Did ASADA use Sandor Earl to fabricate evidence?

[Muggs]

Let's all just assume an Essendon supporter wrote it. It's not an opinion piece. It lists dates, quotes, events, facts.

It uses publicly available information. The only non-public document referenced is the Interim Report. And the only relevent item quoted from the report is ASADA confirms text messages from Dank were obtained from Dean Robinson, even though ASADA had all of Dank's texts. It's suggested from the events surrounding this confirmation that Dean Robinson helped ASADA establish the Thymosin narrative in exchange for immunity, culminating in no charges for the Bock situation.

Anyone could have put this together really.

Not an opinion piece? give me a break.

It's one person interpretation about those dates, quotes events and what you call facts. The have been selective in the quotes used, and events cited and certainly put their own views on it.

One of the key themes through that is Sandor Earl was not found guilty of taking TB4 - what it does not point out he was not found not guilty either. ASADA decided not to purse the charges at the NRL tribunal once at the tribunal. Which can be used to explain why Earl's letter dated 31 October to the NRL tribunal does not refer to TB4 - by this stage he may have known he was not facing TB4 charges.

ASADA's reason for doing so was their case on TB4 was not as strong as CJC-1295, fair enough as this thing highlights Sedrak come out and said he did not supply TB4 despite Earl saying so, and unlike the EFC case at CAS there was no assistant pharmacist sending the substance of for molecular testing than have an expert attest to the fact its TB4 with 99.7% accuracy.

The doping of TB4 charges had no affect on the potential penalty either, ASADA was not pursing aggravated circumstances (as shown by a four year ban and not longer since faced multiple charges), and two substances taken at the one time has the same penalty as 1 substance, or 20 substances without aggravated circumstances. Aggravated circumstances also can not be pursed if someone pleads guilty. So what was the benefit to ASADA to keep going after TB4?

While not explicit certainly indicates that Earl is hiding something by not releasing his tribunal findings, in which case what are the 32 EFC players hiding who have chosen not to officially release their tribunal findings? Funny saw no mention of this in that opinion piece. Really want to know what the players are hiding....

The opinion piece also points out that the only way he can get a 1 year sentence, or 75% discount was with a early guilty plea and a substantial assistance and the early guilty plea was not an opinion on CJC-1295... it suggests it was only possible on TB4.

Two problems with this - Earl's interviews were before the issuing of his Infraction notice - he could have admitted his use here making these discounts available. Secondly even if the piece was correct and only way Earl could have got 1 year was to admit to new offences the existing offences are still on the table making 1 year impossible anyway making that whole section a pile of hogwash.

Then there is the allegation that ASADA made up text messages - in the section quoted ASADA stated "All of those individually can be proved if we call the various public servants who were" - this offer was never taken up by the defense indicating they accepted the text messages in the end. The defence had the option of not agreeing to this evidence and forcing the issue. If the text messages were critical to ASADA case and the defense team thought they could get them thrown or found irrelevant out why did the not purse this? Obvious reason is the defence could not get them thrown out or found irrelevant. An example of taking a quote out of context and not following through what actually happened.

 

[Muggs]

In the Arbitral Award for example, Factual Background, Background facts, No.11. It reads, " Around July/August 2011, Mr Dank met Maged Sedrak, a compounding chemist in Kogarah, Sydney. Subsequent to their meeting, Mr Sedrak began supplying peptides to Mr Dank".

I'm pointing out ASADA put evidence to Cronulla that Sedrak supplied Dank in March/April/May, ( also Sedrak is named in the Kavanagh Report ) yet in the Essendon case, he apparently met him in July/August.
Remember Dank came out in April this year and said he collected CJC from Sedrak in October 2010, flew to the GC and gave it to Robinson, who gave it to Bock. I'm just wondering which one is it?

Never questioned 2 suppliers to Dank, ASADA had no evidence of the 2nd supplier from what I could see. ASADA claimed he obtained Thymosin Beta 4 from Sedrak in August 2011, Sedrak denies compounding Thymosin Beta 4.

Go and read the leaked AFL tribunal judgement, background facts paragraph 131

"Around July to August 2011, Mr Dank met Maged Sedrak, a compounding chemist in Kogarah, Sydney. Mr Dank had previously obtained peptides from a Wally Reynolds. Subsequent to their meeting, Mr Sedrak commenced to supply peptides to Mr Dank."

So this clears up this, was Reynolds who supplied Dank in March/April/May

Fair few holes in that document of yours.....

 

[White Kings]

No problem debating the points it makes.

How do we know ASADA did not pursue Earl and TB4 to the NRL Tribunal because their case was not strong enough? An ADRVP found it was possible he committed an infraction and placed him on the Register of Findings for TB4. Then the appeal to the AATA, charges for TB4 still active. The NRL Tribunal released a result, no TB4. No explanation from either side. That is the point.

Drawing a link between Walter Reynolds and Sandor Earl is a reach. Everything ASADA puts forward around the time Dank knew Earl was related to Sedrak. Key terms: previously, and subsequent. Earl also claims in his interviews Dank allegedly told him to collect peptides from Sedrak.

I believe the substantial assistance claims fit fairly well. You can't receive the reductions by admitting to substances after being presented with evidence. He could not get 50% after seeing their evidence of CJC. I believe the inclusion of the portion of NRL Anti Doping Code explains what he would and would not be eligible for. Two substances, 1 with no evidence, substantial assistance. 75% - 4 years down to 1. We can't really know without seeing all the data, I know this.

Text messages used in evidence without any verification. The Chairman of the Tribunal told both counsel's to sort that out amongst themselves, and on the next morning, an agreement was reached. They were never confirmed. I assume the players counsel was confident it would work around the holes in ASADA's story and would not bother wasting time with that process. It think it illuminates part of ASADA's conduct though. Emails between Charter and ASADA show reference to a text that wasn't physically obtained, Charter claimed it existed, and ASADA used it. Earls interviews claim texts also, including ones that conflicted with various versions of his story. What else wasn't verified?

You could go on and look at the Bio21 files received by ASADA, Professor Handelsman's report, Walker's affadavit on the statements of Charter and Alavi which they wouldn't sign etc etc. But this particular document focuses on Sandor Earl.

 

[Muggs]

No problem debating the points it makes.

How do we know ASADA did not pursue Earl and TB4 to the NRL Tribunal because their case was not strong enough? An ADRVP found it was possible he committed an infraction and placed him on the Register of Findings for TB4. Then the appeal to the AATA, charges for TB4 still active. The NRL Tribunal released a result, no TB4. No explanation from either side. That is the point..

Chip's updated book, Note 27 to the postscript. There is your explanation. I note the book is cited in the piece so presume you trust it?

Drawing a link between Walter Reynolds and Sandor Earl is a reach. Everything ASADA puts forward around the time Dank knew Earl was related to Sedrak. Key terms: previously, and subsequent. Earl also claims in his interviews Dank allegedly told him to collect peptides from Sedrak.

My point was it removes the inconsistency you were claiming about Cronulla during those months. ASADA did not claim it was Sedrak supplying Cronulla during March/April/May like you suggested, before Dank meet him.

I believe the substantial assistance claims fit fairly well. You can't receive the reductions by admitting to substances after being presented with evidence. He could not get 50% after seeing their evidence of CJC. I believe the inclusion of the portion of NRL Anti Doping Code explains what he would and would not be eligible for. Two substances, 1 with no evidence, substantial assistance. 75% - 4 years down to 1. We can't really know without seeing all the data, I know this.

If he cant get the discount on the tracking charges than there was no way he could get it down to 1 year. Furthermore he was only ever charged with use of TB4 not trafficking thus could only get that charge discounted and that's a two year offence not 4. By your own argument he was not able to claim a early plea on trafficking!. Thus 1 year not possible from your argument. He could get a 6 month penalty on the TB4 by your argument.

Text messages used in evidence without any verification. The Chairman of the Tribunal told both counsel's to sort that out amongst themselves, and on the next morning, an agreement was reached. They were never confirmed. I assume the players counsel was confident it would work around the holes in ASADA's story and would not bother wasting time with that process. It think it illuminates part of ASADA's conduct though. Emails between Charter and ASADA show reference to a text that wasn't physically obtained, Charter claimed it existed, and ASADA used it. Earls interviews claim texts also, including ones that conflicted with various versions of his story. What else wasn't verified?

A lot of evidence is never confirmed at any trial to dispute everything would mean trials would go for on for ages - ASADA was prepared to confirm the texts. The fact that ASADA was prepared to confirm illuminates ASADA's conduct. You making an assumption that the defence could not be bothered, where the safer assumption is that if challenged ASADA could confirm the evidence. Why would a defence team NOT purse an argument that could help win a case? Not pursing something that would not help is the safer assumption.

As for not being verified, reminder that ASADA went to the supreme court to get Charter, Alavi and Dank to testify. Again think this speaks to ASADA's conduct they were prepared to try and verify.

 

[White Kings]

The postscript in Chip's book: While your previous reference to that reason a few posts ago was correct, is that really an explanation from the NRL or ASADA? That they just weren't going to worry about it because of the other substances? They still gave him an infraction notice for it, used his evidence in relation to it's use, then dropped it at the final hurdle. Maybe ASADA were feeling generous. By the way, the WADA code claims infractions can be established by any reliable means, including admissions, which he provided. Publicly and unprompted due to no public knowledge of Earl and TB4.

You say "ASADA did not claim it was Sedrak supplying Cronulla during March/April/May" - The Sedrak section contains references to news reports where the reporters have obviously been shown the infraction notices given to Cronulla players. Multiple references to Maged Sedrak being named as the source to Dank. Sedrak also named in the Kavanagh Report as the supplier to Dank. Your statement is pretty inaccurate.

I think the substantial assistance section is definitely the most boring. I'm loathe to debate it. I think it explains the sanctions and reductions possible.

 

[White Kings]

A lot of evidence is never confirmed at any trial to dispute everything would mean trials would go for on for ages - ASADA was prepared to confirm the texts. The fact that ASADA was prepared to confirm illuminates ASADA's conduct. You making an assumption that could not be bothered, where the safer assumption is that if challenged ASADA could confirm the evidence. Why would a defence team NOT purse an argument that could help win a case? Not pursing something that would not help is the safer assumption.

As for not being verified, reminder that ASADA went to the supreme court to get Charter, Alavi and Dank to testify. Again think this speaks to ASADA's conduct they were prepared to try and verify.

I think the players counsel would have also appreciated the opportunity to cross examine all of ASADA's witnesses during the tribunal. Just like Professor Handelsman, who admitted under cross, to inserting statements that he did not agree with in his report on ASADA's evidence. The inclusions just happened to be suggested by the ASADA employee who provides funding for his research projects.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

is this Essendon't Akka?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

started reading, got to about page 8 and the first:

"My comment:"

Concluded that, yes, I am actually reading yet another lengthy join the dots tome by Bruce ****ing Francis, and shut down the web page. Got better things to do

 

[Muggs]

The postscript in Chip's book: While your previous reference to that reason a few posts ago was correct, is that really an explanation from the NRL or ASADA? That they just weren't going to worry about it because of the other substances? They still gave him an infraction notice for it, used his evidence in relation to it's use, then dropped it at the final hurdle. Maybe ASADA were feeling generous. By the way, the WADA code claims infractions can be established by any reliable means, including admissions, which he provided. Publicly and unprompted due to no public knowledge of Earl and TB4.
.

Ok not a 100% sure who dropped it, depends who was prosecuting at the NRL tribunal (ASADA or the NRL itself - I assumed ASADA but could be the NRL) but does highlight there was no finding on TB4, rather than a not guilty one like asserted in that document. Thus comes to my earlier point pursing a TB4 charge would of had no effect - he was found guilty of multiple charges yet only effectively got penalised for trafficking of one substance. In which case stick to the charges that the most evidence was on.

You say "ASADA did not claim it was Sedrak supplying Cronulla during March/April/May" - The Sedrak section contains references to news reports where the reporters have obviously been shown the infraction notices given to Cronulla players. Multiple references to Maged Sedrak being named as the source to Dank. Sedrak also named in the Kavanagh Report as the supplier to Dank. Your statement is pretty inaccurate.

Thought that statement was quite clear, before July.August Dank had one supplier than swapped to Sedrak at this time. Again you have assumed Dank had one supplier, I have pointed out to you we have evidence being submitted (and agreed to) that Dank swapped suppliers.

How do you know the reference in the Kavanagh report to Sedrak is not in relation to Earl? have you read the report? I certainly have not been able to find it on line.

Let me quote one of those articles you refer to

SMH, 21 August 2014 - Fairfax Media has been told Magdy Sedrak, of the Belgrave Compounding, Pharmacy in Kogarah, sports scientist Stephen Dank and former associate Darren Hibbert have been mentioned in at least some of the notices issued to players on Wednesday”.

So how does that make my statement inaccurate?- Hibbert was even mentioned in the SCN - quite reasonable to assume Sedrak is referenced in Earl's SCN and Hibbert in other ones... Certainly not implausible.

You seem to have assumed that Sedrak was named in all the SCN no idea where you getting this from, the references you yourself are using make no such claim, rather cite Dank having two suppliers, depending on time of the year.

 

[The 747]

This document concentrates on the August 2 text message Stephen Dank sent to Dean Robinson on August 2 2011, Sandor Earl's evidence and involvement, Dean Robinson's role and ultimately how and why this evidence was so important to Essendon's 12 month suspension.

It's 33 pages long. There's no smoking gun, but I believe there are enough dots, and they seem to connect. To some, this matter is finished, but what if ASADA's conduct since 2013 can be proven questionable?

Various media outlets have had some interest. I think Bigfooty needs to read it.

Questions or feedback appreciated.

Link - http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=280499&sid=60FN&ext=DOCX&lcl=ASADA-2.docx&usr=Mootha27

It is interesting seeing the cognitive dissonance at work.

No smoking gun but enough dots = enough evidence to hang ASADA.

No smoking gun but enough dots = outrageous injustice done to the EFC players

 

[Muggs]

I think the substantial assistance section is definitely the most boring. I'm loathe to debate it. I think it explains the sanctions and reductions possible.

I also suggest you go an read the substantial assistance clause in the WADA / NRL code at the time. It allows for a 75% discount... So could have got this even without an early guilty plea.....

So your entire argument is irrelevant as well as incorrect.

 

[White Kings]

Thought that statement was quite clear, before July.August Dank had one supplier than swapped to Sedrak at this time. Again you have assumed Dank had one supplier, I have pointed out to you we have evidence being submitted (and agreed to) that Dank swapped suppliers.

It only points out that as far as anyone has reported, Sedrak was named as Dank's supplier at Cronulla, in the Kavanagh Report, and in ASADA's SCN to Cronulla players. In the evidence pertaining to Essendon, there is no reference to Cronulla players, only Earl. Besides the Wally Reynolds reference in the CAS award, is there any other known reference to Dank and Wally Reynolds that you know of related to Cronulla, or Earl?

Is what you are saying, that ASADA have evidence of Sedrak supplying Dank for Cronulla and Earl, but it could have been Reynolds, and there is no evidence of this, but it's "not implausible"?

I have not read the Kavanagh Report.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3830084.htm - "7:30 has obtained this internal Sharks report completed in March by Dr Trish Kavanagh, formerly of ASADA". and " 7:30 can reveal the identity of the compounding pharmacist Steve Dank used at the time he was at the Sharks. Maged Sedrak is a pharmacist based here in the Shark's home suburb, Cronulla".

The document only points out the inconsistency of different evidence to Cronulla, than it was to Essendon regarding the dates Dank and Sedrak supposedly met.

How do you know the reference in the Kavanagh report to Sedrak is not in relation to Earl? have you read the report? I certainly have not been able to find it on line.

Why would the Kavanagh Report reference anything with Earl when it was focused on Cronulla in March/April/May? And he met Earl ant Penrith in July/August..

 

[White Kings]

It is interesting seeing the cognitive dissonance at work.

No smoking gun but enough dots = enough evidence to hang ASADA.

No smoking gun but enough dots = outrageous injustice done to the EFC players

Just discussing some of ASADA's dots, that's all.

 

[White Kings]

I also suggest you go an read the substantial assistance clause in the WADA / NRL code at the time. It allows for a 75% discount... So could have got this even without an early guilty plea.....

So your entire argument is irrelevant as well as incorrect.

You are correct about 75% for substantial assistance being theoretically possible. But that's not what happened it seems.

Sandor Earl explains:
“I know and legally I know and in the guidelines I know that I provided good substantial assistance for a
violation against Stephen Dank. And that's what I did on the basis that, you know, admittance of guilt was
a possible 50 per cent reduction. Assisting in a violation was another 25 per cent, so, you know, at the end
of the day, considering that I did want to move on and that I was told that, it seemed like the way to go.”

"Ok their words were like 'An admission to guilt, half a sentence, and I can't make this up, I was told that,
so there's one off the bat you started to think, you had to weigh up your options and this is what needs to
happen, not that I don't admit any wrongdoing, but these are the things that I thought I needed to do.
Substantial assistance was another one."

If you think the document's explanation directly related to his statements is irrellevent, well.... Seems like a lot of your points could be countered by reading what is in the document already. And not answering with "it's not implausible".

 

[White Kings]

started reading, got to about page 8 and the first:

"My comment:"

Concluded that, yes, I am actually reading yet another lengthy join the dots tome by Bruce ******* Francis, and shut down the web page. Got better things to do

If it's long, it must be wrong. Hey that rhymes.

 

[Muggs]

You are correct about 75% for substantial assistance being theoretically possible. But that's not what happened it seems.

Sandor Earl explains:
“I know and legally I know and in the guidelines I know that I provided good substantial assistance for a
violation against Stephen Dank. And that's what I did on the basis that, you know, admittance of guilt was
a possible 50 per cent reduction. Assisting in a violation was another 25 per cent, so, you know, at the end
of the day, considering that I did want to move on and that I was told that, it seemed like the way to go.”

"Ok their words were like 'An admission to guilt, half a sentence, and I can't make this up, I was told that,
so there's one off the bat you started to think, you had to weigh up your options and this is what needs to
happen, not that I don't admit any wrongdoing, but these are the things that I thought I needed to do.
Substantial assistance was another one."

If you think the document's explanation directly related to his statements is irrellevent, well.... Seems like a lot of your points could be countered by reading what is in the document already. And not answering with "it's not implausible".

I know what Earl said, I just disagree with your reasoning in regards to TB4 - there was absolutely no need for him to admit to this to get that discount - You are adding opinion to come up with a story to fit your version. It makes no sense.

 

[The 747]

Just discussing some of ASADA's dots, that's all.

Who cares? It's like arguing about the umpiring when you lost by 20 goals.

 

[Muggs]

Ok, You right about the Kavanagh report.

Looking into this further suggest you go and read Chip's book in detail.

Chapter 7.
Sedrak admited to giving the supplements to Hibbert once ASADA compels his documents, note he says Hibbert and not Dank.

So for the months Dank was at Cronulla seems to be that Dank sourced his stuff from Hibbert who soured them from Sedrak and than meet Sedrak personally later and sourced directly.

This is not inconsistent with the facts.

 

[White Kings]

Ok, You right about the Kavanagh report.

Looking into this further suggest you go and read Chip's book in detail.

Chapter 7.
Sedrak admited to giving the supplements to Hibbert once ASADA compels his documents, note he says Hibbert and not Dank.

So for the months Dank was at Cronulla seems to be that Dank sourced his stuff from Hibbert who soured them from Sedrak and than meet Sedrak personally later and sourced directly.

This is not inconsistent with the facts.

To add:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-via-kogarah-pharmacist-20140820-106fav.html
"Hibbert strenuously denied selling players peptides or ever meeting Sedrak".
"Sedrak’s solicitor, Raed Rehal, said: ‘‘[My client] does not ever recall meeting anyone by the name of Darren Hibbert and, to the best of his recollection, has never prepared anything to be used by any football player.’’

In relation to Sedrak, all the document does is highlight the inconsistencies in the evidence. Who the hell knows what really happened.

 

[White Kings]

I know what Earl said, I just disagree with your reasoning in regards to TB4 - there was absolutely no need for him to admit to this to get that discount - You are adding opinion to come up with a story to fit your version. It makes no sense.

[Comment to Article 10.5.4: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other
Person comes forward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where
no Anti-Doping Organization is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been
committed. It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after
the Athlete or other Person knows he or she is about to be caught.]

After reading that, knowing ASADA had evidence of his CJC involvement, and Earl's explanation of the reduction breakdown, I can't see anyway Earl would get the 75% admitting to CJC and giving assistance on Dank, without something else being involved.

 

[Muggs]

To add:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...s-via-kogarah-pharmacist-20140820-106fav.html
"Hibbert strenuously denied selling players peptides or ever meeting Sedrak".
"Sedrak’s solicitor, Raed Rehal, said: ‘‘[My client] does not ever recall meeting anyone by the name of Darren Hibbert and, to the best of his recollection, has never prepared anything to be used by any football player.’’

In relation to Sedrak, all the document does is highlight the inconsistencies in the evidence. Who the hell knows what really happened.

And that's why its a circumstantial case, its looking for the most logical answer to the evidence as a whole and the different conflicting statements made, long way from saying that ASADA tampered with evidence!.

[Comment to Article 10.5.4: This Article is intended to apply when an Athlete or other
Person comes forward and admits to an anti-doping rule violation in circumstances where
no Anti-Doping Organization is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been
committed. It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after
the Athlete or other Person knows he or she is about to be caught.]

After reading that, knowing ASADA had evidence of his CJC involvement, and Earl's explanation of the reduction breakdown, I can't see anyway Earl would get the 75% admitting to CJC all on it's lonesome.

Under that clause no - under the substantial assistance clause that allows 75% yes.

Could also argue since he had already been provided notice of cjc and the trafficking charges that clause could not be applied to those charges even when TB4 was added later as a anti doping violation had already been committed - this was an additional charge not a first charge.

Also a question how would ASADA structure a deal, maybe they were being a bit flexible on this.

Maybe ASADA inexperienced investigators at that stage just stuffed up and were offering something they should have.

Plenty of reasons why he might have got a 75% discount offered to him without going down the need for Earl and ASADA to collude to fabricate a charge to get him a discount.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If it's long, it must be wrong. Hey that rhymes.

no you're confused. The length isn't the cause, it's a symptom.

And I say that as one of the most prominent pro-EFC campaigners (in both the everyday literal and BF figurative sense of the word) this board has seen. But I'm not a moron, and I recognise see bullshit when it's served up to me, be it a snack or one of Bruce's glorious 7 course faeces feasts

 

[White Kings]

no you're confused. The length isn't the cause, it's a symptom.

And I say that as one of the most prominent pro-EFC campaigners (in both the everyday literal and BF figurative sense of the word) this board has seen. But I'm not a moron, and I recognise see bullshit when it's served up to me, be it a snack or one of Bruce's glorious 7 course faeces feasts

Quite strong opinions on something you haven't read. No problem, thanks for the feedback.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Quite strong opinions on something you haven't read. No problem, thanks for the feedback.

oh but I have read it. Over and over again, in one form or another, regurgitated in various different textures. It might be a different shape but it's still the same sick puddle

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Quite strong opinions on something you haven't read. No problem, thanks for the feedback.

feedback is an interesting word though. Usually you expect to receive feedback for something you've done, something you've created, something you have ownership of. Just an observation, apropos to nothing