Saga should be over soon.

[compact72]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

And what is your witness?

• A "rogue" scientist
• An egomaniac coach who never saw a letter from the club doctor, but helped write it?
• The football club that has no records of what was pumped into 34 players
• Or the CEO that injects himself with tanning solution?
• Or the chairman that tries to null all the evidence?

Sorry, I'm confused who is more credible

 

[fishardansin]

dude sorry, there's quite a lot wrong with that.

ASADA/WADA don't "only have to prove the possibility", that is only for the SCN and infraction stage. Once it hits the tribunal the AFL and ASADA must prove to a high level, not reasonable doubt but a high level nonetheless, that a specific player took a specific substance. If the tribunal doesn't find that then ASADA/WADA can appeal, but only on points of law

I think so many people have confused the case of Essendon players with that of athletes who have tested positive to a banned substance. Also the case of Marion Jones there was documentation of her taking a particular volume of a particular substance at a particular time. Then there was Armstrong who was dobbed in by many team mates on the exact same details as above. Not to mention the nurse.

This is a very different case to claiming that Dank was given one batch of TB4 ... that MAY have gotten to Essendon!!

 

[fishardansin]

Nope, the matter won't end until the players sue the club. Which, incidentally, is what I'm looking forward to the most.

Will it count of the salary cap? If not I'm sure the club and supporters would be in full support of that!!

 

[Old Dark Blues]

dude sorry, there's quite a lot wrong with that.

ASADA/WADA don't "only have to prove the possibility", that is only for the SCN and infraction stage. Once it hits the tribunal the AFL and ASADA must prove to a high level, not reasonable doubt but a high level nonetheless, that a specific player took a specific substance. If the tribunal doesn't find that then ASADA/WADA can appeal, but only on points of law

Can you provide your source on that - because that's bullshit. Since these are not courts of law.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

The part that whinges about how long the investigation has taken is, in effect, the AFLPA undermining all the efforts ASADA, the AFL and probably the AFLPA itself put into educating players about their responsibilities in terms of being aware of all substances entering their bodies.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[womack]

I think it is more the case that Dank, Hird, Reid and others are saying that doping didn't occur and there is a convicted crim on the other side. Especially when you look at what his evidence is. All his supplies to Dank could easily have been for his personal business.

OK then

Dank (?/Rogue and has form) Hird (EFC great/Self injector) Reid (Great doc/asleep at the wheel) versus Charters (bio-chemist/convicted crim). Levels it up a bit.

I couldn't think of a positive for Dank sorry.

 

[Graffy4242]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

Strange people then to rely on supplying the supplements for your playing list........

 

[West Coast 06]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

True, you would think Essendon would have thought twice before getting involved with such people?! Seems so obvious really.

 

[go_the_dockers]

dude sorry, there's quite a lot wrong with that.

ASADA/WADA don't "only have to prove the possibility", that is only for the SCN and infraction stage. Once it hits the tribunal the AFL and ASADA must prove to a high level, not reasonable doubt but a high level nonetheless, that a specific player took a specific substance. If the tribunal doesn't find that then ASADA/WADA can appeal, but only on points of law

The article must be wrong then. The below quote from the AFL players association says the AFL require a high standard of proof.

<<<
It is important to note that the onus of proving the allegations against the players that they were administered the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4, rests with the AFL. While ASADA is only required to demonstrate to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel a ‘possibility’ of a violation, the much higher standard proof of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ is required to be proved by the AFL at the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.
>>>>

 

[B0SK]

Will it count of the salary cap? If not I'm sure the club and supporters would be in full support of that!!

There's no guarantee the players will win their court cases against Essendon, but the exciting thing is we might get the chance to hear what REALLY went on at the club in 2012 - since for the first time the players will have direct incentive to tell the truth.

 

[hawksalltheway]

Essendon PR do not want to admit guilt -- they are banking on the best 'outcome' for 'public perception' particularly amongst their own members.....

 

[Carlo]

I'm extremely confident we will get off without bans, The Essendon football club will be completely vindicated.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

One possibility that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now withdraw some or all of the SCNs.

 

[Suma Magic]

I can't provide any comments specific to this thread.

But I reinstate my view, which is the view of most I think, that it will be great to find out if the players are guilty are not.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The article must be wrong then. The below quote from the AFL players association says the AFL require a high standard of proof.

<<<
It is important to note that the onus of proving the allegations against the players that they were administered the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4, rests with the AFL. While ASADA is only required to demonstrate to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel a ‘possibility’ of a violation, the much higher standard proof of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ is required to be proved by the AFL at the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.
>>>>

the article is completely correct. The ADRVP is not the tribunal. It is merely an oversight body that assess ASADAs brief of evidence and if they agree there has been a possible violation, enter the athletes on to the Register of Finding so that an infraction is issued. Once that's happened it goes to, you guessed it, the tribunal

 

[onemancyclone]

One possibility now that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now withdraw some or all the SCNs.

Yeah they defended their 2 year+ investigation through the courts so they could serve SCNs, so they could like... withdraw them.

No really.

 

[Argy]

One possibility that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now withdraw some or all of the SCNs.

Another possibility that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now issue more SCNs.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I can't provide any comments specific to this thread.

But I reinstate my view, which is the view of most I think, that it will be great to find out if the players are guilty are not.

that comment is specific to this thread. I've made the same point myself. It is astounding that some on here, on the "asada barracker" side, have so much angst with this. It should be what everyone wants. No backroom deals, evidence tested, players either suspended under the code or cleared with no lingering stench

 

[Magruder]

I'm just impressed how we continue to latch onto pronouncments from the AFLPA as conclusive evidence of anything.

We've discussed credibility of various parties in this thread, i wondering if Prendergast et al stack up in this regard.

 

[Pinnell]

I'm extremely confident we will get off without bans, The Essendon football club will be completely vindicated.

"get off" = "vindicated" ??? I see....

 

[Argy]

that comment is specific to this thread. I've made the same point myself. It is astounding that some on here, on the "asada barracker" side, have so much angst with this. It should be what everyone wants. No backroom deals, evidence tested, players either suspended under the code or cleared with no lingering stench

100% agree.

 

[womack]

One possibility that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now withdraw some or all of the SCNs.

Who do you think should expose that? The 7.30 Report? ACA? Neil Mitchell? Alan Jones? Humphrey B. Bear?

 

[B0SK]

I'm extremely confident we will get off without bans, The Essendon football club will be completely vindicated.

No, not really. Essendon will remain the only team in VFL/AFL history to be banned from playing finals for dru....err "poor governance".

The only thing escaping bans will prove is that ASADA was unable to dig up enough evidence to prove your club's guilt, or that the AFL was too corrupt to go ahead and administer a fair punishment, or a combination of both.


Make no mistake, Essendon will carry the stigma of peptide abuse for years to come regardless of what happens to the players. That I can promise you.

 

[Play by Numbers]

interesting take on it. The only way a "lettuce leaf slap" can come is via a deal, not via a tribunal.

I'd say the players have clearly been given a "wink wink" that the evidence isn't going to hold up at the tribunal, like some of us have said for ages, and that they want to get it tested.

If they thought the evidence was strong the statement would be talking about approaching ASADA for deals. The writing is on the wall people.

Didn't "some" say for ages, that this would all be over quickly and in Essendons favor. Didn't some also say, that the court case as to the legality of the investigation would also end in Essendons favor.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Make no mistake, Essendon will carry the stigma of peptide abuse for years to come regardless of what happens to the players. That I can promise you.