Show cause letters to 40 Bomber players are near according to Fairfax(Not Carro)

[Malifice]

firstly, presumably that is from the senate estimates committee, which if you follow this conversation back was the exact point I was making that there was no specific mention of AFL sc compared to NRL sc. I don't really care if you think I'm trying to "hang my hat" on this, I'm merely pointing out an assumption is made, a trap you yourself have just careered into as well.

It could just be NRL players he's talking about ASADA handing out SC's to in the next few weeks.

Considering the purported contents of Danks SC letter though this possibility is so remote, its actually fanciful.

 

[I Rock]

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't necessarily prescribe the same meaning to it you do.

So your saying there is a very distinct possibility that by players he means the non Essendon ones?

 

[van peebles]

SC notices dont finalise the process Lance. You know this of course and (to steal a line from Shawshank) you're being a little obtuse.

But SC notices are the first legal step (post investigation) into suspending a player.

And they are going to be mighty hard for the EFC and players to rebutt seeing as they have no idea themselves (and no records apparently) of what they were injecting.

If we take the 12 players in trouble story.{i think efc tested the waters with this]
The players rebuttal is a denial of their own evidence.{this wont get them off}

 

[Malifice]

dude, Aurora announced ASADA had finalised the investigation 3 months ago...

So either more evidence has since come to light or (as reported) the new head of ASADA wants a bit more time to fully familiarise himself with the thousands of documents, legal arguments, policy, interview notes, evidence and reports, answer a Senate enquiry, close any legal loopholes and so forth.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't necessarily prescribe the same meaning to it you do.

It seems 100% self explanatory to me

"But in terms of when particular matters will be finalised, it’s a difficult question because what we need to do, in fairness to each of the people who have been the subject of inquiries — some of whom are players and some of whom are support staff — is that each needs to be considered individually and in their own right.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

But did Fitzpatrick call Wiley first?

 

[Oneiros]

Back to the boring waiting phase. I can hear the Jeopardy theme music playing in my head already.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

THE AUSTRALIAN Sports Anti-Doping Authority could serve show-cause notices to AFL players over alleged use of performance enhancing drugs within weeks.

New CEO Ben McDevitt said the agency was working towards issuing the notices with "urgency" but it did not want to "sacrifice certainty for speed"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/weeks-not-months

just to clarify on this, that article is an almost complete misrepresentation of what was said. I would encourage you to watch the estimates hearing yourself and make up your mind, but fair to say that the journalist asserting that "New CEO Ben McDevitt said the agency was working towards issuing the notices with "urgency" but it did not want to "sacrifice certainty for speed" " is a massive oversimplification of what was said and more or less a complete misrepresentation packaged up into a sensationalist little bitesize morsel of rubbish. Those quotes were not referring to issuing show cause notices, they were him referring back to the comments he made on Day 1.

Which would mean your assertion that he mentioned sc first is not correct and is in fact erroneous linking from the journalist

FYI

 

[jenny61_99]

just to clarify on this, that article is an almost complete misrepresentation of what was said. I would encourage you to watch the estimates hearing yourself and make up your mind, but fair to say that the journalist asserting that "New CEO Ben McDevitt said the agency was working towards issuing the notices with "urgency" but it did not want to "sacrifice certainty for speed" " is a massive oversimplification of what was said and more or less a complete misrepresentation packaged up into a sensationalist little bitesize morsel of rubbish. Those quotes were not referring to issuing show cause notices.

Which would mean your assertion that he mentioned sc first is not correct and is in fact erroneous linking from the journalist

FYI

Ings quotes him as saying that. Was Ings wrong?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

which Ings tweet are you referring to? I've read them.

I assume the one where he said BM did say he hoped sc would be issued within weeks? Because if that's what you mean there was no reference to specific codes, which is the basis of this entire discussion

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I would encourage people to watch it themselves and draw their own conclusions. McD was pretty impressive IMO.

http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=227873&operation_mode=parlview

2hr 10m

 

[Armchair Critic]

which Ings tweet are you referring to? I've read them.

I assume the one where he said BM did say he hoped sc would be issued within weeks? Because if that's what you mean there was no reference to specific codes, which is the basis of this entire discussion

My thinking is very much similar how you believe it could be NRL as you believe 17 seems to be a much more specific number than the number floated around fo Essendon.

I believe the much for specific timeline predicted for Essendon by McDevitt matches up with his statements last night.

Am I foolish enough to believe only Essendon will receive show causes. I very much doubt it.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

My thinking is very much similar how you believe it could be NRL as you believe 17 seems to be a much more specific number than the number floated around fo Essendon.

I believe the much for specific timeline predicted for Essendon by McDevitt matches up with his statements last night.

Am I foolish enough to believe only Essendon will receive show causes. I very much doubt it.

that's fair enough. I've never disputed Essendon players could well receive sc notices. I just find amusing rampant assumptions being trumpeted as fact

 

[Laphroaig]

Which would mean your assertion that he mentioned sc first is not correct and is in fact erroneous linking from the journalist

FYI

And every other journalist who's reported on it. Not just from SEs, but from reporting by both print outlets of attributed statements made to them by the CEO.

As far as I can tell you are in a minority cell, population = 1 in your opinion on this.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

And every other journalist who's reported on it. Not just from SEs, but from reporting by both print outlets of attributed statements made to them by the CEO.

As far as I can tell you are in a minority cell, population = 1 in your opinion on this.

watch it and make up your own mind like I have

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

your willful misinterpretation of people's posts is at best lazy and at worst kind of pathetic.

It's Lance 101 to imply and lead with pointed questions to obvious omissions and then smugly invite the respondent to show where you actually said what everyone knows you were getting at.

You're more intelligent than most of the other Essendon chuckleheads on here, but your methods are only slightly less transparent.

Still, when you don't have any coherent narrative argument to hang your hat on, what are you gonna do?

 

[nineteen eighty]

They weren't "unlucky". There was clear intent, people employed, managed, co-ordinated, over a long period of time, to - at the least - sail as close to the edge.... to get HGH benefits and other unfair advantages using experimental and off label drugs.

I guess you could mean they were "unlucky" as in they didn't know Dank was under surveillance already at that point, but was he by ACC or ASADA?

Agree with your first paragraph.

The second is exactly what I was referring to.

 

[Oneiros]

which Ings tweet are you referring to? I've read them.

I assume the one where he said BM did say he hoped sc would be issued within weeks? Because if that's what you mean there was no reference to specific codes, which is the basis of this entire discussion

If its NRL only, there's a few people over on the AFL v NRL thread who would glow like the Chernobyl pressure chamber.

 

[vjknight]

I would encourage people to watch it themselves and draw their own conclusions. McD was pretty impressive IMO.

http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=227873&operation_mode=parlview

2hr 10m

curious lance - to save me logging out and reading thru the EFC board (dont tell doss) have you made the same comment on your board ?
only a brave man would to compliment a public servant there at present.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

curious lance - to save me logging out and reading thru the EFC board (dont tell doss) have you made the same comment on your board ?
only a brave man would to compliment a public servant there at present.

matter of fact I have. Been agreed with by a number of other posters too

 

[Lance Uppercut]

View attachment 60351

good description wasn't it?

 

[SunshineBoy]

I wouldn't want to be hanging by a thread of hope that thin.

He did mention show cause notices first up. Extracting a different meaning from the absence of the words show cause from a particular subsequent sentence is marginally valid, but very close to the boundary of putting fingers in ears and "singing I cant hear this."

how about this instead of a thread?

 

[I Rock]

As much as people keep saying ASADA are incompetent ,breached privacy has not followed due process until it is proven to me I will strongly disagree.

ASADA has an impeccable record with cases before the AAT so I am willing to give them benefit of doubt they know what they are doing.

You can label me an ASADA barracker if you like ,it doesn't bother me

I just like the fact that Essendon being innocent or guilty seems to be no longer a factor, only the competence level of the investigatory body.

 

[BigJoeD_]

As much as people keep saying ASADA are incompetent ,breached privacy has not followed due process until it is proven to me I will strongly disagree.

ASADA has an impeccable record with cases before the AAT so I am willing to give them benefit of doubt they know what they are doing.

You can label me an ASADA barracker if you like ,it doesn't bother me

To be fair, I didn't put you specifically in that category

 

[Armchair Critic]

]

I just like the fact that Essendon being innocent or guilty seems to be no longer a factor, only the competence level of the investigatory body.

Due process is still something that needs to be adhered too,people can scream it is a guilty mans argument (I have no doubt I have said it myself) it is still a relevent discussion,the guilty ,innocent argument may be a long way down the track yet