Nathan Bock

Remove this Banner Ad

FFC_RoyBoys said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dank does have a large legal bill to pay.
Could be a case of "Hey EFC care to throw a few dollars my way to keep me silent?"
 
FFC_RoyBoys said:
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.
Click to expand...

Man after my own heart.

I'm thinking the same way. This was a dead (or at least dying) story before News resurrect it.

And to those who are still going on about ASADA having a grudge against EFC, please note it was WADA that came in over the top. ASADA may not have been 100% competent in its investigation phase but they sure pulled together enough to convince CAS.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

10571z said:
Surely the fact dank was giving afl players banned drugs shows these Essendon idiots what kind of bloke was at your club.
Click to expand...

You would think people could put together this equation: Dank confessed to supplying banned drugs to Cronulla + Dank confessed to supplying banned drug to Bock + Cronulla not being the systematic doping club + Essendon players being found guilty of taking banned drug = widespread doping at Essendon.

But you would be wrong. Somehow a guy whose job it is to dope athletes, who admits to doping athletes, wasn't doping a team already found guilty of doping and accused of running a systematic doping program.
 
Boxhead_31 said:
ASADA Response to Large Fries Chip's comments in bold:


“The Australian can reveal ASADA’s investigators, in the same confidential report that recommended charges against Bock in October 2013…”

The role of the report was to investigate potential anti-doping rule violations. No recommendations were made. The evidence in the report was considered by the CEO. ASADA does not use its funding to pursue cases it does not think it can win.

“The strength of ASADA’s case against Bock is its reliance on direct witness accounts. There is no dispute among the witnesses over what Bock was given and whether he took it.”

This is factually incorrect. There are numerous inconsistencies in the witness evidence gathered by ASADA in relation to the Gold Coast matter, and these inconsistencies were unable to be resolved by corroborating evidence.

“The only question ASADA has to ask itself is in the first instance is, is there a possibility that Nathan bock took a banned substance. That is the test for whether or not you refer it to the anti-doping review panel.”

This is simply not true. In addition to the possibility of a violation having occurred, the ASADA CEO must also be satisfied that action against the athlete is warranted before the CEO issues a show cause notice to any athlete. These steps occur before the matter is referred to the panel.

When determining whether action is warranted, an important element to consider is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charge.

To prove that an athlete has used a prohibited substance, ASADA must be able to prove the substance used by that athlete. ASADA will not bring a use case forward when there is insufficient evidence of the substance used.

In cases of ‘attempted use’, the anti-doping agency must be able to prove the intent of the athlete to use a prohibited substance. This cannot be done in the absence of compelling, reliable evidence.

https://www.asada.gov.au/news/media-correction-gold-coast-investigation
Click to expand...
So they discount dank self incrimination then because it isn't reliable? Are they suspecting dank of lying to throw bock/ Robinson under bus therefore dank statements not reliable?
 
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...
Disregard the afl tribunal as clearly they were incompetent.
 
Laphroaig said:
Where's the mystery here people?

As I understand it the case against Bock is "somebody said" he was given a bunch of vials of CJC and instructions on how to self administer. "Somebody said". The weakest form of evidence. Only a hair away from being inadmissable evidence.

Really?

FFS the AFL tribunal felt justified in finding not comfortably satisfied on TB4 supplied by a company which manufactures the stuff, certified by the company as TB4. Because there was not an independent analysis done to prove the shit delivered was the one ordered?

The gulf between those two situations is galactic.

Did Bock do the stuff in my opinion? Probly yes. Don't matter though.
Click to expand...
Isn't the somebody said bock himself? I injected some "amino acid"? And if he can't say what it is that should be a doping violation
 
Kabana said:
Coaching a local footy team in Far North Queensland. I understand what your driving at but I don't see why ASADA have to tear up cash going after the coach of the local bogans.
Click to expand...
No cash needed just tell bock you are banned.
 
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...
Yeah it's weird I thought more of the foamer side (like myself) would be wanting bock gone. In my mind he's at least as culpable as the efc 34. And the cable is strong .
 
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...
We do have many other threads to do that though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sector 7G said:
Maybe for Danks evidence to be considered he needs to make those statements to an investigator not a journalist. Something he refused to do.
Click to expand...


It's just not the right time.. you know?
 
jenny61_99 said:
With Dank now admitting to supplying Robinson with CJC1295 for Nathan Bock, I can't see how they can't go after Bock.
Click to expand...
ASADA must relook at this or they lose credibility.
Yes, despite the constant bleating by Essendon apologists on this site that there is no evidence, we know that they are as guilty as. However, so is Bock, and they need to be seen to apply the same standards to him as they applied to the EFC 34. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
ASADA must relook at this or they lose credibility.
Yes, despite the constant bleating by Essendon apologists on this site that there is no evidence, we know that they are as guilty as. However, so is Bock, and they need to be seen to apply the same standards to him as they applied to the EFC 34. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the bleeding heart fletch supporters will be saying how unfair it is if bock is banned because he's retired :D
 

Despite using the story to suit my own narrative earlier, it should go without saying that this is bang on. ASADA claiming this doesn't constitute enough evidence to proceed is laughable. They will be made to sweat for this, awful political move.

Nicely timed counterpunch by Dank. Le Grande Chipper gets his man.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Nathan Bock

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top