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

[TheBrightSide]

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

I don't know what they took, and have never claimed to know. Anything is possible with Dank, he's a fruitloop.
I certainly haven't seen enough solid evidence to warrant a guilty verdict though.
If new evidence arises that 100% confirms they doped, I'll humbly accept that with hat in hand.
Until then, this remains a huge farce.

 

[imperial_oz]

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?

You should get the picture. Your false accusation are not working because no tribunal will accept evidence of that nature.

The AFL Tribunal could have dismissed the charges on the first morning through lack of evidence. CAS could have dismissed the charges through lack of evidence. That never happened.

If ASADA did as you claim, why did they select 34 and not he whole playing group? Why did CAS have different findings for a 'couple of players'

This is something you made up and are now desperately trying to find some grounds to avoid admitting you made it all up. It is a lie and easily disproven

 

[Cronos]

You should get the picture. Your false accusation are not working because no tribunal will accept evidence of that nature.

The AFL Tribunal could have dismissed the charges on the first morning through lack of evidence. CAS could have dismissed the charges through lack of evidence. That never happened.

If ASADA did as you claim, why did they select 34 and not he whole playing group? Why did CAS have different findings for a 'couple of players'

This is something you made up and are now desperately trying to find some grounds to avoid admitting you made it all up. It is a lie and easily disproven

I was led to believe that this whole saga was nothing but a storm in a teacup, that would be thrown out at every level of scrutiny in the first five minutes...

Hahahaha!

 

[imperial_oz]

I was led to believe that this whole saga was nothing but a storm in a teacup, that would be thrown out at every level of scrutiny in the first five minutes...

Hahahaha!

Well, I'm happy for all involved to be scrutinised. It's the only way we can have a robust system that protects clean sport.

Some of bullshit being peddled as factual is beyond crazy and Bruce is not the only idiot doing that.

Frankly anti-doping should be managed by somebody other than the sports governing body. You can see what happens by looking at cycling, athletics or swimming. I personally have suspicions about other clubs in the AFL and I would not rule out anti-doping violations occurring at every club including my own.

The more external scrutiny, the better as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Percel]

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

It was the Law of Australia

 

[HairyO]

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.

You can claim whatever you want to be incorrect. But there are SMSs between Hird and Dank where they discuss Reid and how to get around him not being happy with what is going on.

They were not concerned with what he was saying they were concerned with stopping him from interfering.

 

[TheBrightSide]

You should get the picture. Your false accusation are not working because no tribunal will accept evidence of that nature.

The AFL Tribunal could have dismissed the charges on the first morning through lack of evidence. CAS could have dismissed the charges through lack of evidence. That never happened.

If ASADA did as you claim, why did they select 34 and not he whole playing group? Why did CAS have different findings for a 'couple of players'

This is something you made up and are now desperately trying to find some grounds to avoid admitting you made it all up. It is a lie and easily disproven

The 34 were charged because they signed the consent form, the rest didn't.
So basically, this is the only significant piece of evidence which applies to all 34, while we're on the subject.
The players themselves organised this to officially make sure everything was legal and above board, and ironically, it was the evidence that got them banned.
It should have been the document to clear them of any culpability, but the opposite happened.
Only a Kangaroo court could have come to this conclusion.

 

[imperial_oz]

The 34 were charged because they signed the consent form, the rest didn't.
So basically, this is the only significant piece of evidence which applies to all 34, while we're on the subject.
The players themselves organised this to officially make sure everything was legal and above board, and ironically, it was the evidence that got them banned.
It should have been the document to clear them of any culpability, but the opposite happened.
Only a Kangaroo court could have come to this conclusion.

Ok so now having been found out making up crazy accusations against WADA, you've doubled up and are now saying that the AFL, ASADA, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, the AFL Tribunal, WADA, the Federal Court and CAS all allowed 34 players to be singled out on the basis of a form they signed with no other significant evidence that applies? This is going to be a massive dereliction of duty by everybody involved in this saga, including the club, the players and their lawyers.

No other significant evidence is it? Even when a single signed form with no other significant evidence wouldn't even reach the standard required to reach the ADRVP, let alone be passed to the AFL Legal Officer, who also decided there was sufficient evidence to refer it to the AFL Tribunal. Then the AFL Tribunal didn't notice there was no evidence apart from signed forms. Then CAS didn't notice the total lack of evidence. The the player's lawyers didn't notice the total lack of evidence. Hell nobody noticed that, even the AFL who did all they could to get the players a zero penalty, when all anybody needed to do was simply notice the total lack of evidence.

In fact, nobody has noticed this until you did, just now. F****** Wow!

I'll say this, when you do stupid, you really give it the full quid.

I didn't think it was possible but that last post actually makes the sea kayaker and Alan Hird look some way reasonable.

Do you actually believe what you post or are you just lashing out in despair? Either way, I could recommend seeing someone for help

 

[TheBrightSide]

Ok so now having been found out making up crazy accusations against WADA, you've doubled up and are now saying that the AFL, ASADA, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel, the AFL Tribunal, WADA, the Federal Court and CAS all allowed 34 players to be singled out on the basis of a form they signed with no other significant evidence that applies? This is going to be a massive dereliction of duty by everybody involved in this saga, including the club, the players and their lawyers.

No other significant evidence is it? Even when a single signed form with no other significant evidence wouldn't even reach the standard required to reach the ADRVP, let alone be passed to the AFL Legal Officer, who also decided there was sufficient evidence to refer it to the AFL Tribunal. Then the AFL Tribunal didn't notice there was no evidence apart from signed forms. Then CAS didn't notice the total lack of evidence. The the player's lawyers didn't notice the total lack of evidence. Hell nobody noticed that, even the AFL who did all they could to get the players a zero penalty, when all anybody needed to do was simply notice the total lack of evidence.

In fact, nobody has noticed this until you did, just now. F****** Wow!

I'll say this, when you do stupid, you really give it the full quid.

I didn't think it was possible but that last post actually makes the sea kayaker and Alan Hird look some way reasonable.

Do you actually believe what you post or are you just lashing out in despair? Either way, I could recommend seeing someone for help

You really need to work on your insults, 3 out of 10.
You totally misunderstood what I said.
The consent forms are pretty much the only evidence which apply to all 34. Unlike the the elevated samples, asada control forms, etc etc...

 

[Satan]

You can claim whatever you want to be incorrect. But there are SMSs between Hird and Dank where they discuss Reid and how to get around him not being happy with what is going on.

They were not concerned with what he was saying they were concerned with stopping him from interfering.

Something something United Nations skills something

 

[mxett]

Except when the players kept him in the dark as well? Even when one was having a serious medical issue, they wouldn't tell Reid what they were on. He was sidelined by everyone.

I dont think the players deliberately kept Reid in the dark. IMO they thought he approved of the program but was not involved in it's day to day running, so they didnt discuss it with him.

 

[imperial_oz]

You really need to work on your insults, 3 out of 10.
You totally misunderstood what I said.
The consent forms are pretty much the only evidence which apply to all 34. Unlike the the elevated samples, asada control forms, etc etc...

You need to work on a lot things, comprehension not being the least. Consistency is another.

you really should try to remember that what you post, stays posted. This constant rewriting of your comments really isn't working for you. You, Bruce and Alan are a great match

 

[TheBrightSide]

You need to work on a lot things, comprehension not being the least. Consistency is another.

you really should try to remember that what you post, stays posted. This constant rewriting of your comments really isn't working for you. You, Bruce and Alan are a great match

Seeing as you like to rehash old statements, you never addressed my claim that Wada are big girly liars.

It's very simple. Is the following Wada statement true? Yes or no. (Please try to leave out a long winded reply containing "external assays")

I'll keep posting this until you answer yes or no, so you might as well get it over with.

 

[imperial_oz]

Seeing as you like to rehash old statements, you never addressed my claim that Wada are big girly liars.

It's very simple. Is the following Wada statement true? Yes or no. (Please try to leave out a long winded reply containing "external assays")

I'll keep posting this until you answer yes or no, so you might as well get it over with.

View attachment 341646

Yet another false claim from you. Go back and read my previous posts. I made enough detailing how absurd your claim about WADA (note: its WADA not Wada...its an acronym not a word).

I will repeat what I said while acknowledging that since I don't use small words and big pictures, it's probably a wasted effort.

WADA's (<-- see what I did there?) statement about elevated levels is likely perfectly correct. I say likely as I don't have access to the original assays (See, I did it again) but then neither do you. WADA (again) was very clear in stating that it could not distinguish between exogenous and endogenous causes for the elevated levels. The players expert agreed with the 'elevated levels' and highlighted the inability to distinguish the cause in the current science.

So the claim of elevated was NOT a lie, it was correct. Introducing the evidence was also correct. Putting clear limits on the evidence was also correct.

Giving expert evidence carries significant responsibilities and in many jurisdictions, including Australia, is covered by a code of ethics. In Australia (yes Australian legal principles, Alan) experts can give 'opinion evidence' nobody else can but experts are required to describe accurately where any limits on that evidence or opinion lies to allow less expert persons to be able to weigh the evidence in context. WADA did exactly as should have and the panel were than able to exclude that evidence when forming their determination.

You can keep posting the same tired old nonsense all you like and you'll get the same answer, whether you can understand it or not.

WADA did not lie. You on the other hand, have been caught out more than once.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Source? prove it?

Did you miss that part of the saga?

Was claimed by Chip in his book and was well discussed in this forum after it came out.

Chapter 4, bottom of page 61 -
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...of stephen dank's employment contract&f=false

 

[TheBrightSide]

Yet another false claim from you. Go back and read my previous posts. I made enough detailing how absurd your claim about WADA (note: its WADA not Wada...its an acronym not a word).

I will repeat what I said while acknowledging that since I don't use small words and big pictures, it's probably a wasted effort.

WADA's (<-- see what I did there?) statement about elevated levels is likely perfectly correct. I say likely as I don't have access to the original assays (See, I did it again) but then neither do you. WADA (again) was very clear in stating that it could not distinguish between exogenous and endogenous causes for the elevated levels. The players expert agreed with the 'elevated levels' and highlighted the inability to distinguish the cause in the current science.

So the claim of elevated was NOT a lie, it was correct. Introducing the evidence was also correct. Putting clear limits on the evidence was also correct.

Giving expert evidence carries significant responsibilities and in many jurisdictions, including Australia, is covered by a code of ethics. In Australia (yes Australian legal principles, Alan) experts can give 'opinion evidence' nobody else can but experts are required to describe accurately where any limits on that evidence or opinion lies to allow less expert persons to be able to weigh the evidence in context. WADA did exactly as should have and the panel were than able to exclude that evidence when forming their determination.

You can keep posting the same tired old nonsense all you like and you'll get the same answer, whether you can understand it or not.

WADA did not lie. You on the other hand, have been caught out more than once.

Had a hard time staying awake by the end.
You Sir, would have a great career in Politics.

 

[imperial_oz]

Had a hard time staying awake by the end.
You Sir, would have a great career in Politics.

Nope. I screwed any chance of a political career by swearing an oath to tell the truth. You'd have no chance because you can't spin a believable yarn

 

[TheBrightSide]

Nope. I screwed any chance of a political career by swearing an oath to tell the truth. You'd have no chance because you can't spin a believable yarn

So WaDa wouldn't take me either? They love selling pork pies.

 

[Moquo]

WADA are just anti-awesomeness. It's probably the Law of Australia.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The 34 were charged because they signed the consent form, the rest didn't.
So basically, this is the only significant piece of evidence which applies to all 34, while we're on the subject.
The players themselves organised this to officially make sure everything was legal and above board, and ironically, it was the evidence that got them banned.
It should have been the document to clear them of any culpability, but the opposite happened.
Only a Kangaroo court could have come to this conclusion.

I don't understand the last sentence.

Even the AFL Tribunal agreed that Dank ended up with what he believed was TB4. It's fact that Dank calls TB4 'thymosin'.

Players admit being injected by Dank with what he calls 'thymosin'.


What other finding could there be?? It's blatantly obvious they took TB4.

A criminal court wouldn't have found them guilty - but any genuine anti-doping tribunal would have.

 

[TheBrightSide]

I don't understand the last sentence.

Even the AFL Tribunal agreed that Dank ended up with what he believed was TB4. It's fact that Dank calls TB4 'thymosin'.

Players admit being injected by Dank with what he calls 'thymosin'.


What other finding could there be?? It's blatantly obvious they took TB4.

A criminal court wouldn't have found them guilty - but any genuine anti-doping tribunal would have.

Assuming all this is true, the players should be at no fault, with no suspensions.
They sought extraordinary assurances that what they were taking was legal. That's more than enough, even for an anti doping tribunal that salivates over a guilty verdict, like they tend to.

 

[Cronos]

Assuming all this is true, the players should be at no fault, with no suspensions.
They sought extraordinary assurances that what they were taking was legal. That's more than enough, even for an anti doping tribunal that salivates over a guilty verdict, like they tend to.

Nope, it's nowhere near enough.

The anti doping code they agreed to makes it very clear, that an athlete is responsible for what enters their own body. Even bad advice is covered under the code to avoid the "I just did what my coach said" excuse.

It's written this way to help protect not just the potential doper, but also every other player who didn't dope.

 

[lethalselbow]

I don't know what they took, and have never claimed to know. Anything is possible with Dank, he's a fruitloop.
I certainly haven't seen enough solid evidence to warrant a guilty verdict though.
If new evidence arises that 100% confirms they doped, I'll humbly accept that with hat in hand.
Until then, this remains a huge farce.

Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating.

 

[lethalselbow]

Assuming all this is true, the players should be at no fault, with no suspensions.
They sought extraordinary assurances that what they were taking was legal. That's more than enough, even for an anti doping tribunal that salivates over a guilty verdict, like they tend to.

I don't think they sought extraordinary assurances. I think they sort assurances. Obviously they held doubts.

Do you find it puzzling that none of the past players will openly come out and discuss what went on during that time? It's not like they can get any further punishment, is it? Why do you think the secrecy still goes on?

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

...
They sought extraordinary assurances that what they were taking was legal. That's more than enough, even for an anti doping tribunal that salivates over a guilty verdict, like they tend to.

Ah .... nope.

Sadly, these players (elite athletes supposedly, on par with other elite Aussie athletes apparently) surrendered their responsibility as athletes, to a group that could not be trusted.

Their club.

This is why the anti-doping requirments world-wide are set up this way.

They sought lazy assurances, not ordinary nor extra-ordinary assurances.

Now, the question still to be answered, is who led and how many followed? I'm more than happy to accept that the majority were not just let down by their club, but by their leadership playing group as well.