Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[hawk65]

Did Melbourne tank?

Are Melbourne the only team to tank?

 

[threesixpio]

Geez, North Korea would be ashamed of the tribunal manipulation. Almost feels the rules were along the lines of..."if it says Essendon, it goes on the not guilty pile and anything else you can say guilty".

Buy shares in telecoms this weekend, the lines between ASADA and WADA will be hot...

If ASADA don't appeal this whole "tribunal" manipulation argument on BF will look as silly as the Bomber posters saying Justice Middleton was corrupt. Just saying....

 

[threesixpio]

Did Melbourne tank?

Different ball game. There is direct state involvement in this and appeal mechanisms which can embarrass the AFL. I find the propensity of both pro and anti Bombers supporters to jump on conspiracy theories mind numbingly stupid just quietly

 

[grumbleguts]

Yeah I am not anti the AFL at all. I appreciate that they have an incredibly difficult balancing act to execute trying to find the right medium between the immediate interests of the supporters (all of whom are bias toward themselves and their teams) and the bigger picture growth of the game. Every move they make there is a consequence where some party will always feel deeply hard done by and are willing to have a tantrum about.

You can probably extend that appreciation of how difficult it is to balance these outcomes to this Essendon drug scandal too. Complex scenarios with multitudes of interests at stake very rarely have clean cut parameters or solutions. In the end trying to impose binary (write and wrong/good and evil) logic to them, or expect others to do the same, is not realistic and is only going to lead to the sort of frustration that we can see in this thread.

Therein lies the problem. There's nothing to balance. There is only "what was committed" and "what wasn't committed."

There are no balancing acts to undertake. You seem to think there are.

If you still think there is a grey area in terms of what was taken, then you probably will keep going with your crusade to keep the only voices willing call out the perpetrators of the single largest bid to bring the game down ever instigatged.

 

[B&GBlood]

Until they can prove what they took, I can only assume the strong circumstantial evidence of; emails, texts, drug importation and pharmaceutical compounding and dosing that matches that required for a known banned substance, more than implies the campaigners from * were up to no good.

A drug code should not need anymore than what has been gathered on the syds and the "dog at may homework" defense should be categorically removed as a defense.

If you cannot prove, under this type of circumstance, you were not cheating too bad, you are guilty.

 

[Southern Urchins]

How can Dank be guilty of supplying a drug that nobody took? lol

As I've said for months, this is a complete boat race on behalf of the AFL and justice was never going to be served.

Dank's head on a pike, everyone happy, nothing to see here folks, let's get back to making the AFL money!

#standbyforanzacdayblockbuster #/closethread

 

[grumbleguts]

The irony is, their major sponsor used to be speed kills. They may have appended it with "unless you cut it with icing sugar and TB4 then it only enhances performance."

 

[GOHORCS]

The two things that disturb me the most are the passion (bordering on obsession in some cases) with which some of us are going after these guys under the auspices of "the greater good" meanwhile knowing that if the shoe were on the other foot there is just no way on earth that those same people would have half the same degree of moral conviction they're displaying in judgement of Essendon. We can all say "yes we would" but I know that if the Hawthorn Football Club found itself in Essendon's position we would all be looking for the angles to explain away culpability (especially that of the players). I include myself squarely in that group. As a passionate Hawthorn supporter this is the most disturbing aspect of it as far as I'm concerned, because hypocrisy and sanctimony are almost as ugly as deceit if you ask me. I am very secure in the fact that if the scenario were reversed and Hawthorn was in the firing line I would have EXACTLY the same position. I hope the rest of you can say the same.

The only thing that disturbs me is that you include me in the same group as you. If hawthorn cheat most hawthorn supporters would be disgusted not living in denial. Like you are finding out(very slowly) you are not representative of most hawthorn supporters and if the shoe was on the other foot you would still be on your own. Suck it up, you are more like an essendon supporter than a hawthorn one.

 

[eldorado]

There's been some serious Game of Throne styles subterfuge going on behind the scenes here...

Amazing mental gymnastics being used by the tribunal to come up with the desired outcome...

 

[threesixpio]

How can Dank be guilty of supplying a drug that nobody took? lol

As I've said for months, this is a complete boat race on behalf of the AFL and justice was never going to be served.

Dank's head on a pike, everyone happy, nothing to see here folks, let's get back to making the AFL money!

#standbyforanzacdayblockbuster #/closethread

Posted this on HTB: re trafficking drugs of dependence I'm pretty sure there is good case law that if both parties believed that the substance was a drug of dependence they can still get done for trafficking irrespective of the substance later being established as not being a drug of dependence. Cant really access names of cases etc until Monday but happy to then. So - might not be as logically inconsistent as you are suggesting

 

[threesixpio]

There's been some serious Game of Throne styles subterfuge going on behind the scenes here...

Amazing mental gymnastics being used by the tribunal to come up with the desired outcome...

Don't agree

 

[threesixpio]

There's been some serious Game of Throne styles subterfuge going on behind the scenes here...

Amazing mental gymnastics being used by the tribunal to come up with the desired outcome...

The arguments on BF about the threshold being too high for comfortable satisfaction are decent - the rest is an uneducated mob jumping at shadows.

 

[Flag08]

There is no way ASADA or WADA will let the tribunal get away with this disgraceful act. Handing out the findings at five seconds to midnight is so transparently corrupt as to be laughable.

 

[eldorado]

Yet somehow they are comfortably satisfied that Dank had intent, and that's enough. But all the evidence of the chain, and injection regiment, somehow isn't enough.

I think the issue is that they seem to be using two different burdens of proof; one for Dank's operations that don't harm the AFL, and other for those that do

 

[Off The Couch]

I'm presuming then that the drugs that dank "trafficked" to the essendon football club also got lost in the move and disinergrated along the way.

 

[threesixpio]

Yet somehow they are comfortably satisfied that Dank had intent, and that's enough. But all the evidence of the chain, and injection regiment, somehow isn't enough.

I think the issue is that they seem to be using two different burdens of proof; one for Dank's operations that don't harm the AFL, and other for those that do

Sorry - but surely you can concede that it is easier to establish intent than the chemical makeup of a substance? I'm not saying the tribunal got things right but some of the arguments being mounted here - including yours - are really flawed

 

[threesixpio]

Yet somehow they are comfortably satisfied that Dank had intent, and that's enough. But all the evidence of the chain, and injection regiment, somehow isn't enough.

I think the issue is that they seem to be using two different burdens of proof; one for Dank's operations that don't harm the AFL, and other for those that do

And Ill add from the Whatley explanation it was clear as day for me that Dank was going down based on intent. The primary problem in ASADA's case was the unreliability of Charter and Alavi's evidence, without which, they could not establish the substances were actually TB4. It's not rocket science

 

[hardway]

The smoking gun is all the soft tissue injuries during the injection program. This has been nothing but a rort from the afl to save face.

 

[eldorado]

Sorry - but surely you can concede that it is easier to establish intent than the chemical makeup of a substance? I'm not saying the tribunal got things right but some of the arguments being mounted here - including yours - are really flawed

But WADA accepts intent for the players, not just the importer. Once they agreed to accept injections of what they (and everyone else) believed was TB4, that's enough.

They give two years to players who order it online, even if they never receive it. There is no distinction between 'intent to use' prohibited, and proving what the chemical basis of what they actually took. Mental gymnastics to apply intent to Dank, apparently only in matters NOT involving Essendon and not to matters that ARE involving Essendon, or the players themselves.

 

[grumbleguts]

And Ill add from the Whatley explanation it was clear as day for me that Dank was going down based on intent. The primary problem in ASADA's case was the unreliability of Charter and Alavi's evidence, without which, they could not establish the substances were actually TB4. It's not rocket science

It doesn't matter that it was TB4 or not, it matters that they don't know what it was.

Unless you are willing to concede that the injections didn't take place.

 

[eldorado]

The primary problem in ASADA's case was the unreliability of Charter and Alavi's evidence, without which, they could not establish the substances were actually TB4.

The blanket decision to dismiss all Alavi and Charters' evidence is part of the issue for those of us who do not see a pure process in this.

 

[threesixpio]

But WADA accepts intent for the players, not just the importer. Once they agreed to accept injections of what they (and everyone else) believed was TB4, that's enough.

They give two years to players who order it online, even if they never receive it. There is no distinction between 'intent to use' prohibited, and proving what the chemical basis of what they actually took. Mental gymnastics to apply intent to Dank, (apparently only in matters NOT involving Essendon) and not to matters that ARE involving Essendon, or the players themselves.

Ok. But you can probably at least accept that there was nothing murky about his intent to import Tb4. It's murkier when it gets to the players intent re good and bad Thymosin. I'm not saying ASADA shouldn't appeal on this but to suggest that the evidence is as strong re Dank's intent and the players' intent is assuming a bit too much. The tribunal may have got it wrong - but I get a little face slap happy when people suggest conspiracies without actually working out why the tribunal made the wrong decision

 

[Argy]

Sorry - but surely you can concede that it is easier to establish intent than the chemical makeup of a substance? I'm not saying the tribunal got things right but some of the arguments being mounted here - including yours - are really flawed

Are you kidding? To establish intent you need to be a mind reader. To establish the chemical make-up of a drug you just need to look at the paperwork. The tribunal acknowledged that everyone in the supply chain thought they were handling TB4, but for some reason said that the belief it was TB4 did not mean it actually was TB4. Go figure.

 

[threesixpio]

The blanket decision to dismiss all Alavi and Charters' evidence is part of the issue for those of us who do not see a pure process in this.

The problem is they weren't at the tribunal. That's why ASASA shat themselves at the 11th hour. Hopefully the law can be altered to subpoeana third parties

 

[Brishawk]

Yeah I am not anti the AFL at all. I appreciate that they have an incredibly difficult balancing act to execute trying to find the right medium between the immediate interests of the supporters (all of whom are bias toward themselves and their teams) and the bigger picture growth of the game. Every move they make there is a consequence where some party will always feel deeply hard done by and are willing to have a tantrum about.

You can probably extend that appreciation of how difficult it is to balance these outcomes to this Essendon drug scandal too. Complex scenarios with multitudes of interests at stake very rarely have clean cut parameters or solutions. In the end trying to impose binary (write and wrong/good and evil) logic to them, or expect others to do the same, is not realistic and is only going to lead to the sort of frustration that we can see in this thread.

The AFL is supposed to be run in the best interests of the clubs who are supposed to act in the best interests of club members. Growing the game has does nothing to benefit club members. Growing the game directly benefits AFL staff through higher wages and more jobs, players through higher wages, sponsors through wider reach of marketing, club staff through higher wages and more jobs. Clubs generally do not benefit from higher revenue where revenue is distributed equally because all it does is raise the price level of running costs such as wages. One are where fans have benefited from the growth of the game is through access to the game via TV but that is not really beneficial to club members as it discourages attendance which is one place clubs can differentiate revenue from competitors. AFL Auskick could also be considered a benefit to fans but again this is not a direct benefit to club members.

So if club members are not a direct beneficiary of growth then really growth should not be the primary concern in addressing league issues. So if we look back at issues such as tanking and the draw and Essendon's doping regime lets assess the AFL's performance against their constitutional obligation to run the competition in the best interests of club members (via the clubs).

1. It is in the best interests of club members to have club staff and boards held accountable in regards to tanking. Outcome: tanking denied and club fined.
2. It is in the best interests for clubs to have equal draws in terms of difficulty, travel and potential commercial value. Outcome: AFL favours some clubs over others in a systematic fashion that even over the course of several years does not provide for equal outcomes.
3. It is in the interests of club members to have a transparent and clean sport. Outcome: Investigation, tribunal hearing and even the tribunal's summary of findings conducted in/kept secret. Members are left to draw their own conclusions based on the information available in the public domain and few find the outcome palatable.

So while there are plenty of beneficiaries of the AFL's actions the club members largely come last.