Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

Remove this Banner Ad

If train A travels at 40 miles per hour and Train B travels at 60 miles per hour, and Train A passes a station at 2:15 a.m. and train B passes the same station at 2:30 a.m., at what time will train B catch up with Train A?
hee hee. :D :p Not bad
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Where were they asked whether they had taken anything? I had heard earlier today that they were in trouble for not advising, while being tested, that they had received supplement injections by Essendon sports scientists. Just like players at most other clubs received at the time.

If they were asked and said nothing or said no, then this is definitely mis-leading information and very questionable at that. My take was that they're in trouble for not volunteering information while being tested.

See paragraph 129 part(vii) and then paragraph 161 for their pathetic explanations as to why they didn't.

The one leak that came out of the CAS hearing was that the tribunal members were not impressed with EFC players explanation for not listing Danks injections on ASADA forms.

No ****ing kidding - whackity whack whack whack!!!
 
...1/6 thought that some probably did, but wasn't comfortable with others, 2/6 thought they all must have used it based on this beautiful piece of logic:

"For Mr Dank to have arbitrarily omitted to give any player injection of Thymosin would have made no sense".
You're not helping yourself. At all. a) the line you've cherry-picked above was but one of any number of reasons why they upheld the appeal, and b) the 1/6 agreed that the majority did, but "several" perhaps didn't.

Read the report. Even more damning than many of us had imagined.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

has he decided on the proper forum to clear the players yet the scamp?

I just had a bizarre vision of Dank arguing his case strongly in the afterlife, fronting a tribunal consisting of David Bowie, Lemmy, and Scott Weiland.

The Thin White Duke and Scott certainly know a thing or two about injections, seems like perhaps an appropriate forum.
 
Jesus, jokingly told the wife I would have 150 pages to wade through; not far off the mark.

Surely this is only a surprise to Bombers fans. It was the only likely result. It's the right result too for anyone who wants clean sport. It's tough on the players but they are responsible for their actions. You can't have them passing off responsibility that easily.
 
Who did he assault again?

Actually, while the comment is a bit silly atlas as it applies to James and your response suitably flippant, there is a grain of truth here.

One of the causes of action I'd be interested to see if the players sued would be the tort of assault, arguing their consent to the injections was not informed consent as it was procured through misrepresentations. Unfortunately, the evidence in the CAS tends to work against that, but its probably still worth a shot.

Using the tort of assault may also open up some interesting damages options for them.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top