CAS decision Tuesday AM. Countdown on.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muggs said:
Making a fairly big assumption there that CAS actually looking for what was administered and what happened. I doubt that the be able to examine that as the be relying on the written submissions of both parties. Unless the players defence team actually changed tatics and went with an alternative substance theory I can't see how they could examine this. IMO CAS would also think they be hesitant at looking at taking a big picture look at what happened during the players case as Dank is accused of administering a number of substances beyond TB4 and has some charges subject to appeal at CAS.
Click to expand...
But when not being comfortably satisfied that the gear that was tested actually was TB4, surely determining what it wasn't, can assist?

That's where I can't find examples of the AFL Tribunal being flexible enough in determining what they took.

ie. If it wasn't TB4, what was it then? They've ruled out thymomodulin, so what else realistically could it have been?
If there are no other alternatives, then surely it creates more and more probability that it actually was TB4.


There's no concrete proof that the TB4 actually went to Essendon. So where did it go then?
Unless there are realistic alternatives to where it might have actually gone, then again it surely it becomes more probable that it actually did go to Essendon.

I mean really, it basically comes down to Dank saying he gave them thymomodulin and ASADA saying they took TB4. Although the burden of proof is on ASADA to prove it, surely unless Essendon or Dank can provide some evidence of thymomodulin being at the club then the probability it wasn't thymomodulin gets quite high. Then if it wasn't thymomodulin, what was it?

Players being questioned, and Reid being questioned, in my opinion is either 1 of 2 things:

1) They're guilty and it was an exercise in determining whether or not they were duped

2) The CAS actually wants to dig deeper and won't be comfortable with a 'not comfortably satisfied' verdict with a 'but yeah, they probably did it though' asterix on the end. Which is what the AFL came up with.
 
jenny61_99 said:
ASADA could only present evidence in accordance with AFL Tribunal Rules. This is why certain matters were not presented and/or accepted by the Panel Members. In fact, wasn't it the case that they didn't even consider certain elements because they weren't satisfied of point 1, so they didn't proceed past that point? It seems to me the CAS panel has taken everything they needed from both sides, then added their own questions to the mix. Far more thorough I would think.
Click to expand...
AFL did try looking at the second point, just incase they were missing something from point one.

DonsRule said:
How do you know though? It was a closed case, and there have been a few leaks hardly and real way of knowing what went on, depending on who leaked?
Click to expand...
The players could produce evidence if they wanted to, they have the right to defend themselves. If they did, is another thing
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Muggs said:
For TB4, but not if not guilty...

If the players defence is the same, ie we don't know, they don't need to examine what substance was administered instead, just was it TB4 yes or no.

Delayed again last I heard, he's poor and can't afford it.. HS sponsors EFC and may also be sponsoring Danks appeal against the AFL after that payout...
Click to expand...
The more certain they can be of the actual substance, the more certain they can be if saying yes or no. And, frankly, some degree of certainty with the substance would surely be in the best players welfare. This we don't what it was, therefore it wasn't have been TB4, is the worst possible. None of the players have any surety regarding any health impacts, etc.
That is true all of the substances really, but the CAS would probably be very wary of saying banned a substance other than TB-4 was used in the regime even if they find one was.
 
Muggs said:
Personally suspect both Reid and the players were there mainly for supporting no significant fault. Not so much to give evidence about what was provided.

Does not mean they were not asked about what they were given, just don't think it's the main reason they were there.
Click to expand...

I dont see how Reid could support no significant fault in any way unless he changes his story and claims he approved the Thymosin injections.

I would say Reid hinders more than helps no significant fault if players not informing him
 
Armchair Critic said:
I dont see how Reid could support no significant fault in any way unless he changes his story and claims he approved the Thymosin injections.

I would say Reid hinders more than helps no significant fault if players not informing him
Click to expand...
I would think Reid is there to tell them anything he knows. It will be interesting to see what CAS say about Reid.

Could be to help explain the soft tissue injuries?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mr Commissioner said:
Decision was made last week - just watch.
Click to expand...
Decision was made a month ago. It's just been the write up

As imperial_oz the only ones that would know are the 3 CAS arbitrators and a few people typing up the result. The verdict is emailed to all parties at the same time.
 
DonsRule said:
Decision was made a month ago. It's just been the write up

As imperial_oz the only ones that would know are the 3 CAS arbitrators and a few people typing up the result. The verdict is emailed to all parties at the same time.
Click to expand...
Hope the emails pass the spam filter, otherwise that would be awkward lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top