Dons players could launch legal action to end investigation

[SterlingArcher]

Yeah, big thing for me is the obvious inability of Essendon to present non-doctored, genuine records of their injection regime. If it was legitimately all above board, why did Essendon not just do everything through Reid and keep the exact times, dosages, photographic records, injections received etc...

The fact they haven't at suggests to me that at the very least they went very close to the line (and hence why Essendon were deservedly punished by the AFL) and, coupled with Little's admission they aren't sure what the players received, that there would be private EFC concerns over just what Dank could have done...Dank's refusal to talk and a lack of records (that should have been presented day 1) from EFC = long investigation (as well as admissions /=/ invoices and hence ASADA would need to make sure that EFC aren't lying and that Dank defrauded them, which he 90% chance did but ASADA need to make sure).

It's gone on much too long and I'm sick of it, but I guess I can see the reasons and POV

 

[Tiger_man322]

If you are absolutely sure that EFC are innocent, would you care to list every substance injected into your players?

Better yet, get your club to tell ASADA exactly what was administered and be rid once and for all from this investigation.


Oh, what was that, your club claims to not know 100% what was administered. I see the problem here, EFC and supporters like you want everyone (including ASADA) to suspend their logical thinking by accepting your innocent claim simply because you cant tell anyone everything that was administered.

Once your club can come out and specify everything that was administered and have proof to back up their claims, then and only then would your claims of innocence be justified.

As a side note, why doesn't your club take legal action against Dank to force him to divulge everything that he administered?


I have dealt with people like you before, no matter how many times someone points out your errors and wishful thinking, guys/girls like you just logic and prefer to believe in your own wishful thinking.
So no point is discussing grown up issues with people like you, ciao.

Haha.

I was actually quoting 'IggypopsTshirt' who actually wrote the thing. Unfortunately, 'Iggy' stuffed up the process by writing his response, in the quote he was using, making his quote, unquotable. My response was the Billy Madison clip

 

[Barry Zuckercorn]

I'm supposed to be writing an assignment. Surprisingly trawling through the knee deep stupidity of the HTB is less painful. I look forward to seeing you in my reconciliation thread acknowledging the wrongs inflicted on EFC and it's people.

Will there still be an EFC when it's all said and done? I think they will have to fold and I will be sad

 

[Laphroaig]

I'm supposed to be writing an assignment. Surprisingly trawling through the knee deep stupidity of the HTB is less painful. I look forward to seeing you in my reconciliation thread acknowledging the wrongs inflicted on EFC and it's people.

Write the assignment. It may broaden you. Perhaps.

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

Write the assignment. It may broaden you. Perhaps.

It is health research methodology. Perhaps I'll get a gig at EFC collating and evaluating data on our test subjects

 

[Spongebob]

It is health research methodology. Perhaps I'll get a gig at EFC collating and evaluating data on our test subjects

You would need to do a practicum placement with Professor Dank first.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Haha.

I was actually quoting 'IggypopsTshirt' who actually wrote the thing. Unfortunately, 'Iggy' stuffed up the process by writing his response, in the quote he was using, making his quote, unquotable. My response was the Billy Madison clip

My bad.

Just consider my comment directed at iggy, and not you then

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

If you are absolutely sure that EFC are innocent, would you care to list every substance injected into your players? I'm not involved with the supplementation at the club. With that in mind I could no more presume to list every substance provided any more than you would be able to list the banned ones we are alleged to have taken.

Better yet, get your club to tell ASADA exactly what was administered and be rid once and for all from this investigation. They have.


Oh, what was that, your club claims to not know 100% what was administered. I see the problem here, EFC and supporters like you want everyone (including ASADA) to suspend their logical thinking by accepting your innocent claim simply because you cant tell anyone everything that was administered. Logic doesn't seem to come into it. It's about establishing sufficient proof of what was taken. ASADA can't do that. Simple.

Once your club can come out and specify everything that was administered and have proof to back up their claims, then and only then would your claims of innocence be justified. We don't need to. ASADA need to specify what was taken in order to hand out IN's. Then the AFL has to do likewise with an even higher burden of proof than ASADA in order to impose suspensions. Could be a tricky prospect.

As a side note, why doesn't your club take legal action against Dank to force him to divulge everything that he administered? Because he helped us get the edge and he's kept his mouth shut.


I have dealt with people like you before, no matter how many times someone points out your errors and wishful thinking, guys/girls like you just logic and prefer to believe in your own wishful thinking.
So no point is discussing grown up issues with people like you, ciao.

Nice melt. If the interweb is rustling your jimmies, you're probably a little too invested. I have an opinion that differs from yours, that doesn't make it incorrect. Is there any evidence that your views are correct? Have we been found guilty? Will we ever? Let's just wait, and see, tiger. The outcome is going to be so much more special because of chaps like your good self, for that I thank you.

 

[Kwality]

Why is Essendon regarded by apologists as a stand alone investigation ?

 

[carlton2dabone]

See the problem is that EFC supporters seem to believe that ASADA have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that EFC have taken banned substances.

Unfortunately for your club, ASADA do not have to have anywhere near that level of proof, all they need is to satisfy 'balance of probabilities' that you club has taken banned products.

Look, there is a chain of supply of the banned products which leads straight into EFC premises, whilst at the same time there is no shred of evidence that a chain of supply of the good stuff ever existed.
There are consent forms for injections that were signed by the players with 'thymosin' listed on them and again I repeat, no evidence that a chain of supply to the EFC of the good 'thymosin' ever existing.

So in conclusion, if any reasonable person had to balance up the probability between the bad thymosin and the good thymosin have been administered, well, the above will surely lead anyone with an iota of common sense to come to the conclusion that the bad thymosin was used.


How on earth can EFC claim to have used the good thymosin when no chain of supply of the good thymosin ever existed. On the contrary, the only supply that there is documented proof for ever setting foot on EFC premises is the bad kind.


Lastly, as ASADA can ban athletes simply on intent to use banned products, it would seem that signed consent forms with thymosin listed on them (add the fact that only the bad thymosin ever made its way onto EFC premises) would be more than enough to satisfy the balance of probabilities that EFC and its players intended to cheat.

Unless EFC can somehow produce some documented evidence of good thymosin making its way to the club, then your club is screwed, its as simple as that.

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

yapyap

Yo, dude.

ASADA don't ban athletes. They recommend findings to the relevant sporting body. In our case that's the AFL. They have a higher burden of proof than ASADA that is still below "beyond reasonable doubt" and is therefore more difficult to establish. I would expect you to be more thoroughly versed in the legislation before offering walls of text sprouting off about your superior knowledge.
Melting all over the place ain't gonna alter the fact that we are going to escape sanction following our dubious program. It feels so good man You should keep fighting the good fight, though. It seems to be really achieving a great deal for you. All the best.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Yo, dude.

ASADA don't ban athletes. They recommend findings to the relevant sporting body. In our case that's the AFL. They have a higher burden of proof than ASADA that is still below "beyond reasonable doubt" and is therefore more difficult to establish. I would expect you to be more thoroughly versed in the legislation before offering walls of text sprouting off about your superior knowledge.

Its you that need to research this stuff.

AFL have a say and they may have a higher burden of proof to overcome, but ultimately it is WADA that has the final say and WADA only have to prove 'balance of probabilities'.

Let me explain that for you:
ASADA make recommendation.
AFL somehow decide not to ban athlete.
WADA come over the top and take it to the CAS, they need to only satisfy 'balance of probabilities' when they appeal to CAS.

So in summation, whether or not AFL decide that the evidence has not met their higher burden of proof, WADA still have the option of appealing and only having to satisfy 'balance of probabilities'.

But all that is beside the point, because ASADA, AFL, and WADA have more than enough evidence currently to satisfy the burden of proof in regards to intent, as has been previously shown by that footballer from Frankston who was banned purely on intent to dope up.
Keep in mind that this footballer ordered a banned product from overseas and paid for it with his credit card, he never actually received the product because it was intercepted.

So the relevant bodies had a banned product and proof of purchase from this footballer and that was enough to satisfy the 'balance of probabilities' that this footballer intended to cheat.
Again I repeat, the relevant bodies had no absolute proof that he bought the product with the intention of taking it, they had no positive test or any signed consent forms, all they had was the product and proof of purchase and he was ultimately banned on intention to dope.

So you make the comparison between him and EFC, EFC had orders, invoices and delivery, consent forms, texts between Dank and Hird discussing injections of thymosin, and ultimately player admissions that they were administered thymosin.

Taking the case of the Frankston footballer, do you think EFC case stands up better than his?

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

I forgot WADA "coming over the top". Keep on punching, mate. My assignment is done and I'm outta ****s to give. I'll check in with you when we are cleared and you can explain to me where it all went wrong for ya.

 

[vjknight]

Its you that need to research this stuff.

AFL have a say and they may have a higher burden of proof to overcome, but ultimately it is WADA that has the final say and WADA only have to prove 'balance of probabilities'.

Let me explain that for you:
ASADA make recommendation.
AFL somehow decide not to ban athlete.
WADA come over the top and take it to the CAS, they need to only satisfy 'balance of probabilities' when they appeal to CAS.

So in summation, whether or not AFL decide that the evidence has not met their higher burden of proof, WADA still have the option of appealing and only having to satisfy 'balance of probabilities'.

But all that is beside the point, because ASADA, AFL, and WADA have more than enough evidence currently to satisfy the burden of proof in regards to intent, as has been previously shown by that footballer from Frankston who was banned purely on intent to dope up.
Keep in mind that this footballer ordered a banned product from overseas and paid for it with his credit card, he never actually received the product because it was intercepted.

So the relevant bodies had a banned product and proof of purchase from this footballer and that was enough to satisfy the 'balance of probabilities' that this footballer intended to cheat.
Again I repeat, the relevant bodies had no absolute proof that he bought the product with the intention of taking it, they had no positive test or any signed consent forms, all they had was the product and proof of purchase and he was ultimately banned on intention to dope.

So you make the comparison between him and EFC, EFC had orders, invoices and delivery, consent forms, texts between Dank and Hird discussing injections of thymosin, and ultimately player admissions that they were administered thymosin.

Taking the case of the Frankston footballer, do you think EFC case stands up better than his?

Don't bother. Like a few of them that aren't worth saving.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Cool.

I just hope that after the saga ends, that you don't fall into depression as a result of your rosy 'we are innocent and we will be cleared' delusions.

Talk soon I hope.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

See the problem is that EFC supporters seem to believe that ASADA have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that EFC have taken banned substances.

Unfortunately for your club, ASADA do not have to have anywhere near that level of proof, all they need is to satisfy 'balance of probabilities' that you club has taken banned products.

Look, there is a chain of supply of the banned products which leads straight into EFC premises, whilst at the same time there is no shred of evidence that a chain of supply of the good stuff ever existed.
There are consent forms for injections that were signed by the players with 'thymosin' listed on them and again I repeat, no evidence that a chain of supply to the EFC of the good 'thymosin' ever existing.

So in conclusion, if any reasonable person had to balance up the probability between the bad thymosin and the good thymosin have been administered, well, the above will surely lead anyone with an iota of common sense to come to the conclusion that the bad thymosin was used.


How on earth can EFC claim to have used the good thymosin when no chain of supply of the good thymosin ever existed. On the contrary, the only supply that there is documented proof for ever setting foot on EFC premises is the bad kind.


Lastly, as ASADA can ban athletes simply on intent to use banned products, it would seem that signed consent forms with thymosin listed on them (add the fact that only the bad thymosin ever made its way onto EFC premises) would be more than enough to satisfy the balance of probabilities that EFC and its players intended to cheat.

Unless EFC can somehow produce some documented evidence of good thymosin making its way to the club, then your club is screwed, its as simple as that.

I love simplistic layman lawyers. Who needs real lawyers? What a load of shit.

Dude, do you even Briginshaw?

 

[carlton2dabone]

I love simplistic layman lawyers. Who needs real lawyers? What a load of shit.

Dude, do you even Briginshaw?

Oh really?

Let me lay it out for you:


Players being injected with thymosin is not even a point of contention.

We have consent forms listing injections of thymosin that are signed by the players, we have texts between Dank and Hird talking about injecting players with thymosin and we have most important of all, player admissions that they were injected with thymosin.


The point of contention is whether it was the good thymosin or the bad thymosin.
Now lets way up the corroborating evidence supporting each of the kind of thymosin being used.

Bad Thymosin.

1) Orders, invoices and delivery to the club (meaning a chain of supply making its way to the club)


Good Thymosin

1) No evidence that this kind was ever ordered, paid for and delivered to club premises.


Now, you being such a 'educated lawyer', please tell us which version of events would pass the 'balance of probabilities' threshold?

 

[LoungeLizard]

I love simplistic layman lawyers. Who needs real lawyers? What a load of shit.

Dude, do you even Briginshaw?

persuasion?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Oh really?

Let me lay it out for you:


Players being injected with thymosin is not even a point of contention.

We have consent forms listing injections of thymosin that are signed by the players, we have texts between Dank and Hird talking about injecting players with thymosin and we have most important of all, player admissions that they were injected with thymosin.


The point of contention is whether it was the good thymosin or the bad thymosin.
Now lets way up the corroborating evidence supporting each of the kind of thymosin being used.

Bad Thymosin.

1) Orders, invoices and delivery to the club (meaning a chain of supply making its way to the club)


Good Thymosin

1) No evidence that this kind was ever ordered, paid for and delivered to club premises.


Now, you being such a 'educated lawyer', please tell us which version of events would pass the 'balance of probabilities' threshold?

Uh huh. Thanks for "laying it out". It would be impressive if it wasn't in a Fairfax article 12 months ago, but thanks anyway Sandra Sully.

Hopefully ASADA are reading this and can work it out and stop taking so long. I mean, if it's so simple why not just infract?

 

[carlton2dabone]

Uh huh. Thanks for "laying it out". It would be impressive if it wasn't in a Fairfax article 12 months ago, but thanks anyway Sandra Sully.

Hopefully ASADA are reading this and can work it out and stop taking so long. I mean, if it's so simple why not just infract?

I never claimed that I was 'laying out' anything new, I know it was reported a long time ago and has been repeated a million times since.

But the validity of the argument still stands, and the fact that you can not critic the actual argument shows that you have no response to the validity of the argument.

You called me a 'layman lawyer', so for such an 'educated lawyer' as yourself, surely you can put forward an argument that rebuts my point that the only point of contention in regards to thymosin is which type of thymosin was used. And the fact that the only reported kind that made its way to EFC was the bad kind is more than enough to pass the 'balance of probabilities' threshold.

IMO, ASADA already have your club pencilled in for use or intended use of Thymosin (the banned kind), but this case has so many more elements and substances that need more time devoted to investigating whether they were used or intended to be used.

 

[threesixpio]

I never claimed that I was 'laying out' anything new, I know it was reported a long time ago and has been repeated a million times since.

But the validity of the argument still stands, and the fact that you can not critic the actual argument shows that you have no response to the validity of the argument.

You called me a 'layman lawyer', so for such an 'educated lawyer' as yourself, surely you can put forward an argument that rebuts my point that the only point of contention in regards to thymosin is which type of thymosin was used. And the fact that the only reported kind that made its way to EFC was the bad kind is more than enough to pass the 'balance of probabilities' threshold.

IMO, ASADA already have your club pencilled in for use or intended use of Thymosin (the banned kind), but this case has so many more elements and substances that need more time devoted to investigating whether they were used or intended to be used.

In fairness to Lance he was commenting on your views about the burden of proof (hence the reference to Briganshaw).

 

[threesixpio]

In fairness to Lance he was commenting on your views about the burden of proof (hence the reference to Briganshaw).

I agree with most of what you have said about there being a strong circumstantial case and even Lance has admitted that this might be the case (I think?)

 

[threesixpio]

I agree with most of what you have said about there being a strong circumstantial case and even Lance has admitted that this might be the case (I think?)

If you haven't admitted that Lance I apologise for misinterpreting a post of yours

 

[BigJoeD_]

In fairness to Lance he was commenting on your views about the burden of proof (hence the reference to Briganshaw).

I agree with most of what you have said about there being a strong circumstantial case and even Lance has admitted that this might be the case (I think?)

If you haven't admitted that Lance I apologise for misinterpreting a post of yours

A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack

 

[carlton2dabone]

I agree with most of what you have said about there being a strong circumstantial case and even Lance has admitted that this might be the case (I think?)

And this board would be a better board if everyone acknowledged that a strong circumstantial case existed and that ASADA would have a very strong chance of prosecuting EFC people if it wanted to (this is assuming all the things that have been reported are true and that the fact if EFC had any defence it would have leaked some of it by now).

The problem is that every so often you get a another handful of EFC supporters on here claiming that EFC have no case to answer, that it is all a **** up by ASADA, etc.

So when some of us respond to these wishful thinking supporters and point out just how strong the circumstantial case it in an effort to educate them, other EFC supporters pop up and make fun of our arguments, thus bringing everything full circle, etc.