Nathan Bock

[Muggs]

Pity that large organisations cant sue for defamation.

Wonder if Robbo's piece was run past the legal department and McDevitt's name was edited out...

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

So used the shredder better then?

Nah, Not stupid enough to bring it all in house.

Much better (for the club) on the down-low. Individuals who fail the intelligence test are easily dismissed - in every sense of the word.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

...

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.

... for now.

This whole 2010-2012 AFL doping saga has about another 4 and a half years to run yet. No player (in any club) that was tested during that period, where samples are still retained in WADA approved labs, is in the clear - unless they are 100% sure of what they took/ were given.

 

[Blind Turn]

Is this the scientific evidence that the CAS decided was not admissible in the case against the 34, and even if it were admissible would only have been evidence against 2 players?

Were the corroborating statements from those reputable characters, Charters and Alavi?

They can word it to suit whatever they like but it still stinks of a stitch-up as a team sport precedent.

And of course those pesky consent forms are a sure pointer of guilt, right? Except that if they were truly secretively taking an illegal substance that they knew was illegal they'd never sign for the damn thing on a consent form! The ambiguity of the term 'thymosin' would stump most people in the world of sport unless you were putting hours of study into pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacoprophylactics.

Try being a little more compassionate for the plight of these players who have harmed nobody but continue to suffer harm themselves well beyond what justice would deem commensurate with their 'crime'.

 

[jenny61_99]

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?

Invoices only appear if substances are bought legally through traditional channels.

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.

Naivety. LOL They've not been hung or quartered, I don't think exaggerating helps your cause. They've been banned. That is the consequence of their failing to adhere to the AFL anti doping code. Western legal culpability - what the **** does that even mean? and please describe what "low level of circumstantial evidence" there was in this case. This was not a criminal case, therefore the burden of proof was less than that required for criminal court (beyond reasonable doubt) but more than that required for a civil court (balance of probabilities). The consequences match the burden of proof. (Ie. They haven't been jailed or executed). Again, how can you not know, and grasp what this actually means? Again, please also understand we aren't talking illegal (or illicit) drugs. We are talking prohibited substances under the afl anti doping code.

As for me needing to get a grip, stop being whiny and moving away from my device, did you read what the hell you just wrote?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Is this the scientific evidence that the CAS decided was not admissible in the case against the 34, and even if it were admissible would only have been evidence against 2 players?

Were the corroborating statements from those reputable characters, Charters and Alavi?

They can word it to suit whatever they like but it still stinks of a stitch-up as a team sport precedent.

And of course those pesky consent forms are a sure pointer of guilt, right? Except that if they were truly secretively taking an illegal substance that they knew was illegal they'd never sign for the damn thing on a consent form! The ambiguity of the term 'thymosin' would stump most people in the world of sport unless you were putting hours of study into pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacoprophylactics.

Try being a little more compassionate for the plight of these players who have harmed nobody but continue to suffer harm themselves well beyond what justice would deem commensurate with their 'crime'.

So what you're saying was the AFL tribunal was okay for Essendon but not good enough for Bock?

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

... for now.

This whole 2010-2012 AFL doping saga has about another 4 and a half years to run yet. No player (in any club) that was tested during that period, where samples are still retained in WADA approved labs, is in the clear - unless they are 100% sure of what they took/ were given.

Yep, that is true.

 

[gavaniacono]

Is this the scientific evidence that the CAS decided was not admissible in the case against the 34, and even if it were admissible would only have been evidence against 2 players?

Were the corroborating statements from those reputable characters, Charters and Alavi?

They can word it to suit whatever they like but it still stinks of a stitch-up as a team sport precedent.

And of course those pesky consent forms are a sure pointer of guilt, right? Except that if they were truly secretively taking an illegal substance that they knew was illegal they'd never sign for the damn thing on a consent form! The ambiguity of the term 'thymosin' would stump most people in the world of sport unless you were putting hours of study into pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacoprophylactics.

Try being a little more compassionate for the plight of these players who have harmed nobody but continue to suffer harm themselves well beyond what justice would deem commensurate with their 'crime'.

My spirits now lifted after my teams dismal performance.

 

[Blind Turn]

Invoices only appear if substances are bought legally through traditional channels.



Naivety. LOL They've not been hung or quartered, I don't think exaggerating helps your cause. They've been banned. That is the consequence of their failing to adhere to the AFL anti doping code. Western legal culpability - what the **** does that even mean? and please describe what "low level of circumstantial evidence" there was in this case. This was not a criminal case, therefore the burden of proof was less than that required for criminal court (beyond reasonable doubt) but more than that required for a civil court (balance of probabilities). The consequences match the burden of proof. (Ie. They haven't been jailed or executed). Again, how can you not know, and grasp what this actually means? Again, please also understand we aren't talking illegal (or illicit) drugs. We are talking prohibited substances under the afl anti doping code.

As for me needing to get a grip, stop being whiny and moving away from my device, did you read what the hell you just wrote?

My point is, as far as them being culpable; i.e. responsible or at fault, no other form of justice in the Western world would punish someone on such a low level of evidence. Surely that's not hard to comprehend. Nobody should ever be found guilty of anything so farcically circumstantial. Hence, why do people like yourself need to grind out this gripe against the players day in, day out when they have harmed nobody. Your obsession is embarrassing. And the fact it's not a criminal case matters not in my post above. I'm trying to state that when you punish somebody that impacts their careers/reputations/psychological state, you need to have a sense of natural justice.

I'm sorry I need to spell out the metaphorical implication of 'hung and quartered' but this is the media equivalent of just that. Hung as being guilty before proof of innocence, then quartered, after 3 years of constant scrutiny and impact on their daily lives, an international kangaroo court decides to rip their (metaphorical) limbs from their already hanging bodies. But, you continue to fight the good fight. Good on you. I'm sure it's making the world of difference... somewhere...

 

[Blind Turn]

So what you're saying was the AFL tribunal was okay for Essendon but not good enough for Bock?

Why wouldn't I be suggesting that it's fine for both so long as the power to appeal is judged equally by WADA?

 

[jenny61_99]

My point is, as far as them being culpable; i.e. responsible or at fault, no other form of justice in the Western world would punish someone on such a low level of evidence. Surely that's not hard to comprehend. Nobody should ever be found guilty of anything so farcically circumstantial. Hence, why do people like yourself need to grind out this gripe against the players day in, day out when they have harmed nobody. Your obsession is embarrassing. And the fact it's not a criminal case matters not in my post above. I'm trying to state that when you punish somebody that impacts their careers/reputations/psychological state, you need to have a sense of natural justice.

I'm sorry I need to spell out the metaphorical implication of 'hung and quartered' but this is the media equivalent of just that. Hung as being guilty before proof of innocence, then quartered, after 3 years of constant scrutiny and impact on their daily lives, an international kangaroo court decides to rip their (metaphorical) limbs from their already hanging bodies. But, you continue to fight the good fight. Good on you. I'm sure it's making the world of difference... somewhere...

*sigh*

Low level of evidence? Have you paid ANY attention at all in the last three years? Your lack of understanding and knowledge of what CAS based their deliberations on is astounding.

There's something embarrassing alright, but nothing to do with me.

 

[jenny61_99]

My spirits now lifted after my teams dismal performance.

Sorry lovey.

 

[Muggs]

You would think the hearld sun would at least be aware of it it's sisters papers defamation when writing its latest story. You know the win where Dank testified gave CJC-1295

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...387aaff385e047a15f093acfe#load-story-comments

"JAMES Hird’s lawyer has questioned why Cronulla Sharks players accepted suspensions if ASADA was unable to establish whether sports scientist Stephen Dank had access to CJC-1295."

 

[Blind Turn]

*sigh*

Low level of evidence? Have you paid ANY attention at all in the last three years? Your lack of understanding and knowledge of what CAS based their deliberations on is astounding.

There's something embarrassing alright, but nothing to do with me.

*sigh*

You are so invested in this psychologically that you have only paid attention to the information that solidifies your perspective. Your lack of understanding about natural justice is astounding... and so is your obsession with this whole saga. See, we can both play that game. Nighnighs Jenny.

 

[Boxhead_31]

*sigh*

You are so invested in this psychologically that you have only paid attention to the information that solidifies your perspective. Your lack of understanding about natural justice is astounding... and so is your obsession with this whole saga. See, we can both play that game. Nighnighs Jenny.

At which stage of this whole thing haven't the players had access to natural justice?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Natural justice! WTF. They doped, tired to cover it up and now crying coz they got suspended after three years of synchophants telling them they have done nothing wrong.
Get over it and stop trying to minimise the failing of your players.

 

[JP2]

I'm sorry I need to spell out the metaphorical implication of 'hung and quartered' but this is the media equivalent of just that. Hung as being guilty before proof of innocence, then quartered, after 3 years of constant scrutiny and impact on their daily lives, an international kangaroo court decides to rip their (metaphorical) limbs from their already hanging bodies.

Get a grip. They've been prevented from chasing a football around for 12 months because an internationally recognised court found there was sufficient evidence they'd doped, violating the terms of employment they had previously all agreed to follow. No-one's been hung, mutilated or imprisoned. They're going to get 95% of their pay and they're free to pursue any other interests they may have for 12 months. Forgive me if I'm not falling to my knees, wailing and renting my clothes at their plight.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Try being a little more compassionate for the plight of these players who have harmed nobody but continue to suffer harm themselves well beyond what justice would deem commensurate with their 'crime'.

And I counter you cry for sympathy, to ask you to be a little more compassionate to the the plight of those players that did not dope, in 2011-2012 or since as they continue to suffer in silence as the AFLPA dresses up the dopers in pretty piggie outfits.
And to the plight of footballers in the State leagues, having to watch their game being dragged through the mud because of your club.
And to the plight of the young kids, seeing 34 player banned for doping. Great sport to play, huh?

 

[jenny61_99]

*sigh*

You are so invested in this psychologically that you have only paid attention to the information that solidifies your perspective. Your lack of understanding about natural justice is astounding... and so is your obsession with this whole saga. See, we can both play that game. Nighnighs Jenny.

there are so many people in here posting about this saga everyday, but you accuse me of obsession. Why is that? I'm not sure where you think the players have not had natural justice. Essendon "self-reported" which put your players in the spotlight from the get go. ASADAs job made harder by a Club that thrust themselves into the media and then spent day after day trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters, to gain public support and sympathy and to control the narrative. ASADA painstakingly investigate the case despite this. They dot i's and cross t's whilst your mob complain they were taking too long. It's hard to put a case together where records either don't exist or have been destroyed. They take their job seriously because they are dealing with athletes lives. They follow the anti doping code to the enth degree, following each process carefully and as described in the code the players agreed to. The law suit (and subsequent failed appeal) by Essendon and Hird that believed the joint investigation of ASADA and the AFL illegal, drew the process out further. Two independent legal panels (original judge and three appellant judges) deemed the investigation legal. ASADA was allowed to proceed. Each process of the anti doping code was followed. AFL tribunal is where it all fell down (though I'm sure you thought natural justice had prevailed because you got the outcome you wanted). WADA appeals the AFL tribunal decision, which is also part of the process and that decision is overturned. How the media treated this saga has been appalling - particularly your "mate" Robbo who chose to name names. But that has nothing to do with ASADA.

In all this you fail to understand that this is not criminal court. It is an administrative tribunal. This is not beyond reasonable doubt territory. Circumstantial evidence does not mean a weak case. Plenty of people have gone to jail on circumstantial evidence. Based on everything we've heard and read, your club stuffed up and so did the players. Now they are suffering the consequences to their actions. whilst I believe your Club is the main culprit here and I do have some sympathy for the players being placed into that situation (especially the younger lads), they are all well educated on anti doping rules and regs and they failed to adhere to them at any point in the whole saga. It's good to see that finally some are beginning to accept the part that they played in their own downfall.

 

[Blind Turn]

And I counter you cry for sympathy, to ask you to be a little more compassionate to the the plight of those players that did not dope, in 2011-2012 or since as they continue to suffer in silence as the AFLPA dresses up the dopers in pretty piggie outfits.
And to the plight of footballers in the State leagues, having to watch their game being dragged through the mud because of your club.
And to the plight of the young kids, seeing 34 player banned for doping. Great sport to play, huh?

This here is the problem. Your gnashing of teeth in tribal opposition to the EFC makes you blind to the fact that the players obviously didn't intend to cheat (good old consent forms are testament to this), and have harmed nobody. At worst they (and the EFC) have been misled by a dodgy sports scientist (and in your eyes, Hird) and let down by the failings and reassurances of the club. Where, amongst all that is it the player's fault for tarnishing our great game?

 

[jenny61_99]

This here is the problem. Your gnashing of teeth in tribal opposition to the EFC makes you blind to the fact that the players obviously didn't intend to cheat (good old consent forms are testament to this), and have harmed nobody. At worst they (and the EFC) have been misled by a dodgy sports scientist (and in your eyes, Hird) and let down by the failings and reassurances of the club. Where, amongst all that is it the player's fault for tarnishing our great game?

Your naivety and inability to see reality is astounding.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

This here is the problem. Your gnashing of teeth in tribal opposition to the EFC makes you blind to the fact that the players obviously didn't intend to cheat (good old consent forms are testament to this), and have harmed nobody. At worst they (and the EFC) have been misled by a dodgy sports scientist (and in your eyes, Hird) and let down by the failings and reassurances of the club. Where, amongst all that is it the player's fault for tarnishing our great game?

That the players "didn't intend to cheat" matters not for sports doping.
Someone IN your club intended to cheat.
The only "good consent forms" would have been ones that listed the ACTUAL chemicals used and their ACTUAL status. No such things existed.

The 40+ players involved thought that they were alright to trust their club.

They were wrong.

Just as so many elite sportspersons across the world have simlarly been wrong.
It's why the anti-doping regs are set up they way they are.

Trust no one but yourself.

A sad indictment on humanity but there you are, it's the reality. And it continues to be, if you watch other sports outside of the AFL at present.
As other posters here who manage/ coach/ parent athletes in other sports have posted examples of, if gymasts under 10 can "get it", why can't 40+ male adults (age 17-34+)?

And just to refocus your branding of my apparent foaming on your a club, you haven't been around here long have you?
I'm anti-AFL.
Your club just happened to be the most stupid one in the Vic-based league, where "black-ops" meant comedic failure, rather than cutting-edge doping program - cue the Benny Hill music.
This is just the latest in a long list of cover-ups, as the Vic-old-boys-club stumbles from one grossly mismanaged ****up to the next.
BTGID, indeed - those things should be self-appointed.

 

[eldorado]

My point is, as far as them being culpable; i.e. responsible or at fault, no other form of justice in the Western world would punish someone on such a low level of evidence. Surely that's not hard to comprehend.

Your point is completely wrong.

Civil action judgements are based on a lower level of evidence.

 

[Blind Turn]

That the players "didn't intend to cheat" matters not for sports doping.
Someone IN your club intended to cheat.
The only "good consent forms" would have been ones that listed the ACTUAL chemicals used and their ACTUAL status. No such things existed.

The 40+ players involved thought that they were alright to trust their club.

They were wrong.

Just as so many elite sportspersons across the world have simlarly been wrong.
It's why the anti-doping regs are set up they way they are.

Trust no one but yourself.

A sad indictment on humanity but there you are, it's the reality. And it continues to be, if you watch other sports outside of the AFL at present.
As other posters here who manage/ coach/ parent athletes in other sports have posted examples of, if gymasts under 10 can "get it", why can't 40+ male adults (age 17-34+)?

And just to refocus your branding of my apparent foaming on your a club, you haven't been around here long have you?
I'm anti-AFL.
Your club just happened to be the most stupid one in the Vic-based league, where "black-ops" meant comedic failure, rather than cutting-edge doping program - cue the Benny Hill music.
This is just the latest in a long list of cover-ups, as the Vic-old-boys-club stumbles from one grossly mismanaged ****up to the next.
BTGID, indeed - those things should be self-appointed.

Yep my club was in farcical mode.
I'm not arguing against that fact.

I've been around 'here' for 9 years. I just keep out of this echo chamber for the most part. I'm sure you can see the AFLs dirty mits all over this balls-up then. Their determination to micro-manage everything has been a big part of the problem (Liz Lukin etc).

 

[Blind Turn]

Your point is completely wrong.

Civil action judgements are based on a lower level of evidence.

Yeah, but this was so low it was ploughing the earth.