Mega Thread Thymosin Discussion - Update -AFL 21/8 - Bombers officially charged with Thymosin beta issues

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Bunk Moreland said:
So do we all agree the info for this story was leaked by the AFL?
Click to expand...

Of course it was, just like they leaked what was going on with the ACC to Essendon who then confessed.
 
Baldur said:
So what, you don't see, you do not see lots of things, how could you you have not read the report. No competent investigator issues charges with the job not completed, just in case something does happen. Not unless events force them to do so.
Click to expand...
that's fine, I respect that opinion. But I've said the whole time if infractions aren't issued soon then I'm fairly comfortable they won't be. I know they could be, but I've stated my position
 
Okay, assuming the article is on the level:
- AOD-9604 had been administered and there are no TUEs and cutting edge legal arguments about the nature of the word addressed don't prevent it from coming under S.0
- Tb4 has been administered
- but there are ongoing doubts as to which player got what due to a lack of governance and record keeping

Then I suspect game into disrepute penalties will probably inversely correlate to the extent that players are issued infractions. Because if the only thing that stands between players and doping bans is the sheer depth of the shambles that the club was in in terms of program governance, then that must be considered an aggravating factor to club and officials sanctions.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
sure, but with finite resources it won't amount to much. There's a reason they focused on AFL exclusively, and now they are doing it to NRL
Click to expand...

We don't know what it will amount to. One interview has the possibility to open up a new can of worms. One player breaking ranks etc etc etc. We don't know how many people are working on either case or both.

One thing is for sure. It is a government agency and they take as long as they like.

I suspect an interim report has been asked for by the AFL so they can make a decision on Essendon the club prior to the finals. And if that's the case then it is a disgrace that ASADA has complied.
 
skipper kelly said:
We don't know what it will amount to. One interview has the possibility to open up a new can of worms. One player breaking ranks etc etc etc. We don't know how many people are working on either case or both.

One thing is for sure. It is a government agency and they take as long as they like.

I suspect an interim report has been asked for by the AFL so they can make a decision on Essendon the club prior to the finals. And if that's the case then it is a disgrace that ASADA has complied.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that, and I emphatically agree with your last two sentences.
 
Oneiros said:
Then I suspect game into disrepute penalties will probably inversely correlate to the extent that players are issued infractions. Because if the only thing that stands between players and doping bans is the sheer depth of the shambles that the club was in in terms of program governance, then that must be considered an aggravating factor to club and officials sanctions.
Click to expand...

Yep agreed, the AFL should come down harder on the club as a result.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
I've never thought individual players would face sanctions and I still don't.

If they were to, I strongly beleive there's be at least infraction notices by now.
Click to expand...

I think you're thinking footy-pace not government bureaucracy-pace here. If infractions are to come out, I'd be looking at a period of a week from now through to the end of the month. There are various groups that have to deliberate before they could be issued.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
I don't disagree with any of that, and I emphatically agree with your last two sentences.
Click to expand...

You wonder if it was something of a freebie, or if the AFL had to give something in turn to get the report on its terms.

Or we are all underestimating how unfinalised the report actually is.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
I don't disagree with any of that, and I emphatically agree with your last two sentences.
Click to expand...
Not really, the investigation was a joint investigation and ASADA probably agreed the pay off for more resources and cooperation from the AFL was to allow the AFL run their comp with the integrity of the finals in mind if they needed to sanction.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
no it doesn't.

It says the penalty is decided by the AFL Commission in their absolute discretion.
Click to expand...


Isnt it under 14.9 (b)?

b) Where the AFL General Manager - Football Operations determines that a Club


has committed breach of clause 11.9, the Club is subject to a fine of up to 100

Penalty Units and may be excluded from one or more selections at the

next National Draft Selection Meeting as determined by the AFL General



Manager - Football Operations in his sole and absolute discretion, provided

that if the AFL General Manager - Football Operations believes a greater

sanction ought apply, he may refer the matter to the Tribunal for its

determination as to whether any greater sanction ought be imposed.

What the hell is a penalty unit?? Is that points or??
For some reason thought there was a monetary item as well. Oh well.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
until there are infractions, it's hard to argue that there is not "insufficient evidence".

From the same media outlet:


​
Click to expand...

If, what we "know" from what has been reported in the media is correct - 11 players admitted in their ASADA interviews that they took thymosin (but they don't know which one), they signed a consent form to have it administered to them, the suggested dosage matches exactly what Charter told Dank for the TB4 (which he supplied to Dank), there are invoices showing Essendon paid for and received TB4, Dank admitted early (though since retracted) that he gave TB4 - you don't think that is sufficient evidence for ASADA to administer infraction notices? I have said all along, I just cannot see how infraction notices won't be given based on strict liability.
 
Oneiros said:
Just reading that article in the Age - I can't see how anyone even remotely involved in the Football Department at Essendon during the time of the program can hope in any way to retain their jobs or reputation.
Click to expand...

what if a staff member involved doesn't know "why they are sitting there" or "when the truth comes out, he would be in a good place"?
 
FuManchu said:
Not really, the investigation was a joint investigation and ASADA probably agreed the pay off for more resources and cooperation from the AFL was to allow the AFL run their comp with the integrity of the finals in mind if they needed to sanction.
Click to expand...
you consider the fact that the investigation was jointly run by the AFL and ASADA, and you conclude from that that demonstrates integrity?

Um, ok...
 
Oneiros said:
Just reading that article in the Age - I can't see how anyone even remotely involved in the Football Department at Essendon during the time of the program can hope in any way to retain their jobs or reputation.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree.

Unless there is more to it, I think proving which player (bar Watson!) took AOD is going to be tricky to do because of the poor record keeping (or just a well fed shredder?).

It may be that many players escape bans simply because they don't know which player took what.

But it's diabolically bad that no records were kept. I don't think the AFL or the AFLPA will be too amused.
 
General Giant said:
Isnt it under 14.9 (b)?

b) Where the AFL General Manager - Football Operations determines that a Club


has committed breach of clause 11.9, the Club is subject to a fine of up to 100

Penalty Units and may be excluded from one or more selections at the

next National Draft Selection Meeting as determined by the AFL General



Manager - Football Operations in his sole and absolute discretion, provided

that if the AFL General Manager - Football Operations believes a greater

sanction ought apply, he may refer the matter to the Tribunal for its

determination as to whether any greater sanction ought be imposed.

What the hell is a penalty unit?? Is that points or??
For some reason thought there was a monetary item as well. Oh well.
Click to expand...
that is a section referring back to 11.9, and thus is discussing consequences for a team allowing a banned player to play. It's not relevant.

Here is the section that is:

22. CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS
Where more than one Player from a Club has been notified of a possible Anti Doping
Rule Violation in any one season, the Club shall be subject to Target Testing for the
remainder of the season. If more than one Player in a Club is found to have
committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation during a season, the Club may be subject to
sanctions to be determined, in their absolute discretion, by the Commission.
Click to expand...
 
tigerdan said:
Actually I agree.

Unless there is more to it, I think proving which player (bar Watson!) took AOD is going to be tricky to do because of the poor record keeping (or just a well fed shredder?).

It may be that many players escape bans simply because they don't know which player took what.

But it's diabolically bad that no records were kept. I don't think the AFL or the AFLPA will be too amused.
Click to expand...

That may be the point, which is why they may just say **** it and blanket penalise the club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top