No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[cymarak]

Another issue which might yet raise it's head especially if players do take deals, is does the likelihood of show cause notices being issued to coaches increase?

Would assume so.

A show-cause notice issued to an individual relates to a potential doping violation by that individual - what would the coaches be accused of having done that violates the doping code?

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

If a significant chunk of the playing list miss 3 or 4 games, then effectively that is the end of any prospects we have have of finishing up the ladder in 2015. That is, effectively, 2015 is a write-off.
Let's say we start 0-4 with 12 or more players unavailable, what chance are we to win enough games in the remaining 18 to play finals (subject to AFL approval of our governance, of course)?

Still can make a charge only had to look at what Richmond did.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

That's a really good question, one which hasn't been adequately addressed.

Assuming no one is hypocritical enough to want Hird gone but Bomber to stay, who do these people want to be coaching us? Will that improve us? If not, do we really need to cut off our nose to spite our face?

My thought is whether we want to bring the club to its knees. Bring in a bunch of fresh faces and they have to pick up where everything was i.e. no coaches, no board members left with any knowledge of the situation beyond maybe one who came in half way through.

Just seems like a stupid way to go. The gradual cleaning we have had has been far more sensible as it has allowed us to stay strong.

Just be careful what you wish for.....

 

[60sbomber]

I’m gong to play devil’s advocate now, and try to set out what the case against the players will look like, for us to assess our chances at a hearing.
The details come from the AFL charge sheet (that was withdrawn) in Aug2013, and strings it together into a story along the lines of what ASADA would likely present to a hearing.

Here goes.

1. ASADA try to establish that Dank had the intent to use TB4 at EFC

- Dank text to Robinson 2Aug2011 – discusses “soft tissue maintenance” benefits of using “thymosin” on shoulder reconstruction patient.
- Dank text to Robinson 23Aug2011 – “..Don’t forget how important thymosin is. This is going to be our vital cornerstone next year. It is the ultimate assembly regulatory protein and biological modifier..”
- ASADA claim these references to “thymosin” must be TB4 not thymomodulin as the benefits discussed are those of TB4.

2. ASADA try to establish that Dank procured TB4 for use at EFC.
- Prior to 26Nov2011 Dank informed Charter that he needed TB4 (presumably verbal evidence from Charter?)
- 26Nov2011 Charter travelled to Shanghai and obtained raw materials for TB4.
- 1Dec2011 Dank text to Robinson “..we are planning something better (than Collingwood using TA65)..”
- Between 1Dec2011 and 8Dec2011 Charter made a second order for raw materials for peptides including TB4 from China supplier (no mention of any further involvement of Dank)
- On 2Dec2011 Charter returned to Melbourne with the raw materials for TB4 from the first order.
- 11Jan2012 Charter text to Dank – “..which peptides do you need compounded next?” Dank replied “…TB4 and CJC1295”. Charter – “what sort of quantities?” Dank – “Thymosin 20 x 5ml vials”. Charter orders “20 x 5ml vials” from Alavi “at Steve’s request”.
- 12Jan2012 Charter emailed a document to both Dank and Alavi describing how to prepare, administer and store TB4. The document included a recommendation of dosages of 1 vial per week for 6 weeks then 1 vial per month. These dosages were the same as those on the consent forms for “thymosin”.
- 15&16Jan2012 texts exchanged between Charter and Alavi regarding difficulties dissolving the “thymosin” including Charter – “…try the CJC which is the next one (Dank) needs”.
- Invoice for $9,860 to EFC from Alavi for 26 vials of “peptide thymosin” together with 7 vials of Hexarelin, delivered on 18Jan2012. Invoice subsequently amended on 26Feb2012 giving credit for the Hexarelin and “thymosin”.
- There are further items 28 and 29 on Annexure A of the charge sheet which are redacted and may contain further details of the alleged offences.

3. ASADA try to establish that thymomodulin was never procured by EFC

- There are no supply chain records to show that thymomodulin was ever obtained by EFC
- Charter when ordering raw materials from China for Dank never made any orders for thymomodulin.
- on 26Jun2012 Dank sent an email to Alavi seeking his signature on a document backdated to 27Feb2012 in which it is stated that thymomodulin was prepared by Como and did not contain any banned substances.
- All references to use of thymomodulin after May 2012 (eg Dank’s conversations with MFC doctor, Jobe’s evidence at his interview) were part of a cover up story that thymomodulin was used when it was really TB4.
- The photo of the thymomodulin bottle – ASADA would contend it was a fake label photographed after the event to support the false claim of thymomodulin use.

4. ASADA try to establish that the 34 players were given TB4

- Consent forms list players’ consent to being given a form of thymosin.
- Forms show which players the club intended to give thymosin to.
- Player interviews that recalled them being given some form of thymosin represent evidence that they received TB4, given 1. to 3. above.

The major weaknesses in the case appear to be

1. The quantities of TB4 were too low for the purpose of using in the EFC program
2. Nowhere in the intercepted correspondence does Dank specifically say that the orders are for use at EFC rather than in his private practice.
3. Charges against each of the 34 individuals rely on the assumption that consent plus recollection of “some form of thymosin” being injected represents evidence that TB4 was injected to each player (despite the insufficient quantities in 1. above)

Our major vulnerabilities appears to be

1. We claim to have used thymomodulin, but can’t offer any evidence of its procurement in the form of orders or invoices.
2. Unless a credible case that thymomodulin was used can be established, the consented and admitted use of “thymosin” effectively becomes admission to TB4.
3. The dosages on the consent forms matching the dosages on the TB4 instruction paper lend weight to the contention that the Dec-Jan texts regarding TB4 related to its use at EFC.

The big question is would someone believe with “comfortable satisfaction” that each player who consented, and recalls being injected, actually received TB4.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

So you'd be happy with players sitting in the stands, while the person who instigated the program carries on, business as usual? If Hird has no responsibility of what has happened, the players certainly don't, and I can't imagine they would be very happy about that situation.

True but shouldn't the players anger be pointed at Dank? as far as the players are concerned they were told that the stuff they were getting was legal and safe also were made to sign forms and had the option not to participate it's not like the club left them in the dark.

 

[rumply]

A show-cause notice issued to an individual relates to a potential doping violation by that individual - what would the coaches be accused of having done that violates the doping code?

Havent looked at it for yonks, but there is stuff in the code that deals with breaches by 'support personnel' (supply/administer peds etc), so I just assume if players accept some level of guilt that ASADA would be obligated to also look those personnel that were part of the process.

 

[cymarak]

Havent looked at it for yonks, but there is stuff in the code that deals with breaches by 'support personnel' (supply/administer peds etc), so I just assume if players accept some level of guilt that ASADA would be obligated to also look those personnel that were part of the process.

I would have thought that if it's deemed that players received PEDs, whoever administered / supplied the PEDs might be in trouble, but I don't think the coaches have been accused of that. Dank maybe, yes - but not the coaches.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Don't get this obsession with "The players want XXX in the club therefore they should stay".

They're players. The inmates do not run the asylum. That's not their decision to make.

 

[rumply]

I would have thought that if it's deemed that players received PEDs, whoever administered / supplied the PEDs might be in trouble, but I don't think the coaches have been accused of that. Dank maybe, yes - but not the coaches.

I assume ASADA would deem some of the coaches, maybe just Hird, as overseeing the program & prosecute on that basis.

Just makes sense to me that once ASADA have the players admitting to potential violations, that their case(s) against support personnel, Dank/Robinson/Hird/etc would be much stronger & would they even have the option not to follow through with prosecutions.

 

[vast]

Calendar-Quote-Of-The-Day (24th September):

'We are more inclined to hate one another for points on which we differ, than to love one another for points on which we agree.'
- CHARLES CALEB COLTON

Why is it that BigFooty was the first thing that popped into my head upon reading this? Incidentally, I looked up just who Charles Caleb Colton was, as he seems a pretty switched-on guy. Turns out he did nothing really of note (apologies if I offended any nerds with my apparent ignorance ) but he summed up internet forums damn straight, an impressive effort for a guy who has been dead for nearly 200 years!

Yeah but he didnt get the chance to know of the Carlton Football club if he did he would have changed his mind.

 

[carnthedons]

Don't get this obsession with "The players want XXX in the club therefore they should stay".

They're players. The inmates do not run the asylum. That's not their decision to make.

While I understand the point you're trying to make, the difference between a motivated and united team vs a demotivated and fractured team can be huge

 

[cymarak]

I assume ASADA would deem some of the coaches, maybe just Hird, as overseeing the program & prosecute on that basis.

Just makes sense to me that once ASADA have the players admitting to potential violations, that their case(s) against support personnel, Dank/Robinson/Hird/etc would be much stronger & would they even have the option not to follow through with prosecutions.

They can't just prosecute for 'overseeing' - they have find a specific rule in the doping code that they believe the coaches have broken.

If ASADA could prosecute for general governance stuff, the AFL wouldn't have had the excuse to do it itself last year.

 

[rines]

I’m gong to play devil’s advocate now, and try to set out what the case against the players will look like, for us to assess our chances at a hearing.
The details come from the AFL charge sheet (that was withdrawn) in Aug2013, and strings it together into a story along the lines of what ASADA would likely present to a hearing.

Here goes.

1. ASADA try to establish that Dank had the intent to use TB4 at EFC

- Dank text to Robinson 2Aug2011 – discusses “soft tissue maintenance” benefits of using “thymosin” on shoulder reconstruction patient.
- Dank text to Robinson 23Aug2011 – “..Don’t forget how important thymosin is. This is going to be our vital cornerstone next year. It is the ultimate assembly regulatory protein and biological modifier..”
- ASADA claim these references to “thymosin” must be TB4 not thymomodulin as the benefits discussed are those of TB4.

2. ASADA try to establish that Dank procured TB4 for use at EFC.
- Prior to 26Nov2011 Dank informed Charter that he needed TB4 (presumably verbal evidence from Charter?)
- 26Nov2011 Charter travelled to Shanghai and obtained raw materials for TB4.
- 1Dec2011 Dank text to Robinson “..we are planning something better (than Collingwood using TA65)..”
- Between 1Dec2011 and 8Dec2011 Charter made a second order for raw materials for peptides including TB4 from China supplier (no mention of any further involvement of Dank)
- On 2Dec2011 Charter returned to Melbourne with the raw materials for TB4 from the first order.
- 11Jan2012 Charter text to Dank – “..which peptides do you need compounded next?” Dank replied “…TB4 and CJC1295”. Charter – “what sort of quantities?” Dank – “Thymosin 20 x 5ml vials”. Charter orders “20 x 5ml vials” from Alavi “at Steve’s request”.
- 12Jan2012 Charter emailed a document to both Dank and Alavi describing how to prepare, administer and store TB4. The document included a recommendation of dosages of 1 vial per week for 6 weeks then 1 vial per month. These dosages were the same as those on the consent forms for “thymosin”.
- 15&16Jan2012 texts exchanged between Charter and Alavi regarding difficulties dissolving the “thymosin” including Charter – “…try the CJC which is the next one (Dank) needs”.
- Invoice for $9,860 to EFC from Alavi for 26 vials of “peptide thymosin” together with 7 vials of Hexarelin, delivered on 18Jan2012. Invoice subsequently amended on 26Feb2012 giving credit for the Hexarelin and “thymosin”.
- There are further items 28 and 29 on Annexure A of the charge sheet which are redacted and may contain further details of the alleged offences.

3. ASADA try to establish that thymomodulin was never procured by EFC

- There are no supply chain records to show that thymomodulin was ever obtained by EFC
- Charter when ordering raw materials from China for Dank never made any orders for thymomodulin.
- on 26Jun2012 Dank sent an email to Alavi seeking his signature on a document backdated to 27Feb2012 in which it is stated that thymomodulin was prepared by Como and did not contain any banned substances.
- All references to use of thymomodulin after May 2012 (eg Dank’s conversations with MFC doctor, Jobe’s evidence at his interview) were part of a cover up story that thymomodulin was used when it was really TB4.
- The photo of the thymomodulin bottle – ASADA would contend it was a fake label photographed after the event to support the false claim of thymomodulin use.

4. ASADA try to establish that the 34 players were given TB4

- Consent forms list players’ consent to being given a form of thymosin.
- Forms show which players the club intended to give thymosin to.
- Player interviews that recalled them being given some form of thymosin represent evidence that they received TB4, given 1. to 3. above.

The major weaknesses in the case appear to be

1. The quantities of TB4 were too low for the purpose of using in the EFC program
2. Nowhere in the intercepted correspondence does Dank specifically say that the orders are for use at EFC rather than in his private practice.
3. Charges against each of the 34 individuals rely on the assumption that consent plus recollection of “some form of thymosin” being injected represents evidence that TB4 was injected to each player (despite the insufficient quantities in 1. above)

Our major vulnerabilities appears to be

1. We claim to have used thymomodulin, but can’t offer any evidence of its procurement in the form of orders or invoices.
2. Unless a credible case that thymomodulin was used can be established, the consented and admitted use of “thymosin” effectively becomes admission to TB4.
3. The dosages on the consent forms matching the dosages on the TB4 instruction paper lend weight to the contention that the Dec-Jan texts regarding TB4 related to its use at EFC.

The big question is would someone believe with “comfortable satisfaction” that each player who consented, and recalls being injected, actually received TB4.

Top Post. Pretty much would sum up the situation imho.

Problem is that we have 'known' all this for a long time.. and yet it appears they are no closer to being able to put TB4 'in the needle' than they were last year. I would also suggest another variable.. there are legal variants of Thymosin other than Thymomodulin. Thymosin is a fairly big chemical grouping.
Other than that, I still want to know how 20 x 5mL vials = 34 players given SCN's..

Soon as the number 34 came out.. I felt it was a fishing trip and still do. I would be far more worried if it was 20 notices.. or even 5 notices (4 treatments each) type thing.

 

[ManWithNoName]

While I understand the point you're trying to make, the difference between a motivated and united team vs a demotivated and fractured team can be huge

If they're fractured because the club takes a decision about the coach, they weren't that committed to the club in the first place.

Of course you take their feedback on board, but you do not make the decision based solely on their opinion. Saying "Well the players want Hird" as some sort of definitive argument is wrong.

 

[rumply]

They can't just prosecute for 'overseeing' - they have find a specific rule in the doping code that they believe the coaches have broken.

If ASADA could prosecute for general governance stuff, the AFL wouldn't have had the excuse to do it itself last year.

Well maybe there are specific rules that would apply to the likes of Hird, I dont know the code well enough, but would be very surprised that in the event players take deals, that ASADA will not go all the support staff they can, including coaches.

 

[rines]

Is it that hard to wait and see though? I mean can we just see whether the players are found 'guilty' first before we jump the gun Caro style?

What happens if the players answer the SCN's and ASADA doesn't have enough to take it to the ADRVP and the whole thing is finished by the end of October with no charges laid etc etc?

Take a leaf out of the clubs book.. and just play it with a straight bat, continue on as per usual and see what happens.

 

[cymarak]

If they're fractured because the club takes a decision about the coach, they weren't that committed to the club in the first place.

Of course you take their feedback on board, but you do not make the decision based solely on their opinion. Saying "Well the players want Hird" as some sort of definitive argument is wrong.

Does that go in both directions - if the players say 'we do not want Hird', does that mean Hird has to go ? (Adelaide says hi !)

 

[DonsRule]

If they're fractured because the club takes a decision about the coach, they weren't that committed to the club in the first place.

Of course you take their feedback on board, but you do not make the decision based solely on their opinion. Saying "Well the players want Hird" as some sort of definitive argument is wrong.

I agree enough with that.

I don't think they should have the final call either way, but I do think there should be some weight on their views.

 

[carnthedons]

If they're fractured because the club takes a decision about the coach, they weren't that committed to the club in the first place.

Of course you take their feedback on board, but you do not make the decision based solely on their opinion. Saying "Well the players want Hird" as some sort of definitive argument is wrong.

Again, I'll respectfully disagree. They're not robots. They're people and have emotions and relationships which govern the way they operate. Happens in every profession, why should they be different?

 

[cymarak]

Is it that hard to wait and see though? I mean can we just see whether the players are found 'guilty' first before we jump the gun Caro style?

What happens if the players answer the SCN's and ASADA doesn't have enough to take it to the ADRVP and the whole thing is finished by the end of October with no charges laid etc etc?

It's quite possible that ASADA don't expect to 'win' at infraction notice / tribunal stage, but believe they need to push on with SCNs / ADRVP review / etc. to do their role justice.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but ASADA issuing SCNs isn't proof that ASADA believe they have a very strong case.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Does that go in both directions - if the players say 'we do not want Hird', does that mean Hird has to go ? (Adelaide says hi !)

Correct.

Essendon 1998 is an example.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Again, I'll respectfully disagree. They're not robots. They're people and have emotions and relationships which govern the way they operate. Happens in every profession, why should they be different?

So if a coach comes in that drops a couple of senior players from the side and that puts a group of them offside. If that group then go to the board and say "this coach is terrible, he doesn't do this or that, you need to move him on" should the board bow to that?

 

[rines]

It's quite possible that ASADA don't expect to 'win' at infraction notice / tribunal stage, but believe they need to push on with SCNs / ADRVP review / etc. to do their role justice.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but ASADA issuing SCNs isn't proof that ASADA believe they have a very strong case.

I think ASADA would expect to win.. they are an arrogant bunch of tossers.. but I don't think they are expecting it will be easy..

I don't think they are that nice really.. I don't think they offered NRL players a 3 week holiday because they felt sorry for them.. I think ASADA realised it was the only way to make it go away..

The problem is that the NRL players hadn't faced two years of intense, out of this world media pressure.. and because they all move clubs etc etc.. it wasn't that devastating on a club level (sharks were also crap this year)..

AFL players know that any deal will see Caro and her cult go on and on for years about it.. they will never be allowed to be free of it.. and they also have a point to prove after suffering so much BS.. making deals (even the ridiculously stupidly soft ones) look less tempting.

 

[Masterschaft]

Calling an EGM costs ~$30k. Anyone doing so to say "we think you're great" is an idiot.

Stop misrepresenting the EGM survey to suit your own agenda FFS.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Stop misrepresenting the EGM survey to suit your own agenda FFS.

What agenda?

I'm simply commenting on the fact that the point of survey questions is normally to be neutral in order to encourage views from all sides. Not loaded towards one side of the argument so people can point to it and say "Seeeee".