Will ASADA/WADA appeal? - UPDATE: ASADA will not appeal - WADA has appealed

[Lavender Bushranger]

Colour me confused:
“In summary, the Tribunal concludes that the supplement program was not of the standard and rigour one would expect from an elite football club like Essendon. It was not subject to rigorous supervision and oversight in its formulation, implementation and execution by the club medical personnel and others with the necessary qualifications and expertise. There was far too much reliance on Mr Dank, and to a lesser extent Mr Robinson and too much executive responsibility given to Mr Dank. Decisive action was not taken when it was clear there were concerns and issues. Rather, Mr Dank’s explanations were accepted and he was allowed to continue his supplement program. Players were not properly or adequately informed of what was happening and their purported consent by signing the form was not truly informed consent.

Most importantly, there was a deplorable failure to keep comprehensive records of the supplement program and its administration.”

To assess the case the parties agreed there were three indispensable elements or links:

(a) TB4 was procured from sources in China; and

(b) TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and

(c) Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player

The Tribunal comfortably accepted:

Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to Alavi;

Alavi believed that what he was compounding was TB4;

Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Dank;

Correspondence between Alavi and Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;

And Alavi’s lab technician Vania Giordani compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank.

But at every stage the Tribunal failed to be comfortably satisfied that what was purported to be was in fact Thymosin Beta 4.

It notes on multiple occasions: “It is possible but the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied.”

The Tribunal wasn’t convinced that the substance in the first batch from China was TB4 or that a second shipment even existed.

As for what came into Alavi’s possession and was then delivered to Dank experts for both sides agreed the substance was not Thymosin A1, which had subsequently been claimed."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-thymosin-beta-4/story-e6frf3e3-1227288292492

The tribunal accepts that TB4 like substance was brought in China, Mixed by Alavi and given to Dank but they don't believe it was TB4?

Strange, isn't it.

 

[Boxhead_31]

No , they accept the 3 witnesses believed it was TB4 but were not comfortably satisfied it was

But they then chose not to worry about finding out what it was, just dismissed the substance

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I haven't seen the ruling, but the word seems to be it was more of a smackdown than a close run thing.
Also I was under the understanding that CAS operated on 'Beyond reasonable doubt', a higher burden of proof, that 'comfortably satisfaction'. So that is even less likely of getting up there.

The word from the Herald Sun was that it was a smackdown.

But if you actual read what has leaked out, it seems clear that they took TB4.

 

[Armchair Critic]

But they then chose not to worry about finding out what it was, just dismissed the substance

I don't understand how the tribunal members could go about finding out

 

[Jimthegreat]

I haven't seen the ruling, but the word seems to be it was more of a smackdown than a close run thing.
Also I was under the understanding that CAS operated on 'Beyond reasonable doubt', a higher burden of proof, that 'comfortably satisfaction'. So that is even less likely of getting up there.

CAS are definitely NOT beyond reasonable doubt. Take that to the bank and are traditionally tougher in regards to anti-doping.

Reading between the lines on that AGE article I'm thinking it was a pretty close thing. Reading the full judgement, rather than a news article, would give one a better idea though of course. Some aspects of the media have made it sound like a smackdown but looking at the link below, may not have been.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...rdkeeping-was-deplorable-20150331-1mc8hi.html

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No , they accept the 3 witnesses believed it was TB4 but were not comfortably satisfied it was

Quite bizarre really.

They believe the Chinese bloke that cooked it too.

 

[Proper Gander]

SO being used as a political tool outweighs a guinea pig?

Definitely not. You have a point.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I haven't seen the ruling, but the word seems to be it was more of a smackdown than a close run thing.
Also I was under the understanding that CAS operated on 'Beyond reasonable doubt', a higher burden of proof, that 'comfortably satisfaction'. So that is even less likely of getting up there.

You can take it all with a grain of salt until all information is released. It is easy to cherry pick one page of facts to paint a horrible picture. I do believe ASADA were humiliated yesterday but also believe there is no doubt some stuff in the document that the club may not want released.

Its funny how AFL 360 has released parts nailing Dank to the wall but in 133 pages there could also be statements about other staff and coaches that we have not seen.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Colour me confused:
“In summary, the Tribunal concludes that the supplement program was not of the standard and rigour one would expect from an elite football club like Essendon. It was not subject to rigorous supervision and oversight in its formulation, implementation and execution by the club medical personnel and others with the necessary qualifications and expertise. There was far too much reliance on Mr Dank, and to a lesser extent Mr Robinson and too much executive responsibility given to Mr Dank. Decisive action was not taken when it was clear there were concerns and issues. Rather, Mr Dank’s explanations were accepted and he was allowed to continue his supplement program. Players were not properly or adequately informed of what was happening and their purported consent by signing the form was not truly informed consent.

Most importantly, there was a deplorable failure to keep comprehensive records of the supplement program and its administration.”

To assess the case the parties agreed there were three indispensable elements or links:

(a) TB4 was procured from sources in China; and

(b) TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and

(c) Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player

The Tribunal comfortably accepted:

Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to Alavi;

Alavi believed that what he was compounding was TB4;

Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Dank;

Correspondence between Alavi and Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;

And Alavi’s lab technician Vania Giordani compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank.

But at every stage the Tribunal failed to be comfortably satisfied that what was purported to be was in fact Thymosin Beta 4.

It notes on multiple occasions: “It is possible but the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied.”

The Tribunal wasn’t convinced that the substance in the first batch from China was TB4 or that a second shipment even existed.

As for what came into Alavi’s possession and was then delivered to Dank experts for both sides agreed the substance was not Thymosin A1, which had subsequently been claimed."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-thymosin-beta-4/story-e6frf3e3-1227288292492

The tribunal accepts that TB4 like substance was brought in China, Mixed by Alavi and given to Dank but they don't believe it was TB4?

Confuses me too.

 

[Boxhead_31]

No , they accept the 3 witnesses believed it was TB4 but were not comfortably satisfied it was

Have to wonder then what it would have taken for them to be comfortably satisfied that it was.
If three people have sourced mixed and distributed what they think is TB4 what do the three tribunal members think it was if not TB4?

 

[CD Xbow]

The word from the Herald Sun was that it was a smackdown.

But if you actual read what has leaked out, it seems clear that they took TB4.

I haven't seen the ruling, but the word seems to be it was more of a smackdown than a close run thing.
Also I was under the understanding that CAS operated on 'Beyond reasonable doubt', a higher burden of proof, that 'comfortably satisfaction'. So that is even less likely of getting up there.

The smack down element comes from the Hun, read extracts from papers other than belonging to the Murdoctopus. Different picture emerges. , indeed the more you read the more you believe ASADA case was strong. The narrative that many are running, such as the Hun, is ASADA are incompetent, typical government bureaucracy that are trying to destroy our game. Even pollies are getting in on it. Why? I expect McDeviitt will come under increasing political pressure to let go, which may be there seems to be moves to get AFL out of WADA. This saga really has everything.

 

[sataris]

Have to wonder then what it would have taken for them to be comfortably satisfied that it was.
If three people have sourced mixed and distributed what they think is TB4 what do the three tribunal members think it was if not TB4?

My reading of it is they think the Chinese Manufacturer said it was TB4 and packaged something else.

"Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4".

 

[Boxhead_31]

The smack down element comes from the Hun, read extracts from papers other than belonging to the Murdoctopus. Different picture emerges. , indeed the more you read the more you believe ASADA case was strong. The narrative that many are running, such as the Hun, is ASADA are incompetent, typical government bureaucracy that are trying to destroy our game. Even pollies are getting in on it. Why? I expect McDeviitt will come under increasing political pressure to let go, which may be there seems to be moves to get AFL out of WADA. This saga really has everything.

Just needs a Helen D'Amico cameo

 

[imperial_oz]

I haven't seen the ruling, but the word seems to be it was more of a smackdown than a close run thing.
Also I was under the understanding that CAS operated on 'Beyond reasonable doubt', a higher burden of proof, that 'comfortably satisfaction'. So that is even less likely of getting up there.

Well nobody apart from ASADA and the players have seen the full ruling so any comments about close run or smackdown are just wishful thinking depending on your point of view and fairly pointless.

The burden of proof at CAS is 'comfortable sarisfaction' not 'beyond reasonable doubt' and WADA have a long history of appealing different country's governing bodies decisions and having them overturned at CAS. I don't think the AFL would present any real fear for an organisation that is currently challenging the Russian Athletics Federation's decisions regarding doping with Russian athletes. The AFL is barely a blip in comparison.

As for 'comfortable satisfaction' being harder to achieve, I tend to think it could well be easier. The Tribunal applied a standard of evidence in places that appeared to extend past 'beyond reasonable doubt' and it is possible that elements dismissed by the Tribunal would be accepted by CAS. Case in point is the refusal to accept that there was TB4 in the TB4 shipped from China and compounded by Alavi. This was a central point in the decision and quite wrong in my view.

The shipped material was TB4 according the manufacturer who provided a statement to that effect. It was assessed as consistent with TB4 by independent laboratory tests yet the Tribunal decided that ASADA couldn't prove it actually was TB4. I think a normal person could be 'comfortably satisfied' that with independent supporting evidence, it was what is was supposed to be.

Add to the that, the ability of CAS to be able subpoena witnesses and there is a considerable body of evidence that would be strengthened at a CAS hearing as it would allow some of those reluctant witnesses to be cross examined.

The case might still fail by not being able to identify a specific user of the TB4 but as we are all only interested in getting to the truth, I'm sure we would all welcome the opportunity to improve the chances of getting to the whole truth.

 

[rose jam]

Colour me confused:
“In summary, the Tribunal concludes that the supplement program was not of the standard and rigour one would expect from an elite football club like Essendon. It was not subject to rigorous supervision and oversight in its formulation, implementation and execution by the club medical personnel and others with the necessary qualifications and expertise. There was far too much reliance on Mr Dank, and to a lesser extent Mr Robinson and too much executive responsibility given to Mr Dank. Decisive action was not taken when it was clear there were concerns and issues. Rather, Mr Dank’s explanations were accepted and he was allowed to continue his supplement program. Players were not properly or adequately informed of what was happening and their purported consent by signing the form was not truly informed consent.

Most importantly, there was a deplorable failure to keep comprehensive records of the supplement program and its administration.”

To assess the case the parties agreed there were three indispensable elements or links:

(a) TB4 was procured from sources in China; and

(b) TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and

(c) Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player

The Tribunal comfortably accepted:

Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to Alavi;

Alavi believed that what he was compounding was TB4;

Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Dank;

Correspondence between Alavi and Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;

And Alavi’s lab technician Vania Giordani compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank.

But at every stage the Tribunal failed to be comfortably satisfied that what was purported to be was in fact Thymosin Beta 4.

It notes on multiple occasions: “It is possible but the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied.”

The Tribunal wasn’t convinced that the substance in the first batch from China was TB4 or that a second shipment even existed.

As for what came into Alavi’s possession and was then delivered to Dank experts for both sides agreed the substance was not Thymosin A1, which had subsequently been claimed."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-thymosin-beta-4/story-e6frf3e3-1227288292492

The tribunal accepts that TB4 like substance was brought in China, Mixed by Alavi and given to Dank but they don't believe it was TB4?

Seriously, how can you not be comfortably satisfied with that?
So they absolutely took TB4, it's just that there's no document or blood test saying it.

Cheats.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Have to wonder then what it would have taken for them to be comfortably satisfied that it was.
If three people have sourced mixed and distributed what they think is TB4 what do the three tribunal members think it was if not TB4?

It does not matter what they think it was if it was not TB4 , they just have to be convinced to a comfortable satisfaction it was.Investigations starting a year after the fact are always going to be tough

 

[Boxhead_31]

My reading of it is they think the Chinese Manufacturer said it was TB4 and packaged something else.

"Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4".

If you can't trust a Chinese drug manufacture who can you trust?

 

[Jobe Watson]

Maybe. I don't think ASADA will appeal, and I think the slightly macho commentary from him is to serve a different purpose:

a) to afford something of an 'honourable defeat' to the process - a sort of okay we lost, but we were gutsy and fighting a real issue (hence more comments about record keeping, EFC's behaviour etc)

b) because the Fed Govt are getting to the nitty gritty of budget deliberations. I.E he's got his begging bowl out - the narrative will be turned away from how much public money was spent to something about investigations being compromised by insufficient agency resourcing.

The guy is a CEO after all.

The depressing part of this theory is that the 34 players will get used as a political tool, and for me I think it is plenty time to get on with 2015 footy season and let the issue go.

I don't know whether to tip EFC or Sydney this weekend. One one hand, players will be on a high, on the other it's Sydney in Sydney. What do you think?

Talking from a biased essendon perspective, I thought it was pathetic that after delivering the infractions he went on radio trumpting the strength of their case and almost urging the cheating players to take deals.

I thought the length of time it took to get to the final stages was disgraceful. What was it, 12 months since the final player interview?

I thought it was hilarious that after taking their sweet time to do everything else, the agency he oversees didn't think to issue appear notices to their two most important witnesses until the very last moment, wasting taxpayer with a court challenge.

WADA weren't happy (according to Caro), government had questions that will be exacerbated by the not guilty verdict, and now the football public is against them.

And nah, I highly doubt we'll beat Sydney. But hopefully me make a good game of it.

 

[thegerman]

Colour me confused:
“In summary, the Tribunal concludes that the supplement program was not of the standard and rigour one would expect from an elite football club like Essendon. It was not subject to rigorous supervision and oversight in its formulation, implementation and execution by the club medical personnel and others with the necessary qualifications and expertise. There was far too much reliance on Mr Dank, and to a lesser extent Mr Robinson and too much executive responsibility given to Mr Dank. Decisive action was not taken when it was clear there were concerns and issues. Rather, Mr Dank’s explanations were accepted and he was allowed to continue his supplement program. Players were not properly or adequately informed of what was happening and their purported consent by signing the form was not truly informed consent.

Most importantly, there was a deplorable failure to keep comprehensive records of the supplement program and its administration.”

To assess the case the parties agreed there were three indispensable elements or links:

(a) TB4 was procured from sources in China; and

(b) TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and

(c) Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player

The Tribunal comfortably accepted:

Charter purchased what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to Alavi;

Alavi believed that what he was compounding was TB4;

Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Dank;

Correspondence between Alavi and Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;

And Alavi’s lab technician Vania Giordani compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank.

But at every stage the Tribunal failed to be comfortably satisfied that what was purported to be was in fact Thymosin Beta 4.

It notes on multiple occasions: “It is possible but the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied.”

The Tribunal wasn’t convinced that the substance in the first batch from China was TB4 or that a second shipment even existed.

As for what came into Alavi’s possession and was then delivered to Dank experts for both sides agreed the substance was not Thymosin A1, which had subsequently been claimed."

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-thymosin-beta-4/story-e6frf3e3-1227288292492

The tribunal accepts that TB4 like substance was brought in China, Mixed by Alavi and given to Dank but they don't believe it was TB4?

And this is why some believe the tribunal is flawed.

 

[CD Xbow]

Yes, no doubt your bias is less than the tribunals.

Probably is.
The tribunal is biased by
1. AFL are their employer
2. Act for what they perceive as the 'good of the game'
Neither bias helps with sorting out the truth and leads to an AFL manufactured outcome. Nor are they necessarily judges, just bottom dwelling scum suckers. (from the old catfish joke)

 

[rose jam]

Probably is.
The tribunal is biased by
1. AFL are there employer
2. Act for what they perceive as the 'good of the game'
Neither bias helps with sorting out the truth and leads to a AFL manufactured outcome.

They are bias, it's natural, understandable, and dangerous.

 

[Boxhead_31]

It does not matter what they think it was if it was not TB4 , they just have to be convinced to a comfortable satisfaction it was.Investigations starting a year after the fact are always going to be tough

Just can't get my head around that they think that three people who make a living dealing with this stuff think it is TB4 but somehow the panel come to the conclusion that it isn't TB4.
Need to see their reasoning for believing as to why they don't.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Talking from a biased essendon perspective, I thought it was pathetic that after delivering the infractions he went on radio trumpting the strength of their case and almost urging the cheating players to take deals.

I thought the length of time it took to get to the final stages was disgraceful. What was it, 12 months since the final player interview?

I thought it was hilarious that after taking their sweet time to do everything else, the agency he oversees didn't think to issue appear notices to their two most important witnesses until the very last moment, wasting taxpayer with a court challenge.

WADA weren't happy (according to Caro), government had questions that will be exacerbated by the not guilty verdict, and now the football public is against them.

And nah, I highly doubt we'll beat Sydney. But hopefully me make a good game of it.

The football public is against who????!!

 

[Armchair Critic]

Just can't get my head around that they think that three people who make a living dealing with this stuff think it is TB4 but somehow the panel come to the conclusion that it isn't TB4.
Need to see their reasoning for believing as to why they don't.

To be fair though after Charter the link of the others believing it was Tb4 would be based on no other reason than Charter's word IMO. The tribunal deemed his credibility low, makes the case impossible to prove

 

[romeoh]

Just can't get my head around that they think that three people who make a living dealing with this stuff think it is TB4 but somehow the panel come to the conclusion that it isn't TB4.
Need to see their reasoning for believing as to why they don't.

I thought Whately on 360 tonight was essentially saying the tribunal believed that Dank, Charters and Alavi thought they were buying it and compounding it. But the chain of steps to the players couldn't be made ( probs because of no docs!). So had no choice but Not Guilty.