-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Nathan Bock
- Thread starter Satan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I am loving how the verdict of the tribunal suddenly seems so important. The verdict of the tribunal didn't seem to hold a lot of weight for asada in deciding to appeal the EFC result. So, despite CAS "cleaning up the AFL Tribunals' mess" we should now be expected to believe that that same decision making body is justifiably the reason the Bock case isn't pursued? Speaking of hypocrisy...the cognitive dissonance gymnastics are remarkable.
It's not hypocrisy to be expect that there should be a level of consistency in the way cases are pursued, and to be bemused that they are treated so blatantly different.
- Thread starter
- #553
Not for years and that was an expensive exercise in changing signage etc
darklake
Premium Platinum
But we still all call it Safeway anyway.
- Feb 5, 2009
- 8,850
- 14,009
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast (AFLW)
That's not evidence specifically against Robinson though. You can say it's a strand in the cable, but you need more strands. His black ops interview with Darcy maybe?
I have no doubt that Robinson is very lucky (so far). To pin him on something you need enough evidence to build a case and make the case in front of a tribunal. I doubt there's enough to successfully prosecute him.
Muggs
Premiership Player
The difference is the stage of the process. Appealing a existing verdict or beginning the process.
With Bock there is a verdict by the tribunal that would hear his case that he did not receive CJC-1295. I cant see how ASADA could get past the ADRVP what that verdict is in effect. The role of the ADRVP is to determine if there is a case to answer, I cant see how they can determine this if evidence has been assessed on a related case and determined he did not receive the substance. Even if it did it would provide good grounds for Bock to challenge the verdict at the AAT, and even the fed court. Throw on top of this ASADA did not challenge this verdict.
WADA has appealed all Dank's not guilty verdicts, if it ever get heard and overruled it than provides grounds for ASADA to move on Bock.
With the EFC34 ASADA/WADA disagreed with the verdict and took the next step in the process. It was not starting a new process.
Maybe now that Dank has come out and said he gave CJC-1295 it can argue new evidence thus the verdict is no longer important, but still got the issue of the tribunal basically discounting Dank's statements even self incriminating ones. Even if argue new evidence its new after ASADA decided not to purse.
To me the issue was created in 2014, why did ASADA not issue Bock a SCN at the same time as the EFC34? The difference in treatment was here. Once facts changed at the tribunal (until Dank's statements yesterday) ASADA acted accordingly. It remains to be seen what ASADA does now.
- Banned
- #557
Try getting Dank to testify to that
There are many cases that go unappealed. When funding is light, prioritisation is necessary.
ASADA have expended great resources on these cases already. Their bean counters would have a stern demeanour right about now regarding these cases. Who knows what other cases are on their docks.
And how do you reckon ASADA would go asking WADA to appeal the Dank AFL ruling?...I'd suggest they wouldn't get passed Hello. He is already doing life.
Is Bock guilty?...certainly. Is Robinson guilty?...certainly. Is Dank guilty?...certainly.
But thanks to the AFL Tribunal's shonkiness, they will probably get off because of funding prioritisation.
It is galling to see Robinson skate. He has been the big winner in this whole cover-up that ASADA had to try to wade through.
It is obvious that Robinson has been mollycoddled by the EFC for reasons that pertain to their guilt. And it is obvious that Robinson has been mollycoddled by the AFL for reasons that go far beyond the EFC's guilt.
Cover-ups usually provide big winners/losers, and relative winners/losers.
EFC and Hird ended up being the rightful big losers and Robinson and Bock ended up being the wrongful relative winners.....
...so far at least.
- Banned
- #559
Exactly, try getting him to testify to that rather than just throw grenades in the press
- Jun 17, 2014
- 13,088
- 20,653
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- ASADA
ASADA won't be able to do much, unless Dank speaks to ASADA?
Also don't think this latest news will help him in his future defamation cases
Muggs
Premiership Player
Not sure on ASADA, a few media statements were used at both CAS and ASADA, CAS put more reliance on these, inculpatory vs exculpatory evidence, where as the AFL tribunal largely ignored these.
Agree, the same admission about Cronulla... cost him a bit!.
The text messages that helped pin Dank, those same messages that Robinson was a part of?
I may be wrong, but Robinson, by knowing, is guilty.
Muggs
Premiership Player
On this, and has been discussed before in another thread, I still wonder if Robinson was one of the support persons issued a SCN by ASADA.
Last ASADA annual report
Dank is 1, possibly 2 (each sport?), still leaving at least one person whom is unnamed (maybe 2).
- Feb 5, 2009
- 8,850
- 14,009
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast (AFLW)
If Dank or the players took the stand against Robinson he'd be gone, but without that I get the feeling there's just not enough to get a conviction.
My opinion, if we started a band up out of this, Robinson would be lead singer.
Do you think 34 guilty player convictions is not evidence?
Especially with a text along these lines.
Robinson: "Can't we just call them amino acids"?
- Feb 5, 2009
- 8,850
- 14,009
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Coast (AFLW)
Players case looked like this:
Charter bought TB4 components from China
Charter delivered TB4 components to Dank
Dank gave TB4 components to Alavi
Alavi compounded TB4 and gave it to Dank
Molecular weight of stuff compounded by Alavi almost exact match for TB4
Players received injections from Dank
Players signed consent forms with Thymosin on it
Injection regimen for Thymosin matched injection regimen for TB4
As such Robinson is a peripheral figure in the player conviction, and so the player convictions do not help much in nailing Robinson.
Sure there are scraps of evidence against Robinson, but nothing as substantial as the case presented against the players.
Muggs, the bar for getting it past the ADRVP is not high.
It is this: that the asada ceo believes there might be a chance doping has occurred.
You know this. It's a rubber stamp
yes, see that's fine, that's a realpolitik and pragmatic approach that might be necessary. I have no issue with that.
That's not what asada have claimed though, is it? And why not? Because it would hurt confidence in their ability to be fair and competent regulators. Their remit is to go after dopers in sport. It's not to decide what they should or should not pursue based on their budget at the time - regardless of whether that is always actually going to be the case
Muggs
Premiership Player
Agree it's not high but the same tribunal that would hear the case had already made a ruling he did not receive a banned substance.
Totally agree if Bock was referred to the ADRVP at the same time as Dank, think though once a related case was heard things change.
how did they make a ruling he did not receive a banned substance? Are you referring to the trafficking charges? Because that's not the same thing at all - you can't say they decided he didn't receive a banned substance when he has never been tried for that.
Frankly, I understand why what's happening is happening, TerryWallet is spot on. But that's not what people want to believe. They want to go with asada's arse covering line about there being no evidence, when the actual problem is that they are not sufficiently funded, nor do they have the appetite, to do this. That raises greater questions about the confidence people should have in their anti-doping system; or at the very least should illustrate that they have unrealistic expectations
Muggs
Premiership Player
Yes referring to the trafficking changes, Dank was found not to have trafficked CJC-1295 to Bock. It's a directly related charge. It was determined the substance Dank gave him was not CJC-1295 (or at least it to the burden required). I just don't belive this ruling can be discounted when examining Bock.
They could have gone after Bock for attempted use, we have had a few good discussions around attempt, not as easy.
Fully agree with your second paragraph, and to me the issue was in 2014. They should come out and say we decided not purse Bock back then due to these reasons.. What ever they are and think you hit the nail on the head. We planned to go after him once Dank was found guilty of the related charge. However once he was found not guilty we felt we did not have the evidence to purse Bock.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #573
Well, yeah, it kinda is.
They stated that they will go after doping without fear or favour. The "as far as our funding allows" is rather obvious and unnecessary i would have thought.
The Chip/Oz led agenda that ASADA are the devil is ridiculous and an easy copout for those caught. EFC on a grand scale, but also some undertones of bleating from Footscray and Collingwood...and going back further, from the Saad camp.
ASADA are underfunded. They are fallible, like all.
But are they competant?...yeah they do their best. Without fear or favour.
It's just a job for them. A legislated job.
They were presented with a job to do that entailed uncovering a mass cover-up.
They got 36 out of 37 convictions.
The one they missed on was Dank for traficking....which saved Bock's slimy woman bashing, PED using butt.
