The AFL's anti-doping tribunal

[mxett]

You don't see a problem with Dank administering substances to a schoolboy, given everything you know?

who says Dank actually administered anything to JD?

 

[Cylon7]

Nothing short of death will please most of the over-offended.
Four weeks, or worse two.....
Heads should rightly explode.

No, it's about doing the right thing. Applying rules with transparency, fairness and integrity.
You shouldn't use the dollar as the determiner of your actions.

 

[pablo668]

You are incorrect.

Presumption of guilt occurs in presence cases (where there is a positive test and I believe also where there is a blood passport related anomoly). This is a non-presence case, where there is no positive test, so presumption of innocence 100% applies.

Unfortunately due to malfeasance on the part of the AFL and certain media bodies the players have already been declared guilty.

Just remember, for every text message that you've read that seems to convey guilt there are probably 50 that convey innocence that weren't ever published.

Fair enough.
There have been plenty in the media who have bent over backwards arguing innocence as well, or at least that the players would/should get off without a penalty.

 

[Juddafideslenko]

Hard to fault this.

If the players escape without penalty it's because the evidence doesn't met the required standard. ( could be they didn't do it I grant you).

Either way the outcome would be just.

Dave, I have to say the reverse also applies.

In regards to the evidence, i'll just make a quick mention of the VFL player (can't recall his name),
that ordered, but had not recieved his PEDs.
STILL banned regardless of this.
I'd think ASADA have at least that much on Essendon.

 

[LoungeLizard]

In regards to the evidence, i'll just make a quick mention of the VFL player (can't recall his name),
that ordered, but had not recieved his PEDs.
STILL banned regardless of this.
I'd think ASADA have at least that much on Essendon.

That's is just one player though.
You can't ban 34 players if the club ordered the goods

 

[Juddafideslenko]

That's is just one player though.
You can't ban 34 players if the club ordered the goods

Why not?
If the PEDs were delivered to the club, it will be assumed that they were used.
That's how WADA rolls no?

 

[andrewb]

Why not?
If the PEDs were delivered to the club, it will be assumed that they were used.
That's how WADA rolls no?

No

 

[Juddafideslenko]

No

Really?

 

[andrewb]

Really?

In a non-presence case ASADA needs to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal that each individual player took banned substances.

 

[Juddafideslenko]

In a non-presence case ASADA needs to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal that each individual player took banned substances.

Ahhhh so that VFL player got his PEDs after all huh?

 

[andrewb]

Ahhhh so that VFL player got his PEDs after all huh?

For an importation case ASADA would have to prove that each player imported an illegal substance

 

[Proper Gander]

You are incorrect.

Presumption of guilt occurs in presence cases (where there is a positive test and I believe also where there is a blood passport related anomoly). This is a non-presence case, where there is no positive test, so presumption of innocence 100% applies.

Unfortunately due to malfeasance on the part of the AFL and certain media bodies the players have already been declared guilty.

Just remember, for every text message that you've read that seems to convey guilt there are probably 50 that convey innocence that weren't ever published.

Defence would have the full transcripts of unpublished comms. I don't see that wherever you sit on the issue, worrying about what the media have said to make money along the way is pretty pointless.

 

[Juddafideslenko]

For an importation case ASADA would have to prove that each player imported an illegal substance

He was charged with attempted use as well as importation.
Even if the Essendon players didn't use the drugs, if they signed consent forms, wouldn't this
be a similar scenario?

 

[andrewb]

He was charged with attempted use as well as importation.
Even if the Essendon players didn't use the drugs, if they signed consent forms, wouldn't this
be a similar scenario?

No, because the consent forms had no banned drugs on them. In an attempted use case, ASADA would need to prove that each player was attempting to use banned drugs. They can do that with importation records due to their MoU with customs but it would have to be in the individual player's name.

 

[Juddafideslenko]

No, because the consent forms had no banned drugs on them. In an attempted use case, ASADA would need to prove that each player was attempting to use banned drugs. They can do that with importation records due to their MoU with customs but it would have to be in the individual player's name.

ok, fair enough.
Now how do we know there was no banned drugs on the consent forms?

 

[Juddafideslenko]

Do you have a copy of the consent form to back that up?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Just remember, for every text message that you've read that seems to convey guilt there are probably 50 that convey innocence that weren't ever published.

So have the 'guilty' SMSs ever been challenged?
Both sides leaked like sieves, so where are some of the SMSs proving innocence?

PS. You wrote 50, I read S0, loopholes on my mind!!

 

[andrewb]

Do you have a copy of the consent form to back that up?

Go to lmgtfy.com and type essendon consent forms

 

[Gavstar]

who says Dank actually administered anything to JD?

1. 
   Dank said to Barrett apparently.
   
   
   What connections has Dank with dodgy tablets
   
   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-13/former-asada-official-privately-obtaining-supplements/5156466
   
   What about dodgy powders
   
   http://www.smh.com.au/sport/markson-called-in-to-sell-charter-story-20130420-2i791.html
   
   Not saying its so but does anyone trust anything Dank did?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Why not?
If the PEDs were delivered to the club, it will be assumed that they were used.
That's how WADA rolls no?

So then if that's the case, then they could ban every player on the list?
Don't work that way i'm sorry

 

[Juddafideslenko]

Go to lmgtfy.com and type essendon consent forms

I'll do a more thorough search later as i'm heading out. but all i could find was a blank PDF with no drugs listed and articles out of the newspaper that speculated.
Nothing concrete as yet.
Will get back to you

 

[Juddafideslenko]

So then if that's the case, then they could ban every player on the list?
Don't work that way i'm sorry

They could you know!

 

[sauce_head]

I read no verdicts were to announced for 21 days from when the verdicts were handed down as a cooling off period. That was a Tribunal ruling I believe.

Was that the case for the NRL AS well? Probably different due to pleading guilty actually.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Looks like the players may be cleared due to insufficient evidence, heard that from a few places today.

I'm guessing Danks will get done for administering banned drugs to the players, that i'm sure of, and more than just TB4, but pinning which player got what injection, or who didn't get an injection, is going to get the players cleared as that is just too hard. Too me, which I read somewhere, it's why ASADA went for just TB4 as they felt it was the only drug they felt they could possibly pin on individual players (seems not) where as the others they couldn't. We know Danks has admitted to administering the players TB4.

If Danks get done then it's meant players got administered banned drugs so there's a tainting. For Essendon to be completely innocent, for want of a better word, they need Danks to get off too.

Maybe there is a reward for not keeping records.

 

[Gavstar]

They could you know!

Nope they can't ban everyone as some could be innocent. Must have evidence of who took banned drugs, a challenge in this scenario.