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

[stewie dew]

And players signed consent form that they being given Thymosin!

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The Tribunal reportedly did not consider 3.. This is because it was not comfortably satisfied by 1. and 2. For the Tribunal, belief did not translate into fact.

What then was the substance administered to each player?"


Takes a lot to "Comfortably Satisfy" this tribunal

FACT! So what they are really after is beyond reasonable doubt, not comfortable satisfaction. What happened to the ruling where a player can get done for having a banned substance in their possession, even if they haven't taken it? A player can be banned for 2 years if they think that they intended to breach the code, but never actually got around to it. If the chain of supply INTENDED to procure TB4, that should be enough for comfortable satisfaction.

 

[LoungeLizard]

FACT! So what they are really after is beyond reasonable doubt, not comfortable satisfaction. What happened to the ruling where a player can get done for having a banned substance in their possession, even if they haven't taken it? A player can be banned for 2 years if they think that they intended to breach the code, but never actually got around to it. If the chain of supply INTENDED to procure TB4, that should be enough for comfortable satisfaction.

Nope, you cant rub out 34 players because someone else intended to dope them.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

FACT! So what they are really after is beyond reasonable doubt, not comfortable satisfaction. What happened to the ruling where a player can get done for having a banned substance in their possession, even if they haven't taken it? A player can be banned for 2 years if they think that they intended to breach the code, but never actually got around to it. If the chain of supply INTENDED to procure TB4, that should be enough for comfortable satisfaction.

How can you expect the AFL to find anything other than reasonable doubt when they are still trying to pretend there's no such thing as drugs in footy?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Nope, you cant rub out 34 players because someone else intended to dope them.

Fair point. When does reasonable doubt become comfortable satisfaction? The whole thing is contradictory. You can't say "we believe they ordered TB4, we believe it was delivered to Alavi, we believe he compounded it, we believe it got delivered to Dank, and we believe Dank injected players with that substance, but we don't know what actually left the Chinese factory"? If that's what they believe that Dank and Charter intended to buy, what have they seen that makes them think their intended purchase wasn't despatched? If they believe that Alavi received TB4 that Charter procured from China, how can they say that they aren't satisfied that TB4 was sent?

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Fair point. When does reasonable doubt become comfortable satisfaction? The whole thing is contradictory. You can't say "we believe they ordered TB4, we believe it was delivered to Alavi, we believe he compounded it, we believe it got delivered to Dank, and we believe Dank injected players with that substance, but we don't know what actually left the Chinese factory"? If that's what they believe that Dank and Charter intended to buy, what have they seen that makes them think their intended purchase wasn't despatched? If they believe that Alavi received TB4 that Charter procured from China, how can they say that they aren't satisfied that TB4 was sent?

The players' INs were for actual doping, not intent. It's the EFC staffer INs that apparently include intent to dope.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Fair point. When does reasonable doubt become comfortable satisfaction? The whole thing is contradictory. You can't say "we believe they ordered TB4, we believe it was delivered to Alavi, we believe he compounded it, we believe it got delivered to Dank, and we believe Dank injected players with that substance, but we don't know what actually left the Chinese factory"? If that's what they believe that Dank and Charter intended to buy, what have they seen that makes them think their intended purchase wasn't despatched? If they believe that Alavi received TB4 that Charter procured from China, how can they say that they aren't satisfied that TB4 was sent?

Its sounds to me like comfortable satisfaction was at the discretion of the tribunal, i jsut wonder if WADA appeal, what would the lvl be at CAS.

 

[TheArchivist]

Fair point. When does reasonable doubt become comfortable satisfaction? The whole thing is contradictory. You can't say "we believe they ordered TB4, we believe it was delivered to Alavi, we believe he compounded it, we believe it got delivered to Dank, and we believe Dank injected players with that substance, but we don't know what actually left the Chinese factory"? If that's what they believe that Dank and Charter intended to buy, what have they seen that makes them think their intended purchase wasn't despatched? If they believe that Alavi received TB4 that Charter procured from China, how can they say that they aren't satisfied that TB4 was sent?

The tribunal were actually saying "we believe they believed they ordered TB4, we believe that they believe it was delivered to Alavi, we believe that he believed he compounded it, we believe that Dank believed he received it, but we don't know what actually left the Chinese factory". In other words, all 3 fully believed they were working with TB4, but the tribunal was not convinced that it was actually TB4.

 

[yeahmate]

If the reasoning is what has been leaked by the media then it pretty much means no-one could ever be done for anti-doping w/o either a positive test or a confession.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

If the reasoning is what has been leaked by the media then it pretty much means no-one could ever be done for anti-doping w/o either a positive test or a confession.

... at least via the AFL Tribunal!

 

[Crankyhawk]

Any update on the dank decision time?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Any update on the dank decision time?

Nope just more excuses to delay releasing a judgement.