Steven Dank case - Dank to appeal (or his lawyer) update page 11.

[yaco55]

Possibly, but considering some of the crazy discounts CAS has given in the past.. advice of the sales clerk in one case, would have least had a go.

I do however take note of Howard's Jacobs comments, going in arguing we don't know what we took makes it hard to claim mitigation, if you don't put forward what you think you got, hard then to argue you got injected with something else thus you not at fault.

US Track cyclist recently got a 16 month suspension reduced to 6 months after representation by Jacobs at CAS - Can say its hard to say ' you don't know what you took' when you have an AAF.

Anyway, WADA has more pressing issues with the Melodonium debacle and so many leading Olympic nations not having functioning NADO's.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Strange that GC and melbourne also failed your test.

wrong your the only afl club to have him on your payroll

 

[yaco55]

Agree, also to move away from the we don't know story would have still faced the issue of nothing recorded on the doping control forms. Having listed a substance on these would help form the basis of any mitigation, providing a this is what we think we got base.

Edit* also don't think it's that far fetched an idea either... My reading of the tribunal transcripts this is what the defence team did do. Good at breaking links in a chain, not so good at cutting all the strands in a cable.

Interesting that research into filling out of Melodonium on doping control forms in 2015 - Showed that 35% of athletes included it on their doping control forms - So it shows that athletes from around the world are far from vigilant at filling in doping control forms.

 

[yaco55]

wrong your the only afl club to have him on your payroll

Ah - You are backpedalling at a million miles per hour - Pity that one can't have an informed and factual debate with many on the HTB.

 

[yaco55]

Yes. This is true.

I sometimes wonder, if there was an actual strategy to cloud the evidence about what was taken (okay, so I'll indulge a conspiracy theory for a bit. It's not entirely unlikely) then presumably the object was to make prosecution too difficult - i.e okay our governance is bad, but hey, at the same time you can't use our documents to trace a banned substance to us. Once they were plowing this road, and it couldn't really be reneged because it had been stated in public a million times, they were stuck with it. Any new story of mitigation would have refuted the original 'we just don't know' story.

If I'm in any way right with the above guess, then the 34 have massive reason to regret throwing their fortunes behind the group defence. If it had worked, cool, but it didn't and led to a situation where none had the opportunity to argue their particular circumstances.

Do you realise that if every case went to an individual trial ( which of course is an option ) CAS would still be hearing cases into 2017 - I think all parties were happy to have one hearing,instead of 34. As far as I know, each of the 34 players had individual interviews with ASADA investigators - To say the AFL or CAS Tribunal didn't have the ability to consider individual circumstances is wrong - After all,players were only charged by ASADA,if they met two criteria 1) Signing a consent form,2) Admitted to receiving injections.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No back pedalling, just highlighting your ignorance.
EFC were the only club stupid enough , well after Golden boy gave him the thumbs up on your behalf to put him on your books.
Sensible conversation would not be diverting to other teams.
EFC were so blinded by there desire to gain an unfair advantage that they employed Dank. Zero due diligence.
No qualifications but allowed him to shoot your players up, keep Doctor out of the loop and still EFC take no action against him, why?
Still having trouble accepting that your club got caught cheating an continue the farce of we don't know what we took but it wasn't illegal.

 

[Randomizor]

Do you realise that if every case went to an individual trial ( which of course is an option ) CAS would still be hearing cases into 2017 - I think all parties were happy to have one hearing,instead of 34. As far as I know, each of the 34 players had individual interviews with ASADA investigators - To say the AFL or CAS Tribunal didn't have the ability to consider individual circumstances is wrong - After all,players were only charged by ASADA,if they met two criteria 1) Signing a consent form,2) Admitted to receiving injections.

But it obviously would have hindered the defence of any individual player. It was certainly WADA's case to prove, but if they are submitting indivualized evidence that the defence isn't able to fully counter because they can't spend 3 days discussing why Watson lied to testers (or whatever), then that certainly wouldn't have helped them. There was an error in judgement here, but the error was of the players.

 

[Randomizor]

Interesting that research into filling out of Melodonium on doping control forms in 2015 - Showed that 35% of athletes included it on their doping control forms - So it shows that athletes from around the world are far from vigilant at filling in doping control forms.

If everyone else is speeding should I speed too?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Ah - I suggested this at least two years ago - That someone must be bankrolling Dank - It helps when your lawyer Clyde Evatt QC works from a wheelchair and has to be helped to his feet to represent Dank - Evatt may only be after pocket money.

Going by this judgement, I'd say it doesn't help all that much

 

[yaco55]

But it obviously would have hindered the defence of any individual player. It was certainly WADA's case to prove, but if they are submitting indivualized evidence that the defence isn't able to fully counter because they can't spend 3 days discussing why Watson lied to testers (or whatever), then that certainly wouldn't have helped them. There was an error in judgement here, but the error was of the players.

The case was heard in a group setting because all parties agreed - My personal view is that 34 individual cases should have been heard - And cases would still be heard in 2017.

 

[yaco55]

If everyone else is speeding should I speed too?

I am providing some factual information for this thread - Even though hyperbole is preferred on the HTB.

 

[yaco55]

Going by this judgement, I'd say it doesn't help all that much

Lawyers never retire - Check the CAS list of adjudicators - A number are over 70 and a couple over 80.

 

[yaco55]

No back pedalling, just highlighting your ignorance.
EFC were the only club stupid enough , well after Golden boy gave him the thumbs up on your behalf to put him on your books.
Sensible conversation would not be diverting to other teams.
EFC were so blinded by there desire to gain an unfair advantage that they employed Dank. Zero due diligence.
No qualifications but allowed him to shoot your players up, keep Doctor out of the loop and still EFC take no action against him, why?
Still having trouble accepting that your club got caught cheating an continue the farce of we don't know what we took but it wasn't illegal.

Whats my ignorance ? - That Dank worked for a number of clubs in the AFL and NRL and other sports, either as a consultant or as an employee - Though every club seems to say Dank was an unpaid consultant. Fact is, Dank through Dr Bates worked in some capacity for MFC - You criticise EFC for not completing due diligence on Dank yet MFC used Dank's services after he left EFC - Strange about that.

 

[Muggs]

One can't make a definitive judgement until we receive a full transcript of the CAS hearing - There must have been arguments put forward to support mitigation by both the players lawyers and the AFL lawyers - Surely the AFL lawyers who argued no penalties for players in their sentencing submission must have based this on provisions in the code.

CAS is mainly a document based decision. The hearing is to go over disputed evidenced through questioning witnesses., most CAS cases don't have hearings, the submissions are important. The CAS hearing was not like the AFL hearing which went through the evidence in detail and documents debated. The written submissions are what is used to establish links to the code, highlight precedent etc. this is why I find the players submission we agree with the AFL in case we guilty staggering.

Where are the references to precedents in the submissions sections, that CAS than addresses in its decision sections like other awards?

I find the lack of detail in the players award around why the players should recieve a discount very surprising.

Considering it was CAS who asked the players to attend, and not either side. It would suggest CAS thought along similar lines, and went looking for their own reasons. This is certainly how the first part of the penalty section reads, lots of reference to CAS precedent, but appears to be the panel turning to it or guidance, not the parties presenting it as an argument.

 

[Muggs]

The missing 5 at Cronulla were never given the opportunity to accept a deal - The deal was only offered to players who were under the NRL banner at the time - Similar to the missing EFC 13 who were never drug tested in 2012, but according to WADA lied on their doping control forms - Hard for the Cronulla 5 to avoid the quoted paragraph

Former Sharks, Paul Aiton and Ben Pomeroy, who are now based in the Super League, have reportedly rejected the offer.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/08/22/cronulla-sharks-accept-doping-ban-deal-report/

Sounds like they rejected it to me....the still not under the NRL banner but NRL proceededing anyway, retired players accepted the deal.

The missing 5 could of had a deal if they wanted it, they might have thought not being in the NRL they could get away with it.

 

[Randomizor]

The case was heard in a group setting because all parties agreed - My personal view is that 34 individual cases should have been heard - And cases would still be heard in 2017.

Yes maybe they should have. A lot of Essendon supporters somehow blame CAS for them not doing so though.

 

[yaco55]

Yes maybe they should have. A lot of Essendon supporters somehow blame CAS for them not doing so though.

I think there should have been 34 individual tribunals but one has to be realistic when you factor in costs,time,resources etc

 

[yaco55]

Former Sharks, Paul Aiton and Ben Pomeroy, who are now based in the Super League, have reportedly rejected the offer.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/08/22/cronulla-sharks-accept-doping-ban-deal-report/

Sounds like they rejected it to me....the still not under the NRL banner but NRL proceededing anyway, retired players accepted the deal.

The missing 5 could of had a deal if they wanted it, they might have thought not being in the NRL they could get away with it.

You are missing one crucial piece of evidence in this case - The NRL players were advised, that if they didn't accept the deals, they would immediately be issued infraction notices by the NRL - So in other words be provisionally suspended until an Anti-Doping tribunal hearing which could have taken a year - I doubt the NRL had the jurisdiction to apply these rules to the players outside of the NRL.

 

[Muggs]

You are missing one crucial piece of evidence in this case - The NRL players were advised, that if they didn't accept the deals, they would immediately be issued infraction notices by the NRL - So in other words be provisionally suspended until an Anti-Doping tribunal hearing which could have taken a year - I doubt the NRL had the jurisdiction to apply these rules to the players outside of the NRL.

My point was the players got offered a deal.

 

[Just interested]

US Track cyclist recently got a 16 month suspension reduced to 6 months after representation by Jacobs at CAS - Can say its hard to say ' you don't know what you took' when you have an AAF.

Anyway, WADA has more pressing issues with the Melodonium debacle and so many leading Olympic nations not having functioning NADO's.

Howman made a presentation a short while back, and he listed the most pressing issues on WADA's list. The EFC sat at No 3. So, 2 more pressing issues, and a number of less pressing issues.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Anyway, WADA has more pressing issues with the Melodonium debacle and so many leading Olympic nations not having functioning NADO's.

Yes, the leadup to the Olympics are going to be very interesting. I think that might be partly behind WADA's recent push (or increased push) for more funding.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

....
- After all,players were only charged by ASADA,if they met two criteria 1) Signing a consent form,2) Admitted to receiving injections.

From the senate hearing, it was confirmed that there was a third criteria,
3) there had had be supporting, additional evidence.
Those original 2 you referenced weren't enough on their own.

 

[jerry springer]

News ltd giving themselves a pat on the back

is a victory for The Daily Telegraph that succeeded in doing what law enforcement and anti-doping agencies around the world failed to do, that is proving in court that Mr Dank administered banned peptides to the Sharks players.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/st...e/news-story/a1702be070f818905aa932f7126c1bb7

make you wonder how harder the Herald-Sun might of went if their chief football managed to take off his essendon duffle coat and see clearly. Their reporting of this entire saga has been nothing short of a disgrace

 

[hairy biker]

Interesting that research into filling out of Melodonium on doping control forms in 2015 - Showed that 35% of athletes included it on their doping control forms - So it shows that athletes from around the world are far from vigilant at filling in doping control forms.

I would have thought that is an example of athletes being vigilant.
Melodonium was not a banned drug in 2015, yet athletes were recording it a substance that they took.

 

[Seadog]

Interesting that research into filling out of Melodonium on doping control forms in 2015 - Showed that 35% of athletes included it on their doping control forms - So it shows that athletes from around the world are far from vigilant at filling in doping control forms.

Is that 35% of all athletes or 35% of athletes who took Meldonium, the former would be extraordinary and the latter would be pretty hard to ascertain.