Stephen Dank takes it to another level

Remove this Banner Ad

Suns supplements adviser named in ASADA papers

The owner of a bodybuilding gym who provided Gold Coast Suns players with supplement and nutrition advice ahead of the club’s first AFL season is named in a confidential ASADA document as a possible peptide customer of Stephen Dank.

The revelation raises further questions about ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt’s decision not to pursue a doping case against either Bock or former Geelong, Gold Coast and Essendon high-performance manager Dean Robinson, who has admitting to providing a vial of CJC-1295 and syringes to Bock.

Dank’s customer, a prominent figure in the bodybuilding industry who The Australian has chosen not to name, was introduced to the Suns in late 2010 by Robinson, who also convinced the AFL’s prized expansion club to hire sports scientist Dank as part of his high-performance team.

Although he was never put on staff or paid by the Suns, the nutrition adviser was listed alongside Dank and other new club appointments in an email sent by Suns football operation manager Marcus Ashcroft to all club staff in January 2011, as the club was counting down to its inaugural season.

He denied receiving any peptides from Dank, ever using peptides, or ever advising an athlete to take them. “I never got anything and I never would have talked to any athletes about something like that because I would have lost my job,’’ he said. “The whole peptide thing was the worst thing that could happen to our industry.’’

ASADA investigators obtained a series of 2012 text messages between Dank and Adam Van Spanje, a former director of a peptide-selling business that traded as the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic (MRC), in which Dank places a peptide order in the name of the gym owner.

The order included CJC-1295 and Hexarelin, both banned peptides that stimulate the production of human growth hormone, and Mechano Growth Factor, an alternative to steroids that is also banned under the World Anti-Doping Code. At the time, all three substances were legal to take with a script and available online from the MRC and other peptide sellers. Van Spanje confirmed the identity of the former Suns adviser during a December 2013 interview with ASADA investigators John Nolan and Mark Nichols, who were overseeing the AFL and NRL sides of Operation Cobia, an investigation into the use of peptides and growth hormones at professional football clubs.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...8511d7eccce705d16d8+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
 

Log in to remove this ad.

compact72 said:
Suns supplements adviser named in ASADA papers

The owner of a bodybuilding gym who provided Gold Coast Suns players with supplement and nutrition advice ahead of the club’s first AFL season is named in a confidential ASADA document as a possible peptide customer of Stephen Dank.

The revelation raises further questions about ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt’s decision not to pursue a doping case against either Bock or former Geelong, Gold Coast and Essendon high-performance manager Dean Robinson, who has admitting to providing a vial of CJC-1295 and syringes to Bock.

Dank’s customer, a prominent figure in the bodybuilding industry who The Australian has chosen not to name, was introduced to the Suns in late 2010 by Robinson, who also convinced the AFL’s prized expansion club to hire sports scientist Dank as part of his high-performance team.

Although he was never put on staff or paid by the Suns, the nutrition adviser was listed alongside Dank and other new club appointments in an email sent by Suns football operation manager Marcus Ashcroft to all club staff in January 2011, as the club was counting down to its inaugural season.

He denied receiving any peptides from Dank, ever using peptides, or ever advising an athlete to take them. “I never got anything and I never would have talked to any athletes about something like that because I would have lost my job,’’ he said. “The whole peptide thing was the worst thing that could happen to our industry.’’

ASADA investigators obtained a series of 2012 text messages between Dank and Adam Van Spanje, a former director of a peptide-selling business that traded as the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic (MRC), in which Dank places a peptide order in the name of the gym owner passes the

The order included CJC-1295 and Hexarelin, both banned peptides that stimulate the production of human growth hormone, and Mechano Growth Factor, an alternative to steroids that is also banned under the World Anti-Doping Code. At the time, all three substances were legal to take with a script and available online from the MRC and other peptide sellers. Van Spanje confirmed the identity of the former Suns adviser during a December 2013 interview with ASADA investigators John Nolan and Mark Nichols, who were overseeing the AFL and NRL sides of Operation Cobia, an investigation into the use of peptides and growth hormones at professional football clubs.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...8511d7eccce705d16d8+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
Click to expand...

Suspect some sub editor is in the s**t today for naming the photo and caption after the story chose not to name...

Not sure I see the point of this story unless shown that the gym owner passed the substances on to the players. He can legally purchase and take them himself
 
Last edited:
Muggs said:
Suspect some sub editor is in the s**t today for naming the photo and caption after the story chose not to name...

Not sure I see the point of this story unless shown that the gym owner passed the substances on the players. He can legally purchase and take them himself
Click to expand...
Chip just trying to discredit ASADA

s**t story, his getting desperate. Not worth the tweet
 
Muggs said:
Not sure I see the point of this story unless shown that the gym owner passed the substances on to the players.
Click to expand...
Maybe the oz is attempting to discredit ASADA by implying that they did not investigate this case properly.

Strange that LeGrand did not make the same connections relating to these kind of drugs being used on efc premises to pep up the coaching staff. That is a far stronger connection than the link he's made in that story.
 
Last edited:
Muggs said:
Suspect some sub editor is in the s**t today for naming the photo and caption after the story chose not to name...

Not sure I see the point of this story unless shown that the gym owner passed the substances on to the players. He can legally purchase and take them himself
Click to expand...
A defamation suit? Get on to Danksy's lawyers?
 
Muggs said:
Suspect some sub editor is in the s**t today for naming the photo and caption after the story chose not to name...

Not sure I see the point of this story unless shown that the gym owner passed the substances on to the players. He can legally purchase and take them himself
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. There's no evidence of this dude being a part of it... but he's being outed anyway.o_O Chip seriously has the shits with ASADA and it's getting in the way of better judgement. Love how he remarks how ASADA were letting BOCK off but makes an almost throw away comment about ASADA reopening the case because of Danks recent statements.
 
I'm with Chip on this one.

Whether his motives are to defend Essendon or not, this just reeks to high heaven.

ASADA not acting on Robinson or Bock needs to be analysed by the media.

It's baffling.

ASADA not exercising the '$6k per day' thing to get Dank in an interview needs to be explained.

And on top of all that, the AFL's actions throughout need to be put under the blowtorch.


Now that the players have been banned and Essendon have lost pretty much everyone involved and been indirectly sentenced to 4 years of non-competitiveness on-field - these 'distractions' are no longer distractions, they now are THE story.

He's shamed himself throughout this saga, but good on him for continuing to chase this part of the story.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
I'm with Chip on this one.

Whether his motives are to defend Essendon or not, this just reeks to high heaven.

ASADA not acting on Robinson or Bock needs to be analysed by the media.

It's baffling.

ASADA not exercising the '$6k per day' thing to get Dank in an interview needs to be explained.

And on top of all that, the AFL's actions throughout need to be put under the blowtorch.


Now that the players have been banned and Essendon have lost pretty much everyone involved and been indirectly sentenced to 4 years of non-competitiveness on-field - these 'distractions' are no longer distractions, they now are THE story.

He's shamed himself throughout this saga, but good on him for continuing to chase this part of the story.
Click to expand...
ASADA has said that none of the witnesses aligned up on what they were saying?

ASADA can't fine Dank '$6k per day' when Dank has signed a stat dec saying that he has nothing or no evidence to provide. It's not like his ignored their requests.

The story provides nothing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lavender Bushranger said:
I'm with Chip on this one.

Whether his motives are to defend Essendon or not, this just reeks to high heaven.

ASADA not acting on Robinson or Bock needs to be analysed by the media.

It's baffling.

ASADA not exercising the '$6k per day' thing to get Dank in an interview needs to be explained.

And on top of all that, the AFL's actions throughout need to be put under the blowtorch.


Now that the players have been banned and Essendon have lost pretty much everyone involved and been indirectly sentenced to 4 years of non-competitiveness on-field - these 'distractions' are no longer distractions, they now are THE story.

He's shamed himself throughout this saga, but good on him for continuing to chase this part of the story.
Click to expand...

ASADA have reopened the case on the Suns and Bock. And haven't we already discussed that Robinson cut a deal?
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
I'm with Chip on this one.

Whether his motives are to defend Essendon or not, this just reeks to high heaven.

ASADA not acting on Robinson or Bock needs to be analysed by the media.

It's baffling.

ASADA not exercising the '$6k per day' thing to get Dank in an interview needs to be explained.

And on top of all that, the AFL's actions throughout need to be put under the blowtorch.


Now that the players have been banned and Essendon have lost pretty much everyone involved and been indirectly sentenced to 4 years of non-competitiveness on-field - these 'distractions' are no longer distractions, they now are THE story.

He's shamed himself throughout this saga, but good on him for continuing to chase this part of the story.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the reason ASADA haven't troubled with exercising the coercive powers is for two reasons. Firstly, the stat dec provided by Dank - if the CEO of ASADA wants to issue an attendance notice or production notice or both on Danksy, the CEO would have to 'reasonably believe' he had information or documents relevant to investigation of the NAD Scheme (i.e. they would have to have reasonable belief that the stat dec was false - which is a pretty big call what with it being criminal and all).

I think the other reasons are pretty much set out in the ASADA Act:

(1) An individual is excused from complying with a requirement to answer a question or to give information if the answer to the question or the information might tend to incriminate the individual or expose the individual to a penalty.

(1A) A person is not excused from producing a document or thing as required by a disclosure notice given to the person on the ground that the document or thing might tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty.

(2) However, in the case of an individual, none of the following:

(a) the document or thing produced;

(b) the producing of the document or thing;

(c) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of producing the document or thing;

is admissible in evidence against the individual in:

(e) criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for an offence against section 137.1 (false or misleading information) or 137.2 (false or misleading documents) of the Criminal Code that relates to this Act; or

(f) any proceedings that would expose the individual to a penalty, other than proceedings in connection with this Act or the regulations.

(3) To avoid doubt, proceedings (however described) before a sporting administration body or the Court of Arbitration for Sport or other sporting tribunal that relate to sports doping and safety matters are proceedings in connection with this Act or the regulations.

Dank would probably be in a good position to refuse to answer questions on basis of self incrimination. With respect to documents - you run a risk of giving Danky the opportunity to produce documents that prove his criminal culpability; and at the same time nullify their value in respect of prosecuting him. Mind you - ASADA could exercise these powers in respect of Dank if they were actually into investigation Bock or other Gold Coast players, or Essendon, or Geelong or Melbourne or whatever.

I wish I was a fly on the wall when they were batting around options, because there has to be a reason for the lack of pressure on Mr Dank.
 
Proper Gander said:
I'm guessing the reason ASADA haven't troubled with exercising the coercive powers is for two reasons. Firstly, the stat dec provided by Dank - if the CEO of ASADA wants to issue an attendance notice or production notice or both on Danksy, the CEO would have to 'reasonably believe' he had information or documents relevant to investigation of the NAD Scheme (i.e. they would have to have reasonable belief that the stat dec was false - which is a pretty big call what with it being criminal and all).

I think the other reasons are pretty much set out in the ASADA Act:

(1) An individual is excused from complying with a requirement to answer a question or to give information if the answer to the question or the information might tend to incriminate the individual or expose the individual to a penalty.

(1A) A person is not excused from producing a document or thing as required by a disclosure notice given to the person on the ground that the document or thing might tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a penalty.

(2) However, in the case of an individual, none of the following:

(a) the document or thing produced;

(b) the producing of the document or thing;

(c) any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of producing the document or thing;

is admissible in evidence against the individual in:

(e) criminal proceedings, other than proceedings for an offence against section 137.1 (false or misleading information) or 137.2 (false or misleading documents) of the Criminal Code that relates to this Act; or

(f) any proceedings that would expose the individual to a penalty, other than proceedings in connection with this Act or the regulations.

(3) To avoid doubt, proceedings (however described) before a sporting administration body or the Court of Arbitration for Sport or other sporting tribunal that relate to sports doping and safety matters are proceedings in connection with this Act or the regulations.

Dank would probably be in a good position to refuse to answer questions on basis of self incrimination. With respect to documents - you run a risk of giving Danky the opportunity to produce documents that prove his criminal culpability; and at the same time nullify their value in respect of prosecuting him. Mind you - ASADA could exercise these powers in respect of Dank if they were actually into investigation Bock or other Gold Coast players, or Essendon, or Geelong or Melbourne or whatever.

I wish I was a fly on the wall when they were batting around options, because there has to be a reason for the lack of pressure on Mr Dank.
Click to expand...
What other pressure can ASADA do on Dank? Only ones that can put on the pressure is Essendon, and we can see why they won't
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
I'm with Chip on this one.

Whether his motives are to defend Essendon or not, this just reeks to high heaven.

ASADA not acting on Robinson or Bock needs to be analysed by the media.

It's baffling.

ASADA not exercising the '$6k per day' thing to get Dank in an interview needs to be explained.

And on top of all that, the AFL's actions throughout need to be put under the blowtorch.


Now that the players have been banned and Essendon have lost pretty much everyone involved and been indirectly sentenced to 4 years of non-competitiveness on-field - these 'distractions' are no longer distractions, they now are THE story.

He's shamed himself throughout this saga, but good on him for continuing to chase this part of the story.
Click to expand...

Personally I would be asking questions of the AFL tribunal and AFL appeals tribunal.

Why did the AFL tribunal find Dank not guilty of trafficking to Bock so ASADA if the evidence was so strong? Finding Dank guilty would have allowed ASADA to proceed with a case against Bock/Robinson

Why has the AFL appeals board allowed Dank over 12 months for his appeal and nothing happened, this delay has prevented WADA taking their appeal of this charge to CAS that if overturned would have allowed ASADA to proceed with a case against Bock/Robinson.

Why has the media not questioned this?

Sure ASADA has questions to answer why the made a decision to proceed with the EFC34 case before the Bock case, but this is more an administrative/workload/strategic (as in how to bundle multiple cases together) decision back in 2013/4.
 
Muggs said:
Personally I would be asking questions of the AFL tribunal and AFL appeals tribunal.

Why did the AFL tribunal find Dank not guilty of trafficking to Bock so ASADA if the evidence was so strong? Finding Dank guilty would have allowed ASADA to proceed with a case against Bock/Robinson

Why has the AFL appeals board allowed Dank over 12 months for his appeal and nothing happened, this delay has prevented WADA taking their appeal of this charge to CAS that if overturned would have allowed ASADA to proceed with a case against Bock/Robinson.

Why has the media not questioned this?

Sure ASADA has questions to answer why the made a decision to proceed with the EFC34 case before the Bock case, but this is more an administrative/workload/strategic (as in how to bundle multiple cases together) decision back in 2013/4.
Click to expand...
Agree.

My point was, that there are many stinky crevasses in this saga that no one wants to touch.

Why?

Whether each article that comes out is groundbreaking or not, should not detract from the fact that at least someone is still shaking the tree.


As I said, Chip lost his fight. Essendon lost. The players lost. News Ltd. lost their fight to control the narrative. The players were banned, the club got cleared out and has been punished heavily on-field and off-field for 4 years.
Nothing Chip or Bruce say about ASADA will change that.

The foamers won. Good prevailed.


So now is the time to start looking deeper at the 'distractions' that Chip and Hird etc. have been throwing out there for the past 4 years. They were always valid questions and concerning accusations, just not relevant to whether or not the players took banned drugs.

The main game is over.


....or is it?


Is one of the many unanswered questions actually the real main game? And was the 'did the players take banned drugs?' thing actually the distraction?
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Then again if the club was paying who footed the bill for the James Hird super viagra and other stuff the coaches admitted to taking ?
Click to expand...

The James Hird Super Viagra - great name for an experimental jazz project, or for a SuperCoach team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
710
Satan
Satan
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top