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

[Doss]

"And surely they didn't think they were doing that to whiten their teeth – getting all those injections."

fanks, Captain Obvious.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

If the consent forms state that the substances they were taking were legal but then get injected with something banned how is that the players fault?

 

[scottmclaren]

A Thymosin consent form obtained by Fairfax Media was signed by Dank and witnessed by suspended fitness chief Dean Robinson. It was not signed by club doctor Bruce Reid.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/invoice-backs-claims-of-banned-peptide-use-20130704-2pezn.html

I am not sure exactly what conditions qualify as a statutory declaration and if The Weapon is an acceptable witness.

Statutory declarations must be made in a prescribed form and witnessed by a person as specified in the Statutory Declarations Regulations (1993)

 

[rumply]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/invoice-backs-claims-of-banned-peptide-use-20130704-2pezn.html

I am not sure exactly what conditions qualify as a statutory declaration and if The Weapon is an acceptable witness.

The twat must be talking about the ASADA interviews, but I really hope he wasnt

 

[scottmclaren]

The twat must be talking about the ASADA interviews, but I really hope he wasnt

Seems like hand waving to me. Any excuse for him to mention "criminal" "2 years jail" and Essendon in the same breath. campaigner.

 

[efcboy]

CAS are using texts from Dank dating back to August 2011. He wasn't even employed at EFC at that moment in time. Only AFL involvement during 2011 AFL season was at Gold Coast Suns

 

[efcboy]

I read CAS stating that there would be no purpose using thymomodulin in a recovery program for professional athletes and thus it was not plausible that the supplement used was thymomodulin. Given this statement how is it that Melbourne FC have been spared. They sourced thymomodulin through Dank. If the CAS statements are correct then one could only conclude that multiple Melbourne FC players are also guilty of taking TB4.

 

[rumply]

I read CAS stating that there would be no purpose using thymomodulin in a recovery program for professional athletes and thus it was not plausible that the supplement used was thymomodulin. Given this statement how is it that Melbourne FC have been spared. They sourced thymomodulin through Dank. If the CAS statements are correct then one could only conclude that multiple Melbourne FC players are also guilty of taking TB4.

The strands of the chain can only lead to this conclusion

 

[Walesy]

I read CAS stating that there would be no purpose using thymomodulin in a recovery program for professional athletes and thus it was not plausible that the supplement used was thymomodulin. Given this statement how is it that Melbourne FC have been spared. They sourced thymomodulin through Dank. If the CAS statements are correct then one could only conclude that multiple Melbourne FC players are also guilty of taking TB4.

Nah mate, Vlad gave em a call. It's all sweet.

Andruska forgot.

 

[Matt loves Essendon]

Was he? Did 30+ players receive ongoing injections from this program at Melbourne?

Who cares? Sure you aren't a bit biased to Melbourne in this? Because they are basically the same case. There is evidence (text messages etc.) the same man wanted to use the same substance (thymomodulin, referred to as thymosin) at two different clubs, that substance can't be placed anywhere for either club, so the only evidence is the texts and emails. What's the difference? The amount of players means SFA.

Both clubs intended on injecting a group of their players with the same substance. Having 34 or 5 really shouldn't make a difference. You could argue a sliding scale of punishments as someone earlier said, where Essendon, Melbourne and the 10 other clubs that mightn't have used a type of Thymosin but had "governance issues" surrounding their supplements programs would be sanctioned if sanctions were going to happen in 2013.

Obviously that'd be disastrous for the AFL to sanction 12 clubs though, and I personally don't think the sliding scale for 12 clubs would even need to exist. No team should have been punished until they had players suspended, which then based on the CAS's findings sheet would be only Essendon and Melbourne. That's if this whole AFL drugs case was fair and Essendon and it's players weren't the scapegoats.

 

[efcboy]

What also makes for bewildering reading is that the original prosecutor Ben McDevitt of ASADA submitted a request for a no fault clause for the players and recommended a 50% discount as appropriate. The CAS tribunal then rejected this request going harder than the prosecutor even intended or requested.

 

[efcboy]

The strands of the chain can only lead to this conclusion

More like yanking the chain!

 

[AsIfYouCare]

The whole 'strands of cable' thing is bewildering.

1. The players' advocates didn't object to something that was so obviously dangerous to their clients.

2. The panel wasn't entitled to 'prefer that analysis' regardless of the facts. Sometimes a subset of facts should be treated as links in a chain, even though it remains appropriate to treat another subset of facts as strands in a cable. How those facts are treated depends on their natures - a court cannot just decide to use one approach for all facts unless they have analysed all the facts and determined the appropriate treatment for each.

Also I note paragraph 98 says that Australian law applies to any substantive issues not covered by the regulations - e.g. rules of evidence.

Another thing; CAS made much of the fact that players did not report their injections on the doping control forms. I've just looked at the current version of the form and there is NOT a section for disclosing such.

Another thing; web sites that sell TB-4 recommend dosing 2-4 times a week, with perhaps a weekly maintenance dose after the main program has finished. Only the 'maintenance dose' matches the 'once a week or every couple of weeks' mentioned by CAS. How can such a fact escape notice? CAS' reasoning seems to be that any other type of Thymosin wouldn't be very effective so it must have been TB-4, as if both they and Dank are unchallenged authorities on the efficacy of various supplements, despite indications to the contrary - such as his planned experiment of mixing AOD and Thymosin.

Not a lawyer, nor a chemist.

 

[Lore]

If a tree falls over in the woods, and no one is there to witness it, did it happen?

 

[Lore]

There's a lot of talk on other boards that if we qualify for pick one this year due to the sanctions that we shouldn't get it because we would benefit from our sanctions rather than being punished...

And that made me wonder about the impact of the time frame on the impact of the penalties.

So is it better to;

a) Have it all drawn out like it has been, with the club performing decently (in fits and starts, granted) and losing our picks for two years, then being demoralised by the appeal, getting a decent draft and then player sanctions, supplementary players and a likely top two draft pick, or
b) Get whacked with all the penalties straight away, lose basically all of our players for some or all of 2013 and all of 2014 (because there would be no or very little backdating, and most of the 34 won't have left yet), never would've got near the finals let alone being kicked out of them, lost all of our draft picks (which would've been high with 34 players missing for two years), empty the coffers and now be into our second year of clean air...?​

For the sake of the argument, I'm ignoring option 'c': that we pled guilty in Feb 2013 and only copped a four week suspension, à la Cronulla, and the AFL disrepute sanctions.

 

[efcboy]

There's a lot of talk on other boards that if we qualify for pick one this year due to the sanctions that we shouldn't get it because we would benefit from our sanctions rather than being punished...

And that made me wonder about the impact of the time frame on the impact of the penalties.

So is it better to;

a) Have it all drawn out like it has been, with the club performing decently (in fits and starts, granted) and losing our picks for two years, then being demoralised by the appeal, getting a decent draft and then player sanctions, supplementary players and a likely top two draft pick, or
b) Get whacked with all the penalties straight away, lose basically all of our players for some or all of 2013 and all of 2014 (because there would be no or very little backdating, and most of the 34 won't have left yet), never would've got near the finals let alone being kicked out of them, lost all of our draft picks (which would've been high with 34 players missing for two years), empty the coffers and now be into our second year of clean air...?​

For the sake of the argument, I'm ignoring option 'c': that we pled guilty in Feb 2013 and only copped a four week suspension, à la Cronulla, and the AFL disrepute sanctions.

How could we plead guilty in 2013? ASADA didn't issue any infractions until late in 2014.

What should have occurred is the afl should have waited before issuing any punishments for ASADA to finalise their investigation and charges. That way it would all be done and dusted with penalties served concurrently. However this didn't suit the afl as they had tickets to sell to sucker supporters under false pretences.

 

[Eleven 38]

There's a lot of talk on other boards that if we qualify for pick one this year due to the sanctions that we shouldn't get it because we would benefit from our sanctions rather than being punished...

And that made me wonder about the impact of the time frame on the impact of the penalties.

So is it better to;

a) Have it all drawn out like it has been, with the club performing decently (in fits and starts, granted) and losing our picks for two years, then being demoralised by the appeal, getting a decent draft and then player sanctions, supplementary players and a likely top two draft pick, or
b) Get whacked with all the penalties straight away, lose basically all of our players for some or all of 2013 and all of 2014 (because there would be no or very little backdating, and most of the 34 won't have left yet), never would've got near the finals let alone being kicked out of them, lost all of our draft picks (which would've been high with 34 players missing for two years), empty the coffers and now be into our second year of clean air...?​

For the sake of the argument, I'm ignoring option 'c': that we pled guilty in Feb 2013 and only copped a four week suspension, à la Cronulla, and the AFL disrepute sanctions.

Melbourne and Carlton got their number 1 picks...

 

[Lore]

How could we plead guilty in 2013? ASADA didn't issue any infractions until late in 2014.

What should have occurred is the afl should have waited before issuing any punishments for ASADA to finalise their investigation and charges. That way it would all be done and dusted with penalties served concurrently. However this didn't suit the afl as they had tickets to sell to sucker supporters under false pretences.

There are provisions in the anti-doping code to plead guilty and waive your right to a hearing in exchange for reductions in penalties, which is what the deal with ASADA would have originally involved prior to the actual hearing. But the point of my post was the effect of the time frame on the impression of justice served.

 

[Walesy]

There's a lot of talk on other boards that if we qualify for pick one this year due to the sanctions that we shouldn't get it because we would benefit from our sanctions rather than being punished...

They seem to ignore the fact that losing half the list for a year is a massive punishment.

Would happily give up pick 1 next year if it meant the players got off.

 

[Matt loves Essendon]

They seem to ignore the fact that losing half the list for a year is a massive punishment.

Would happily give up pick 1 next year if it meant the players got off.

Instantly

 

[Lore]

Melbourne and Carlton got their number 1 picks...

If we get it, I don't think we're losing it.

They seem to ignore the fact that losing half the list for a year is a massive punishment.

Would happily give up pick 1 next year if it meant the players got off.

Completely agree.

 

[efcboy]

There are provisions in the anti-doping code to plead guilty and waive your right to a hearing in exchange for reductions in penalties, which is what the deal with ASADA would have originally involved prior to the actual hearing. But the point of my post was the effect of the time frame on the impression of justice served.

Yeah this would still have to occur after infraction notices were issued in 2014. ASADA did nothing in 2013 other than provide an interim report to the afl which should not have been allowed.

 

[Lore]

Yeah this would still have to occur after infraction notices were issued in 2014. ASADA did nothing in 2013 other than provide an interim report to the afl which should not have been allowed.

I'm not going to dispute this - its an old argument and tbh I agree with you. I also don't really feel like looking it up My original comment re: pleading guilty in 2013 or doing a Cronulla or whatever was to prevent this particular discussion, not to encourage it

 

[yaco55]

I'm not going to dispute this - its an old argument and tbh I agree with you. I also don't really feel like looking it up My original comment re: pleading guilty in 2013 or doing a Cronulla or whatever was to prevent this particular discussion, not to encourage it

Cronulla players had no choice - The NRL advised players accept the suspension or we will hit you with provisional suspensions - So players are suspended for many months until the NRL Anti-Doping Tribunal - Not much of a choice.

 

[bomberjez]

Have we heard a decent rebuttal for this yet...?

• when getting tested, the vast majority of the Players failed to declare receiving injections on their doping control form, which ‘[did] not encourage confidence in their statements’;