Little has seen the evidence

[BomberBro2]

really?
show us the evidence, then show us the bits that aren't credible please, i am very curious

I think Hird has some evidence hidden up his sleeve and is waiting for the right time to release it. Or at worst, we've got a plan D or E that we won't pursue unless it's a last resort.

As for credibility... well for starters you've got the Australian government telling the investigators to put us away. There were shady back room dealings. Dank wasn't even a central figure in the evidence as he should have been. And don't even mention the trial by media factor. How could the evidence be credible given all of the above?

 

[BlueWorld]

All I know is we're innocent and there's not enough credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Everything else is just noise.

No the noise is that you are the victims of a conspiracy by the government, the afl, the media, asada, and that you were forced to tell the truth. You don't have any idea whether there is enough credible evidence but you sure are doing whatever it takes to get that evidence suppressed, even though you seem convinced there isn't enough to convict you.

 

[BlueWorld]

Yes but maybe we are innocent without keeping records? Lack of proof doesn't mean we are definitely guilty.

It's not going to help you when ASADA have to show to comfortable satisfaction that you took TB4 and all you have is no records to prove anything else.

 

[BomberBro2]

No the noise is that you are the victims of a conspiracy by the government, the afl, the media, asada, and that you were forced to tell the truth. You don't have any idea whether there is enough credible evidence but you sure are doing whatever it takes to get that evidence suppressed, even though you seem convinced there isn't enough to convict you.

I think there is enough to convict us - because it only has to be circumstantial and is only 70% certain. If we don't take a stand, we're at risk of being wrongfully punished for something that we clearly didn't do.

 

[BomberBro2]

It's not going to help you when ASADA have to show to comfortable satisfaction that you took TB4 and all you have is no records to prove anything else.

Exactly!

How are we supposed to prove our innocence in that case? Just because we don't have the paperwork doesn't mean we are guilty.

 

[BlueWorld]

I think there is enough to convict us - because it only has to be circumstantial and is only 70% certain. If we don't take a stand, we're at risk of being wrongfully punished for something that we clearly didn't do.

If you clearly didn't do it then how are you going to show that?

 

[LoungeLizard]

I think Hird has some evidence hidden up his sleeve and is waiting for the right time to release it. Or at worst, we've got a plan D or E that we won't pursue unless it's a last resort.

As for credibility... well for starters you've got the Australian government telling the investigators to put us away. There were shady back room dealings. Dank wasn't even a central figure in the evidence as he should have been. And don't even mention the trial by media factor. How could the evidence be credible given all of the above?

Ok so what you are actually saying here is you have nfi what evidence ASADA have?
Question: lets just say one of the nurses that injected the players gave evidence, and said definitely tb4 was injected into this player and this player, do you think this is credible evidence?

 

[chelseacarlton]

I think there is enough to convict us - because it only has to be circumstantial and is only 70% certain. If we don't take a stand, we're at risk of being wrongfully punished for something that we clearly didn't do.

There IS enough evidence
Yet you say WE clearly didn't do
Oh ok that makes perfect sense.

 

[van peebles]

I think there is enough to convict us - because it only has to be circumstantial and is only 70% certain. If we don't take a stand, we're at risk of being wrongfully punished for something that we clearly didn't do.

Do you have any examples of asada wrongfully punishing any athlete?

 

[mehow2g]

I think Hird has some evidence hidden up his sleeve and is waiting for the right time to release it. Or at worst, we've got a plan D or E that we won't pursue unless it's a last resort.

As for credibility... well for starters you've got the Australian government telling the investigators to put us away. There were shady back room dealings. Dank wasn't even a central figure in the evidence as he should have been. And don't even mention the trial by media factor. How could the evidence be credible given all of the above?

Yeah hes got some evidence up hes sleeve, hes waiting for his image to continue to be destroyed before he releases it all apart of the plan.

 

[BomberBro2]

Do you have any examples of asada wrongfully punishing any athlete?

If they did, how would anybody know except for the athlete themselves? Once a case is closed, they don't re-open them as nobody will go over old evidence for an old case.

If you clearly didn't do it then how are you going to show that?

That's the challenge, hence the ongoing lawsuits etc. To an extent, I think we're wrong to go down the path of the courts, but we're forced to since we're struggling to find enough evidence to prove our innocence.

There IS enough evidence
Yet you say WE clearly didn't do
Oh ok that makes perfect sense.

There's enough circumstantial evidence to say "we're 70% sure you took these drugs" but there's not enough evidence to say "We are pretty much certain you took these drugs". I'm making a distinction between probability and certainty. If we are going to get punished, I want to be CERTAIN we did it.

Ok so what you are actually saying here is you have nfi what evidence ASADA have?
Question: lets just say one of the nurses that injected the players gave evidence, and said definitely tb4 was injected into this player and this player, do you think this is credible evidence?

If a nurse came forward and said she believed she injected a player with TB4, after all this time, I would seriously question whether she was paid off to do so by ASADA. Why wait 2 years?? Clearly there'd be something fishy with that. Besides, if she wasn't paid off, then as a nurse she wouldn't know for sure about what she was injecting as she's NOT a doctor and NOT central to the program. The human memory over a 2-year period is extremely fallible, how do we know she wasn't influenced by the media over that 2-year period and honestly was mistaken about what she gave??

 

[BomberBro2]

Yeah hes got some evidence up hes sleeve, hes waiting for his image to continue to be destroyed before he releases it all apart of the plan.

Even in court he asked the judge not to reveal certain evidence because of "embarrassment".

So yes, he has tried to keep certain things secret even until this week. To release everything he knows, it could cause him great embarrassment, or any number of reasons. But his actions don't really make sense unless he knows more than he's letting on IMO.

 

[kfc1]

100's of thousands of $
SCN's still to come
and you call someone else dumb

You're dumb because you don't understand what the term "free hit" means.

 

[LoungeLizard]

You're dumb because you don't understand what the term "free hit" means.

A free hit is nothing to lose, am i right?

 

[kfc1]

Yeah, but there are consequences. McDevitt seemed willing to make a deal, which would have lessened the penalties. Now i doubt ASADA will be willing to make a deal and will push for the full 2 years, I know my attitude has hardened as a result of the bullshit fishing expidition court case. There was a time where I hoped the players got a small penalty, but now I hope they are punished to the full extent of the rules.

McDevitt wanted someone to take up his deal and rat out on everyone else, ala Armstrong case. Seeing as none of the players believe they doped, unsurprisingly he had no takers for his offer.

ASADA have never shown lenience in an anti-doping case before, they have even pushed for moronic penalties like what happened to the athlete who was in an overbooked hotel and ASADA's geniuses couldn't find him. I find it difficult to believe he was offering a 6 month suspension out of the goodness of his heart when it is in their interests to make an example out of Essendon.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Actually I think not have records is a breach of the AFL (and WADA?) code. That is one of the issues to me that sticks out like the proverbial. If you can't say what you took you're punished, done and dusted. Don't get me started on your presidents views on this matter.

Incorrect sorry

 

[BomberBro2]

http://theconversation.com/punishing-doping-athletes-isnt-a-long-term-solution-9387

THIS ^^

 

[kfc1]

A free hit is nothing to lose, am i right?

Correct. It is not related to costs.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Correct. It is not related to costs.

then if i am dumb, then i can't describe what you are, sorry but Costs is losing, no free hit sorry

 

[van peebles]

So the president of the club has seen the evidence and he thinks the players are to have a good chance of proving innocence.
Cool,im in for the SC journey,and will happily follow the tour with complete evenness.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You do realize that the afl ant-doping code REQUIRES you to have kept records of all substances administered to players, so you have failed already.

So all clubs have been doing this?

LOL

 

[Matilda05]

Incorrect sorry

So clubs don't have to keep records of supplements administered to players? Oh ok well EFC will be sweet then, play on...

 

[LoungeLizard]

So clubs don't have to keep records of supplements administered to players? Oh ok well EFC will be sweet then, play on...

under rule 7.4 of the AFL anti-doping code, it is a breach

 

[BomberBro2]

under rule 7.4 of the AFL anti-doping code, it is a breach

Then we might as well ban every club in the competition!

Unless you can prove you didn't take a cocktail of experimental drugs? Do you have records to show you DIDN'T take them?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Then we might as well ban every club in the competition!

Unless you can prove you didn't take a cocktail of experimental drugs? Do you have records to show you DIDN'T take them?

I would say every club except one would have all the documentation they need, I would say every club except one did not have a convicted drug dealer supplying drugs to their sports scientist.
I would say every club except one, was not under suspicion from the ACC.
I would say every club except one was not using their players as experiment