Nathan Bock

Remove this Banner Ad

Boxhead_31 said:
Dank to be retried by the AFL tribunal and charge to move up from attempted to traffic prohibited substances?
Click to expand...

Maybe or allow ASADA to appeal when and if Dank appeals re his attempted trafficking charge is heard..

It could be argued Dank should win that appeal... He did not attempt to traffick CJC-1295... he actually did by his own admission.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Because he is now involved in coaching?
Click to expand...

Theres coaching (head coach of Essendon FC), then theres coaching (Southport Sharks FC).

Do you really want ASADA to spend between 500k and a cool million to put a hit out on a local footy club coach?
 
Muggs said:
Maybe or allow ASADA to appeal when and if Dank appeals re his attempted trafficking charge is heard..

It could be argued Dank should win that appeal... He did not attempt to traffick CJC-1295... he actually did by his own admission.
Click to expand...
guess its too late to stop the presses on chips book lol
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cylon7 said:
Do you honestly believe the Bock/Robinson lack of action is acceptable? (Or for that matter AOD?)

I don't blame EFC supporters for feeling it's unjust.

The sooner we have a real, independent sports ombudsman the better ... or preferably a Federal ICAC to deal with protected species. There are too many mates and boys in the sports equation.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any link whatsoever between Essendon and Bock.

I think the lack of action against Bock and the Suns it outright appalling - but it has no parallels with Essendon.

They both did it. Essendon got whacked and rightly so.

The fact that, as outrageous as it is, that Bock got off is completely irrelevant to what happened to Essendon.
 
Will the AFP now press charges against Dank for trafficking?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Story is about Nathan Bock and ASADA and now tonight Dank and Robinson.

It hilarious the trolls here who can't go one sentence without shrieking "Essendon!!"
Click to expand...
Maybe because Robinson and Dank are the ones that gave Bock the CJC.......


And they then both worked at Essendon. And they told both Bock and the Essendon players that they were just getting amino acids.

So there is just no way you can link the two stories is there? :rolleyes:
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Maybe because Robinson and Dank are the ones that gave Bock the CJC.......


And they then both worked at Essendon. And they told both Bock and the Essendon players that they were just getting amino acids.

So there is just no way you can link the two stories is there? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Pure coincidence.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Maybe because Robinson and Dank are the ones that gave Bock the CJC.......


And they then both worked at Essendon. And they told both Bock and the Essendon players that they were just getting amino acids.

So there is just no way you can link the two stories is there? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Course you can.

Essendon as the focus of this particular development though? Lol.

Just look at the trolls replying to and liking your post. All you need to know right there.
 
So why now? Who is rattling the cage and for what end?

A warning shot across the bows of any EFC player who might be thinking about the courts?? A sort of not so subtle - I know everything you guys took - play nice now??

If Dank wanted to give ASADA a slap - he had lots of opportunities before now.

First Chip's bit of misinformed spin and then Dank. Curious indeed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bunk Moreland said:
Story is about Nathan Bock and ASADA and now tonight Dank and Robinson.

It hilarious the trolls here who can't go one sentence without shrieking "Essendon!!"
Click to expand...

Totally unrelated. :rolleyes:
I mean how dare people raise questions about Dank now that he's admitted to supplying banned substances. LOL

But I guess it's OK to compare the two cases when looking at ASADA's actions and nothing else. LOL
 
Dank is playing skullduggery here.

Why not give evidence before a hearing?

The bus is an absolute runaway.

Who next?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Course you can.

Essendon as the focus of this particular development though? Lol.

Just look at the trolls replying to and liking your post. All you need to know right there.
Click to expand...
It is all James Hird's fault.
 
Dero said:
It is all James Hird's fault.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough for Essendon at least, it is.

WTF was he thinking when he was told directly by the AFL in no uncertain terms, to stay away from peptides?

And then what does he do? Listens to thickhead Robinson and hires Dank to give his players exactly what he was told not to give!

Sheesh!!! How stupid can you get? Even if he was unaware of the status of these peptides, he was a bloody idiot in ignoring the strong advice he was given.
 
LOL @ Chip still flailing away at ASADA over at Rupe's trash child The Oz.

Hope he has the same luck for Rupe that he had trying to get News' pommy mate installed at Vic Police.

Chip keeps failing.

Is Rupe getting soft in his old age?..Tolerating repeat losers like Chip?

S'pose he has Jerry on his mind.

Hey at least Chip won something...he at least won a few quick bucks outta the Bomber faithful with his Dopey novel.
 
TerryWallet said:
LOL @ Chip still flailing away at ASADA over at Rupe's trash child The Oz.

Hope he has the same luck for Rupe that he had trying to get News' pommy mate installed at Vic Police.

Chip keeps failing.

Is Rupe getting soft in his old age?..Tolerating repeat losers like Chip?

S'pose he has Jerry on his mind.

Hey at least Chip won something...he at least won a few quick bucks outta the Bomber faithful with his Dopey novel.
Click to expand...
Bet they keep it on their bedside table next to the picture of Jimmy
 
Muggs said:
I feel that ASADA made a sensible choice back in 2014 in dealing with the EFC 34 and more importantly Dank first.

The Dank verdict on the trafficking charge has tied ASADAs hand in regards to that they can do now at GCS. I can't see how they can take action when the tribunal any charges would get referred to has already determined he did not recieve CJC-1295
Click to expand...

Thought the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal found Dank not guilty of trafficking or attempting to traffic TB4.

Strange that Earl was found guilty of using CJC1925.

Strange that WADA originally appealed The decision of the AFL Anti doping tribunal to find Dank not guilty of 12 of the 22 charges which included trafficking of TB4. WADA then dropped it like a hot potato. After all imagine if WADA continued their appeal and failed to convince Cas of Dank's guilt.

ASADA mistakenly believes criticism of their work is an agenda stemming from the AFL. What they refuse to understand is A NUMBER of Australian athletes are critical of ASADA. It's just this case has gained traction in the media and more particularly behind the scenes political lobbying. ASADA isn't used to having their performance publically scrutinised
 
kreglze said:
Interesting he is all about testifying against Bock but refuses to give the full story about Essendon.
Click to expand...

Big difference. Robinson admitted to ASADA in his interview in 2013 that he provided Bock with CJC1925. Tricky for Dank to deny this. Whereas Robinson in his ASADA interview giving Essendon players banned substances.
 
yaco55 said:
Thought the AFL Anti Doping Tribunal found Dank not guilty of trafficking or attempting to traffic TB4.

Strange that Earl was found guilty of using CJC1925.

Strange that WADA originally appealed The decision of the AFL Anti doping tribunal to find Dank not guilty of 12 of the 22 charges which included trafficking of TB4. WADA then dropped it like a hot potato. After all imagine if WADA continued their appeal and failed to convince Cas of Dank's guilt.

ASADA mistakenly believes criticism of their work is an agenda stemming from the AFL. What they refuse to understand is A NUMBER of Australian athletes are critical of ASADA. It's just this case has gained traction in the media and more particularly behind the scenes political lobbying. ASADA isn't used to having their performance publically scrutinised
Click to expand...

So on TB4? Was part of the same case/hearing, not taking new charges to the ADRVP. As I said earlier in the thread its decision of who goes first, later cases impacted by decision of first. If Bock/Dank went first we likely be having this same discussion but it be started based on articles, Why didn't ASADA purse Essendon following Downes recommendation.

Not that strange on Earl Sander, just a tribunal applying the correct burden.

Where did you get WADA appeals only 12 of the 21 (it's 21 not 22)? I read all 21
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tidoping-tribunal-ruling-20150601-ghel3x.html
https://www.asada.gov.au/news/media-statement-wada-decision-appeal-stephen-dank-judgment-cas

Where did you read WADA has dropped them? WADA only has the right of appeal once all other parties have exhausted their avenue of appeal (appeals section AFL anti-doping code). Once the AFL appeals confirmed Dank actually appealed WADA had no choice but to put them on hold pending the AFL appeals board decision on Dank. So has Dank formally dropped his appeals to allow WADA to proceed ? It should also be pointed out that once Dank appealed ASADA countered appealed a number of charges, so would not surprise me if the 12 you talk about from WADA are the ones not under appeal from ASADA.

Also a NUMBER of athletes that stood up and commended ASADA/WADA for taking action.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Nathan Bock

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top