Deanox

what i gathered from the paul dale testimony is the fact that the ACC dont have to share info

this would make it rather difficult for asada,to piggy back on ACCs evidence.

i would prefer the bombers done and dusted for 2 years

  On 31/12/2013 at 04:39, deanox said:

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 don't recall reading that the consent forms, contained the words "illegal substances".

  On 31/12/2013 at 06:23, Redleg said:

I don't recall reading that the consent forms, contained the words "illegal substances".

Has the wording of the consent forms ever been made public?

If the form effectively says that the signee is prepared to take whatever he is given by the club's staff, does that have any legal consequence? Sounds reckless at least.

  On 31/12/2013 at 06:23, Redleg said:

I don't recall reading that the consent forms, contained the words "illegal substances".

Yes, but surely they should have stated what it was that was going to be injected... in which case it is the responsibility of the player to ensure he's not getting injected with anything illegal under ASADA/WADA rulings. And why a player wouldn't want to check after being asked to sign a consent form is beyond me.

  On 31/12/2013 at 06:37, sue said:

Has the wording of the consent forms ever been made public?

If the form effectively says that the signee is prepared to take whatever he is given by the club's staff, does that have any legal consequence? Sounds reckless at least.

The Thymosin referred to on the Patient Information/Informed Consent forms and

administered to the players was:

(a)

Thymosin Beta- 4 which is prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-

Doping Code (the relevant facts in relation to this allegation are set out

in Annexure A to this Notice of Charge); alternatively

(b)

a substance in respect of which the Club had failed to reasonably satisfy itself was

not prohibited by the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code.

and this

On 2 August 2011 Dank forwarded a text message to Robinson stating:

Hi mate. Just in consult for a shoulder reconstruction. This case will be of interest to

you. We are utilizing Thymosin post surgically for one shoulder but prophylactically

for the other. Thymosin is so effective in soft tissue maintenance

Dank was referring to Thymosin Beta-4 and not Thymosin Alpha as the functions of

Thymosin Beta-4, but not Thymosin Alpha or Thymomodulin, include tissue regeneration

and recovery functions.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf

Para. 68 has the consent form wording and para 72 refers to tb4

Although I feel sorry for the players as well if any of them had of rang ASADA about AOD or TB4 instead of relying on club docs, hird dank etc they would of been told it was banned

Para 68

Following that meeting, 38 players at the Club signed Patient Information/Informed Consent forms in relation to these four substances. In relation to these substances, those 38 players agreed to:

(a) one AOD-9604 injection per week for the season;

(b) one Thymosin injection once a week for six weeks and then one injection per month;

© two Colostrum daily in each training week and two colostrum post-game. The dose may vary according to training needs; and

(d) one Tribulus forte daily in each training week and one Tribulus prior to the game. The dose may vary according to training needs.

Lucky James Hird had no awareness of this whatsoever........

  On 31/12/2013 at 07:25, Rhino Richards said:

Lucky James Hird had no awareness of this whatsoever........

no,but his wife might

and doc ried

and bomber

and great posts wolfy

  On 31/12/2013 at 06:23, Redleg said:

I don't recall reading that the consent forms, contained the words "illegal substances".

wolfy has covered what I meant by illegal substances. If the substances listed are found to be illegal then surely that is intent sufficient to prove intent?

That the players did receive injections but claim not to know what they were, despite having signed forms stating the contents then I feel that should be enough for an infringement. Claiming not to know what you were injected with to me should be equivalent to admitting guilt. They are responsible for everything that goes in their bodies.

If I was asked to sign those forms the first thing I would do is call ASADA and check if they are Ok. If I was told I couldn't do that, or couldn't have a copy of the form for my records I would be pretty suspect about the whole thing. That is why you pay managers $x,000 per year, to handle signed forms and check legality of stuff for you.

deanox

refering to what was injected,i will quote spike mcviegh who said he was there and was part of the group to confront hird

"thats bs we were taking vitamins and its well known they are more effective when injected"

  On 31/12/2013 at 23:38, jazza said:

deanox

refering to what was injected,i will quote spike mcviegh who said he was there and was part of the group to confront hird

"thats bs we were taking vitamins and its well known they are more effective when injected"

Did McVeigh say how he knew they were taking vitamins because Essendon doesn't know what they were taking?

Also does he know why they signed consent forms acknowledging that they were to be given prohibited substances if all they were taking was vitamins?

  On 31/12/2013 at 23:45, The Oracle said:

Did McVeigh say how he knew they were taking vitamins because Essendon doesn't know what they were taking?

Also does he know why they signed consent forms acknowledging that they were to be given prohibited substances if all they were taking was vitamins?

those questions prompted spikey to take the 5th

lots of people have wondered why he wont answer these simple questions

when he finally gave a reply it went"we knew they was vitamins cause thats what they told us"

  On 31/12/2013 at 23:48, jazza said:

those questions prompted spikey to take the 5th

lots of people have wondered why he wont answer these simple questions

when he finally gave a reply it went"we knew they was vitamins cause thats what they told us"

I doubt that Spike would know a tram was up him until the connie rang the bell

  On 01/01/2014 at 02:14, old dee said:

I doubt that Spike would know a tram was up him until the connie rang the bell

i wonder if The Hird Family are feeding him scraps of leftover banquet foods to keep him silent....?

I've been enjoying this thread over the past month. Its been insightful and unemotional. The investigative reporting have been top class. I've learnt a lot more about this issue than the confusing info dished out in the mainstream media. Well done guys.

  On 01/01/2014 at 03:10, djr said:

I've been enjoying this thread over the past month. Its been insightful and unemotional. The investigative reporting have been top class. I've learnt a lot more about this issue than the confusing info dished out in the mainstream media. Well done guys.

Amen

  On 01/01/2014 at 03:10, djr said:

I've been enjoying this thread over the past month. Its been insightful and unemotional. The investigative reporting have been top class. I've learnt a lot more about this issue than the confusing info dished out in the mainstream media. Well done guys.

It is also far better argued than the discussion over at Bigfooty which goes something like...

Non-Essendon Supporter "They took banned drugs"

Essendon Supporter "No they didn't"

Non-Essedndon Supporter "Yes they did"

etc. etc.

IMO there is enough evidence in the AFL charge document to prove within the required ASADA burdon of proof that:

1. Essendon players were administered with WADA banned substance Thymosin Beta 4

2. Essendon players were administered with WADA banned substance AOD 9604

3. Essendon players were administered with unknown peptides described as 'Amino Acids'

I know there has been some negative press regarding comments by John Fahey but if you read the AFL charge document and accept that as ex WADA head he knows what he is talking about, the Bombers are in serious trouble. I think this whole saga to date will end up being seen as a side show.

There may be a legal person on the forum who can comment but if the incomplete advice Dank claims to have receoved from ASADA regarding the status of AOD 9604 actually exists there may be a defence (Mistake in fact?) for the use of this substance. I am not sure how the ADASA/WADA codes are written or if they are the same as absolute or strict liability offences or if this defence may be available. I hope it is for Trenners sake.

I think that infraction notices are almost inevitable and one of the reasons that the AFL has backed dwon on Hird and Co and have been loath to waste money on court battles is that Hird is a dead man walking once infractions are issued and anything done now will just be pointless. The apparant dragging of ASADAs feet in finalising this investigation is to try and obtain proof of what the unknown substances were. This may also be because Dank and Charter and probably other none sporting people are key targets of ADASA's and the evidence aganst these entities will fall out both the Cronulla and Essendon matters whcih will both need to be completed together to maximise the case aganst Dank and Charter. There may also be other Police matters against these individuals that need to be completed before the ASADA case is made public.

  On 01/01/2014 at 22:48, Bedraggled Dee said:

There may be a legal person on the forum who can comment but if the incomplete advice Dank claims to have receoved from ASADA regarding the status of AOD 9604 actually exists there may be a defence (Mistake in fact?) for the use of this substance. I am not sure how the ADASA/WADA codes are written or if they are the same as absolute or strict liability offences or if this defence may be available. I hope it is for Trenners sake.

- ASADA have denied ever advising anyone that AOD was in some way or other authorised. Richard Ings (ex ASADA head) tweeted that he doubted any such advice exists.

- even if it's the case, it wouldn't change anything: a banned substance is a banned substance, and AOD has been banned since 2011.

- Dank's exchanges with WADA re AOD (as per ABC/4 Corners) came AFTER they'd starting using it - though it probably should be remembered that all concerned have done all they can to muddy the waters on dates

- ASADA aren't dragging their feet any more than usual for these kinds of processes. Even when athletes confess, penalties etc. can easily take a year - and that's for a single athlete.

Overall though, there's a massive amount of disinformation floating round re all this, exacerbated by plenty of (deliberately?) sloppy journalism and general misunderstanding by all and sundry.

  On 01/01/2014 at 22:48, Bedraggled Dee said:

...

IMO there is enough evidence in the AFL charge document...

Just a reminder, the AFL charge sheet is just that. A statement of charges which the AFL did not have to substantiate with evidence in court.

If the version of events in that charge sheet can be established by ASADA from evidence and testimony gathered in the investigation then yes that's true, however only limited evidence was alluded to in the charge sheet (ie some convo's, sms's, etc.)

(NB: I often don't believe a lot the AFL says but in inclined to think they have released what they actually think happened because I cannot see how releasing known false, or unsubstantiated, information in this case could have done anything other than hurt the AFLs image. If it isn't true, sweeping it all under the rug is the usual approach.

  On 01/01/2014 at 22:48, Bedraggled Dee said:

IMO there is enough evidence in the AFL charge document to prove within the required ASADA burdon of proof

...

I am not sure how the ADASA/WADA codes are written

I'm also surprised you lead with your first sentence given you haven't read the code. Honestly, reading the code doesn't take too long and it is pretty clear on a lot of stuff. You can flick through and find relevant stuff easily. Google it and have a look, it's worth a read when weighing into this debate with your Essendon friends.

  On 01/01/2014 at 22:48, Bedraggled Dee said:

There may be a legal person on the forum who can comment but if the incomplete advice Dank claims to have receoved from ASADA regarding the status of AOD 9604 actually exists there may be a defence (Mistake in fact?) for the use of this substance. I am not sure how the ADASA/WADA codes are written or if they are the same as absolute or strict liability offences or if this defence may be available. I hope it is for Trenners sake.

Dank has gone on record in an interview with Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker as follows - The science of Stephen Dank:-

  Quote

NM: I have interviewed someone familiar with ASADA. They said that if you got assurances from ASADA, then that is a get-out-of-jail card, but you need to prove you got those assurances and one of the ways to prove it is if you got an ASADA receipt [which is usually given when a person makes an inquiry with ASADA and is given advice].

SD: You only get a receipt number when you ring up or online. I was straight inside the bowels of ASADA.

This means that someone from "inside the bowels of ASADA" would have to come out and confirm that he gave Dank assurances that AOD9604 could be legally used in his treatment of sportspersons. So far, nobody has come forward from the bowels of ASADA and both insiders and former ASADA boss Richard Ings are of the view that no such evidence exists. And if Dank doesn't want to talk, there doesn't seem any way to overcome the fact that AOD9604 was a prohibited substance under S0 on the WADA prohibited list. Moreover, this is what ASADA says:-

  Quote

Substances falling under the S0 category are prohibited at all times (in and out of competition). Given substances under S0 do not have current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use, no TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) would be granted under any circumstances.

According to David Howman who is WADA's director general in an interview with the ABC:

  Quote

Look the drug comes under a category on our prohibited list called section S0, then that sections been designed - it's been in place since 2011 - to ensure that human athletes, elite athletes around the world are not used as guinea pigs for drugs that have not been approved for therapeutical medical use.

It's a catch-all section, it's there intentionally to protect the health of athletes and as I say to prevent them from being used as guinea pigs.

... and that is what appears to have happened at Essendon. Players used as human guinea pigs and the incredible thing is that in the face of all that, the most common thread among Bomber fans on BomberBlitz is "there's nothing to see here, let's move on".

Deanox

I will have a look at the code but I think I read on this site that the burdon of proof for ASADA/WADA matters is less then most criminal or civil matters. They only need to to pass a reaonable test to prove the elements and there is no need to prove intent and that is why I have that opinion.

I agree with your point that the ADASA/AFL charge sheet contains the basics that both the AFL and ASADA have confidence is correct. Obvioulsy still to be proven in a hearing where the defense can put a case but IMO it looks pretty dodgy frm the Bombers point of view.

The AFL charge sheet or summary of charges is written off evidence and statements taken, not disinformation like some would like you to believe although they didn't test it in court wouldn't mean they don't have the evidence too.

I think a lot of people forgot the reason AOD is illegal for use etc confusion came was because the ACC report stated that advice from ASADA was that AOD wasn't on the banned list.

It was later clarified by ASADA that no it wasn't on the banned list ie AOD is not named on S2 like steriods but it is still banned under s0 and has been since 2011.

Dank/Essendon tried to jump on the same line saying ASADA had told them the same thing as the ACC and that it wasn't banned.

  On 02/01/2014 at 01:14, Bedraggled Dee said:

Deanox

I will have a look at the code but I think I read on this site that the burdon of proof for ASADA/WADA matters is less then most criminal or civil matters. They only need to to pass a reaonable test to prove the elements and there is no need to prove intent and that is why I have that opinion.

I agree with your point that the ADASA/AFL charge sheet contains the basics that both the AFL and ASADA have confidence is correct. Obvioulsy still to be proven in a hearing where the defense can put a case but IMO it looks pretty dodgy frm the Bombers point of view.

I think you're pretty right about the charge sheet. Enjoy the WADA code, I found it enlightening!

  On 02/01/2014 at 01:23, Wolfmother said:

The AFL charge sheet or summary of charges is written off evidence and statements taken, not disinformation like some would like you to believe although they didn't test it in court wouldn't mean they don't have the evidence too.

I agree that it is unlikely to be disinformation. I think the reasons the AFL didn't want it tested in court were so their current administration wasn't also put on trial and because they don't want to start a habit of the AFL rules being tested in the court system.

The charge sheet was comprehensive; I'd love to see the evidence behind it.