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

[moses]

Can anyone confirm whether Stephen Dank is consulting with his lawyers over a lawsuit against CAS?

Would he have any money to be able to consult lawyers? Anyone know what his current employment status is?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Would he have any money to be able to consult lawyers? Anyone know what his current employment status is?

It was a joke...

 

[Ricmel]

I didn't say the couldn't sue. However, in the end it will come down to how much did they contribute to the situation they find themselves?

I think that is a very different proposition to non-declaration of injections to ASADA.

My simple strategy is,

• I trusted the club, there was no reason not to,
• I am an employee and I do what I am told,
• Everyone was doing it and I was scared to ask questions - might look like a non team player,
• I was scared to rat out to ASADA, we were told to keep quiet,
• I wanted to keep my job.

Personally, I would love to "prosecute" this case. The club is not holding a great hand of cards.

 

[TerryWallet]

You both are mistaking my post as excusing his role or attempts to muddy the waters. I am making the point that as a father what he says and does should be treated as adding nothing to the conversation other than protecting his son. I would do the same.

But he is not protecting his son in any way.

He is attempting to protect reputations, only one of which is his son's. And, as usual, he is making things worse.

Tim, if you are reading this, stop talking shit. It is the only way to meaningfully help now.

 

[Funk]

Actually the AFL wanted proof as to WHO exactly took it. CAS decided that was irrelevant and that it was a team program.

That's not the way I read it Wook.

Paragraph 125 reads as follows:

"It was next argued that, even if the Panel was entitled to conclude that Mr Dank may have injected some of the Essendon players with TB-4, the evidence of use of Thymosin by any particular Player was not established. Indeed, the AFL did not shrink from suggesting that for that reason the Panel might be obliged to reject the appeal in its entirety."

 

[stfan]

I must say, in the legal community, or at least the part which I inhabit, we've been simply amazed at the way this has been handled by Essendon and Hird. Incredible, breathtaking mismanagement, even at the tactical level. From very, very early on.

This has been a great file for many, and I have a few great stories that unfortunately I cannot share, but at some stage it had to occur to both the advisers and the advised that the approach and contentions advocated were not working.

Appalling lack of foresight. Less surprisingly, a disgraceful lack of evidenced risk management, too.

Hird = Narcissist
Little= Narcissist

EFC Members = Hirdites and oddly happy to place Hird about their club.

This was all about the egos of Hird and Little. The Players and the club were irrelevent.

Hird should have walked early on, and failing that the membership should have had him thrown out once the shit hit the fan. Neither happened and so they deserve each other and the final outcome.

 

[The_Wookie]

That's not the way I read it Wook.

Paragraph 125 reads as follows:

"It was next argued that, even if the Panel was entitled to conclude that Mr Dank may have injected some of the Essendon players with TB-4, the evidence of use of Thymosin by any particular Player was not established. Indeed, the AFL did not shrink from suggesting that for that reason the Panel might be obliged to reject the appeal in its entirety."

Mate it says precisely that the AFL wanted proof as to who exactly took it in the quote.

 

[Tiges1229]

Can anyone confirm whether Stephen Dank is consulting with his lawyers over a lawsuit against CAS?

Dank's Backyard.

 

[mickeyjuice]

Paragraph 125 reads as follows:

"It was next argued that, even if the Panel was entitled to conclude that Mr Dank may have injected some of the Essendon players with TB-4, the evidence of use of Thymosin by any particular Player was not established. Indeed, the AFL did not shrink from suggesting that for that reason the Panel might be obliged to reject the appeal in its entirety."

Translation: "It is clear to us that the AFL tribunal saw this as an opportunity to find the players not guilty, and thus they took it, as per the wishes of the governing body."

 

[Ti22]

The players dont deserve any sympathy they lied and knew they were doing something illegal. They were pumping themselves full of drugs and when they got caught they kept denying it I for one have no sympathy especially the no 1 cheat Jobe Watson. Good riddiance to all of them they along with the AFL have done a lot of damage to the game.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Dragz]

You both are mistaking my post as excusing his role or attempts to muddy the waters. I am making the point that as a father what he says and does should be treated as adding nothing to the conversation other than protecting his son. I would do the same.

He really should have excused himself from answering questions. Come straight out and say I'm conflicted and am not going to comment. Although that doesn't seem to be the Essendon way (Innocent I say! Innocent!!)

 

[Funk]

Mate it says precisely that the AFL wanted proof as to who exactly took it in the quote.

Yes - and that if CAS could not say precisely which players then "the appeal should be rejected in its entirety".

No surprise to me having read this that the "AFL" tribunal could not reach comfortable satisfaction.

 

[Collingwoodity]

I acknowledge based on comments here that the players are at fault and covered it up.

However, it again surprises me that the bad guy (Dank) has got away scot-free.

 

[Taylor]

Mate it says precisely that the AFL wanted proof as to who exactly took it in the quote.

They went a step further and held the position that since it couldn't be proven exactly who took the substance the appeal should be dismissed.

The AFL was saying they were okay that players in their club had used banned substances as long as none could be proven.

It followed the idea that a hundred guilty go free so one innocent doesn't get punished.

 

[Boba Fetta]

I acknowledge based on comments here that the players are at fault and covered it up.

However, it again surprises me that the bad guy (Dank) has got away scot-free.

Not sure the AFL, CAS or WADA could do much more to him though?

 

[madmug]

Actually the AFL wanted proof as to WHO exactly took it. CAS decided that was irrelevant and that it was a team program.

Proof of illicit substance taking? Well the evidence of suspect behavior is in the players & actions of others.

What did the players put on their ASADA forms? What did they confide in their Club Doctor? Did the players deny taking anything? Where are the documents of what they did actually take, by whom?, when, where?

What about the text mass of messages, the accounts from Danks chemist? The accounts werent for cream buns.

This is all a prima facie case in sports doping. The decision of CAS is very reasonable yet some in the AFL & media & clubland just dont want to face reality.

If evidence somehow appears & can account for all of the above, the players are still liable for lying to ASADA.

Deeper questions about Dank, Charters & Hirds asssociations will all be asked now.

 

[Gough]

I acknowledge based on comments here that the players are at fault and covered it up.

However, it again surprises me that the bad guy (Dank) has got away scot-free.

There'll be a bit of interest for a while on the speakers circuit, but in the end he's flushed his career down the shitter. His prospects are bleak, I wouldn't call that scot free.

 

[The_Reaper]

I acknowledge based on comments here that the players are at fault and covered it up.

However, it again surprises me that the bad guy (Dank) has got away scot-free.

Why is Dank any more a bad guy than anyone else there?

 

[ODNBlue]

Remind me... who was it that hired Dank?

Just wondering, because I suspect that that football club may have something to answer for...

 

[AstroboyUK]

Efc owe its employees a duty of care Eg safe workplace, didn't do that. They introduced a supplement program that its employees should expect to be safe, well run and documented overseen by medical professionals, with no illegal drugs it wasn't. They can sue for future losses, damages and potential future damages. They will end up including alot more. Just because the players seemed somewhat complicit in some actions does not mean they don't have a case. Infact they have the mother of all cases against the efc and the dopes that run the afl

I find this an interesting point in the legal context. EFC certainly owe/d the players a duty of care: but What CAS has ruled is that the players themselves are personally culpable for their actions. To what degree, in this specific instance, is that duty of care diluted by the players own (now legally established) complicity in the programme? Is the duty of care diminished on the basis of the player's willing and knowing (in "legal" terms, as ruled by CAS) participation in the programme. From a legal perspective, doesn't their knowing and conscious participation (as ruled by CAS) give this more a legal flavour of a conspiracy between EFC and the Players to jointly subvert the rules, not an employer/employee relationship where the players were unreasonably compelled or duped into complying with a directive from their employer or made to work in an 'unsafe' workplace. Can the player's sue EFC on the basis of participating in a conspiracy they were (in "legal" terms, as ruled by CAS) a willing party to?

to use an (probably wobbly) analogy: if my boss convinces me to rob a bank with him to help the business and I freely choose to do it: can I sue him for lack of duty of care? Once my mens-rea (guilty mind) has been established, I don't think I can - or at least the employers personal culpability for my actions would be significantly diminished

 

[compact72]

I acknowledge based on comments here that the players are at fault and covered it up.

However, it again surprises me that the bad guy (Dank) has got away scot-free.

His banned from sports for life?

And his getting away without legal action because Essendon are too scared to take him to court

Why would ASADA take him to court?

 

[good4footy]

But he is not protecting his son in any way.

He is attempting to protect reputations, only one of which is his son's. And, as usual, he is making things worse.

Tim, if you are reading this, stop talking shit. It is the only way to meaningfully help now.

Mate you can continue to get frustrated but I will just remain unaffected by understanding any of the nonsense he brings to the table is nothing more than him being a dad.

 

[The_Wookie]

They went a step further and held the position that since it couldn't be proven exactly who took the substance the appeal should be dismissed.

The AFL was saying they were okay that players in their club had used banned substances as long as none could be proven.

It followed the idea that a hundred guilty go free so one innocent doesn't get punished.

The AFL were saying that if you cant prove who took it, you cant just slap a ban on all of them for the hell of it. They didnt say players should just go free - they wanted proof to a standard higher than CAS allows for.

It followed the idea that you have to prove someone has done something for them to be found guilty.

 

[cfc to aufc]

Yes - and that if CAS could not say precisely which players then "the appeal should be rejected in its entirety".

No surprise to me having read this that the "AFL" tribunal could not reach comfortable satisfaction.

thank goodness the overseas people came in if this was left to australians to deal with up to and including the prime minister this matter would have been closed down some time ago

 

[fomoco04]

No extra fine from AFL who insist they have already been punished for this. They haven't, the 2013 penalties were for "governance", not doping. So now we arrive at a situation where a team has had 34 players banned for doping, but the governing body takes no action.

They pleaded guilty to WorkCover, can face up up to $600k fine, that's up soon I think.

Now, Hawthorn are an off field powerhouse now, and good luck to them. But I recall the days when the Hawks were hours away from death by merger with the Dees. And I very much recall North being hours away from death by relocation to the Gold Coast.

And the AFL was encouraging both, happy for both our clubs to die. Through sheer hard work, talented management and gutsy supporters, we've both saved our clubs and you guys have enjoyed stunning onfield success.

To hear that useless campaigner McLachlan, who's only achievement seems to be getting a decent dollar for the TV rights for the nation's biggest sport in a market where TV channels are desperate for sport, say "the AFL needs a strong Essendon" and how they will "support the rebuild of Essendon" makes me spew.

This club has inflicted the greatest damage on the competition its history.

Their scum supporters prance about having a go at North getting 25k against Freo on a Sunday arvo as if some empty seats at Etihad is a crime against humanity.

Now they still deny systemic doping by their club despite it being proven in the WORLD'S DECISION MAKING BODY for this kind of stuff.

And the AFL bends over backwards for them.

There is a long way to go on this and my own view is this is going to damage Essendon generationally, through lawsuits and through the brand damage of younger supporters dropping off or not signing up. They are front running bastards anyway, so their crowds will drop off. They also don't have the mentality required to be under siege permanently of a North or Dogs. They don't react well as an organisation under pressure and they still haven't made thye mental leap required to the "new AFL" and how it works.

But jesus and his mother, the AFL hung Benny Cousins out to dry for smashing some lines after a game. DEREGISTERED HIM for a year for having a good time.

Yet it weeps and mewls for these drug cheating scum.

Mind boggling. Makes Sepp Blatter look like a paragon of good judgement.

Would be interesting to see how many sigs a change.org petition would get to try and force change at AFL house.

Nothing would happen I know but it would be interesting to see what the wider AFL public think of this episode and how its been handled, not just BF regulars.