update, Dank wants to clear players, details OP

[yaco55]

The players decision not to outline what they had taken - time and time again - excludes the players from the no fault discount.

Really - Seeing that Doping Control forms request ( not compel ) you to list substances not normally taken in the last 7 days - This is done to explain a possible AAF - And no-one can find a case where non completion of Doping Control forms excludes you from no fault discount - And that's not taking into account only 21 players were tested by ASADA in 2012 - How could the remaining 13 players fill in a form if not tested - And that's not taking into account that in ASADA's sentencing submission at the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal asked players receive No Fault Discount, meaning ASADA had no issue with the Doping Control Forms - And that's forgetting the player consent forms listing substances were willingly handed over to ASADA.

 

[Mr Commissioner]

Really - Seeing that Doping Control forms request ( not compel ) you to list substances not normally taken in the last 7 days - This is done to explain a possible AAF - And no-one can find a case where non completion of Doping Control forms excludes you from no fault discount - And that's not taking into account only 21 players were tested by ASADA in 2012 - How could the remaining 13 players fill in a form if not tested - And that's not taking into account that in ASADA's sentencing submission at the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal asked players receive No Fault Discount, meaning ASADA had no issue with the Doping Control Forms - And that's forgetting the player consent forms listing substances were willingly handed over to ASADA.

Please read.

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

 

[matthew_s]

Interesting that if this is true how WADA can deny a no fault discount - Seeing the club allegedly self reported in September 2012.

This has been discounted as a typo. Keep up

 

[the conch]

I'll ask you a question - Why have the four clubs denied top up's been whinging under gritted teeth that the AFL promised us 'No players will be suspended '.

Reckon you have your answer.

Haven' been following that debate. Are there allegations the AFL guaranteed the outcome? Can't see how they could do that , but the Barry Hall judge tribunal was a fair play. Before the adults had a look.
One major damning bit of info, however, that the AFL did not let out was how the bombers lied as a team on their drug declaration forms to ASADA, despite all the alleged leaking against EFC by AFL and ASADA according to Hird inc.

 

[yaco55]

Haven' been following that debate. Are there allegations the AFL guaranteed the outcome? Can't see how they could do that , but the Barry Hall judge tribunal was a fair play. Before the adults had a look.
One major damning bit of info, however, that the AFL did not let out was how the bombers lied as a team on their drug declaration forms to ASADA, despite all the alleged leaking against EFC by AFL and ASADA according to Hird inc.

And its strange how ASADA in their sentencing submission before the Anti-Doping Tribunal asked for players to be given a no fault discount - You reckon ASADA knew about the Doping Control Forms at this time - See if you can answer this question ? Why wasn't this issue raised by ASADA in the hearing of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ? Did ASADA collude with players and the AFL at the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ?

Find me another case where CAS has brought up the incorrect filling in of Doping Control Forms suggesting their is a cover up by athletes - I've searched and come up with nothing.

 

[Mr Commissioner]

And its strange how ASADA in their sentencing submission before the Anti-Doping Tribunal asked for players to be given a no fault discount - You reckon ASADA knew about the Doping Control Forms at this time - See if you can answer this question ? Why wasn't this issue raised by ASADA in the hearing of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ? Did ASADA collude with players and the AFL at the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ?

De Novo.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Really - Seeing that Doping Control forms request ( not compel ) you to list substances not normally taken in the last 7 days - This is done to explain a possible AAF - And no-one can find a case where non completion of Doping Control forms excludes you from no fault discount - And that's not taking into account only 21 players were tested by ASADA in 2012 - How could the remaining 13 players fill in a form if not tested - And that's not taking into account that in ASADA's sentencing submission at the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal asked players receive No Fault Discount, meaning ASADA had no issue with the Doping Control Forms - And that's forgetting the player consent forms listing substances were willingly handed over to ASADA.

They were having weekly injections.

The players decided to defend themselves as a group. Also, it has been found they took TB4 and no player as yet has conceded or reported that. Or Thymomoldulin even.

 

[yaco55]

They were having weekly injections.

The players decided to defend themselves as a group. Also, it has been found they took TB4 and no player as yet has conceded or reported that. Or Thymomoldulin even.

So if you are one of the 13 players who weren't tested in 2012 - How can you be lumped in with the other 21 players - And i like to see dates players were tested in 2012 seeing the supplements program was effectively a six month program - Too many unanswered questions.

I will wait for a week for a week to find a CAS case where an athlete has been denied a no fault defence because they haven't filled in a doping control form

 

[yaco55]

De Novo.

Do you think if ASADA appealed to the AFL Anti-Doping Appeals they would have changed their sentencing submission ?

 

[Randomizor]

So if you are one of the 13 players who weren't tested in 2012 - How can you be lumped in with the other 21 players - And i like to see dates players were tested in 2012 seeing the supplements program was effectively a six month program - Too many unanswered questions.

I will wait for a week for a week to find a CAS case where an athlete has been denied a no fault defence because they haven't filled in a doping control form

True. I mean you'd think if they were going to judge on that you'd need to show that the players were sending text about prohibited substances, that they had consent forms listing the substance and could have easily looked up what it was, that they neglected to ask their doctor about it (and even go as far as not mentioning it to him when seeking medical assistance), knowingly participate in a program that they were asked to keep secret and not question anybody about that fact. It's not as if these players receive extensive anti-doping education that explain to them that it's their responsibility to check what's going into their body.

 

[Randomizor]

Here's a counter question: Why SHOULD the players have received a discount?

I see plenty of Essendon supporter's arguing that CAS shouldn't have decided this or that, but not so many arguments saying what they should have decided instead.

Does anyone else think this might be because the "dog ate my records" defence is just kind of a bit s**t?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Here's a counter question: Why SHOULD the players have received a discount?

I see plenty of Essendon supporter's arguing that CAS shouldn't have decided this or that, but not so many arguments saying what they should have decided instead.

Does anyone else think this might be because the "dog ate my records" defence is just kind of a bit s**t?

It's pretty clear they tried the 'my dog ate it' defence, and the 'we know we're innocent but don't know what we took' angle too.
They've tried the 'it was just vitamins' one and even the 'oh no, we're not involved in this court case ..... but will send a lawyer in to sit with Hird and Essendon anyway' garbage.
They've tried the 'we just forgot to mention the injections that I just texted my mates about' line, and then tried to pull the old 'stick together cause if they can't prove every single one of us did it - then we'll all get off!' trick.

So there's not much there to suggest that they were cooperative. There's plenty to suggest they were being shady though.

 

[Armchair Critic]

So if you are one of the 13 players who weren't tested in 2012 - How can you be lumped in with the other 21 players - And i like to see dates players were tested in 2012 seeing the supplements program was effectively a six month program - Too many unanswered questions.

I will wait for a week for a week to find a CAS case where an athlete has been denied a no fault defence because they haven't filled in a doping control form

Becauae it was not the only reason the players did not receive the no significant fault discount.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Do you think if ASADA appealed to the AFL Anti-Doping Appeals they would have changed their sentencing submission ?

It just shows to me WADA would most likely have appealed a no significant fault finding.They are the top dogs, not ASADA

 

[Muggs]

Do you think if ASADA appealed to the AFL Anti-Doping Appeals they would have changed their sentencing submission ?

No because ASADA did not make a formal sentencing submission, the indicated they would not oppose a no significant fault penalty, but as the AFL tribunal was going to have a separate sentencing hearing there was no need to submit anything in regards to sentence.

Also worth remembering the onus in on the players to argue for reduced sanctions, the players entire submission, as outlined in the award, on reduced sanctions was we agree with the AFL on sentencing if found guilty. Their submission did not include any reasoned argument.

So how was CAS suppose to find mitigating circumstances if the players did not submit any?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

So if you are one of the 13 players who weren't tested in 2012 - How can you be lumped in with the other 21 players - And i like to see dates players were tested in 2012 seeing the supplements program was effectively a six month program - Too many unanswered questions.

I will wait for a week for a week to find a CAS case where an athlete has been denied a no fault defence because they haven't filled in a doping control form

You are right. They shouldn't have made their case as a group. They should have made their cases individually.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Really - Seeing that Doping Control forms request ( not compel ) you to list substances not normally taken in the last 7 days - This is done to explain a possible AAF - And no-one can find a case where non completion of Doping Control forms excludes you from no fault discount - And that's not taking into account only 21 players were tested by ASADA in 2012 - How could the remaining 13 players fill in a form if not tested - And that's not taking into account that in ASADA's sentencing submission at the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal asked players receive No Fault Discount, meaning ASADA had no issue with the Doping Control Forms - And that's forgetting the player consent forms listing substances were willingly handed over to ASADA.

Then if the tribunal was coerced by the afl, they made a big boo boo then didn't they?
If they found the players guilty, then the players might be playing in 2016 hey?

 

[the conch]

And its strange how ASADA in their sentencing submission before the Anti-Doping Tribunal asked for players to be given a no fault discount - You reckon ASADA knew about the Doping Control Forms at this time - See if you can answer this question ? Why wasn't this issue raised by ASADA in the hearing of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ? Did ASADA collude with players and the AFL at the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ?

Find me another case where CAS has brought up the incorrect filling in of Doping Control Forms suggesting their is a cover up by athletes - I've searched and come up with nothing.

Fair point about why ASADA never used it. Why not?
Another thing...inside industry knowledge and connivance may have been a major factor in EFC and Hird incs dirty and protracted legal and PR war, belief it could all be "negotiated" ... Which was ultimately futile and damaging to themselves and the whole games reputation

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It just shows to me WADA would most likely have appealed a no significant fault finding.They are the top dogs, not ASADA

WADA clearly weren't impressed with the Cronulla deal that ASADA went with either.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You are right. They shouldn't have made their case as a group. They should have made their cases individually.

And we all know they went as a group, as a shady attempt to get off on a technicality.


So FWIW, it serves them ******* right that it backfired on them

 

[Jimthegreat]

And its strange how ASADA in their sentencing submission before the Anti-Doping Tribunal asked for players to be given a no fault discount - You reckon ASADA knew about the Doping Control Forms at this time - See if you can answer this question ? Why wasn't this issue raised by ASADA in the hearing of the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ? Did ASADA collude with players and the AFL at the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ?

Find me another case where CAS has brought up the incorrect filling in of Doping Control Forms suggesting their is a cover up by athletes - I've searched and come up with nothing.

A higher organisation, WADA, and higher Arbitration. CAS, saw it differently. Fact is no Essendon once rang ASADA and asked about the status of the substance they were ingesting, remembering the athlete is totally responsible for what goes into their bodies. Without that check then whatever the athlete take is at their own risk and, hence, their own fault. So you are really entitled to NO discount for fault.

Your club got caught chesaing good and proper. If the players had the brains, like the Cronulla players did, then you'd have go away with a no significant fault discount, given ASADA thought the players were duped, a very short suspension and no stain as drug cheats. But no, not stupid, dumb arrogant Essendon, they had to stubbornly fight, knowing there was a problem and now they lose a season with no "no significant fault" discount and now a considered drug cheats. Essendon have completely stuffed up at every turn. You support, idiots, drug cheats, and after the Worksafe verdict, criminals as well.

 

[coryne]

Not for HUMAN OR ANIMAL consumption. What the hell would I use it for then?

Cell culture.

 

[coryne]

isn't it some sort of stuff/medium for growing cells in a petri dish?

More for liquid cell culture e.g. growing up cancer cell lines/CHO cells etc.

 

[Blue1980]

Did ASADA collude with players and the AFL at the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal ?

In a word, yes. At least early on, they were trying to collude with the government to minimise damage. I believe they then realised how big the problem was and that WADA wouldn't stand for any BS so did put in some effort into a proper investigation.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

The difference here is that Melbourne only knew about what he claimed to be thymomodulin. It was TB4 though. He has never ever used thymomodulin on any athlete. He just relabelled TB4 vials with those amateurish thymomodulin stickers. Alavi refused to do it for him - I heard that from a very close source to Alavi.
While at EFC, he used the term Thymosin (which at MRC means TB4) but about mid 2012 started changing over to using the term thymomodulin to protect himself. It explains why ASADA, who knew he was using thymosin, initially were confused and thought that the terms were interchangeable (hence the email to WADA). It is so obvious he has done this. He just changes the names of things but uses what he wants, as beautifully shown by the decision to call peptides amino acids. Just switch names. Let's face it, nobody except for him knew what was in the ampoule.

So strictly speaking, he almost certainly used TB4 at Melbourne. However, he told them it was thymomodulin. At EFC, they knew it as thymosin before he changed its name to thymomodulin. However, nobody at Essendon asked him what "thymosin" actually was.

Take it from me mxett. This is exactly what happened.

Largely agree with this, with the only reservation being that we don't know where the 'thymomodulin' Bates gave the Melbourne players came from. Dank was only advising Bates with Bates doing the actual administering. So did Bates source his own thymomodulin as recommended by Dank, or did Dank say, "I've got some right here you can give a whirl"?