Mega Thread Tribunal Verdict - Not comfortably satisfied there was a violation - Statement in Post #2

[Red_Emperor]

It's hard to comment without seeing the evidence presented by ASADA to the tribunal. Apparently it wasn't sufficient. But it doesn't mean the players are innocent. Hird and Little have a lot to answer for.

ASADA had 4 weeks- 4 weeks to present their evidence and it did not stack up. It did not pass muster. Inadequate. Gaping holes. McDevitt ignored internal advice. It was a farce.

 

[MosquitoBomber]

ASADA had 4 weeks- 4 weeks to present their evidence and it did not stack up. It did not pass muster. Inadequate. Gaping holes. McDevitt ignored internal advice. It was a farce.

How can you say that it wasnt sufficient: here is the evidence summary: Source AFL.

Investigations Personnel 25
Interviews 130, over 600 hours
Digital record seizures 1.5 tB
Mobile phone seizures 8
Text messages 98,000
LaptopComputer Seizures 4
Emails 449 GB= 16 million emails
Line entries in financial statements 6.8 million
Drug test and steroid profiles 29
Cost to AFL $1.3 Million.

The fact is there was an enormous amount of evidence examined, but none of it actually proved that the Essendon program resulted in any use of WADA Banned substances.

Jeez could it be that the initial premise, namely " Essendon took PEDS" was actually a FALSE premise? So the whole investigation was pointless. Did anyone care to consider that possibility ?

 

[Red_Emperor]

How can you say that it wasnt sufficient: here is the evidence summary: Source AFL.

Investigations Personnel 25
Interviews 130, over 600 hours
Digital record seizures 1.5 tB
Mobile phone seizures 8
Text messages 98,000
LaptopComputer Seizures 4
Emails 449 GB= 16 million emails
Line entries in financial statements 6.8 million
Drug test and steroid profiles 29
Cost to AFL $1.3 Million.

The fact is there was an enormous amount of evidence examined, but none of it actually proved that the Essendon program resulted in any use of WADA Banned substances.

Jeez could it be that the initial premise, namely " Essendon took PEDS" was actually a FALSE premise? So the whole investigation was pointless. Did anyone care to consider that possibility ?

My goodness mossie bomber- surely McDevitt could have found a smoking pistol in all that lot.

 

[JackOutback]

The AFL has been compromised ...no doubt about it .

Supporters will surely lose interest !

Absolutely...the moment I heard the decision was going to be made four days before the season began was the moment I knew the kangaroo court was going to come to a pre-determined outcome. No way was the AFL going to suspend 17 players, four days out from the season, crippling one of the teams in the process. Just a sham. And that is why I can't wait for ASADA, WADA or CAS to come in over the top and have a proper look.

I hope the AFL gets a whack in addition to Essendon now.

 

[JoondalupJ]

No, thats just silly.

Would you be saying to the players 'LEAVE IT ALONE' had they been found guilty today? Of course not. They would have the right to lodge an appeal if they were aggrieved by the situation. ASADA / WADA have the same right to an appeal if they feel aggrieved whether its convenient to some people or otherwise. Your comments about the way the investigation was run is in line with your previous comments on this matter and are based in ignorance.

Nobody outside ASADA can really comment on the nature of the investigation and a through review by WADA is certainly going to be a welcome thing if it identifies areas where ASADA can improve. A strong and effective anti-doping body is simply a must in this day and age.

As for any appeal, if it goes ahead there will be a number of positive aspects no matter what the result is. A decision outside the confines of the AFL, which has an incredibly poor history in relation to integrity, would not be coloured by the AFL's poor reputation. It would stand as a decision uncompromised by questions of result fixing or cloudy integrity and could only be endorsed by a wider group of supporters.

Currently we have all kinds of conspiracy comments about the result. Whether they are fair or not is irrelevant in many ways, they still exist. They exist because the AFL has a long history of 'arranging' convenient results and this gives the conspiracy theorists far too much ammunition. A decision outside the AFL would cut the ground from under these comments and I'd welcome that.

No it wasn't a question. I posted the above in response to a question posed by another poster.

I'm not sure of the intent of your other comments but I'll take my best guess.

The burden of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction'. For a civil matter, it is normally 'balance of probabilities' ie you probably did it would be good enough. For an Anti-Doping Rule Violation tribunal, the level of comfortable satisfaction is higher. Along the lines of "I'm sure you did it" even though there might be reasonable doubt. Its still a civil matter but with a higher level of proof required.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a very high standard of proof which basically mean there is no other 'reasonable' explanation other than 'you did it'

As far as clearing their names, it isn't relevant right now, but had they been found to have breached to code they could have appealed to the AFL Appeals Panel and the to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. That where it ends unless the rules were not followed and they would have recourse to civil remedies via the courts. Under normal conditions rights of appeal would expire after a decision in CAS.

Yes via the courts under normal conditions that is why ASAD&WADA need to finish this.

You miss all I'm saying and you take it for what its not. They were questions AND I ASKED THEM BEFORE THE RESULT. and they go to the basics of how a situation that has no answer will always go. You can think what you like. It doesn't matter.

When you talk about "balance of probabilities" and "comfortable satisfaction" and "reasonable doubt" , it all sounds great, and, like you sound like you know what your talking about. Maybe you do , maybe you don't .Of course the tribunal and the spokesmen all come out with this official sounding stuff.
It doesn't matter either.

Think about this , ASADA has put out a statement about Essendon ( an angry one too) having an "injection regime", fine but they can't prove absolutely and never will be able to prove whether those blokes knew what they were doing , that is the whole point THERE IS NO CHARGE THAT THEY CAN PROVE AGAINST EACH INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, HIRD DID HIS TIME!!!!. .

Its about common sense and a hope of a win , nothing more, nothing less. They appeal it goes on and on and the proof is still gone , because if it weren't the Essendon players would be found guilty TODAY! .They weren't. Because it can't be proved. Its simple. And there are 34 of them?

Now back to the "injection regime", what do you call an injection regime that kills pain and lets players run a round on injured tissue so the team can win , and perhaps damage more than they would have because of the injection, is that good for the individual is that good for their future physical health is that good for their bones their muscles .

Was that good for Brisbane's 2001 premiership, no one comments about this OH&S issue.

In fact the Essendon football club may just have been looking for a way to help stop soft tissue injury that had been plagued with.

And in doing so unconsciously made a mistake, that does not warrant the destruction of a football club and the careers of 34 players.

Now Collingwood , well they look to be in trouble if they can't prove why they had a steroid inside them, Crowley??? maybe he took a stronger pain killer
not thinking, so what... is his career destroyed as well???

ONCE AGAIN THIS IS NO LANCE ARMSTRONG LONG TERM DELIBERATE SET UP.

Now fellow , I did ask a question. I did ask a question. Thank you very much for your time , hope you see my side as well as your own brother.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Absolutely...the moment I heard the decision was going to be made four days before the season began was the moment I knew the kangaroo court was going to come to a pre-determined outcome. No way was the AFL going to suspend 17 players, four days out from the season, crippling one of the teams in the process. Just a sham. And that is why I can't wait for ASADA, WADA or CAS to come in over the top and have a proper look.

I hope the AFL gets a whack in addition to Essendon now.

Need to stop the hate, and lets get on with the season. Even if the CIA the FBI bloody ASIO, investigated they still can't prove anything.

WHOLE POINT THERE, BAD /GOOD RIGHT /WRONG ITS OVER . If it isn't it'll go no where anyway, if it does, something is rotten in the investigation as well. We've seen that already so no more to say. Lets play footy! Goodbye.

 

[MosquitoBomber]

My goodness mossie bomber- surely McDevitt could have found a smoking pistol in all that lot.

Yeh, fact is there were no positive tests. No other conclusive evidence found, and remember ASADA took out any evidence that supported innocence. Unlike in the law they are not obliged to consider or reveal any evidence supporting the accused, nor are the proceedings subject to the protections of the evidence act. Furthermore, the standard of proof at the ADRV Review Panel is so incredibly low, it cannot function in an analogous way to the DPP. The NADS process is badly designed and needs serious overhaul, and the ADRV Review Panel needs to have effective powers of review to provide some actual gatekeeper function.

Fact is ASADA and the AFL had hung their balls on an outcome then tried desperately to find some evidence to prove it. Thats why it took 18 months to issue scs: they delayed and delayed because they could not prove it.

Enter Mc Devitt. Out to make a name for himself. Now he has a made himself a name and its not flattering.

 

[JackOutback]

Need to stop the hate, and lets get on with the season. Even if the CIA the FBI bloody ASIO, investigated they still can't prove anything.

WHOLE POINT THERE, BAD /GOOD RIGHT /WRONG ITS OVER . If it isn't it'll go no where anyway, if it does, something is rotten in the investigation as well. We've seen that already so no more to say. Lets play footy! Goodbye.

I disagree...Essendon being allowed to get away with systematic cheating corrupts the whole competition. If shredding records is all that's needed to get away with cheating, then why shouldn't everyone do it? It can't, and shouldn't, simply be forgotten. I'll take the short term pain to know the league is clean.

Much like the Eagles, whom I support, the whole post Cousins years hurt, but they were necessary. If only Essendon would do the same.

 

[MosquitoBomber]

I disagree...Essendon being allowed to get away with systematic cheating corrupts the whole competition. If shredding records is all that's needed to get away with cheating, then why shouldn't everyone do it? It can't, and shouldn't, simply be forgotten. I'll take the short term pain to know the league is clean.

Much like the Eagles, whom I support, the whole post Cousins years hurt, but they were necessary. If only Essendon would do the same.

You assert "....Essendon being allowed to get away with systematic cheating..." so, how did you arrive at this conclusion mate?

Were you a part of the 25 strong ASADA team that reviewed the following information and then employed a judge then top QC to prove it but could not ?

Investigations Personnel 25
Interviews 130, over 600 hours
Digital record seizures 1.5 tB
Mobile phone seizures 8
Text messages 98,000
LaptopComputer Seizures 4
Emails 449 GB= 16 million emails
Line entries in financial statements 6.8 million
Drug test and steroid profiles 29
Drug test declarations reviewed
Cost to AFL $1.3 Million.

Or did you form the view by listening to some ill informed news paper writers looking for clicks and newspaper sales, or did you listen to the zeitgeist on Big Footy, where most followers of the 17 other clubs re-inforce each others ill informed views that Essendon must be guilty. Just like medieval crowds convinced themselves some women were witches and burned them to death.

 

[Mister_A]

Yep don't keep any records of who took what and your scot free

Quoted for mother******* truth!

 

[imperial_oz]

Yes via the courts under normal conditions that is why ASAD&WADA need to finish this.

You miss all I'm saying and you take it for what its not. They were questions AND I ASKED THEM BEFORE THE RESULT. and they go to the basics of how a situation that has no answer will always go. You can think what you like. It doesn't matter.

When you talk about "balance of probabilities" and "comfortable satisfaction" and "reasonable doubt" , it all sounds great, and, like you sound like you know what your talking about. Maybe you do , maybe you don't .Of course the tribunal and the spokesmen all come out with this official sounding stuff.
It doesn't matter either.

Think about this , ASADA has put out a statement about Essendon ( an angry one too) having an "injection regime", fine but they can't prove absolutely and never will be able to prove whether those blokes knew what they were doing , that is the whole point THERE IS NO CHARGE THAT THEY CAN PROVE AGAINST EACH INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, HIRD DID HIS TIME!!!!. .

Its about common sense and a hope of a win , nothing more, nothing less. They appeal it goes on and on and the proof is still gone , because if it weren't the Essendon players would be found guilty TODAY! .They weren't. Because it can't be proved. Its simple. And there are 34 of them?

Now back to the "injection regime", what do you call an injection regime that kills pain and lets players run a round on injured tissue so the team can win , and perhaps damage more than they would have because of the injection, is that good for the individual is that good for their future physical health is that good for their bones their muscles .

Was that good for Brisbane's 2001 premiership, no one comments about this OH&S issue.

In fact the Essendon football club may just have been looking for a way to help stop soft tissue injury that had been plagued with.

And in doing so unconsciously made a mistake, that does not warrant the destruction of a football club and the careers of 34 players.

Now Collingwood , well they look to be in trouble if they can't prove why they had a steroid inside them, Crowley??? maybe he took a stronger pain killer
not thinking, so what... is his career destroyed as well???

ONCE AGAIN THIS IS NO LANCE ARMSTRONG LONG TERM DELIBERATE SET UP.

Now fellow , I did ask a question. I did ask a question. Thank you very much for your time , hope you see my side as well as your own brother.

Wow, one of your more pointless posts and that is saying something.

So the level of proof required doesn't matter? Well if that was true then perhaps you're right that nothing can be proven but sadly you're wrong.

Your comments about the 'injection regime' are also completely wrong. You cannot claim it was reduce soft tissue injuries or kill pain or indeed anything because at this point nobody can or will state what was given and that indeed is a breach of the code. The tribunal did make some observations that were telling in that it identified TA1 was not used at Essendon and that TB4 was supplied to Charter and Alavi then claimed it was unable to draw the link to Dank. That is spite of the fact that Dank himself claimed to be using TB4 until he was told it was banned. Now I'm unsure what level of proof the tribunal applied but it seems to have applied 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Well perhaps.

As for Crowley and the Collingwood boys, I suspect we will see a different standard applied and I would expect all three to get close to the full two years. Jones and Henwood do have form in that area when it comes to Crowley, so he can expect no breaks. Then again, if its shown he intended to cheat he should get no breaks, other than a two break from the game.

 

[JackOutback]

You assert "....Essendon being allowed to get away with systematic cheating..." so, how did you arrive at this conclusion mate?

Were you a part of the 25 strong ASADA team that reviewed the following information and then employed a judge then top QC to prove it but could not ?

Investigations Personnel 25
Interviews 130, over 600 hours
Digital record seizures 1.5 tB
Mobile phone seizures 8
Text messages 98,000
LaptopComputer Seizures 4
Emails 449 GB= 16 million emails
Line entries in financial statements 6.8 million
Drug test and steroid profiles 29
Drug test declarations reviewed
Cost to AFL $1.3 Million.

Or did you form the view by listening to some ill informed news paper writers looking for clicks and newspaper sales, or did you listen to the zeitgeist on Big Footy, where most followers of the 17 other clubs re-inforce each others ill informed views that Essendon must be guilty. Just like medieval crowds convinced themselves some women were witches and burned them to death.

Your captain admitted on TV, your coach exchanged text messages talking about all the different concoctions they wanted to try, your club says they can absolutely assert that players weren't given anything harmful while denying in the tribunal that they knew what was given. If you are comfortable with all that, then so be it, I'm not going to change your mind. But Essendon cheated and shredded the evidence. The AFL was willing to accept that to protect their TV rights.

 

[MosquitoBomber]

Wow, one of your more pointless posts and that is saying something.

So the level of proof required doesn't matter? Well if that was true then perhaps you're right that nothing can be proven but sadly you're wrong.

Your comments about the 'injection regime' are also completely wrong. You cannot claim it was reduce soft tissue injuries or kill pain or indeed anything because at this point nobody can or will state what was given and that indeed is a breach of the code. The tribunal did make some observations that were telling in that it identified TA1 was not used at Essendon and that TB4 was supplied to Charter and Alavi then claimed it was unable to draw the link to Dank. That is spite of the fact that Dank himself claimed to be using TB4 until he was told it was banned. Now I'm unsure what level of proof the tribunal applied but it seems to have applied 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Well perhaps.

As for Crowley and the Collingwood boys, I suspect we will see a different standard applied and I would expect all three to get close to the full two years. Jones and Henwood do have form in that area when it comes to Crowley, so he can expect no breaks. Then again, if its shown he intended to cheat he should get no breaks, other than a two break from the game.

No need for a different standard of proof. A positive test on both samples is enough for comfortable satisfaction. Its just 2 lab reports. Very simple, very fast hearing. As to the breaks, they have to argue that out, adulterated food/cutting agent claims, whatever. A positive test stands out. Its the basis of the whole AD system as it stands .

 

[imperial_oz]

No need for a different standard of proof. A positive test on both samples is enough for comfortable satisfaction. Its just 2 lab reports. Very simple, very fast hearing. As to the breaks, they have to argue that out, adulterated food/cutting agent claims, whatever. A positive test stands out. Its the basis of the whole AD system as it stands .

Yeah, almost.

A positive test does tend to clarify some of the issues but tends to cloud some of the others and it is important to realise it is only one of six or eight ways to establish a breach of the code. I should be more accurate but a bunch of Coronas tends to make precise details a little less defined

The breaks I was referring to earlier revolved around the attitude taken by the tribunal rather than potential defenses.

Take Crowley for example (lets get away from Essendon for a bit). He has a positive test. In my view, he can not ever claim to be not guilty as he has a responsibility to be clear on game day. So, he is facing a sanction for that offense.

Now, if he took the painkiller to use as a masking agent, that should get the full two years. If he took it, as has been reported, for back issues several days before the game then clearly there is no aspect of performance enhancement. The rules, as defined under the code, say he is guilty yet could be given a reprimand. He could also be given two years under the same rules. The comment I made about getting breaks was referring to his previous appearance before Jones and Henwood where, in spite of no supporting evidence at all, he was convicted of pinching based on "he probably did it because thats the sort of thing he would do". Based on that, I would expect the tribunal to come down heavy on him where another player could expect a reprimand.

This of course is dependent on the evidence led by both. I'm only going on what has been reported.

Try to imagine the outrage generated if today's decision was a sanction based on 'they probably did it because thats the sort of thing they would do" It would generate utter outrage and properly so.

The club dealt with that tribunal decision extremely poorly and will pay for that failure for a long time. It should have been challenged and dismissed but wasn't.

I do not think that Crowley will get the benefit of any doubt and if so, will demonstrate a massive double standard

 

[MosquitoBomber]

Your captain admitted on TV, your coach exchanged text messages talking about all the different concoctions they wanted to try, your club says they can absolutely assert that players weren't given anything harmful while denying in the tribunal that they knew what was given. If you are comfortable with all that, then so be it, I'm not going to change your mind. But Essendon cheated and shredded the evidence. The AFL was willing to accept that to protect their TV rights.

Heres the thing. If a substance is not banned by WADA/ASADA/AFL, every club can use it.
In the case of AOD9604, every club could have used this. It was not banned at the time. OK, so now its banned.
Thymosin Alpha is not banned even now, so all clubs can use it.
All the other substances that were discussed for use were not banned at the time. All clubs might have or could have used them.
Otherwise, why didnt ASADA charge them with use of these other substances that you mention?

Yes I am comfortable that the club management initially did the right thing in regard to the substances in the supplement plan.
FCS you dont knowingly set up a supplement plan that includes PEDs.

IMO no drug vendor should ever be employed by a sporting club as a sports scientist. Its likely to cause complications

 

[Armchair Critic]

/

How can you say that it wasnt sufficient: here is the evidence summary: Source AFL.

Investigations Personnel 25
Interviews 130, over 600 hours
Digital record seizures 1.5 tB
Mobile phone seizures 8
Text messages 98,000
LaptopComputer Seizures 4
Emails 449 GB= 16 million emails
Line entries in financial statements 6.8 million
Drug test and steroid profiles 29
Cost to AFL $1.3 Million.

The fact is there was an enormous amount of evidence examined, but none of it actually proved that the Essendon program resulted in any use of WADA Banned substances.

Jeez could it be that the initial premise, namely " Essendon took PEDS" was actually a FALSE premise? So the whole investigation was pointless. Did anyone care to consider that possibility ?

Maybe we should wait till Danks verdict is handed down

 

[Boxhead_31]

No need for a different standard of proof. A positive test on both samples is enough for comfortable satisfaction. Its just 2 lab reports. Very simple, very fast hearing. As to the breaks, they have to argue that out, adulterated food/cutting agent claims, whatever. A positive test stands out. Its the basis of the whole AD system as it stands .

So if at a later date the results of these samples come back positive you'll admit you cheated?

But the Herald Sun can reveal the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority still has samples, which were taken from Essendon players in 2012 and which will be stored on ice at a secure Sydney laboratory for seven years. ASADA will reserve the right to retest the samples for traces of Thymosin beta-4 as testing technology advances.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/as...tribunal-verdict/story-fni0fiyv-1227286951262

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Depends on what you are pumping in. Not all substances are detectable.

Which embeds the PED arms race.

As others have posted, this sets the bar for doping in local sports codes in Australia.

It enhances the reputation for cutting edge programs that use science to continually source new chemicals and processes that are difficult to detect and enforce, so long as the program cleans up after itself.

EFC did it badly, but the belated cleanup was enough to cast sufficient doubt to blunt circumstantial evidence.

Dank has a long consultancy future ahead of himself yet.

The future programs won't be as amateurish. Look to cycling team to see how clubs could be running these in the future.

Welcome to the future of professional Aussie Rules, the US NFL way.

My kids won't be playing it.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-31/we-are-thrilled?utm_medium=RSS

Wow - what does that say for the players and coaching aupport staff of the other 17 clubs?And the clubs in the state leagues?

Get your supplements game on boys, you won't be on the park if you are not cutting edge and cleaning up the evidence behind you.

If anything, both the AFLPA and AFLCA should be re-doubling it's efforts to pursue EFC, Dank, Hird, et al, to find out exactly what was injected into it's members and who orchestrated it.

This is a whole new level of brooms weeping and abandoned responsibility.

"Worsfold encouraged the League's coaches to refrain from commenting on Hird's role in the long-running saga."

OMFG. How far down does the rot go?

 

[kaiserchief13]

Stop denying it Essendon fans. Only reason they were not guilty yesterday was because it was the AFL acting. Wait till ASADA appeals it and it's heard infront of a court room.

 

[Vindicater]

Stop denying it Essendon fans. Only reason they were not guilty yesterday was because it was the AFL acting. Wait till ASADA appeals it and it's heard infront of a court room.

Happy for this to happen.

But if that happens and the court finds the same thing, will you please stop denying that Essendon are innocent?

 

[Vindicater]

If you hadn't guessed. That last question was rhetorical.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Happy for this to happen.

But if that happens and the court finds the same thing, will you please stop denying that Essendon are innocent?

The players are innocent,not Essendon

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

That is the law. Whatever that's how it had to go. They cannot be proven guilty and I think we all new it. Whether they were guilty or not is not up for question , its the way the investigation has run that has been a pain to everyone who has a serious interest in the AFL and Australian Rules Football.
And was not very competent.

I would hope WADA , LEAVE IT ALONE , THEY CAN ONLY GET BURIED IN APPEAL AFTER APPEAL AFTER APPEAL WHICH I DON'T THINK THEY CAN EVER WIN.

ITS TIME TO LEAVE IT .

Good result!

No, I think that at this point WADA should take the AFL to task - no one else seems able or willing to.

WADA adherence to drugs in sport in Australia has just taken a huge hit, with damage to reputation that will take a long to time to repair.

The players may well be safe, as not enough evidence could be found that that they were individually injected, or individually intended to dope.
Fair enough.
ASADA and WADA will have to cop that unless further evidence can be sourced.

EFC and the AFL should now be targets of ASADA and WADA - as between the club and the league body, they have made a mockery of anti-doping enforcement in Australia and set dangerous precedences for future supplement-style programs.

They also exhibited an absolute failure to govern their activities and the sport. Unfortunately, these governance failures have continued.

Cue the top-up player chasing by EFC, outside of the engagement rules set by the AFL. Indicative of all that had occurred previously, EFC flouted the rules and AFL merely chastised them. In of itself, a minor inconvenience to a small number of state level clubs. However it is a direct repeat of the ability of EFC to internally self audit and comply with AFL requirements; and the AFL to govern and enforce it's self-set requirements.

This a farce, worthy of the best playwrights.

 

[Laphroaig]

Jeez could it be that the initial premise, namely " Essendon took PEDS" was actually a FALSE premise? So the whole investigation was pointless. Did anyone care to consider that possibility ?

You seem like a nice guy. I've got a bridge in Sydney I need to sell in a hurry. Special price for you.