rdhopkins2
Carpe Diem
We will see if WADA appeal this one too.
Given it involves an ex player, probably not.
Given it involves an ex player, probably not.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Nathan Bock
- Thread starter Satan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
LanceRomance
Brownlow Medallist
Bock never played a game after the accusation?
- Sep 22, 2011
- 41,865
- 91,400
- AFL Club
- Essendon
So no evidence?
Like a knife in the heart
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 37,072
- 52,053
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Good to see the clean skins being cleared by the process.
AFL tribunal played its part saying they weren't comfortably satisfied that it was CJC-1295 that Robinson gave him
AFL tribunal played its part saying they weren't comfortably satisfied that it was CJC-1295 that Robinson gave him
Muggs
Premiership Player
Dank being found guilty of attempting trafficking to the Gold Coast was probably a driving factor.
To go after Bock for use without appealing Danks trafficking charge would have made it difficult one would think. To appeal the trafficking charge you effectively also appealing the successful charge of attempted trafficking.
Why would ASADA appeal a successful charge?
To go after Bock for use without appealing Danks trafficking charge would have made it difficult one would think. To appeal the trafficking charge you effectively also appealing the successful charge of attempted trafficking.
Why would ASADA appeal a successful charge?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Apparently. Clearly they had more evidence against your lads than they did against Bock.
Yep, hypocritical. Not that it paints Hird in a better light.
Not necessarily hypocritical. If Bock had only a couple of injections and it was the one drug, it was probably hard to prove. Especially if Bock said "Nah, I never took nothing." Question:
How many drugs did the Essendon players take that ASADA could not prove? A few I reckon.
Robinson IS in a good place.
- Aug 20, 2010
- 16,814
- 22,300
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Hypocritical?
Did Bock signed a consent form for receiving CJC?
Did Dank constantly text him about CJC?
Is there a back-dated and forged invoice changing CJC to Vitamin C?
Did Dank send emails discussing his plans to mix CJC with another peptide and inject it into Bock?
Is there someone at Como labs with evidence showing Dank received something with 99% similar molecular weight to CJC?
Anyone that tries to compare the two situations should look a little deeper
Did Bock signed a consent form for receiving CJC?
Did Dank constantly text him about CJC?
Is there a back-dated and forged invoice changing CJC to Vitamin C?
Did Dank send emails discussing his plans to mix CJC with another peptide and inject it into Bock?
Is there someone at Como labs with evidence showing Dank received something with 99% similar molecular weight to CJC?
Anyone that tries to compare the two situations should look a little deeper
Get those tissues out, Essendon fans, it's all a big conspiracy...
Dank spoken yet?
Dank spoken yet?
CJC-1295 at Essendon? No. They never got charged with CJC-1295.
But that isn't enough.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 41,865
- 91,400
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Asking questions because I couldn't see the Bock article, troll.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 41,865
- 91,400
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Why are you ***** incapable of the most basic conversations?
Pfft
They had as much as Essendon..
Funny that they still pinned us on the grounds that we MAY have taken drugs.
No positive blood tests. No hard concrete evidence of players being administered.
Pretty much the same as Bock.
Muggs
Premiership Player
No you got done as the CAS panel was comfortably satisfied you DID take it.
The AFL anti doping tribunal found you MAY have taken but were not satisfied you did.
One of the key differences as CAS itself noted was the additional expert opinion on what the substance tested was, allowing the increased certainty. Something the Brock case does not have.
Edit* also could be wrong, don't remember seeing anything where Bock admitted to receiving injections or giving them to himself..
Last edited:
Comfortable Satisfied is a joke.. its not certain. Dont get me wrong, I am still think we pushed the boundaries, but to penalise someone WITHOUT concrete evidence showing the players took a banned substance is an utter joke.
What was the expert opinion? Did they see the players taking a banned substance? Did they provide it to Dank? Did they see any paper saying these players were taking these drugs?
It was a Kangaroo court case.
FYI the players said they didn't know exactly what they were taking. Jobe said he believed it was AOD- legal at the time (which isn't what they were banned for which was Thymosin), but could not be 100% certain.
When you have Robinson saying he gave it to Bock to take and there was evidence of Dank ordering the CJC along with the other drugs, that was pretty much exactly what happened to us..
Robinson said this is what was happening, These are signed papers saying everything we have taken was legal BUT Players not 100% certain what they were taking, no positive blood samples or photographic evidence.. Just 4 people satisifed that we MAY have taken drugs (only 2 believed we were guilty, the other 2 didn't)..
Exactly, there was no positive blood test which should be the biggest bit of evidence. Only receipts that he ordered them, along with the CJC
Players couldn't be 100% certain what they were taking.
Receipts mean diddly squat considering that they didn't say who it was for.
Even Charters refused to sign his testimony as they wanted to alter it to make Essendon look worse.
