Nathan Bock

[Jack Richards]

You're confusing 'biggest' bit of evidence with 'only important' evidence.

They had plenty.

If you have reason to believe otherwise, your issue is with the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport, which somehow disagrees with your interpretation.

But they only satisfied the drug orders were for the players and therefore the players took it.. No proof which showed the players actually took it.

 

[Taylor]

But they only satisfied the drug orders were for the players and therefore the players took it.. No proof which showed the players actually took it.

There were tests that showed it was in their bodies but the science wasn't at a point to avoid any doubt on the result.

It is one of those situations where a further delay would have resulted in conclusive positive tests detected.

 

[Jack Richards]

There were tests that showed it was in their bodies but the science wasn't at a point to avoid any doubt on the result.

It is one of those situations where a further delay would have resulted in conclusive positive tests detected.

Where does it say that it was in there system?

There were slightly higher levels of TB-4 in 2 players test but your body naturally produces TB-4. They couldn't differentiate if it was the supplement version or not..

 

[Taylor]

Where does it say that it was in there system?

If I recall correctly there are passages in the CAS report detailing the efforts of the Essendon legal team to challenge the validity of the test results, as is their duty and right mind you.

To which WADA decided to leave that evidence out because they felt they had a strong enough case without having to jump through the hoops on a new test protocol being validated.

 

[eldorado]

But they only satisfied the drug orders were for the players and therefore the players took it.. No proof which showed the players actually took it.

As I said, if you disagree with this, so be it.

This was the finding of the highest unbiased court on the planet, who specialise in this stuff.

Contact them if you have an issue. The rest of us are comfortably satisfied.

 

[Muggs]

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)..

No burden of proof is certain - its a judgment.

Even beyond reasonable doubt is a judgment based on what is reasonable, and there are other burdens of proof considered higher than this.

 

[Sector 7G]

Didn't Robinson also state that he injected Hirdy with a banned substance. Thought he was unstable and unreliable disgruntled employee when he said all that.

 

[Satan]

My comment , waiting for Bruce's melt ,letter to UN no doubt

 

[Boxhead_31]

So on one hand its okay for the EFC faithful to say the AFL tribunal found our boys not guilty because they were not comfortably satisfied that they weren't given TB4 but when they say the same for Bock they lose their minds?

The people they should be upset with is WADA not the AFL, not ASADA as it was WADA who appealed the AFL tribunal finding

 

[gavaniacono]

They are making comment on it the footy tonite. glory be John Ralph is a stupid twat......[/QUOT

He's having a shrill bleat at the mo! lol.

 

[jenny61_99]

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.

Players HAVE to be 100% certain, how do you still not get this? That they weren't 100% certain (yet still chose to get the injections) and significant circumstantial evidence has shown banned substances were used, they were in breach of the code THEY signed and agreed to.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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)..

Another bucket of Kool Aid please.

 

[Blind Turn]

Players HAVE to be 100% certain, how do you still not get this? That they weren't 100% certain (yet still chose to get the injections) and significant circumstantial evidence has shown banned substances were used, they were in breach of the code THEY signed and agreed to.

They are guilty of naivety and not following a code to the letter then. That's not much to be hung and quartered for.

In no other sphere of Western legal culpability would such a low level of circumstantial evidence ever be enough to find someone 'guilty' of something.

They signed up to a code and they weren't 100% certain what they were given so they shouldn't have had anything, yeah? Well, it means stuff all if there is no solid evidence of anything illegal going into their system.

I can't believe the obsessed passion posters like yourself feel against these players. The few times I check out this forum its your whiny posts that keep appearing. Seriously, get away from your device and get a grip. Focus your moral outrage on the concentration camps that we allow to confine refugees.

 

[Slartibartfast]

They are guilty of naivety and not following a code to the letter then. That's not much to be hung and quartered for.

In no other sphere of Western legal culpability would such a low level of circumstantial evidence ever be enough to find someone 'guilty' of something.

They signed up to a code and they weren't 100% certain what they were given so they shouldn't have had anything, yeah? Well, it means stuff all if there is no solid evidence of anything illegal going into their system.

I can't believe the obsessed passion posters like yourself feel against these players. The few times I check out this forum its your whiny posts that keep appearing. Seriously, get away from your device and get a grip. Focus your moral outrage on the concentration camps that we allow to confine refugees.

You make it sound like that they ate a steak and it was found to be tainted.
They took bucket loads of injections, kept the details secret from the medical professional who should have been responsible and they deceived the drug testers when the enquired if they had taken any "stuff"

 

[Jimthegreat]

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)..

We actually don't care if you, as a biased Essendon supporter, think "comfortably satisfied" is joke as you'd have no idea of the evidence presented. On the other hand 3 internationally esteemed QC's were comfortably satisfied your club drug cheated by taking TB4. Your opinion is based on pure bias, the CAS based their opinion on pure evidence.

 

[Boxhead_31]

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Should be made a stickie of the EFC board - the whole conspiracy nonsense is stupid beyond belief.

They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar - pure and simple.

No doubt Bock and a load of others from all clubs were likewise partaking of some chemical assistance. Fortunately for them, there is insufficient evidence.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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

Or bock threw Robinson under the bus for immunity and he then sang to WADA to give up Essendon. Only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[Cylon7]

Why is it so hard to track the CJC to the chemical suppliers and find all the invoices and why is it so hard to put Robinson and Dank in the stand to ask questions?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Should be made a stickie of the EFC board - the whole conspiracy nonsense is stupid beyond belief.

They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar - pure and simple.

No doubt Bock and a load of others from all clubs were likewise partaking of some chemical assistance. Fortunately for them, there is insufficient evidence.

So used the shredder better then?

 

[Muggs]

Why is it so hard to track the CJC to the chemical suppliers and find all the invoices and why is it so hard to put Robinson and Dank in the stand to ask questions?

Dank likely supplied it through his business. ASADA was not able to get their records.

ASADA also tried to get Dank to testify his was part of the Alavi/charter case and failed to get a subpoena.

Robinson has a confidently agreement, so would also need to get a subpoena. Since ASADA could not get one for anyone else why do you think they could get one for him?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Why is it so hard to track the CJC to the chemical suppliers and find all the invoices and why is it so hard to put Robinson and Dank in the stand to ask questions?

Maybe the suns used a third party for their payments unlike EFC

 

[Muggs]

Or bock threw Robinson under the bus for immunity and he then sang to WADA to give up Essendon. Only thing that makes sense to me.

Doubt it, why did ASADA not get Dank on trafficking if Bock was giving statements like this?

Think that statement ASADA highlighted the issue, they could only get Dank on attempted trafficking not actual trafficking.

Thus could not put CJC-1295 in Bock's hand, would effectively of have had to appeal Dank's guilty charge on attempted trafficking. At least with CAS WADA could get a expert to put more certainty on what the substance tested was, ASADA might simply not have had anything else to call on.

Also would not be surpised if the delays in Danks appeals and the EFC process had something to do with it, once delays not attrituble to the athelte factored in any penalty could well have been in name only, is the expense worth it than?

 

[Jimthegreat]

Unless ASADA actually appeal the finding that the AFL Tribunal could not be satisfied the substance Dank trafficked was CJC-1295, despite being guilty of attempting to traffick that substance, then they nothing on Bock. Unless Essendon, where they had evidence, paper trails etc.., they had none of that on Bock other than someone's word.

AFL Tribunal were only comfortably satisfied about anyone or anything that wasn't going to incriminate a player, to protect the game's image, so "attempting to traffick" rather than "traffick" meant there was no evidence against Bock. Same with Hexarelin and Dank. Charged with administering that to Essendon players but, despite apparent evidence, surprise, surprise, not comfortably satisfied. They had plenty else to get Dank on. According the the AFL Tribunal there were lots of mysterious shipments and trafficked substances but none of these people like Danks, and in the case of Essendon, Charters, Alvari had any idea what they were, maybe crushed talcum powder...lol!!!! I think those 3, plus GL Biochem, given their positions, would know exactly what those substances were. AFL Tribunal. I'd say, were an AFL stooge, hence a joke. Thankfully the CAS saw through it in Essendon's case, not enough evidence in Bock's case though.

 

[Cylon7]

Dank likely supplied it through his business. ASADA was not able to get their records.

ASADA also tried to get Dank to testify his was part of the Alavi/charter case and failed to get a subpoena.

Robinson has a confidently agreement, so would also need to get a subpoena. Since ASADA could not get one for anyone else why do you think they could get one for him?

Dank likely supplied it through his business. ASADA was not able to get their records.

ASADA also tried to get Dank to testify his was part of the Alavi/charter case and failed to get a subpoena.

Robinson has a confidently agreement, so would also need to get a subpoena. Since ASADA could not get one for anyone else why do you think they could get one for him?

How about Sussan Ley, TGA and Worksafe do the right thing?

Vet products were used.

It is absolutely time for a Federal ICAC.

Sports crooks are getting away with murder.