Essendon face AFL probe/Players found Guilty by CAS

[(•))(©™]

What a bunch of stuffen crooks

[WilliamPowell]

I knew about specific banned peptides that Dank was giving the players a year before you did and have proof that I knew. 

If even you know what banned substances they took how come ASADA don't?

Your assuming ASADA don't and that doesn't appear to be the case and has never appeared to the case. That is....

ASADA, the media, the AFL and of course via those agencies the public have a very clear view of what was given but the issue is and always been about proving it...

Chip Le Grand wrote a really good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

So I think it is reasonable to assume that there are people (likely lots of them) who do indeed know what was likely given but proving it whether it be under this "comfortable satisfaction" standard, beyond any doubt or under the balance of probabilities standard is near impossible based on the lack of records

***And before you ask, no I cannot post the article as I can't access it because you have to be a subscriber, I read the actual paper 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I knew about specific banned peptides that Dank was giving the players a year before you did and have proof that I knew. 

If even you know what banned substances they took how come ASADA don't?

Your assuming ASADA don't and that doesn't appear to be the case and has never appeared to the case. That is....

ASADA, the media, the AFL and of course via those agencies the public have a very clear view of what was given but the issue is and always been about proving it...

Chip Le Grand wrote a realty good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

So I think it is reasonable to assume that there are people (likely lots of them) do indeed know what was likely given but proving it whether it be under this "comfortable satisfaction" standard, beyond any doubt or under the balance of probabilities standard is near impossible based on the lack of records

***And before you ask, no I cannot post the article as I can't access it because you have to be a subscriber, I read the actual paper 

Nail.
Head.
 

[Yeahright]

I knew about specific banned peptides that Dank was giving the players a year before you did and have proof that I knew. 

If even you know what banned substances they took how come ASADA don't?

So I think it is reasonable to assume that there are people (likely lots of them) who do indeed know what was likely given but proving it whether it be under this "comfortable satisfaction" standard, beyond any doubt or under the balance of probabilities standard is near impossible based on the lack of records

***And before you ask, no I cannot post the article as I can't access it because you have to be a subscriber, I read the actual paper 

I think the key point there is the fact people know what was LIKELY given to them but can't prove it. YBB has said he knows specific banned drugs given and has proof that he knows. If someone irrelevant has solid enough proof that he knew what was taken then I'm sure ASADA would have plenty of proof of what they took, enough to hold up in court.

Point being that he can claim that he knows what they took and all the proof in the world but so far it hasn't been enough to stand up in court so I'm sure as hell not going to be paying any attention to it on the internet

[The Big Richo]

Chip Le Grand wrote a really good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

There might be another reason they didn't find the charge proven.

If the person wasn't a player then they don't fall under the ASADA code. Dank could pump any substance he liked into an official.

If the article said that it certainly wasn't good.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Chip Le Grand wrote a really good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

There might be another reason they didn't find the charge proven.

If the person wasn't a player then they don't fall under the ASADA code. Dank could pump any substance he liked into an official.

If the article said that it certainly wasn't good.

I think you'll find that under the AFL code, any club official must adhere to the code (rule 3.1).

[WilliamPowell]

Chip Le Grand wrote a really good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

There might be another reason they didn't find the charge proven.

If the person wasn't a player then they don't fall under the ASADA code. Dank could pump any substance he liked into an official.

If the article said that it certainly wasn't good.

No on the contrary, the article said that Dank was found not guilty of supplying but guilty of trafficking a banned substance. And that finding was based on the tribunal not being "comfortable satisfied" that he "supplied" because they could only take one person word on what was given without any other collaborating evidence eg documentary evidence

[YellowandBlackBlood]

You may find it is an error to presume what I know or don't know about all of this as well.

Dank was employed by Essendon. It isn't just the media that has reported it.

ASADA issued him with a show cause notice over Essendon, they couldn't do it at Cronulla because he operated with the model you describe there.

You might want to relook at what his relationship with Cronulla. He wasn't on their books at all there. He did not receive money from Cronulla (Not officially anyway). He was a paid consultant at Essendon via the company I mentioned earlier. As he was paid for his services, he qualified for a SCN. However, he was not an Employee by definition.

[The Big Richo]

Chip Le Grand wrote a really good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

There might be another reason they didn't find the charge proven.

If the person wasn't a player then they don't fall under the ASADA code. Dank could pump any substance he liked into an official.

If the article said that it certainly wasn't good.

I think you'll find that under the AFL code, any club official must adhere to the code (rule 3.1).

Not the ASADA code though.

You may find it is an error to presume what I know or don't know about all of this as well.

Dank was employed by Essendon. It isn't just the media that has reported it.

ASADA issued him with a show cause notice over Essendon, they couldn't do it at Cronulla because he operated with the model you describe there.

You might want to relook at what his relationship with Cronulla. He wasn't on their books at all there. He did not receive money from Cronulla (Not officially anyway). He was a paid consultant at Essendon via the company I mentioned earlier. As he was paid for his services, he qualified for a SCN. However, he was not an Employee by definition.

I am agreeing with you re Cronulla.

He was employed by Essendon as their Sports Scientist. He had an office with his name on the door and was mentioned in the annual report.

That has been widely reported and never disputed.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Chip Le Grand wrote a really good article yesterday about this and gave an example of the charges against Dank. He wrote of a Bombers employee (not a player) admitting to ASADA in their interview that they were given a banned substance by Dank while in his EFC office and they used it. But the vials in question were not recorded anywhere, the vials weren't labelled but the employee said they believed the vials contained the banned substance. Due to there being no physical records and only the word of the individual the Tribunal didn't find the charge against Dank of "supplying" a banned substance proven to comfortable satisfaction.

There might be another reason they didn't find the charge proven.

If the person wasn't a player then they don't fall under the ASADA code. Dank could pump any substance he liked into an official.

If the article said that it certainly wasn't good.

I think you'll find that under the AFL code, any club official must adhere to the code (rule 3.1).

Not the ASADA code though.

You may find it is an error to presume what I know or don't know about all of this as well.

Dank was employed by Essendon. It isn't just the media that has reported it.

ASADA issued him with a show cause notice over Essendon, they couldn't do it at Cronulla because he operated with the model you describe there.

You might want to relook at what his relationship with Cronulla. He wasn't on their books at all there. He did not receive money from Cronulla (Not officially anyway). He was a paid consultant at Essendon via the company I mentioned earlier. As he was paid for his services, he qualified for a SCN. However, he was not an Employee by definition.

I am agreeing with you re Cronulla.

He was employed by Essendon as their Sports Scientist. He had an office with his name on the door and was mentioned in the annual report.

That has been widely reported and never disputed.

Find me any official Essendon statement that states he was an employee of the club. He was a paid consultant. That is all. He was given an office but he still ran his anti aging business and was free to do what he wanted. If you read the Essendon books you will see monies paid to Applied Orthopaedic Science Pty Ltd. That is the company he set up to work for as a consultant. Believe me. I'm not making this up.

[The Big Richo]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/stephen-dank-served-with-notice-from-asada-over-essendons-supplement-program-in-2012/story-fni3fbgz-1226854155797

That article refers to him being able to be charged by the AFL and ASADA as an Essendon employee but not with his Cronulla involvement as it was on a contractor basis.

The fact he was charged by the AFL tribunal also shows he was an Essendon employee, as otherwise they have no power to charge him, which is why the NRL never could.

[Zlatan]

That's only as long as they are a signatory. I just meant literally speaking. I can't see the AFL removing itself and drawing up its own code. That just wouldn't be a good look, and image how bad it would look if this happened again and they dealt with it in house, again. There would be no path of appeal for the plaintiff then either.

That's only as long as they are a signatory. I just meant literally speaking. I can't see the AFL removing itself and drawing up its own code. That just wouldn't be a good look, and image how bad it would look if this happened again and they dealt with it in house, again. There would be no path of appeal for the plaintiff then either.

The AFL actually resisted signing with WADA until the very last moment and only the threat of a loss of any government funding forced its hand.

I'd say it was for this very reason, they don't want other agencies having the power to make game changing decisions.

The AFL tribunal set the bar too high when it came to comfortable satisfaction. Gerard Whateley said they would have found Lance Armstrong innocent with their interpretation.


I now think that the players are stuffed.

Lance Armstrong confessed and even before that they had witnesses who were confessing to being involved in the same doping program and naming Armstrong as a participant.

Think about this.

You go to a pub and order light beers so you can safely drive home. It turns out that the bartender you are trusting to serve your drinks likes to lace them with vodka, but he claims it is non-alcoholic vodka. The orders for it aren't clear either way.

You weren't breathalysed on the night and there is no evidence to say that you ever consumed any vodka at all.

If the cops came around 3 years later and suspended your licence for 2 years I reckon you would be dirty.

I have hated Essendon all my life but if these players are suspended it is a disgrace.

what a rubbish analogy

[The Big Richo]

More information please.

[(•))(©™]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wada-wants-essendon-case-heard-in-switzerland-20150519-gh5ath.html

[WilliamPowell]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wada-wants-essendon-case-heard-in-switzerland-20150519-gh5ath.html

Appears the Bombers and AFL aren't very happy about WADA's request

Suck it up gents and BTW welcome to the big (international) stage