If the Cronulla lawyers laughed at the evidence why did the players take bans?
So how did it end, did we win?
ASADA budgetted 100k US to âsupport in kindâ of WADAs case, it might ended up more when the actual bill comes. Who is McIdiot kidding. If the case is strong, WADA would have jumped at it even without the inducement as it is another big feather in its cap. Dont forget their chief prosecutor, Richard Young, has been advising ASADA all along and knows the case in detail. McIdiot just have to â â â â away more tax payers money to get WADA to play ball as they really dont want to just â â â â their money down the drain for this mob in Australia.
Every indications up to now points to nothing by way of evidence. If the players ever get found guilty, it will be because of pure ugly politics. Nothing more.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.
This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
What a load of crap the NRL players go blackmailed into taking deals. Thatâs a real professional organisation! Blind Freddy can see this. When the deal of pleading not guilty provides more punishment then pleading guilty. What is that saying about both the NRL and ASADA. One of the officials from the Sharks actually said he never made it to an interview yet ASADA made one up anyway! ASADA only liked the NRL because they agreeed to go along with the blackmail deal.
This sort of thing just had to be included for it to be any good. Ive just started reading the book and its as is soft as butter very disappointing. I can understand why though with the legal reasons and all.
So you choose to comment on someoneâs opinion on a book you havenât read? Right. Thatâs credible.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2015/06/the-straight-dope.htmlDank admitted to Prohibited substances at Cronulla and with Nathan Bock
has he categorically denied TB4 at essendon?
Yes, he in fact is the only person to give a sworn statement to the ACC 9carries a 2 year penalty for lying i believe).
Dank stated to the ACC categorically that he did not administer TB-4 to any player at Essendon.
He has repeated this ad nauseum in public.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
see i just donât get this. Had these lawyers ever read a single CAS decision where there were no positive tests.
Journos (even Chip) do not understand what evidence is nor do they understand what is needed to be proven to support a finding by a tribunal or Court.
The burden of proof is on WADA to prove TB4 was administered to each of the 34 players in order to get them convicted.
The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction.
The fact that Chip and others believe it might have been on the premises is completely irrelevant.
That is why all this guff about the lack of records is misconceived.
The players (and for that matter EFC who are not even a party to the CAS proceedings) do not have to prove what was administered to the players so the playersâ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the playersâ case. That does not mean, in fact, that it is not known what the players took.
The AFL likes the media to chant that there was a lack of records because that justifies the sanctions they imposed in August 2013.
But as Crameriâs mum said - she knew precisely what was taken and there was nothing prohibited. However, as the players do not have to prove this she was not called as a witness and for that matter neither was Dank nor any of the Essendon officials who administered the programme with him and the Weapon.
ASADA also did not call anyone despite their crocodile tears about this because they knew that the evidence would not help their case. Dank et al would simply state that nothing prohibited was given to the players.
The completeness or incompleteness of the records will only become relevant if the players have to disprove evidence from WADA that TB4 was administered.
If WADA cannot get there (which it appears they canât as there is no evidence showing TB4 was ever on the premises so it could not have been given to the players) then the players do not have to try and show what WAS taken.
The hearings are NOT enquiries into what really happened. They are trials based on evidence to prove each partiesâ case.
These are two very different things.
iâm glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
Iâm not quite sure what you are getting at here. It was the ASADA lawyers that were telling Andruska and McDevitt they had a case. None of the investigators thought there was anywhere near a case, particularly since there was very little sworn evidence.
Rich Young and ex judge Gary Downes also thought they should proceed. Based on what I canât remember.No - McDidiot said they said they should proceed. By no means the same thing.
Downesâ report has not been made public nor has it leaked. It is about the only thing that hasnât and one can surmise why.
Also as I recall McDidiot always used weasel words that sounded like the ASADA legal advice was supporting proceeding against the players but when you examined the few quotes he used it became pretty clear that the advice was not really saying that.
It is clear that McDidiot is running the prosecution in a self serving attempt to make a name for himself.
I would be surprised if any lawyers retained have advised that there was a strong case. At best they would advise it was arguable and that there was a very real chance of losing. (heck all the barristers I know advise that even when the case is a lay down misere).
McDidiot is the one who is pressing on regardless in the hope someone rolls because of the pressure or he lucks out at CAS.
Even if he loses he has raised his profile and if he wins he thinks his career will receive a big boost. A typical game plan for wannabe careerists.
Parliaments are full of people who have used such tactics to get where they are.
I donât know if you have read the book or not but here is an excerpt
âAfter evaluating the evidence gathered against the Essendon players, Youngâs advice to Andruska is she has a case worth running. Youngâs assessment, along with that of ASADA counsel Malcolm Holmes QC and Downesâ green light, are the reassurances that Andruska needs. Her only regret is that she wonât be the one to send out the infraction notices to Essendon players. She decides this task is best left to her replacement, Ben McDevittâ
And
âDownes read the final report of ASADAâs investigators, he wasnât troubled by their concerns about the case. Throughout his review, he did not meet or discuss the case with anyone from the investigations team. Like McDevitt, he talked to the lawyers, who without realising it, had become advocates for a doomed causeâ
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.
This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
What a load of crap the NRL players go blackmailed into taking deals. Thatâs a real professional organisation! Blind Freddy can see this. When the deal of pleading not guilty provides more punishment then pleading guilty. What is that saying about both the NRL and ASADA. One of the officials from the Sharks actually said he never made it to an interview yet ASADA made one up anyway! ASADA only liked the NRL because they agreeed to go along with the blackmail deal.
This sort of thing just had to be included for it to be any good. Ive just started reading the book and its as is soft as butter very disappointing. I can understand why though with the legal reasons and all.
The blackmail aspect gets to the point of the exercise I suspect. The NRL guys seem to have decided that a confession was an easier option than being subjected to the process the Essendon players are still going through. Even with exoneration at the end it is a debatable point which path is preferable.
ASADAâs mode of operation is to make a confession a less painful option than the other party taking them on, and getting through the process without an adverse finding against them.
I think ASADA and WADA would be happy with where the apparent effect of the WADA appeal on the players.
Essendon emerging from the process with no finding against them and a successful side would be their worst outcome.
I think it is getting harder, but it more important than ever to back our boys to come out of this the other side successfully.
NRL players took the deal at least in part because they had no funding to continue fighting.
Gotta remember NRL players had little choice as the NRL would stand down players if they refused the deal.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.
This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
What a load of crap the NRL players go blackmailed into taking deals. Thatâs a real professional organisation! Blind Freddy can see this. When the deal of pleading not guilty provides more punishment then pleading guilty. What is that saying about both the NRL and ASADA. One of the officials from the Sharks actually said he never made it to an interview yet ASADA made one up anyway! ASADA only liked the NRL because they agreeed to go along with the blackmail deal.
This sort of thing just had to be included for it to be any good. Ive just started reading the book and its as is soft as butter very disappointing. I can understand why though with the legal reasons and all.
The blackmail aspect gets to the point of the exercise I suspect. The NRL guys seem to have decided that a confession was an easier option than being subjected to the process the Essendon players are still going through. Even with exoneration at the end it is a debatable point which path is preferable.
ASADAâs mode of operation is to make a confession a less painful option than the other party taking them on, and getting through the process without an adverse finding against them.
I think ASADA and WADA would be happy with where the apparent effect of the WADA appeal on the players.
Essendon emerging from the process with no finding against them and a successful side would be their worst outcome.
I think it is getting harder, but it more important than ever to back our boys to come out of this the other side successfully.
Some nrl players took a deal....Did their club get punished for lack of governance?
I wonder what would have happened if weâd been out of finals contention late in 2014 like Cronulla were and the players had been offered the same deal
Some nrl players took a dealâŚ
Did their club get punished for lack of governance?
âNow it is her task to oversee a doping investigation of a complexity and scale that had never been attempted in Australia; an investigation that few people in federal government, the AFL or the NRL truly want to succeed.â
Cant even begin to describe how wrong this comment is. It absolutely had to succeed in some shape or form for the Federal government.
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.
This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
What a load of crap the NRL players go blackmailed into taking deals. Thatâs a real professional organisation! Blind Freddy can see this. When the deal of pleading not guilty provides more punishment then pleading guilty. What is that saying about both the NRL and ASADA. One of the officials from the Sharks actually said he never made it to an interview yet ASADA made one up anyway! ASADA only liked the NRL because they agreeed to go along with the blackmail deal.
This sort of thing just had to be included for it to be any good. Ive just started reading the book and its as is soft as butter very disappointing. I can understand why though with the legal reasons and all.
Here we are at the last minute and a new drug comes up..."Placebo".drug test for placebo - you have nothing but are looking for something and still come up with nothing.We have gone through AOD, Mexican Drugs, TB4 and now they are trying to get us on a charge of possibly taking Placebo.
Is there a doping test for Placebo?
/s
If you like their music then youâre more than likely on drugs?
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
see i just donât get this. Had these lawyers ever read a single CAS decision where there were no positive tests.
Journos (even Chip) do not understand what evidence is nor do they understand what is needed to be proven to support a finding by a tribunal or Court.
The burden of proof is on WADA to prove TB4 was administered to each of the 34 players in order to get them convicted.
The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction.
The fact that Chip and others believe it might have been on the premises is completely irrelevant.
That is why all this guff about the lack of records is misconceived.
The players (and for that matter EFC who are not even a party to the CAS proceedings) do not have to prove what was administered to the players so the playersâ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the playersâ case. That does not mean, in fact, that it is not known what the players took.
The AFL likes the media to chant that there was a lack of records because that justifies the sanctions they imposed in August 2013.
But as Crameriâs mum said - she knew precisely what was taken and there was nothing prohibited. However, as the players do not have to prove this she was not called as a witness and for that matter neither was Dank nor any of the Essendon officials who administered the programme with him and the Weapon.
ASADA also did not call anyone despite their crocodile tears about this because they knew that the evidence would not help their case. Dank et al would simply state that nothing prohibited was given to the players.
The completeness or incompleteness of the records will only become relevant if the players have to disprove evidence from WADA that TB4 was administered.
If WADA cannot get there (which it appears they canât as there is no evidence showing TB4 was ever on the premises so it could not have been given to the players) then the players do not have to try and show what WAS taken.
The hearings are NOT enquiries into what really happened. They are trials based on evidence to prove each partiesâ case.
These are two very different things.
iâm glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
Iâm not quite sure what you are getting at here. It was the ASADA lawyers that were telling Andruska and McDevitt they had a case. None of the investigators thought there was anywhere near a case, particularly since there was very little sworn evidence.
Rich Young and ex judge Gary Downes also thought they should proceed. Based on what I canât remember.
The vibe
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
see i just donât get this. Had these lawyers ever read a single CAS decision where there were no positive tests.
Journos (even Chip) do not understand what evidence is nor do they understand what is needed to be proven to support a finding by a tribunal or Court.
The burden of proof is on WADA to prove TB4 was administered to each of the 34 players in order to get them convicted.
The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction.
The fact that Chip and others believe it might have been on the premises is completely irrelevant.
That is why all this guff about the lack of records is misconceived.
The players (and for that matter EFC who are not even a party to the CAS proceedings) do not have to prove what was administered to the players so the playersâ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the playersâ case. That does not mean, in fact, that it is not known what the players took.
The AFL likes the media to chant that there was a lack of records because that justifies the sanctions they imposed in August 2013.
But as Crameriâs mum said - she knew precisely what was taken and there was nothing prohibited. However, as the players do not have to prove this she was not called as a witness and for that matter neither was Dank nor any of the Essendon officials who administered the programme with him and the Weapon.
ASADA also did not call anyone despite their crocodile tears about this because they knew that the evidence would not help their case. Dank et al would simply state that nothing prohibited was given to the players.
The completeness or incompleteness of the records will only become relevant if the players have to disprove evidence from WADA that TB4 was administered.
If WADA cannot get there (which it appears they canât as there is no evidence showing TB4 was ever on the premises so it could not have been given to the players) then the players do not have to try and show what WAS taken.
The hearings are NOT enquiries into what really happened. They are trials based on evidence to prove each partiesâ case.
These are two very different things.
iâm glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
Iâm not quite sure what you are getting at here. It was the ASADA lawyers that were telling Andruska and McDevitt they had a case. None of the investigators thought there was anywhere near a case, particularly since there was very little sworn evidence.
Rich Young and ex judge Gary Downes also thought they should proceed. Based on what I canât remember.
No - McDidiot said they said they should proceed. By no means the same thing.
Downesâ report has not been made public nor has it leaked. It is about the only thing that hasnât and one can surmise why.
Also as I recall McDidiot always used weasel words that sounded like the ASADA legal advice was supporting proceeding against the players but when you examined the few quotes he used it became pretty clear that the advice was not really saying that.
It is clear that McDidiot is running the prosecution in a self serving attempt to make a name for himself.
I would be surprised if any lawyers retained have advised that there was a strong case. At best they would advise it was arguable and that there was a very real chance of losing. (heck all the barristers I know advise that even when the case is a lay down misere).
McDidiot is the one who is pressing on regardless in the hope someone rolls because of the pressure or he lucks out at CAS.
Even if he loses he has raised his profile and if he wins he thinks his career will receive a big boost. A typical game plan for wannabe careerists.
Parliaments are full of people who have used such tactics to get where they are.
I'm not surprised we haven't heard about Placebo until The Bitter End.Hey Evans, you don't care about us.
Yep, thatâs the best Iâve got.
If the players win their appeal and then WADA re appeal, and win, can the players then re re -appeal and if they win can WADA then re re re appeal, making way for the players to re re re appeal opening up the prospect of WADA re re re re re appealing. Or somewhere in this mess is there a law preventing a re re re re re appeal? What a mess!
Well if there is such a rule to prevent a new appeal at some point, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be us that gets screwed by that rule
My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA â Andruska took some time to realise ASADA was never in charge of the investigation. She realised late in the piece that ASADA and the AFL had completely different agendas. AFL kept going around her to her boss. She is a social policy expert that was headhunted to the role which says a lot about where the govt of the day saw the function of the anti doping body. She brought with her from centrelink two staff, an accountant and a lawyer so there was no one with investigations or doping experience. (even though there are a lot of investigators at Centrelink)MCDevitt didnât realise what a crap case ASADA had until the tribunal hearing had started. Like Andruska he was being advised by lawyers and not investigators.
EFC â Unbelievably Dankâs office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, canât sleep, want to lose weight, bit tired etc, and he would inject them, or give them something to take home to inject. I am gobsmacked by that, that people are so trusting.This section is the most alarming, I can see why people said it was an uncontrolled environment, - it was. Anything could have happened. Players were so used to people coming back from holidays a sort of orange colour that they started making jokes about the oompa loompa people.
Charter - is a drug dealer happy to do anything to make money IMHO.
Dank - comes across a bit like a mad scientist, got all these theories that he wants to try out on people. Doubt he would have the discipline or patience for clinical trials. It appears that he genuinely believes in what he does and says, he just canât be trusted to abide by rules because he believes he always knows better. I think he gave us what he said he did to see what would happen.
Alavi â seems to be collateral damage.
NRL - as an organisation come across a lot more professional than the AFL. Understood completely the boundaries between club, league and ASADA. They let ASADA get on with their investigation, didnât try to make deals, but also looked after their player rights to not incriminate themselves. There is a big lesson there for the AFL (which I know they wouldnât dream of learning)
AFL â Should be condemned in the strongest terms. They do not look good IMHO. They seriously thought they could control and manipulate a federal government department to the extent that the department would abrogate their responsibilities under legislation. Astonishing, their arrogance knows no bounds.
They come across as sneaky, manipulative, indecisive, punitive, and concerned with their own self-image and aggrandisement. For me the ultimate irony is that Evans and the AFL supposedly wanted to protect the payers and the game/brand but in acting as they did they could well be singled handledly responsible for players being banned. If it were not for the players being so open at their interviews ASADA would have even less than what they have now. And if the players do get banned, doubtful IMHO, blood may well be on the hands of Evans and the AFL.
The organisation definitely needs a root and branch reform and it should be driven from the clubs. The AFL needs to go back to working for the clubs, not the clubs acceding to them.
Did we take banned drugs? I donât know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didnât and no proof that we did.
If we did I think it will have been because Dank disagrees with the WADA code on the properties of a certain peptide and believes it not banned.
It was a good read.
see i just donât get this. Had these lawyers ever read a single CAS decision where there were no positive tests.
Journos (even Chip) do not understand what evidence is nor do they understand what is needed to be proven to support a finding by a tribunal or Court.
The burden of proof is on WADA to prove TB4 was administered to each of the 34 players in order to get them convicted.
The standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction.
The fact that Chip and others believe it might have been on the premises is completely irrelevant.
That is why all this guff about the lack of records is misconceived.
The players (and for that matter EFC who are not even a party to the CAS proceedings) do not have to prove what was administered to the players so the playersâ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the playersâ case. That does not mean, in fact, that it is not known what the players took.
The AFL likes the media to chant that there was a lack of records because that justifies the sanctions they imposed in August 2013.
But as Crameriâs mum said - she knew precisely what was taken and there was nothing prohibited. However, as the players do not have to prove this she was not called as a witness and for that matter neither was Dank nor any of the Essendon officials who administered the programme with him and the Weapon.
ASADA also did not call anyone despite their crocodile tears about this because they knew that the evidence would not help their case. Dank et al would simply state that nothing prohibited was given to the players.
The completeness or incompleteness of the records will only become relevant if the players have to disprove evidence from WADA that TB4 was administered.
If WADA cannot get there (which it appears they canât as there is no evidence showing TB4 was ever on the premises so it could not have been given to the players) then the players do not have to try and show what WAS taken.
The hearings are NOT enquiries into what really happened. They are trials based on evidence to prove each partiesâ case.
These are two very different things.
iâm glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
Iâm not quite sure what you are getting at here. It was the ASADA lawyers that were telling Andruska and McDevitt they had a case. None of the investigators thought there was anywhere near a case, particularly since there was very little sworn evidence.
Rich Young and ex judge Gary Downes also thought they should proceed. Based on what I canât remember.