The possibility of Essendon innocence: a travesty of justice or conspiracy theory for the ages?

Remove this Banner Ad

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
So to clarify your position.
First you said Dank "knew" there were others onto him.
When asked who the "others" were, you have now wavered and can only say "he may have thought" others might also know.
I think your integrity is brittle, and would get exposed in a decent court.
Your comprehension skills are severely lacking. Of course Dank knew others were onto him. The others were myself and my friend. He then may have worried that we told others who he obviously didn't know. I know it maybe a difficult concept for you to comprehend but really is simple. My integrity is just fine. Those that have followed the saga know I have steadfastly had the same story from the very beginning.
I certainly don't need cheap shots from posters who can't understand basic concepts.
 

evo

Morales
Oct 29, 2003
28,902
21,188
La Paz, Bolivia
AFL Club
Richmond
Interesting.. There was a spreadsheet on Dank's computer, outlining the program. Neither ASADA or WADA referred to this. There was the consent forms that laid out the supplements program. Then, the paperwork below that Dank left.

View attachment 775063
s.
Hahahaa, I still can't believe Dank was bothering to prescribe Tribulus. Surely one of most useless supplements on the market. What a gullible shyster.

Appart from the stuff banned by Wada - Creatine and maybe Glutamine are the only supps on that agenda that have any benefit.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
All thymosins have immune boosting properties. It's just that TB4 has other properties whiich put it into the S2 classification. Dank talked about using thymosin for recovery. Go to https://peptidesonline.com/peptides-for-muscle-and-injury-recovery and you will find thymosin, the only one being thymosin beta 4. No mention of thymomodulin.
Recovery is such a broad term. I could be 'recovering' from the flu or strenuous physical activity. Again it's 50/50 circumstantial evidence at best. Recovery doesn't automatically equate to tissue regeneration.

Dank also referred to the Thymosin as a Biological Response Modifier. TB-4 does not function as a BRM from what I've read. TA1 and Thymomodulin are more commonly talked about in this respect. This is another contradiction.

I don't see the direct connection between Dank's private business selling peptides and the Essendon players. If the substance was Thymomodulin or TA1, is it not possible that he may have sourced it from elsewhere? With or without a paper trail, the probability can't be discounted.

You keep on saying “maybe" the substance wasn’t injected into every player. This didn’t have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The panel only needed to be comfortably satisfied. I keep on giving you facts that show Dank was not giving thymomodulin. You also ignore the fact that even Essendon didn’t argue that they got thymomodulin. They said it was thymosin alpha 1, a completely different drug. Again they couldn’t produce any records that indicated that was purchased.

So with no evidence given that an alternative permitted drug was given, and with players getting injections for the sole purpose of improving sporting performance, I can see why the panel of the CAS was comfortably satisfied that the players received the thymosin they had consented to, the only likely one being thymosin beta 4. It didn’t have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
There is conflicting information regarding the likely composition of the substance, or if it was even Thymosin. Essendon conceded that without testing the source (after the fact), they could not confirm but were told it was the legal version of Thymosin. You have highlighted probabilities for TB-4, albeit they are based on; Dank's private business dealings as the only possible source of Thymosin for Dank; Original label that was removed from the ampule and a new label added by a non regulated authority who never had the substance tested; Dosage instructions written out by a Biochemist and not a medical physician. In totality, this does provide a possibility for TB-4 but it's circumstantial and loose. The most compelling evidence was Alavi's, who stated that nobody would ever know what was in the ampule, as it was never tested. After all, he only compounded it.

The comfortable satisfaction finding by the CAS, was founded on manipulated and selective evidence. This changes the game.

The probabilities of their finding being higher than 60% to reach the level of comfortable satisfaction was debated at the time. A few statisticians with interest in the case, had accounted the strands to be closer to 25 - 30% (even considering the manipulated evidence). Take away the bias from the WADA story and re-insert the original text messages, consider all three of McKenzie articles, remove the fabrications of B4 and include the players signed testimonies. If they still choose to ignore how the substance was sourced, regardless, that 60% is looking less than comfortably satisfied.


Just imagine if Essendon was a Russian athletic team or a Chinese athletic team. A "sports scientist" then put them on an injection program to improve their performance. Imagine if no purchase orders or invoices could be presented to at least give us a possibility of knowing what may have been given. I bet you you would be convinced they were being given PEDs. For the CAS, Essendon were looked at in the same way.
The Russian athletes.. What an example to bring up when discussing Essendon. Almost everything that you've been justifying about the CAS finding can be unravelled in the one article below. From the burden of proof, positive tests, whistleblowers and assessing individuals, over systemic doping. Like a punch to the face for every one of the 34 Essendon players, courtesy of the CAS.

It appears when the CAS set's the agenda, it gets the outcome it chooses, regardless of the compelling evidence or lack of evidence available. In the Essendon case, it was nailing the players by selectively picking and choosing, applying a 'one size fits all', no positive tests, reducing the burden of proof and ignoring important components requiring at least, some level of proof. The total opposite for the Russians. Ignored glaring evidence, positive and tampered samples, whistleblowers, assessing individual cases vs systemic doping and raising the burden of proof to beyond reasonable doubt. Like a squeezebox. Squeeze in for one, squeeze out for the other!

Money talks.


Much of the evidence was provided by Grigory Rodchenkov, the former head of Russian anti-doping, who detailed how he gave cocktails of banned steroids to athletes and then swapped tainted samples for clean urine on orders from Russian officials.

His testimony – along with thousands of supporting documents and statements from other whistleblowers – led to the Russian Olympic Committee being suspended in December and 43 Russians being given life bans from the Olympics after an IOC investigation led by Denis Oswald. At the time the IOC president, Thomas Bach, called it an “unprecedented attack on the integrity of the Olympic Games and sport”.

However, on Thursday Cas ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt the 28 Russians had each committed an anti-doping rule violation.

“The Cas required an even higher threshold on the necessary evidence than the Oswald Commission and former Cas decisions,” the IOC said in a statement. “This may have a serious impact on the future fight against doping.”

The news was also greeted with frustration by Jim Walden, the lawyer for Rodchenkov, who remains in hiding after fleeing Russia in 2015.

“Dr Rodchenkov testified fully and credibly at Cas,” he said. “His truth has been verified by forensic evidence, other whistleblowers and, more recently, recovery of the Moscow lab’s secret database, showing thousands of dirty tests that were covered up.

Why did Cas overturn the lifetime Olympics bans on 28 Russians?
It says there was “insufficient” evidence to establish that an anti-doping rule violation had been committed in 28 of the 39 cases it investigated.

But haven’t the IOC banned the Russian Olympic Committee from the Winter Olympics for state sponsored doping in Sochi?
Indeed. The Russian whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov provided testimony and thousands of documents to support his claims, which were accepted by the IOC and the World Anti-Doping Agency. However Cas says it did not look at systematic doping – just the 39 appeals against lifetime bans from Russian athletes.

What is the International Olympic Committee’s reaction?
It expressed surprise that Cas had used a higher standard of proof than in previous doping cases, and said the rulings damaged the fight against doping.

What are the immediate consequences?
The Sochi medal winners among the 28 “cleared” Russians get their medals back - returning Russia on top of the medal table.

In a statement explaining its decision Cas said its panels had looked at individual cases and not whether state-sponsored doping had taken place.
 
Last edited:

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
So this leads to the only plausible explanation here which is the AFL knew he was guilty but couldn’t punish him directly as then they would have to punish the players. Since they wanted to avoid the latter, they had to find him not guilty of administering TB4.
There is a thing called being duped and 'no fault negligence'. The AFL could have exercised this option and I'm sure ASADA and the AFL would have preferred this, as they would have got their scapegoat, whilst having cleared the players at the same time. Dank was not stupid to self incriminate by talking to ASADA. They didn't have the proof to convict on the allegation of injecting banned substances into the players.
 

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
I didn't let him know personally. I told a friend who was the person he told about giving the Essendon players GH releasing peptides (who then told me). My friend is not medical and was told by Dank that they were permitted substances. He believed him as he was a "scientist". After I told my friend that the drugs he told me about were definitely banned substances, he immediately told Dank. Dank then denied saying anything (surprise, surprise). It was at that point he stopped as he knew others were onto him.
Several years later I saw personal correspondence from him (Dank) boasting about how he duped the players....
Yeah.. nah. Good luck proving that!
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Yeah.. nah. Good luck proving that!
i don’t need to prove anything. I do have an email though that states that if the guy my friend met (Dank) had injected players with GHRP like he told me, the whole Essendon team would be banned for taking PEDs. That email is dated March 12, 2012. That’s almost a year before anyone here knew about the scandal. And that is an indisputable fact. So go suck a lemon!
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
There is a thing called being duped and 'no fault negligence'. The AFL could have exercised this option and I'm sure ASADA and the AFL would have preferred this, as they would have got their scapegoat, whilst having cleared the players at the same time. Dank was not stupid to self incriminate by talking to ASADA. They didn't have the proof to convict on the allegation of injecting banned substances into the players.
So you are coming around to understanding that Dank did inject the players with banned substances. Your argument is he was clever enough to have gotten away with it because of the perceived lack of evidence......
 

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
i don’t need to prove anything. I do have an email though that states that if the guy my friend met (Dank) had injected players with GHRP like he told me, the whole Essendon team would be banned for taking PEDs. That email is dated March 12, 2012. That’s almost a year before anyone here knew about the scandal. And that is an indisputable fact. So go suck a lemon!
Was the email from Dank himself or your friend? Emails and heresay are so, so. Look I get it's someone you trust and you believe but to the unbiased, I wouldn't think it's overly compelling unless it came from Dank himself and this can be traced back to him forensically. He can always argue that he was being facetious, even in that case.
 

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
So you are coming around to understanding that Dank did inject the players with banned substances. Your argument is he was clever enough to have gotten away with it because of the perceived lack of evidence......
No.

My statement refers to Dank being clever enough to figure out that he would have been crucified, if he opened his mouth to ASADA, regardless of what he said. Like 22 of the 34 interviewed players, who stated they were not injected with Thymosin but somehow ASADA decided they were.
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Sep 19, 2007
2,584
726
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
Your comprehension skills are severely lacking. Of course Dank knew others were onto him. The others were myself and my friend. He then may have worried that we told others who he obviously didn't know. I know it maybe a difficult concept for you to comprehend but really is simple. My integrity is just fine. Those that have followed the saga know I have steadfastly had the same story from the very beginning.
I certainly don't need cheap shots from posters who can't understand basic concepts.
Mate l’ve exposed inconsistencies in your story in only one brief exchange and this is where evidence led by someone like you would have been thrown out like garbage.
Let me recant.
You’ve told us Dank knew that you and your mate were aware of what he was up to, and that he - Dank, knew others were “on to” him.
Then when asked for more details you changed your story to “Dank may have thought that others would know.
Your next version is that Dank may have worried that you and your mate had told others he didn’t know.
It’s all there in black and white.
That’s three variations right there / you’re all over the shop in one hit.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Was the email from Dank himself or your friend? Emails and heresay are so, so. Look I get it's someone you trust and you believe but to the unbiased, I wouldn't think it's overly compelling unless it came from Dank himself and this can be traced back to him forensically. He can always argue that he was being facetious, even in that case.
The email is from me to my friend. The guy didn’t even know what GHRP was at the time. Even I had to look up the ASADA website to confirm it was banned. Don’t forget Dank told my friend it was permitted. There was no reason for Dank to make up he was injecting players with it to my friend. The email is just proof that theses conversations existed and that I’m not making things up but I know it couldn’t be used as evidence. I never said it was actual admissible evidence.

Much later in the piece (years) my friend showed me a personal email from Dank to ***** (cannot post but you know them) and in it Dank stated he was giving the players anything he wanted and they wouldn’t even know. That certainly could be used by the players in assault charges.
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Mate l’ve exposed inconsistencies in your story in only one brief exchange and this is where evidence led by someone like you would have been thrown out like garbage.
Let me recant.
You’ve told us Dank knew that you and your mate were aware of what he was up to, and that he - Dank, knew others were “on to” him.
Then when asked for more details you changed your story to “Dank may have thought that others would know.
Your next version is that Dank may have worried that you and your mate had told others he didn’t know.
It’s all there in black and white.
That’s three variations right there / you’re all over the shop in one hit.
I would suggest you re read the posts or go back to school.

Your mistake started off when you said I should have testified. I was never directly involved with Dank. So when I first stated he knew others were onto him, I was talking about me. I then explained that he may have also thought that if I knew, the news would spread as such news tends to do. That’s why he stopped giving the GHRP type drugs. He did continue though with thymosin. ASADA knew they couldn’t get him on the hard stuff as those peptides disappear quickly from the body. You can only test for them by checking IGF-1 levels. As I have previously stated, that’s a test that Dank ran on the players which is indicative of the mischief he was up to. There is no other medical reason to check IGF-1 levels unless you suspect the players have growth hormone secreting tumours. Dank made sure the player’s levels didn’t spike and so alert ASADA.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
No.

My statement refers to Dank being clever enough to figure out that he would have been crucified, if he opened his mouth to ASADA, regardless of what he said. Like 22 of the 34 interviewed players, who stated they were not injected with Thymosin but somehow ASADA decided they were.
The players erred big time by fighting together as one unit. It is incomprehensible that if some didn’t get thymosin, they lumped themselves with those who did and then fought together as one at the CAS. The CAS didn’t force them to fight it collectively. It was the players’ decision.
 

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
The players erred big time by fighting together as one unit. It is incomprehensible that if some didn’t get thymosin, they lumped themselves with those who did and then fought together as one at the CAS. The CAS didn’t force them to fight it collectively. It was the players’ decision.
They didn't necessarily fight as one. They were represented by two different lawyers. The majority (32) used the same lawyer but they were individually listed as defendants in the award. CAS decided to judge them as one by finding them guilty of systemic doping. They could have compelled more players to cross examine, which would have provided a more balanced outlook. They picked the right ones, to suit their cause. They also could have considered the players signed testimonies but that would have created too much grey.
 
Last edited:

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
They didn't necessarily fight as one. They were represented by two different lawyers. The majority (32) used the same lawyer but they were individually listed as defendants in the award. CAS decided to judge them as one by finding them guilty of systemic doping.
I still would not have lumped myself with anyone who admitted to taking thymosin. The players received bad legal advice. Their defence was poor.
You have never really explained why their legal team didn’t raise the possibility of them taking thymomodulin at the CAS hearing. They talked about TA1. Dank never mentioned giving the players TA1 so why would they go down this path?
 

ChipnPotato

Debutant
Oct 24, 2019
98
44
AFL Club
Essendon
I still would not have lumped myself with anyone who admitted to taking thymosin. The players received bad legal advice. Their defence was poor.
You have never really explained why their legal team didn’t raise the possibility of them taking thymomodulin at the CAS hearing. They talked about TA1. Dank never mentioned giving the players TA1 so why would they go down this path?
Did it really matter? Dank referred to it as the legal form of Thymosin, so either form could be plausible. Heck, both ASADA and WADA referred to Thymosin and Thymomodulin interchangeably in 2012. Would hope did the lawyers have? I wasn’t in the ‘closed-room’ hearing so I’m not sure how anyone other than the lawyers would know what was argued. There were no positive blood or urine tests. It was upon WADA to prove that they took TB4. All Essendon’s legal team had to do was disprove that it wasn’t TB4. No one could prove where it was sourced from. With no source and no financial evidence how does one prove TB4 existed?

A quote from Renee Anne Shirley, a doping whistleblower whose first reaction upon reading the Essendon judgement was as follows: “I expected to be convinced by the details that emerged in front of the hearing tribunal… but the stretches in this CAS decision just seem too much”
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Did it really matter? Dank referred to it as the legal form of Thymosin, so either form could be plausible. Heck, both ASADA and WADA referred to Thymosin and Thymomodulin interchangeably in 2012. Would hope did the lawyers have? I wasn’t in the ‘closed-room’ hearing so I’m not sure how anyone other than the lawyers would know what was argued. There were no positive blood or urine tests. It was upon WADA to prove that they took TB4. All Essendon’s legal team had to do was disprove that it wasn’t TB4. No one could prove where it was sourced from. With no source and no financial evidence how does one prove TB4 existed?

A quote from Renee Anne Shirley, a doping whistleblower whose first reaction upon reading the Essendon judgement was as follows: “I expected to be convinced by the details that emerged in front of the hearing tribunal… but the stretches in this CAS decision just seem too much”
It’s just that out of all the "plausible" substances, TA1 would have been the least. Its only known use was in the treatment of certain cancers and HIV. It’s also expensive and with no studies into its use in athletes, why would anyone start injecting it into footballers? Dank is not that clever. In fact, he’s not clever at all.
 

blackshadow

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 24, 2007
25,478
37,263
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
There is a thing called being duped and 'no fault negligence'. The AFL could have exercised this option and I'm sure ASADA and the AFL would have preferred this, as they would have got their scapegoat, whilst having cleared the players at the same time. Dank was not stupid to self incriminate by talking to ASADA. They didn't have the proof to convict on the allegation of injecting banned substances into the players.
There is a thing called wilful ignorance...
 

Ancient Tiger

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Sep 18, 2007
15,996
32,933
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
What a silly post - My post is asking an entirely reasonable question and undoubtedly has validity - Especially as we are discussing the possibility that Dank was injecting the players with any substance.
But why would he be injecting any substance? It needed to be a substance that “worked”. His employment depended on getting results. We already know he was more than capable of injecting banned substances into footballers. Just ask the Cronulla players. Why would he suddenly change? Just because Hird asked him to keep it all above board? That just meant he would do the same but just try to keep the truth from him. Why check players’ IGF-1 levels? Why tell someone you’re injecting GHRP type drugs into players when you are not? Why not clearly state which type of thmyosin you are using? Why not keep a record of the purchase orders? Why has he no clue of the dose of thymomodulin since he was supposedly using it? Again, when you are embarking on a club wide injection program, why not keep clear records of what and how much was given to who? We actually know for a fact that some players definitely got given a banned substance as they admitted to it. AOD is clearly on the prohibited list now. Back then Dank got around a dopey ASADA who were asleep at the wheel.

I know the argument which is “but but but but but there was no positive test!” and that "you can’t prove any individual got a banned substance!". Surely when you are doing something like this it incumbent on the individual (Dank) to prove that what they were doing was above board since what they were trying to achieve was an improvement in sporting performance.
 

blackshadow

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 24, 2007
25,478
37,263
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Team WADA
What a silly post - My post is asking an entirely reasonable question and undoubtedly has validity - Especially as we are discussing the possibility that Dank was injecting the players with any substance.
I'd say your post is entirely unreasonable. You've acted in a rather unhinged manner throughout this whole saga.
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Sep 19, 2007
2,584
726
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
I would suggest you re read the posts or go back to school.

Your mistake started off when you said I should have testified. I was never directly involved with Dank. So when I first stated he knew others were onto him, I was talking about me. I then explained that he may have also thought that if I knew, the news would spread as such news tends to do. That’s why he stopped giving the GHRP type drugs. He did continue though with thymosin. ASADA knew they couldn’t get him on the hard stuff as those peptides disappear quickly from the body. You can only test for them by checking IGF-1 levels. As I have previously stated, that’s a test that Dank ran on the players which is indicative of the mischief he was up to. There is no other medical reason to check IGF-1 levels unless you suspect the players have growth hormone secreting tumours. Dank made sure the player’s levels didn’t spike and so alert ASADA.
I think you should stop chopping and changing from third person and just tell it like it was, and also stop making assumptions about what Dank may have thought about other people, besides you and your mate.
That would ensure you stop getting your story mixed up.
 

Bombfire

Club Legend
Sep 19, 2007
2,584
726
Napier St.
AFL Club
Essendon
The email is from me to my friend. The guy didn’t even know what GHRP was at the time. Even I had to look up the ASADA website to confirm it was banned. Don’t forget Dank told my friend it was permitted. There was no reason for Dank to make up he was injecting players with it to my friend. The email is just proof that theses conversations existed and that I’m not making things up but I know it couldn’t be used as evidence. I never said it was actual admissible evidence.

Much later in the piece (years) my friend showed me a personal email from Dank to ***** (cannot post but you know them) and in it Dank stated he was giving the players anything he wanted and they wouldn’t even know. That certainly could be used by the players in assault charges.
Let's forget about GHRP in any discussion about assault charges, you would have to agree to that.
What you need to do now is explain why the personal email from Dank and any other evidence you have, could convince a magistrate beyond reasonable doubt that the criminal offence of common assault has been committed.
Be very mindful of the standard of proof needed, when you have a crack at it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad