness is wrong. Your contention that they applied the evidence for one against all 34 to get a conviction is wrong. Your attempts to weasel your way out of a stupid and false accusation is also not going to work.

Trying to invent something to be able to complain about isn't going to work. Man up and admit things were done correctly and your club let down the game

 

[TheBrightSide]

I can keep reminding you of what you actually posted as often as you like. You said this



So lets not pretend it was 'one example', it was a definite statement. A statement that is entirely untrue and has been repeatedly disproven.

There was individual evidence against each of the 34. Although it was a group defence by the players definite choice, which you now use to criticise CAS because 'its unfair, there was evidence to link each of the 34 as individuals. That is why the entire playing group wasn't charged, only those where there was evidence. That is why one of the CAS panel members wasn't convinced for a couple o charged players.

Repeating bullshit dosn't give it credibility. Trying to rewrite history won't work because people will keep quoting what you 'really' posted. Your contention about unfairness is wrong. Your contention that they applied the evidence for one against all 34 to get a conviction is wrong. Your attempts to weasel your way out of a stupid and false accusation is also not going to work.

Trying to invent something to be able to complain about isn't going to work. Man up and admit things were done correctly and your club let down the game

I already gave you an example.
At the end of the scale, there is probably very little evidence that Wada had which actually applied to the whole 34, like the declaration forms for example.

 

[lethalselbow]

I already gave you an example.
At the end of the scale, there is probably very little evidence that Wada had which actually applied to the whole 34, like the declaration forms for example.

Do you actually believe they didn't take banned substances or are just arguing for the sake of the club you love?

 

[efcboy]

Doesn't matter if they were sworn - the AFL Tribunal accepted their word as fact.

If they hadn't have accepted their word because it wasn't a sworn testimony, then you'd have a point. But they didn't, so you don't.

So it was the vibe? Not a legal based decision!

 

[efcboy]

Positive tests for Armstrong??

Correct. There were positive tests exposed that had been covered up in previous years.

 

[efcboy]

I can keep reminding you of what you actually posted as often as you like. You said this



So lets not pretend it was 'one example', it was a definite statement. A statement that is entirely untrue and has been repeatedly disproven.

There was individual evidence against each of the 34. Although it was a group defence by the players definite choice, which you now use to criticise CAS because 'its unfair, there was evidence to link each of the 34 as individuals. That is why the entire playing group wasn't charged, only those where there was evidence. That is why one of the CAS panel members wasn't convinced for a couple o charged players.

Repeating bullshit dosn't give it credibility. Trying to rewrite history won't work because people will keep quoting what you 'really' posted. Your contention about unfairness is wrong. Your contention that they applied the evidence for one against all 34 to get a conviction is wrong. Your attempts to weasel your way out of a stupid and false accusation is also not going to work.

Trying to invent something to be able to complain about isn't going to work. Man up and admit things were done correctly and your club let down the game

I've explained it you to you but you haven't comprehended that referring to one player can refer to any one player of the 34. One individual is not specififying a particular player - it's a series of evidence of one of the 34 which could be any player on different occasions to use it against more than that player. For example player A had elevated urine test - use it against other 33. Player B didn't fill out declaration form correctly so use that against others. Player C admitted he received thymosin so use that against others. Player D signed consent form listing thymosin so use that against others. Get the picture now?

 

[imperial_oz]

I already gave you an example.
At the end of the scale, there is probably very little evidence that Wada had which actually applied to the whole 34, like the declaration forms for example.

No you didn't. You been asked to identify the 'one player' who'se evidence was applied to all 34 and you pretended you never made that statement.

At the end of the day, WADA had evidence relating to all 34 players individually to convince 3 independent jurists to a level of comfortable satisfaction that they used TB4, with the known exception of one of the jurists not being convinced about a 'couple of players'

Your nonsensical accusations do not stand up to any form of scrutiny because they are simply untrue.