I’m front row at the show and Barrett could not have looked happier to break that news.
Flog.
2 Likes
I am not a violent person but faaark he makes me angry
2 Likes
Absolutely nothing.
4 Likes
Most of the world has moved on.
He wants it to be seen as a bigger deal than it is.
Nothing but a publicity stunt, got zero impact on me.
4 Likes
how can you help someone in a kangaroo court ?
If and it’s a big if he can prove his innocence, he will have played it perfectly for him. He’ll not only get his job back, but it’d be getting one hefty pay check from a few people, sports bodies, and govt agencies, probably to the point he wouldn’t ironically have to work again.
Again IF he can prove it.
Means very little for us, but funny as ■■■■ for the fact it slightly ruins the grand final haha. suck ■■■■ you fuckwits for thinking you could control this ■■■■ storm.
6 Likes
This has been on the cards for 12 months. Originally it was going to be lodged in June but has been delayed securing evidence not timed to coincide with the GF.
sit tight, be confident, or something something.
2 Likes
As if anyone’s gonna hire him anyway, even if it is overturned. His reputation is as good as a ban
You would have thought the same with Weapon yet he’s already back in professional sport. As mentioned earlier, the end game is more about damages.
3 Likes
Probably upset that he got his “Stringer to Geelong” story wrong and turned a nothing story into sensationalism crap as pay back.
■■■■ you Barret.
4 Likes
Dank’s ban was not for anything he did, or was accused of doing, at Essendon.
I can’t remember the exact details, but my recollection is that it was for supplying illegal substances to a baseballer, and for dealing in substances banned in sport, in his private practice, while being employed in a WADA regulated sport.
As such, any appeal would not involve anyone at Essendon because his work at Essendon was not what he was banned for.
Barret either doesn’t know that, and is incompetent in not knowing it, or he is being deliberately mischievous in ignoring it.
14 Likes
Thanks for clarification. Could it be that his appeal relates to the NRL ban connected to Cronulla and Sandor Earl, on the basis of reports that he wants to work back in rugby league? If so it might be the NSW Supreme Court.
1 Like
What a strange group of people that frequent this thread - A number have stated that Australian law should test any anti-doping convictions if so desired - And this is what Dank is trying to achieve - For this he should be applauded, rather than being villified - Of course, I have little hope that the Supreme Court will accede to Dank’s request, and I wonder whether he has funding for the case.
I am more interested in how the FBI is charging people and Universities in the NCAA with breaching ‘amateurism’ in offering inducements for students ( sporting ) to study at their campuses - Once you criminalise sporting actions, then the world has gone crazy.
2 Likes
Dank was found guilty of providing Hexarelin to a 3rd party and Essendon (employee – I think it was Suki Hobson the weights coach); attempting to sell Humanofort to EFC staff and athletes (remember this product was cleared by TGA); providing MGK to CFC coach; providing CJC-1295 to GCFC; providing Hexarelin, SARMS, CJC-1295 and GHRP6 to baseball; and providing GHRP6 and Mechano Growth Factor to customers of Medical Rejuvenation Clinic (who I assume must have been involved in WADA competition.
Dank should appeal the ban as how does the AFL have jurisdiction over baseball or over what Dank sells through his Clinic to clients** not competing in WADA sports? As jodi said, none of this involves the provision of any banned product to our players.
**The AFL rule not allowing the supply of non WADA approved substances to support staff may have been in place in 2012, but this is a minor offence and has nothing to do with unfair advantage, and any honest assessment of the WADA code would acknowledge the ‘list’ is unclear.
2 Likes
I never really understood why some of those things Dank was convicted of caused him to be banned. For example providing substances banned in sport to his clinic. The best I could make of it was that anyone employed in the AFL (or any sport subject to WADA rules) cannot “traffic” in substances that are illegal under WADA rules. I guess club doctors are exempt, given their it would be legitimate for them to prescribe WADA banned drugs to their patients in private pratcie?
1 Like
The issue of the AFL’s jurisdiction over what happens at Dank’s clinic is important I think. If a player goes into a cafe on game day and has 20 short blacks and tests positive for excess caffeine the AFL can’t ban the cafe owners for life from all WADA sports. It’s an issue between the player and WADA.
But it seems the AFL are saying that once Dank started working in AFL (or any WADA sport for that matter), then the AFL can control what happens at Dank’s clinic; and if support staff walk in off the street and buy a product that is not WADA approved then Dank (and the other owners?) are guilty of breaking AFL rules.
We all know this is just a fall back position as the AFL created much of the hysteria as they truly believed Dank was giving our players PEDs, but when the evidence suggested otherwise they had to find something to hang him on.
Dank will probably lose as he won’t be able to get off all of the charges and whatever charges remain the AFL will attach the banned for life penalty to them. But maybe a bit more truth will surface from the process.
It’s not the AFL’s rule it’s a wada rule.
Reckon I would have been happy to be thrown out after yelling out: “Jeez you’re a smarmy ■■■■ you purple dicked prick”.
Not that I would set foot in that studio in the first place, but anyway.
1 Like
If you look at the charges against Dank they all relate to violations of the AFL’s ant-doping code. WADA provide the “list” of banned substances. Is your point that the AFL were required to apply this rule as it’s a standard WADA rule? This is believable as the AFL wouldn’t have drafted their own specific code.