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

[beelzebub 23,390]

Wouldn't surprise me if the compounding pharmacist is the lynch pin to all this.

[rjay 25,308]

mix 35mls of bottle 'C' with 65mls of sinister sauce, shake & label Vitamin 'C' ; & then take 7.5mls of this substance, & inject intramuscular, into No 24, on 1/4/2013 @ 3.45PM.

say no more

Good to know someone has kept the records.

[daisycutter 29,897]

so,

all the drugs being investigated came from this guy

he was a de-registered pharmacist

he was 'dodgy' (surprise)

he didn't know what the ingredients were

and you saw this on tv way back

[ManDee 7,327]

so,

all the drugs being investigated came from this guy

he was a de-registered pharmacist

he was 'dodgy' (surprise)

he didn't know what the ingredients were

and you saw this on tv way back

Mmmm, sounds fishy to me. Don't think we will ever know what really went on. The Alan Bond defence may pop up, but I don't quite remember what it is.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It would appear that Essendon have behaved in their own self interest all along, part of that is an inadvertent act that may save the players from charges. I would be appalled to have a son playing for them and would be taking legal/medical advice re action against the club in the future, but keeping powder dry for now. This is far from the end.

While this has been dealt ad nauseam earlier in this long thread, any inadvertent act of Essendon will not mitigate or protect the players from ASADA charges. If ASADA can establish that a player has taken a banned substance deliberately or inadvertently he is gone. It's cruel but it is what is.

Regardless of ASADA outcomes, notices or not I can see a number of plausible outcomes which involve the Courts.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You have to remember how this investigation came into being in the first place, the ACC.

Now whether they have evidence on Dank who knows but you would have to think they have some pretty strong evidence on someone or many someones.

ACC may have interest in him for the potential importation and distribution of banned substances. I am not sure what specific ASADA/WADA provisions would specifically apply to him.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

.........& foreign with poor verbal skills.

A-haaa, the smoking gun proof!

No wonder they did not interview him...couldn't find an interpreter...Hmmm

[Sir Why You Little 37,323]

Don't forget the Doctor just across from Caulfield Race Course. Was front and back page news in the HUN last year for one day and then not mentioned again. Wish i had kept the pages. Left the country just before Christmas. He was in it up to his neck i was told by a very close source.

It wasn't just Essendrug either in his words.

[Redleg 41,963]

Alternatively if there are no club records what is the basis of the prosecution?

I would expect Notices should be based on more than circumstantial evidence.

For a start, I think under the WADA code, that is enough to lay charges ( circumstantial evidence ).

Remember there was surveillance, chemists giving evidence of what they sold to Dank and the Club, admissions from players, admissions by the club of injecting of substances, probably no proof of legal substances being purchased and injected, probably statements of people off campus who injected the players, statements by Reid that he knew of substances being given and didn't approve, statements by Dank to the ACC etc.

[Redleg 41,963]

so,

all the drugs being investigated came from this guy

he was a de-registered pharmacist

he was 'dodgy' (surprise)

he didn't know what the ingredients were

and you saw this on tv way back

Don't think he was a Pharmacist.

[daisycutter 29,897]

Don't think he was a Pharmacist.

it was d-l who described him originally as a pharmacist

anyway whatever his title if he is legitimately making up drugs and dispensing them,then i would expect you need some sort of a license for this

[dee-luded 2,959]

Good to know someone has kept the records.

[dee-luded 2,959]

it was d-l who described him originally as a pharmacist

anyway whatever his title if he is legitimately making up drugs and dispensing them,then i would expect you need some sort of a license for this

remember language isn't my first english DC.

[dee-luded 2,959]

For a start, I think under the WADA code, that is enough to lay charges ( circumstantial evidence ).

Remember there was surveillance, chemists giving evidence of what they sold to Dank and the Club, admissions from players, admissions by the club of injecting of substances, probably no proof of legal substances being purchased and injected, probably statements of people off campus who injected the players, statements by Reid that he knew of substances being given and didn't approve, statements by Dank to the ACC etc.

sounds like a long drawn out case, with a no result to end it; then big $ interviews for the world media to follow.

I said we should have sweet talked one of the Bummer players early days. now they'll all be as thick as 2 thieving Gorillas in a red mist.

Edited February 28, 2014 by dee-luded

[S.R.J 418]

I'll be amazed when something finally happens. This has been the most drawn out bloody thing ever. Just punish the bastards

[dee-luded 2,959]

I'll be amazed when something finally happens. This has been the most drawn out bloody thing ever. Just punish the bastards

the trouble is a long drawn out prolonged court case with 2 of the countries biggest sporting codes getting trashed thru the media, would smash the already tough sponsor environment, at a time when companies are already pulling their purses tight.

fred villiers would be grinning to his back teeth.

[rjay 25,308]

ACC may have interest in him for the potential importation and distribution of banned substances. I am not sure what specific ASADA/WADA provisions would specifically apply to him.

Me neither 'Rhino'.

[bing181 9,425]

Alternatively if there are no club records what is the basis of the prosecution?

Equally though, if there are no records, what is the defense? Critical under WADA rules where the burden of proof shifts much more to the athletes.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Equally though, if there are no records, what is the defense? Critical under WADA rules where the burden of proof shifts much more to the athletes.

vitamin 'C'.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

For a start, I think under the WADA code, that is enough to lay charges ( circumstantial evidence ).

Remember there was surveillance, chemists giving evidence of what they sold to Dank and the Club, admissions from players, admissions by the club of injecting of substances, probably no proof of legal substances being purchased and injected, probably statements of people off campus who injected the players, statements by Reid that he knew of substances being given and didn't approve, statements by Dank to the ACC etc.

You're right it's circumstantial at best. No smoking gun evidence there.

So correct me if this is wrong but if ASADA issues notices based on circumstantial evidence then it will be up to the AFL to inflict the suspensions on the accused. I would have thought the players and the AFLPA will take EFC, the AFL and ASADA to Court and blow holes in the less than tight evidence.

I can understand why ASADA are gun shy about this.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Equally though, if there are no records, what is the defense? Critical under WADA rules where the burden of proof shifts much more to the athletes.

Well its hard to defend yourself when the basis of the prosecution does not actually exist.

ASADA need to very careful and sure about things because if the basis of issuing notices is flimsy or not water tight, it's going to be challenged and destroyed in the Courts

[Whispering_Jack 31,204]

Well its hard to defend yourself when the basis of the prosecution does not actually exist.

ASADA need to very careful and sure about things because if the basis of issuing notices is flimsy or not water tight, it's going to be challenged and destroyed in the Courts

The challenge might be short-lived because the first issue they would have to deal with is whether the Courts have the jursidiction to decide on the matter. The AFL and the players are party to the WADA Code and as such, have agreed voluntarily to waive sovereign law in favour of the Code. There are overseas precedents which indicate that the courts are loathe to interfere in those circumstances. For all his huffing and puffing, Lance Armstrong submitted without a legal challenge once hooked. There is a right of appeal against decisions arising from the issue of infraction notices - the Court of Arbitration in Sport (and good luck to anyone who appeals to this body who has been injected as part of a systematic programme such as the one described in the ASADA Interim Report).

We know there have been a multitude of witnesses who gave evidence to ASADA and the ACC and though we don't know who all of them are, there were people who injected the players and given that the clinic across the way from Windy Hill was under ACC surveillance, there could well be evidence taken from nurses or wire taps or any number of other types of evidence that could give the game away for the Bombers without requiring Dank's words.

[Return to Glory 8,470]

Whispering, I'm slowly coming around to a belief that there may well be more to play out. For a substantial length of time I've been a non believer regarding the Bummers being brought to account. Not having Dank can be viewed as a positive in terms of them having a strong case regardless.

[bing181 9,425]

Well its hard to defend yourself when the basis of the prosecution does not actually exist.

ASADA need to very careful and sure about things because if the basis of issuing notices is flimsy or not water tight, it's going to be challenged and destroyed in the Courts

See Jack's response. If they want to appeal, they need to go to CAS.

Since time immemorial the AFL have been beholden only to themselves, and have been able to act in a sense "above the law" simply because they ARE the law - given that Ozzie Rules is not an international sport, or part of the olympic movement etc. etc. But for the first time perhaps, there is now a higher power, WADA, and the AFL and the players are just going to have to toe the line.

This is a "no barristers" zone.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Whispering, I'm slowly coming around to a belief that there may well be more to play out. For a substantial length of time I've been a non believer regarding the Bummers being brought to account. Not having Dank can be viewed as a positive in terms of them having a strong case regardless.

Lets hope so: & that this doesn't end up under one corner of the rug.