Essendon continues to duck for cover

[go_the_dockers]

If the Essendon players stop assisting the ASADA, does this mean they will be handed greater suspension e.g. 12-18 months instead of the 6 months currently being offered.

 

[Duckworth]

Seriously I challenge you to read the below with a clear mind and ask yourself whether or not this adds up to more than a "balance of probability".

* Essendon consent forms say "Thymosin" not TB4 - which Dank explains to be Thymomodulin.
* SMS's from Dank to Charter specifically ask for Thymosin Beta 4 to be compounded next. Does not mention Essendon and most likely refers to Danks business that does indeed legally sell TB4.
* Charter orders ingredients for TB4 from China, does not mention Essendon, could easily be explained to be for Danks business.
* Essendon are invoiced for "Thymosin".
* Emails between Dank, Charter, The weapon discuss optimum frequency of TB4 use. Weapon? not that I recall - do you have a link that Weapon was there????
* This frequency matches exactly with what was listed on the Player Consent forms for "Thymosin". This is the concerning bit and most crucial piece of evidence in the public eye.
* A forged signed letter backdated 6 months was found on Essendon premises seemingly trying to change history to suggest it was Thymomodulin and not Thymosin Beta 4. This letter was created just after Dank was advised TB4 was banned. errr not how it went.
* The invoice for "Thymosin" is amended and money reimbursed to Essendon. No record of TB4 exists for being used by Essendon.

Now ask any lawyer what "balance of probability" means in these cases and they will explain it this way. You have the facts on one side of the scale and the facts on the other side of the scale and whichever way the scale is balancing at the end wins.

So when it comes to TB4 being ordered, compounded, delivered and invoiced everything above currently points to Essendon being the recipients, so that side of the scale is weighted pretty heavily.

Now unless Dank, Charter and Alavi can show emails, SMS's, invoices and consent forms elsewhere that show TB4 was being used by Road Runner at Acme Corporation, the "Balance of Probability" in this case is that TB4 was being used at Essendon.

All the evidence you need to make an "Attempted Use" charge stick.

It is a good account of one half of the story. If you ignore all the other bits that go with it you have a good circumstantial case. There is no way to be sure TB4 was in the needles and certainly not enough to get the players for 'attempted use'.

 

[interestedoz1]

It is a good account of one half of the story. If you ignore all the other bits that go with it you have a good circumstantial case. There is no way to be sure TB4 was in the needles and certainly not enough to get the players for 'attempted use'.

The likelihood of ASADA losing the case on TB4 is very. very small IMO.

 

[DERIBERATE]

There is no way to be sure TB4 was in the needles

And that would matter, if the standard of proof were beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't.

 

[Admiral Byng]

If the Essendon players stop assisting the ASADA, does this mean they will be handed greater suspension e.g. 12-18 months instead of the 6 months currently being offered.

Don't know, it's up the AFL Tribunal to decide that, if players plead guilty and then want to plead for a lesser penalty. Which is a long, long way down the road.

If they want to argue that they should get a penalty reduction because they have cooperated and assisted ASADA, it would help their case if ASADA agreed and told the Tribunal "Yes they have" rather than "Well no, we don't think they really did".

 

[Duckworth]

And that would matter, if the standard of proof were beyond reasonable doubt. It isn't.

Did I say it was? There is insufficient evidence to build an 'intent' case for players IMO, meaning that it needs to be proved that they used TB4.

 

[Duckworth]

The likelihood of ASADA losing the case on TB4 is very. very small IMO.

There is evidence there and a chance it 'may' have happened. There is also some things that don't add up and more information that is needed for things to be certain IMO. You are entitled to your judgement though.

 

[I Rock]

There is evidence there and a chance it 'may' have happened. There is also some things that don't add up and more information that is needed for things to be certain IMO. You are entitled to your judgement though.

Makes you wonder that maybe the whole no records means gone not never was is a fair possibility........

 

[the conch]

It is a good account of one half of the story. If you ignore all the other bits that go with it you have a good circumstantial case. There is no way to be sure TB4 was in the needles and certainly not enough to get the players for 'attempted use'.

Feeble

 

[Freo2012]

Did I say it was? There is insufficient evidence to build an 'intent' case for players IMO, meaning that it needs to be proved that they used TB4.

Nah, they only need to show that the players gave willing consent to the club and trusted the club totally (by not themselves asking any independent authority or the ultimate authorities ASADA and WADA), then if it is shown the club intended to give them banned substances that is enough for the intent case against the players. Players are responsible for what is in their system and if they "pass-on" their obligations (ie trusting the club alone and consent forms actually prove this) to the club responsibility that is enough to prove intent because they have effectively given the club "carte blanche" authority to do what they like - similar aspect to agency law. They have effectively given total authority to their club for what goes into their system by not independently questioning and getting answers. The signed consents "supposed" purpose of protecting the club and players is BS and purely a "mindplay" loyalty token used on the players and which they still don't see, or realize it is too late for them and they are "all-in" hoping and praying for the "hail mary" tactic to come off.

If the "Hail Mary" action doesn't come off the players may learn some very hard lessons in life:

1. be very careful who you trust, no one is acting alone in your best interests, they always act in their best interests first,

2. no matter what side of an argument you are on you will always find lawyers saying you have been unfairly treated, lack of sufficient evidence, blah blah blah etc and "may" get you off (the smart accused get a few opinions from both sides of the fence and actually work out their odds of victory and act accordingly, often enough taking the "I admit some things, will fully cooperate (not just pretend to) and seek lenient penalty as a result" option.

3.be very careful ever getting sucked in to the side relying on your loyalty when they have far more to lose than you if the truth comes out - they will take you to extremes to save themselves and in so doing will make you fall far worse than you would have.

 

[kfc1]

Sincere thanks for the answer and also for how heartfelt it was
However I want to ask you if your feelings toward her are due to you not agreeing with what she writes or would you in fact feel differently toward her and her articles if she wrote in favour of Essendon ?

Much more eloquently put than I could ever hope for:
http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/

 

[chelseacarlton]

Much more eloquently put than I could ever hope for:
http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/

Boohoo

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

One more I omitted - a big distraction to hide the fact that ASADA advised multiple persons and agencies that a prohibited substance was actually not prohibited. Feeds into ASADA becoming the laughing stock of the sporting world here and no doubt within WADA.

How does issuing SCNs on a charge that you contend they have no evidence to support, achieve this? Your other points I've already dealt with in my original post on the matter. Thanks for trying though.

 

[Laphroaig]

Cant see whats in it for Crameri and Monfries to take this all the way to the courts. Waiting with baited breath for one or both of them to fall on their swords and take a lesser penalty. If that happens, watch the house of cards collapse!!

No way Monfries is going that route until the last possible moment. Essendon's legal challenge is his best shot at a finals campaign with a genuine contender, and all he has to do is sit back and watch. Crameri probably less so, but the Bulldogs aren't going to be encouraging him to roll over just yet.

Wait and see makes sense for them and for the players still at Essendon.

 

[Mutt]

Much more eloquently put than I could ever hope for:
http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/

But you have a doctorate oh wise one - surely you are more articulate than this EFC mouthpeice? The great Docta KFC Chicken.

 

[kfc1]

How does issuing SCNs on a charge that you contend they have no evidence to support, achieve this? Your other points I've already dealt with in my original post on the matter. Thanks for trying though.

Have you not been following the media or HTB recently? Everyone has conveniently forgotten about AOD because the real deal is apparently TB4. That's your answer.

 

[kfc1]

But you have a doctorate oh wise one - surely you are more articulate than this EFC mouthpeice? The great Docta KFC Chicken.

After spending too many years at work and uni writing reports I have lost the desire to write essays of such eloquence.

 

[kfc1]

The great Docta KFC Chicken.

Kentucky Fried Chicken Chicken?

 

[go_nodders]

Much more eloquently put than I could ever hope for:
http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/

Very good pro-Bombers piece.
Still cannot get my head around the fact that Essendon now claim to know what exactly the players have taken. Great! So the whole league can get back to football, why haven't they used the information to clear this whole mess up? Why are they still spending $millions on legal defences? Why don't they simply give the information to the players so they can respond to the SC's and clear their name?
Seems pretty simple to me??

 

[kfc1]

Very good pro-Bombers piece.

It's actually very much neutral. Funnily enough, neutral pieces tend to show the club, Hird and players in quite a good light which is why Caro has to work so hard to run her vendetta. Interesting to see how the general media sentiment headed towards Essendon while she was on holidays.

 

[Argy]

Much more eloquently put than I could ever hope for:
http://thecheapseats.com.au/time-personal/

As Jon Ralph put it in today’s Herald Sun -

“But if the already-warned James Hird was caught on film at a Paris conference attacking the AFL’s head honchos the Bombers would be forced to stand him down forever.”​

Ah, convenient memory. The author can't remember the Tania Tirade just before she left to join her husband on a $1m paid holiday in France?

Sheesh!

 

[chelseacarlton]

 

[Thrawn]

It's actually very much neutral. Funnily enough, neutral pieces tend to show the club, Hird and players in quite a good light which is why Caro has to work so hard to run her vendetta. Interesting to see how the general media sentiment headed towards Essendon while she was on holidays.

LOL!

It's called thebullshitseats for a reason.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

It's actually very much neutral. Funnily enough, neutral pieces tend to show the club, Hird and players in quite a good light which is why Caro has to work so hard to run her vendetta. Interesting to see how the general media sentiment headed towards Essendon while she was on holidays.

Ha! Now you're just taking the piss.

 

[Gibson LP]

After spending too many years at work and uni writing reports I have lost the desire to write essays of such eloquence.

As very much a newcomer, the question that strikes me is... WTF did everyone on BF discuss before this Essendon saga arose.... Then I remembered St. kilda's off seasons. Sorry saints but it used to be north, so there is one positive.