My take on Chips book, bit more than 140 characters. ASADA – 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 didn’t 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 – Unbelievably Dank’s office was like a private medical clinic with staff in particular going to him with ailments, can’t 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 can’t 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 – 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, didn’t 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 wouldn’t dream of learning)
AFL – 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 don’t know, but there is nothing in Chips book that makes me change my view that there is every chance we didn’t 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 don’t 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 players’ lawyers have not needed to present evidence of this. Indeed the apparent lack of records may well assist the players’ 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 Crameri’s 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 can’t 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 parties’ case.
These are two very different things.
i’m glad you posted that because, frankly, i sick and tired of posting it myself.
