SEN/Robbo/Hun: Essendon players have received show cause notices

Remove this Banner Ad

Barkly St End said:
Are you talking about the case where a footballer imported a susbstance, it arrived in a parcel with his name plastered all over it, bought on his credit card, the item was actually tested AND he admitted to importing it - are we talking about that case?

Do people honestly believe the facts in that case are relevant to this case?

Seriously??
Click to expand...

You mean that case isn't relevant when we have evidence that TB4 was imported from overseas, compounded by a pharmacist, given to Dank who was employed by EFC, EFC paid an invoice with TB4 listed on it and marked as delivered.

You think those 2 cases are different, how?
 
tigerwill said:
Did Wade Lees administer a prohibited substance? yes or no will do.
An athlete doesn't have to have had a substance administered. They can be charged with intent to administer.
Surprising that you were ignorant of that fact.

1. re AOD maybe.Or maybe that's for round 2 of Show Cause Notices
2. 1 step at a time. Obviously you know more than McDevitt, Downes and the 2 QC's who perused all the evidence to ensure there was a case
Click to expand...
Doesn't make any sense to go for TB4 first and AOD second. It reveals something sinister.

There is confusion over tb4 which is not explicitly stated on the consent forms and has not been admitted.

On the other hand AOD is explicitly on the consent forms and its use has been admitted by the players - publicly by the captain.

It is illogical to go for possible use of tb4 but not go for certain evidential witnessed and admitted use of AOD.

ASADA are trying to protect their arses by not prosecuting for AOD. They are prosecuting for TB4 to justify their existence. If it fails they probably will claim they did their duty.

At some point ASADA are going to have to reveal why they are not prosecuting for AOD. There is sufficient evidence in the public domain to prosecute for AOD. An enquiry is inevitable.
 
Striker475 said:
Yet an 11 month AFP investigation of ASADA regarding leaks turned up diddly-squat.

I don't believe ASADA have actually leaked ANYTHING. It has been a combination of the AFL, Essendon and other sources (ACC?) which has governed debate.
Click to expand...

Both Esendon and the AFL have been doing it so that ASADA's investigation would deny Essendon natural justice and compromise the investigation.

All while pointing the finger at ASADA.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Any Essendon players found guilty of breaching anti-doping laws but are determined to have not had sufficient knowledge about what they were taking could have 75 per cent of the maximum penalty slashed.

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt told 3AW on Friday that if any of the 34 past and present Essendon players caught up in the investigation weren’t aware of what they were taking they could face a minimum ban of one year, as opposed to the maximum of two years.

He said if players “provided substantial assistance”, including making a full admissions, there was an option of a further six months being slashed off their penalty.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...n-penalties-20140613-zs6i5.html#ixzz34TcvS4aS

morgoth
 
Echols said:
Whoever (DC?)it is on SEN talking with KB has just said that it would be the rarest of cases for a show cause to not then become an infraction and ban.

No wonder Essendon want to fight the process, not the charge.

They know they are cooked. They need to try and get off on a technicality or loop hole.
Click to expand...

A SC letter is a statement that is basically; "we have enough to add you to the Register, we intend to add you to the Register, we are convinced you are guilty, this is your last chance to blow us away with proof you are innocent"

The ADRV will normally find that the charge is proven, unless the accused gives some excellent info via the SC response.

That forces the AFL to issue the Infraction notice. Once that is done the accused can not normally argue whether or not the addition to the Register of Findings is valid. That is taken as fact. They can only argue mitigation in regard to bans ... and it is very very very rare that no ban is issued.

Essendon's only chance from here is to challenge the validity of the whole process, and the chances of them effectively overturning government legislation that has already been tested, and is part of an international treaty are fairly remote.
 
carlton2dabone said:
Let mas ask you this question.

We all agree (ASADA, EFC, EFC players, Media, fans, etc) that EFC players were administered a form of thymosin and there is evidence and admissions to support this.

So the question then becomes which form of thymosin was administered.

So this question is this:

If ASADA have a multitude of evidence to support their proposition that TB4 was the form that was used, and EFC have not one shred of evidence that the good thymosin was used, then how on earth can anyone think that any panel or court will take EFC's version of events over ASADA's version of events?
Click to expand...

Yes, so far so good, but let me ask you this in return: do you think ASADA has evidence of 34 players having taken Thymosin (any form)?

I will say to you - that is extremely unlikely - extremely unlikely.

Which means what?

That the 34 notices are merely part of a 16 month long fishing expedition, nothing more and nothing less.

It represents a last ditch effort to find something one someone, anyone.

Because - if ASDAD had had hard evidence on a few players haven taken TB4 - that would have been before the ADRV Panel by now.

They don't have that evidence - it's as simple as that.
 
carlton2dabone said:
Let mas ask you this question.

We all agree (ASADA, EFC, EFC players, Media, fans, etc) that EFC players were administered a form of thymosin and there is evidence and admissions to support this.

So the question then becomes which form of thymosin was administered.

So this question is this:

If ASADA have a multitude of evidence to support their proposition that TB4 was the form that was used, and EFC have not one shred of evidence that the good thymosin was used, then how on earth can anyone think that any panel or court will take EFC's version of events over ASADA's version of events?
Click to expand...
Just wondering if there are 34 signatures on consents?
 
Echols said:
Who?
Click to expand...
the guy is a complete fanny-pack. He's been completely hard line on Essendon from the start, so him saying that is no surprise whatsoever and I'd put little to no store in it. Guy comes from an athletics b/g, and has backside pains over AFL getting perceived different treatment
 
Barkly St End said:
It is now confirmed - ASADA do not have any hard evidence that any individual player was administered a prohibited substance.

So with confidence, I repeat what I have been stating for 15 months now:

  1. AOD has been off the table since day one; and
  2. no Essendon player will see an infraction notice.
Click to expand...

No you told us after the AFL penalty that NOTHING else would happen and everything was finished. You were clearly wrong on the most important part.

Let me know, are they putting or driving now?
 
JeffDunne said:
If I had a dollar for every time I've read a Collingwood supporter claiming a "source" on Bigfooty I'd be a rich man.

If I had a dollar for every time they were clearly pulling something from their arse I'd be twice as rich.
Click to expand...

Lol,
Lance Uppercut said:
Any Essendon players found guilty of breaching anti-doping laws but are determined to have not had sufficient knowledge about what they were taking could have 75 per cent of the maximum penalty slashed.

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt told 3AW on Friday that if any of the 34 past and present Essendon players caught up in the investigation weren’t aware of what they were taking they could face a minimum ban of one year, as opposed to the maximum of two years.

He said if players “provided substantial assistance”, including making a full admissions, there was an option of a further six months being slashed off their penalty.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...n-penalties-20140613-zs6i5.html#ixzz34TcvS4aS

morgoth
Click to expand...


Which equals, 6 months. Funny about that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JD11 said:
He ruins any chance of people talking about one of the biggest things to ever happen in AFL by talking about that exact thing...

riiiiight.
Click to expand...
The problem is that BSE is a bad faith participant. That became crystal clear many moons ago, which is why I refuse to interact with him.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Any Essendon players found guilty of breaching anti-doping laws but are determined to have not had sufficient knowledge about what they were taking could have 75 per cent of the maximum penalty slashed.

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt told 3AW on Friday that if any of the 34 past and present Essendon players caught up in the investigation weren’t aware of what they were taking they could face a minimum ban of one year, as opposed to the maximum of two years.

He said if players “provided substantial assistance”, including making a full admissions, there was an option of a further six months being slashed off their penalty.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...n-penalties-20140613-zs6i5.html#ixzz34TcvS4aS

morgoth
Click to expand...

The context of those quotes from the interview has been somewhat lost. In the interview is definitely sounded like McDevitt was laying the foundations for some "tell us the truth and save yourself" whistleblowing by individual players rather than trying to offer mass hope of reduced sanctions for the entire list.
 
Striker475 said:
Yet an 11 month AFP investigation of ASADA regarding leaks turned up diddly-squat.

I don't believe ASADA have actually leaked ANYTHING. It has been a combination of the AFL, Essendon and other sources (ACC?) which has governed debate.
Click to expand...

All the accusations around leaks and incompetence have really only come from Essendon supporters and the club. In fact that appears to be their only defence.
 
Albert Ross said:
A SC letter is a statement that is basically; "we have enough to add you to the Register, we intend to add you to the Register, we are convinced you are guilty, this is your last chance to blow us away with proof you are innocent"

The ADRV will normally find that the charge is proven, unless the accused gives some excellent info via the SC response.

That forces the AFL to issue the Infraction notice. Once that is done the accused can not normally argue whether or not the addition to the Register of Findings is valid. That is taken as fact. They can only argue mitigation in regard to bans ... and it is very very very rare that no ban is issued.

Essendon's only chance from here is to challenge the validity of the whole process, and the chances of them effectively overturning government legislation that has already been tested, and is part of an international treaty are fairly remote.
Click to expand...

I agree that is the norm, and that is the usual process - but I do not accept that ASADA has evidence of 34 players having been administered with TB4.

That is unlikely in the extreme.

So, is there anything which prohibits ASADA from using this process to extract the evidence they need - and I say to you - no, there is not.

McDevitt is talking deals already, if players confess - how on Earth can players confess? (did I take the good or bad Thymosin? how the hell would I know? I understood it was the good one, etc)

Once again, ASADA do not have the evidence and are hoping for something to fall out.
 
Barkly St End said:
I agree that is the norm, and that is the usual process - but I do not accept that ASADA has evidence of 34 players having been administered with TB4.

That is unlikely in the extreme.

So, is there anything which prohibits ASADA from using this process to extract the evidence they need - and I say to you - no, there is not.

McDevitt is talking deals already, if players confess - how on Earth can players confess? (did I take the good or bad Thymosin? how the hell would I know? I understood it was the good one, etc)

Once again, ASADA do not have the evidence and are hoping for something to fall out.
Click to expand...

Why?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SEN/Robbo/Hun: Essendon players have received show cause notices

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
853
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top