Cats got strong over a few years, they were not suddenly bulked up and playing great footy.

Interesting that some here are jumping to the defence of Thompson - did he not oversee the handbag Cats suddenly becoming big and strong? And then he moved to Essendon?

(BTW I will still never forgive the little prjck for his flippant remarks when Jeff White had his face kicked in: a reckless act at the very least. All Jeff's fault, the little trud said at the time, for getting in the way of King's boot. Pity it wasn't his ....... I must shut up).

my feelings also, Mono. Didn't the bastard say White could have injured King's foot?

Interesting connection between Geelong and Essendon that you raise.

And I agree with rjay's post above about the Eagles' amazing bulking up in the eighties.

I reckon they can get away with a lot more over in the wild west( note: Cousins) I'll never forget us losing the stick insect Troy Simmonds to Freo, only to find him muscle-bound the next year.

Word gets around in small towns when the pathology testers are in the vicinity.

Another day, another Chip Le Grand piece direct from the Essendon camp setting out their case for the "defence" - ASADA ignored Watson's evidence.

This shows us two things:-

the folly of ASADA in issuing an interim report to help bust Essendon on governance issues to keep them out of the finals; and

how risky Essendon's strategy is of playing this out in the public.

I believe that ASADA has wizened up and isn't saying anything. I suspect that a request will soon be made for Dank to give evidence. Dank will refuse, ASADA will activate the sanction for refusal and then ASADA will strike and issue infraction notices based on what it has now - a strongly circumstantial case or one that satisfies the standard of "comfortable satisfaction".

The lack of direct evidence from Dank will be meaningless in the face of all of the other evidence including his interview with Baker & McKenzie, the evidence of the chemist, the tax invoices, the attempts to falsify them, the signed waiver forms, evidence from Charter about dosages and the word of the players. Not to mention Jobe Watson's own confession. And that's not to mention anything ASADA has or will get from the ACC.

Another day, another Chip Le Grand piece direct from the Essendon camp setting out their case for the "defence" - ASADA ignored Watson's evidence.

This shows us two things:-

the folly of ASADA in issuing an interim report to help bust Essendon on governance issues to keep them out of the finals; and

how risky Essendon's strategy is of playing this out in the public.

I believe that ASADA has wizened up and isn't saying anything. I suspect that a request will soon be made for Dank to give evidence. Dank will refuse, ASADA will activate the sanction for refusal and then ASADA will strike and issue infraction notices based on what it has now - a strongly circumstantial case or one that satisfies the standard of "comfortable satisfaction".

The lack of direct evidence from Dank will be meaningless in the face of all of the other evidence including his interview with Baker & McKenzie, the evidence of the chemist, the tax invoices, the attempts to falsify them, the signed waiver forms, evidence from Charter about dosages and the word of the players. Not to mention Jobe Watson's own confession. And that's not to mention anything ASADA has or will get from the ACC.

A truly appalling article. Pathetic really - who the hell is Chip Le Grand anyway?

What point is he trying to make? He makes the claim that

The ASADA report, which was used by the AFL to inform code of conduct charges against Essendon, senior coach James Hird and other club officials, presents a detailed, circumstantial case that Essendon players were given thymosin beta 4. It does not canvass the possibility that the players were given Thymomodulin.

Why would the report canvas this possibility? As he says previously in the article Thymomodulin is safe and not banned. Why would a report about a clubs possible use of banned drugs discuss their use of non banned drugs? Perhaps Chip means that ASADA should have included reference to it in the context of it being confused with thymosin 4 (ie as grounds to throw doubt on the use of thy 4) but if so bloody write that. In any case it appears ASADA are pretty clear there is circumstantial evidence thy 4 was administered.).

Perhaps Chip means that ASADA should have included reference to it in the context of it being confused with thymosin 4 (ie as grounds to throw doubt on the use of thy 4) but if so bloody write that.

Because it sounds so much more conspiratorial the way it is written. It seems something is afoot to prompt such an article.

A truly appalling article. Pathetic really - who the hell is Chip Le Grand anyway?

A character invented by the Australian and loosely based on Zoe Barnes of the Washington Herald?

Another day, another Chip Le Grand piece direct from the Essendon camp setting out their case for the "defence" - ASADA ignored Watson's evidence.

This shows us two things:-

the folly of ASADA in issuing an interim report to help bust Essendon on governance issues to keep them out of the finals; and

how risky Essendon's strategy is of playing this out in the public.

I believe that ASADA has wizened up and isn't saying anything. I suspect that a request will soon be made for Dank to give evidence. Dank will refuse, ASADA will activate the sanction for refusal and then ASADA will strike and issue infraction notices based on what it has now - a strongly circumstantial case or one that satisfies the standard of "comfortable satisfaction".

The lack of direct evidence from Dank will be meaningless in the face of all of the other evidence including his interview with Baker & McKenzie, the evidence of the chemist, the tax invoices, the attempts to falsify them, the signed waiver forms, evidence from Charter about dosages and the word of the players. Not to mention Jobe Watson's own confession. And that's not to mention anything ASADA has or will get from the ACC.

I think your scenario is spot on WJ.

This could happen I think fairly early in the new year, I would think before the season proper starts. It will cause chaos. Half the Essendon list will become intelligible and most of those will sue the EFC and the AFL. As I understand it, the relevant Player Agents already have this underway. It will then be tied up in the courts for months if not years throwing the legality of the whole competition into uncertainty. It will cost the AFL and most certainly Essendon untold damage for arrogantly fighting ASADA/WADA on this.

There are also a number of unanswered questions arising from this:

• will Essendon be able to draft additional players from around the country to replace those with infraction notices?
• will this make their current contracts null and void and if it does, will Essendon keep one paying them? Even if it doesn't, will they keep on paying them? If that is so, how does this affect their current salary cap?
• how will they be able to fit the pay for their new signees under their salary cap if they have to pay those who were rubbed out, presumably also under the salary cap?
• how many players not with infraction notices, but having played during Hird's doping binge, will also sue for loss of reputation and misrepresentation when signing their last set of contracts?
• will the current coaching staff still be eligible to coach in the AFL?
• in the light of the millions this will cost Essendon, and their inevitable slide down the ladder as a result, how will they be able to afford the maintenance on their debt from their new state of the art training facilities?
• how will this affect the government, state, federal and local funding which was forthcoming to build it? Was this government funding actually legal in the light of these events?
• when will Worksafe get involved? and
• how long will it take for the ACCC to examine the criminal liability of the Board members during Hird's reign?

All that should keep the AFL lawyers busy for years and years.

Meanwhile, everyone in the AFL and its clubs will be seriously wounded as a result.

A character invented by the Australian and loosely based on Zoe Barnes of the Washington Herald?

like...lol

Watson, the only Essendon player to publicly admit to receiving injections of the contentious peptide AOD9604, told ASADA investigators that Dank explained to him there was "good" thymosin and "bad" thymosin.

So Dank gave him the "good" stuff.

Watson, the only Essendon player to publicly admit to receiving injections of the contentious peptide AOD9604, told ASADA investigators that Dank explained to him there was "good" thymosin and "bad" thymosin.

So Dank gave him the "good" stuff.

That's what James wanted..."get me the good stuff...we are playing carlton...."

Watson, the only Essendon player to publicly admit to receiving injections of the contentious peptide AOD9604, told ASADA investigators that Dank explained to him there was "good" thymosin and "bad" thymosin.

So Dank gave him the "good" stuff.

And if Dank refuses to give his evidence including all of the records of what was prescribed, ordered, injected and otherwise used in Essendon's pharmacological programme to ASADA then on the standards required by the WADA Code infractions will be issued. I think that means 11 players for TB4 and 8 for AOD9604 (although there could be some overlap given Watson's comments).

Incidentally, although I don't like this, my first prediction for next year is that, at some point in time, Trent Cotchin will be awarded the 2012 Brownlow Medal.

I would imagine that those players who were given substances which cannot be proven what they were would be treated as if they had taken banned substances?

And if Dank refuses to give his evidence including all of the records of what was prescribed, ordered, injected and otherwise used in Essendon's pharmacological programme to ASADA then on the standards required by the WADA Code infractions will be issued. I think that means 11 players for TB4 and 8 for AOD9604 (although there could be some overlap given Watson's comments).

How does that work to make a case against Dank?

How does that work to make a case against Dank?

ASADA has to make a case to its comfortable satisfaction for infraction notices to be served. I understand that the interim ASADA report refers to 11 Bombers who took Thymosin Beta 4 and 8 who took AOD9604.

On the former drug, there's an attempt to muddy the waters by sugggesting the players were given the legal thymosin and not the banned one. On the latter, attempts have been made to suggest Dank received advice from ASADA that it was not banned but there's no proof of an interview or record. Dank says this is because he got the information from inside "the bowels" of ASADA. In any event, it's clear that AOD9604 is classified S0 meaning it's prohibited.

Dank admitted giving the Essendon players Thymosin Beta 4 in his Baker and McKenzie interview but then changed his story when he was told it was banned. However, the simple changing of the story is not the thing. It's his initial reaction to being told about the illegality of the drug that convinces me that the Bombers in question ingested Thymosin Beta 4:-

NM: ASADA has just released on its website that Thymosin Beta 4 is prohibited in all routes and out of competition.

SD: Well, that must have just only come in this year and I will get someone to speak to ASADA about that. That's just mind-blowing.

NM: Thymosin Beta 4, they must have just banned that.

SD: I think they've only just put that in to back up their case.

Even if Dank was momentarily confused during the interview about which thymosin was being discussed, he would not have responded the way he did. If he fails/refuses to talk to ASADA then it's reasonable to conclude he meant Thymosin Beta 4 and not anything else. Also, if he doesn't talk then how does the story get across convincingly that Dank somehow got the green light to administer AOD9604?

Then there's Charter's evidence that he gave Dank dosage levels and frequency of dosage for Thymosin Beta 4 (and not the other thymosin) and those same levels and frequencies are said to appear on the forms at Essendon. How do you explain that if you're trying to maintain that the thymosin the Bomber players took was the good one?

There's also evidence from the ACC which interviewed Dank and which had the off-site premises where the injecting took place under surveillance. Another issue is the attempted fraud when tax invoices were apparently changed to make it appear that supplements were supplied that were different to the actual supplies [see Annexure A of the AFL list of charges]. I could go on but the third session of the third day's play is starting soon and the cricket's fascinating.

I'm now of the view that whether Dank talks or not, the case for infraction notices is sustainable and the Bombers are in a bad state either way.

http://www.insideathletics.com.au/sprints/14088-matt-davies-speaks-out-about-his-doping-ban

"I have been sanctioned for a substance that I had not intentionally or consciously ingested, on the basis (as ASADA described it) of a "possible anti-doping rule violation". Inadvertent use, of an unlisted substance, which had no information to even suspect it would be a concern."

There's two sides to this story - Davies' banned substance linked to four other doping bans

ASADA has to make a case to its comfortable satisfaction for infraction notices to be served. I understand that the interim ASADA report refers to 11 Bombers who took Thymosin Beta 4 and 8 who took AOD9604.

On the former drug, there's an attempt to muddy the waters by sugggesting the players were given the legal thymosin and not the banned one. On the latter, attempts have been made to suggest Dank received advice from ASADA that it was not banned but there's no proof of an interview or record. Dank says this is because he got the information from inside "the bowels" of ASADA. In any event, it's clear that AOD9604 is classified S0 meaning it's prohibited.

Dank admitted giving the Essendon players Thymosin Beta 4 in his Baker and McKenzie interview but then changed his story when he was told it was banned. However, the simple changing of the story is not the thing. It's his initial reaction to being told about the illegality of the drug that convinces me that the Bombers in question ingested Thymosin Beta 4:-

Even if Dank was momentarily confused during the interview about which thymosin was being discussed, he would not have responded the way he did. If he fails/refuses to talk to ASADA then it's reasonable to conclude he meant Thymosin Beta 4 and not anything else. Also, if he doesn't talk then how does the story get across convincingly that Dank somehow got the green light to administer AOD9604?

Then there's Charter's evidence that he gave Dank dosage levels and frequency of dosage for Thymosin Beta 4 (and not the other thymosin) and those same levels and frequencies are said to appear on the forms at Essendon. How do you explain that if you're trying to maintain that the thymosin the Bomber players took was the good one?

There's also evidence from the ACC which interviewed Dank and which had the off-site premises where the injecting took place under surveillance. Another issue is the attempted fraud when tax invoices were apparently changed to make it appear that supplements were supplied that were different to the actual supplies [see Annexure A of the AFL list of charges]. I could go on but the third session of the third day's play is starting soon and the cricket's fascinating.

I'm now of the view that whether Dank talks or not, the case for infraction notices is sustainable and the Bombers are in a bad state either way.

Thanks for this comprehensive and well supported argument WJ

It is great that someone can present some facts that go beyond the editorial offerings of the standard journalist presentations. That is not a criticism of the journalists or the editors they often have the facts but are almost required to present them in a biased or interpreted fashion. They are usually not able to present comprehensive and complex arguments unless it is a feature story that requires huge amounts of time and effort to ensure there is no legal infractions.

With the test moving to a close you may have time to disclose more interesting opinion.

Thanks for your kind words but now that the fourth test is over, it's two weeks of the beach for me (apart from a couple of articles I'm writing for Demonland).

Have a happy new year and don't forget the sunblock.

just finished the book written by paul dale

he makes some interesting observations about the ACC

firstly he quotes thier summons to appear log

it states that its illegal to tell anybody that youve been summoned apart from your solicitor

its illegal to divulge the fact that youve been questioned

they also offer immunity to anybody they like in the race for information

the ACC can draw on coercive powers which enable it to obtain information that cannot be accessed through traditional policing methods

any witness that has appeared can give evidence in a case which involves themselves and it can be protected under the secrecy act,and not be used against them

thought this may answer a few questions about why hasnt dank appeared before ASADA as yet

i think he may have spilt his beans already and the ACC are about to fry bigger fish on the importation side of things

this may explain the slow movement in the bombers/asada area

That would explain a LOT. Thanks jazza.

Its a pity journos cant do any research

That would explain a LOT. Thanks jazza.

Its a pity journos cant do any research

found it big fella

i think this has been lost on most people

footy classified august 27th 6 mniutes and 20 seconds into the interview with bomber thompson

"steven dank has a problem with asada and the AFL,he wont talk to them but has been talking to ACC 3 times"

theres the money shot for ya

paul dale quotes ACC can secret your testimony and it cant be used against you

I would imagine that those players who were given substances which cannot be proven what they were would be treated as if they had taken banned substances?

Thats what I am hoping will happen. The "no records were kept" line is a blatant lie. Their other defence was along the lines of " our medical team gave it the ok". If Dr Reid was cleared how can this be the case? ASADA said it's not banned but WADA says otherwise, a professional organisation would check it out? If so confident every thing was above board why the self reporting?

found it big fella

i think this has been lost on most people

footy classified august 27th 6 mniutes and 20 seconds into the interview with bomber thompson

"steven dank has a problem with asada and the AFL,he wont talk to them but has been talking to ACC 3 times"

theres the money shot for ya

paul dale quotes ACC can secret your testimony and it cant be used against you

how extremely interesting.

Thanks Jazza...

it seems ,according to dales book,the ACC can use the evidence any way it wants

also would note,they dont have to pass this evidence on to any other authority

could be asada ,are hoping for the BREAK in the case to administer justice?

we can only hope

It seems to me that there is surely enough circumstantial evidence and rumour that someone will be charged by ASADA at some point soon. In my opinion, signing a consent form to be injected with illegal substances is enough to establish "intent" to commit a doping violation, which is all that is needed.

I feel sorry for the players because I think there is a peer and group pressure mentality at football clubs that would make it hard to say no, especially if club and AFL legends are involved.

However, if any of them have taken anything against the rules they need to be suspended. Not knowing, or pressured into, should never ever be an accepted excuse in professional sport, else it will be the fall back position for all people purposely cheating.

Zero tolerance is the only way this can be handled, as much as I feel for the players. At least they will have a financial claim through the courts against the club etc.

I appreciate the info coming in here from posters like jazza, this is a good discussion. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. I suspect a combination of issues are at foot; the ACC investigation and the ASADA investigation being the two main ones. If the ACC had given information to ASADA, you can bet they two groups are cross checking testimony and witness accounts; any discrepancy will be further investigated and they final case will be thorough.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter if it happens now or in May or next December, as long as it happens if it is deserved. If it takes 5 years well that may be too long for people to get the punishment they deserve.

I would be thinking that WADA would prefer this done and dusted before the 2014 Winter Olympics.

They are on in Feb i think. Could be busy too....