Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[beelzebub 23,378]

Melrose Drive is on borrowed time

[hardtack 10,547]

the AFL - where disgusting drug cheats are allowed to play on a day that honuors the men and women who went to war for our country

Not proven yet (officially)... but yes, if charges are laid by ASADA then maybe they should lose that fixture.

[DemonFrog 1,354]

the AFL - where disgusting drug cheats are allowed to play on a day that honuors the men and women who went to war for our country

Hopefully they will all be sitting on the sidelines watching

[daisycutter 29,616]

Stephen Dank's offsider to speak to ASADA

[Biffen 12,943]

....if they are found guilty of taking banned substances. And by the rules nor should they given any exemption. Nor should officials involved.

I wonder how much ASADA/WADA have to go on if Danks wont speak to them........

However if one infraction notice to an Essendon player is issued, then Hird, Thompson, Reid should be finished in the AFL.

And they should hang their heads in shame.

Agree apart from Reid who wrote a letter distancing himself from the injection program.

Whistleblowers should not be punished.

[Whispering_Jack 30,182]

Stephen Dank's offsider to speak to ASADA

The noose is tightening but ever so slightly.

I think that ultimately Dank will have to speak to ASADA as well but even if (at his cost) he manages to somehow avoid it, it's likely that further legislative changes will deliver the evidence he's already given to the ACC as well as his documentation so it will all come out in the wash at some time. Could hurt us with some of our players who might get sanctions as well but applying creams prescribed by a doctor is not the same as taking part in a planned injecting process where waiver documents have been signed and an admission has already been made by one of your players.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

The noose is tightening but ever so slightly.

I think that ultimately Dank will have to speak to ASADA as well but even if (at his cost) he manages to somehow avoid it, it's likely that further legislative changes will deliver the evidence he's already given to the ACC as well as his documentation so it will all come out in the wash at some time. Could hurt us with some of our players who might get sanctions as well but applying creams prescribed by a doctor is not the same as taking part in a planned injecting process where waiver documents have been signed and an admission has already been made by one of your players.

My understanding is that failing to answer is a $5,100 fine. That fine accrues every time you fail to comply with a notice. Therefore, the notice could ask you to come to an interview in a week. Fail to do so, get $5,100 fine. Then, ASADA could issue you a second notice. Fail to answer that one, another fine. Therefore, Dank could run up a bill he simply cannot afford. He can't run away from them forever.

[Crompton's the man 659]

The noose is tightening but ever so slightly.

I think that ultimately Dank will have to speak to ASADA as well but even if (at his cost) he manages to somehow avoid it, it's likely that further legislative changes will deliver the evidence he's already given to the ACC as well as his documentation so it will all come out in the wash at some time. Could hurt us with some of our players who might get sanctions as well but applying creams prescribed by a doctor is not the same as taking part in a planned injecting process where waiver documents have been signed and an admission has already been made by one of your players.

Might not be the same thing that look at what happened to a St Kilda player who was caught ingesting a mild stimulant.

It seems on the surface of it an astonishingly harsh penalty for a relatively minor infraction measured against what the Essendon Football Club has done.

Hope our players are not on the receiving end of a similarly disproportionate penalty but I'm not staking any part of my anatomy on that outcome.

[deanox 9,928]

My understanding is that failing to answer is a $5,100 fine. That fine accrues every time you fail to comply with a notice. Therefore, the notice could ask you to come to an interview in a week. Fail to do so, get $5,100 fine. Then, ASADA could issue you a second notice. Fail to answer that one, another fine. Therefore, Dank could run up a bill he simply cannot afford. He can't run away from them forever.

I thought it was $5,100 pet day that you fail to comply. Cumulative. ?

[jazza 1,323]

Not proven yet (officially)... but yes, if charges are laid by ASADA then maybe they should lose that fixture.

got laughed at when I suggested we get anzac

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

got laughed at when I suggested we get anzac

It is funny. LOL.

My understanding is that failing to answer is a $5,100 fine. That fine accrues every time you fail to comply with a notice. Therefore, the notice could ask you to come to an interview in a week. Fail to do so, get $5,100 fine. Then, ASADA could issue you a second notice. Fail to answer that one, another fine. Therefore, Dank could run up a bill he simply cannot afford. He can't run away from them forever.

He possibly can. If he has something to hide he could avoid it by claiming bankruptcy. I can't see what he has to gain by fronting ASADA.

It appears they can encourage a horse to water but can't make him necessarily drink.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Might not be the same thing that look at what happened to a St Kilda player who was caught ingesting a mild stimulant.

It seems on the surface of it an astonishingly harsh penalty for a relatively minor infraction measured against what the Essendon Football Club has done.

Hope our players are not on the receiving end of a similarly disproportionate penalty but I'm not staking any part of my anatomy on that outcome.

I think that is close to the mark. The bottom line is if you are found guilty of taking a banned stimulant by WADA/ASADA then you in deep water regardless of the circumstances. I would have thought that the Saad penalty might be the benchmark of what to expect if found guilty.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Armstrong only started singing to USADA when approval was given that any statements by him in these hearings could not be used against him directly in a court of law.

No such arrangement is in place in Australia.

Dank cannot be forced or fined for failure to talk, only for non attendance and any failure to produce documents

so even if Dank attends, the best that could be achieved (if he clams up) is the production of documents (not already destroyed or hidden).

More teeth are needed.

[bing181 9,241]

Armstrong only started singing to USADA when approval was given that any statements by him in these hearings could not be used against him directly in a court of law.

Armstrong (Lance) has never been formally interviewed by USADA.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Armstrong (Lance) has never been formally interviewed by USADA.

you're right bing, my bad.

I do seem to remember though that certain evidence could be given and not used against the witness in a law court (and this was not true in Australia)

So maybe it referred to other witnesses singing about armstrong - I just can't recall the details

maybe someone else remembers

[Macca 16,972]

you're right bing, my bad.

I do seem to remember though that certain evidence could be given and not used against the witness in a law court (and this was not true in Australia)

So maybe it referred to other witnesses singing about armstrong - I just can't recall the details

maybe someone else remembers

There were about 11 former teammates of Armstrong who received a reduced ban (6 months?) ... in order to get that reduced ban they had to make admissions of their own PED use and Armstrong's use of these PED's as well (or at least as much as these 11 former teammates were prepared to divulge) Those admissions were made to WADA but it might have been USADA (in a lot of ways it amounts to the same thing) Not long afterwards, Lance spilled the beans on Oprah's show.

Fairly sure the whole saga is ongoing and may go on for some time (not that the public care much anymore) Those former teammates of Armstrong may still get sued - there was a lot of money given out to the Armstrong teams. They're coming at him now ... Lance Armstrong Arbitrator to Hear $12 Million Bonus Recoup Case

What's important to remember here is that Armstrong never tested positive to a banned drug and to cop a lengthy ban, no athlete necessarily needs to test positive to a banned drug (or a drug that is on the "Not fit for humans" list or such like) That applies anywhere I believe. The other thing to remember is that what applies in the USA doesn't necessarily apply in Australia (and vice-versa)

Anyway, back to the Dons situation ...

This new evidence from Dank's offsider (the South Yarra compound Pharmacist) may well be enough for ASADA to then be able to issue infraction notices (with all the other accompanying evidence to help, of course) The sum of all the parts (so to speak) is where the answer might lie. Then again, Dank's offsider may not shed any more light on the situation at all. Someone posted this link to the story earlier but here it is again ... Stephen Dank's offsider to speak to ASADA

The whole ASADA investigation could go on for quite some time before we get a definitive answer. There's speculation that up to a dozen players could get infraction notices but what I find a bit strange is that if all the players took these injections on numerous occasions, how do they not all get punished? (if they are punished) I would have thought it was all or none (Unless the evidence directly points to a certain number of players)

Edited November 2, 2013 by Macca

[titan_uranus 25,020]

I thought it was $5,100 pet day that you fail to comply. Cumulative. ?

Per day or per notice, either way it's a fair amount of money he's going to have to cop if he wants to stay silent.

It is funny. LOL.

He possibly can. If he has something to hide he could avoid it by claiming bankruptcy. I can't see what he has to gain by fronting ASADA.

It appears they can encourage a horse to water but can't make him necessarily drink.

You can't just 'claim bankruptcy'. If he has money or assets then he will owe ASADA. If he doesn't want to lose that, then he has to answer the questions. If he is truly bankrupt then he's bankrupt, but he can't just make it up.

His only real defence is the get-out clause provided in the Act for the immunity from self-incrimination. If answering the questions would incriminate him, then he doesn't have to answer (e.g. if he had to admit to trafficking illegal goods or something). No evidence to suggest he can use this, though.

[DemonFrog 1,354]

It is important that a fair and equitable investigation is undertaken in such matters, but it is very unfortunate that it take so long for the final report to be released.

For the good of the game, clubs, players and supporters a more timely system be vert benefical. IMO it would have been a tragedy if MessyDrugs won the 2013 GF or even played in the finals. The only reason this did not happen was the clause about being the game into disrepute. But it may have been a different outcome if all those involved actually challenged their penalties in the courts. This would likely have resulted in a delay of many months and MessyDrugs would have played finals.

From the information I have seen and read so far it appears to be a very strong case that illegal substance had been used in the Club. If this opinion is proven to be the case when the final report is released, there would have to be significant penalties imposed on the Club as it was not individual players but the Club itself that introduced an illegal drugs program to its players. If the AFL did not impose the appropriate penaties then it would likely lose the confidence of other Clubs, Sponsors, Government Support etc.

As much as I feel the Club would get what is coming, I would still feel sorry for the innocent Supporters and Members who could actually see the total destruction of their Club.

I would be disappointed in the whole process if its likely illegal Drugs have been used but it could not be determined which players actually took the drugs. If this was the case then IMO the Club should take a more substancial penalty, even if that includes the Club being disbanded.

Illegal Drug Taking should never be accepted in sport just because the penalties are considered too high. If you do drugs then you need to be aware you could lose it all.

[Whispering_Jack 30,182]

One of the by products of the doping scandal has been the spat between AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou and HUN chief football writer Mark Robinson over the contents of a phone call made to former Essendon president David Evans on the night before the club "self-reported" over the use of banned drugs.

It seems the story just won't go away -

AFL boss says journo shared tape of expletive-riddled tirade

A simmering feud is continuing between the AFL and Australia's largest-selling daily newspaper over the recording of an abusive tirade by AFL boss Andrew Demetriou towards the Melbourne Herald Sun's chief football writer Mark Robinson.

The matter has become so acrimonious that an inquiry has been undertaken by Adrian Anderson, a former AFL head of football operations and one-time legal counsel to Herald Sun parent company the Herald & Weekly Times, to determine who, if anyone, heard the expletive-laden recording.

Of course, some will say that the conduct of the CEO of a billion dollar organisation is irrelevant as long as it continues to rake in the money and the sort of behaviour alleged doesn't impact on issues of its governance but I wonder?

[jazza 1,323]

Armstrong only started singing to USADA when approval was given that any statements by him in these hearings could not be used against him directly in a court of law.

No such arrangement is in place in Australia.

Dank cannot be forced or fined for failure to talk, only for non attendance and any failure to produce documents

so even if Dank attends, the best that could be achieved (if he clams up) is the production of documents (not already destroyed or hidden).

More teeth are needed.

the problem with lance testimony was the fact he only admitted up to 7 years previous and not current

that's why in his comeback races he said he was clean because of the 7 year clause

sport writers were disgusted about his ADMITTANCE because of this

I spose robbo is the closest thing we have to an oprah so that's where jobe and jimmy will end their careers and ADMIT everything?

[Whispering_Jack 30,182]

Something's happening soon ...

ASADA set to charge Bombers: Sly

If Sly's right then it would seem that those who get infraction notices will get off reasonably lightly - perhaps 6 - 12 months while some may even get off with lighter sentences than that depending on what they took or were given and/or because of the level of assistance given to the enquiry. It wouldn't sit entirely well with me if footballers who signed waiver forms citing banned substances were given consideration but of course, it would make me feel more comfortable about our blokes who have yet to be fully investigated.

Importantly, let's hope they get the blokes who push these substances at football clubs and to athletes and who have been making a living at it.

And as for pretty boy ...

[Crompton's the man 659]

..... he's just too popular to get blamed

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If Sly is correct and that players issued with infraction notices only get 6-12 months and not the usual 2 years where does that leave the culpability of the officials concerned including Hird? If the player penalties are mitigated by circumstances then surely the officials culpability should be increased. At the very least the Essendon officials knowing about and/or in charge of these waivers must surely be in the spotlight.

I note the comment in the article that WADA has expressed concerned if the players trusting the Club get punished. This seems at odds with public statements from John Fahey about the unequivocal application of the WADA rules with few loopholes and little room to wriggle. There appears little change to what we publicly knew back in August. ASADA are only now seeking to put pressure on Danks (why so long?).

It will be interesting to determine the basis that only 5-6 players will be issued notices. I thought the lack of records made the matching of supplements to players impossible and surely testimonies on their own could be challengeable in Court.

[Dees2014 2,377]

One of the by products of the doping scandal has been the spat between AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou and HUN chief football writer Mark Robinson over the contents of a phone call made to former Essendon president David Evans on the night before the club "self-reported" over the use of banned drugs.

It seems the story just won't go away - AFL boss says journo shared tape of expletive-riddled tirade

Of course, some will say that the conduct of the CEO of a billion dollar organisation is irrelevant as long as it continues to rake in the money and the sort of behaviour alleged doesn't impact on issues of its governance but I wonder?

I must say I would believe Demetriou long before Robinson, particularly on all matters relating to Essendon. Robinson long ago lost his credibility when dealing with Essendon matter. For such a senior journo he is just too compromised.

[Dees2014 2,377]

If Sly is correct and that players issued with infraction notices only get 6-12 months and not the usual 2 years where does that leave the culpability of the officials concerned including Hird? If the player penalties are mitigated by circumstances then surely the officials culpability should be increased. At the very least the Essendon officials knowing about and/or in charge of these waivers must surely be in the spotlight.

I note the comment in the article that WADA has expressed concerned if the players trusting the Club get punished. This seems at odds with public statements from John Fahey about the unequivocal application of the WADA rules with few loopholes and little room to wriggle. There appears little change to what we publicly knew back in August. ASADA are only now seeking to put pressure on Danks (why so long?).

It will be interesting to determine the basis that only 5-6 players will be issued notices. I thought the lack of records made the matching of supplements to players impossible and surely testimonies on their own could be challengeable in Court.

Yes I agree RR. this would go against WADA's behavior in almost every other jurisdiction, both here and overseas, and the pronouncements of their President John Fahey. From everything that I know about it, they (WADA) see themselves as the keeper of a fair system, not the hander out of penalties - that is the local arm's job, in our case ASADA. In fact I would be surprised if it has been discussed between ASADA and WADA (at least in a formal sense) - they usually only intervene if they think the penalties are wrong, where they take it to a judicial review process and nearly always it is to increase penalties and not to decrease them.

I just wonder if this is a story planted with Sylvester by one of Hird's legal team.

It wouldn't be the first time 3AW have got this story arse about. it will be interesting to hear what Caroline Wilson and Patrick Smith have to say about it. I think both of them have a lot better credibility in this story than either 3AW or the Hun (although I realize Sylvester is from the Age).