Now it just gets bizarre

Controversial sports scientist Stephen Dank to break silence at sportsman’s lunch

This ought to turn the heat up somewhat.

The arrogance of these buggers seems to know no limit.

if they really wanted him, he would have been got & charged by now by the AFP.

too much mess

But to suggest that an investigator would not bother interviewing a major player on the basis that you suspect he's a difficult but to crack suggests to me that there's more of a problem with the investigator than the witness. In this case, if Dank isn't interviewed at all and there are no infractions to report, the outcome would smell to high heaven.

Thats not what I said Jack. And FWIW, I doubt whether infraction notices would be issued purely on the basis of what a discredited party said without other corroborating evidence.

Agreed. If the report said "interviewd Dank and he was unresponsive" that in inself would be telling.

It would tell us that he is unresponsive.

Hardly illuminating on the supplements issues.

Wow. You must like drinking your own bathwater.

Robson resigned he wasn't sacked. retty simple.

Your post is a classic case of trying to divert attention when someone points out something you said is incorrect. You don't need to respond. Just accept it and move on.

Life is less stressful that way

You like splitting hairs for the sake of it.

Rohan Connolly was discussing the saga a few days ago and he said, "why pick on the bombers several Demons players were also mentioned, when the story broke."

Actually only two were mentioned that I can recall, JT and Dunn. Dunn seemed to be nothing, with JT the concern. The story on JT was that there was an SMS recommending he use a cream that apparently contained AOD. There was never, following that SMS, any confirmation that he actually used it. If JT denied any use and no other evidence is available, that is the end of that, as there was no testing.

The Bombers as we all know had a system of off campus injecting, into players' stomaches, going on for a season.

Connolly did not differentiate between the two clubs.

Oh and Rohan Connolly supports Essendon.

Rohan Connolly was discussing the saga a few days ago and he said, "why pick on the bombers several Demons players were also mentioned, when the story broke."

Actually only two were mentioned that I can recall, JT and Dunn. Dunn seemed to be nothing, with JT the concern. The story on JT was that there was an SMS recommending he use a cream that apparently contained AOD. There was never, following that SMS, any confirmation that he actually used it. If JT denied any use and no other evidence is available, that is the end of that, as there was no testing.

The Bombers as we all know had a system of off campus injecting, into players' stomaches, going on for a season.

Connolly did not differentiate between the two clubs.

Oh and Rohan Connolly supports Essendon.

Now there is a surprise!

Now it just gets bizarre

Controversial sports scientist Stephen Dank to break silence at sportsman’s lunch

This ought to turn the heat up somewhat.

The arrogance of these buggers seems to know no limit.

If anyone goes thinking they're going to learn something about the Essendon drug programme, they'd be mistaken -

Dank yesterday said particulars about the ASADA inquiry into Essendon’s supplement program could not be broached because of impending legal action.

If anyone goes thinking they're going to learn something about the Essendon drug programme, they'd be mistaken -

Didnt think for a moment that would be the case but apparently he ( Dank ) intends to fling mud..or something ....and especially in Vlads direction.

game on

Thats not what I said Jack. And FWIW, I doubt whether infraction notices would be issued purely on the basis of what a discredited party said without other corroborating evidence.

The point I'm making is an entirely different one. There is an art to interrogation which often draws out responses from a witness that are useful in establishing what did or did not occur even in the case of poor or untruthful witnesses. I'm of the view that there must be a case for the issue of infraction notices if they're not making use of the opportunity to interview Dank.

On the other hand, if they don't have enough evidence and they don't avail themselves of the opportunity to interview him then it's a whitewash and I don't believe the judge would allow his reputation to be tarnished in that way.

The point I'm making is an entirely different one. There is an art to interrogation which often draws out responses from a witness that are useful in establishing what did or did not occur even in the case of poor or untruthful witnesses. I'm of the view that there must be a case for the issue of infraction notices if they're not making use of the opportunity to interview Dank.

On the other hand, if they don't have enough evidence and they don't avail themselves of the opportunity to interview him then it's a whitewash and I don't believe the judge would allow his reputation to be tarnished in that way.

I wonder if there will be any desk smacking when Dank is being interviewed...

Seems to me 2 possibilities:

If ASADA finalises without interviewing Dank then I'd assume they have sufficiently strong cases without his input. But you'd still like an explanation of why it was felt he could not add anything, or what legislative restriction prevented him being interviewed.

If their final position is 'nothing to see here' or 'not sufficient evidence', then they'd better have a bloody good story as to why they didn't/couldn't interview him. If they claim lack of resources/legislation to do the job, then you'd expect WADA to have some stern things to say to the Oz govt.

On the Mark Allen - David Schwarz SEN show this arvo they said words to the effect that ASADA did not bother to interview Dank as they were not able to make the $5500 per day 'no comment' legislation retrospective.

You think that ASADA reckoned that Dank would not say anything and risk implicating himself unless he was compelled to.

On the Mark Allen - David Schwarz SEN show this arvo they said words to the effect that ASADA did not bother to interview Dank as they were not able to make the $5500 per day 'no comment' legislation retrospective.

You think that ASADA reckoned that Dank would not say anything and risk implicating himself unless he was compelled to.

That makes no sense if the legislation is there to be used.

That makes no sense if the legislation is there to be used.

It makes sense. The legislation (re compelling persons to appear before ASADA with a $5500 per day penalty for failure to do so) was not in place in 2012.

The government, or whoever, put the legislation in place was not able to make it retrospective. At least that's the gist of what was said on SEN at approx 5:10pm this arvo.

Danks hasn't even been summoned!!

This is all very strange. I still think he should have been the first spoken to....

WYL you're making no sense at all. Would you bother interviewing the key suspect in a murder if you were the detectives in charge of the case? Of course not!

2014 Season (with Bombers in full flight under new Hird short term/interim substitute coach) roll on. Nothing to see here folks, business as usual....move along!

It makes sense. The legislation (re compelling persons to appear before ASADA with a $5500 per day penalty for failure to do so) was not in place in 2012.

The government, or whoever, put the legislation in place was not able to make it retrospective. At least that's the gist of what was said on SEN at approx 5:10pm this arvo.

That makes no sense at all. If they want to him speak it would be now and the legislation is in place now.

That makes no sense at all. If they want to him speak it would be now and the legislation is in place now.

not if he doesn't want to....

ASADA wants to sidestep legal action, judging by chief's senate admission

ASADA's failed attempts to seduce Dank into informal meetings, without threat of penalty, and Andruska's admission before a Senate hearing on Wednesday that briefs are being prepared for the ADRVP is a clear indication the anti-doping authority does not want Australia's most serious drugs case heard in open court.

After all, Dank is the central figure in the saga.

His evidence before a Federal Court could potentially expose a web of officials at either or both Essendon and Cronulla who had intimate knowledge of his supplements program.

This could reveal, as a myth, the notion that Dank was a rogue scientist acting alone.

... and ...

When I asked why Dank had not been summoned the answer was: "They probably have enough without him."

Andruska's evidence before the Senate hints at both codes possibly being issued with show-cause letters.

She said: "We have briefs that we are preparing right now . . . and [will] issue show-cause letters and take matters through the ADRVP and other tribunals as the process proceeds."

Her mention of the plural with "tribunals" suggests both the AFL and NRL could be asked to convene hearings, provided the ADRVP agrees there is enough evidence.

Masters is usually right on the ball and we could hear more from him if he appears on this week's edition of Offsiders on ABC1 (and Robbo and Whateley are certain to be entertaining with their spin on AFL360).

Both codes are facing difficult years in 2014 which could be a disaster for Essendon (I think Cronulla are stuffed no matter what) and almost certainly will be Demetriou's final one at the helm of the AFL.

As an aside, the Weapon's case against the Bombers is proceeding and I believe we will hear a lot more from the Fairfax investigative reporters Baker and McKenzie before this plays out. We also have Mark Thompson coaching at Essendon, Doc Reid back as the club doctor and James Hird coach-in-waiting ready to take back his old job in August.

Dramatic and sad times ahead for the sport.

The point I'm making is an entirely different one. There is an art to interrogation which often draws out responses from a witness that are useful in establishing what did or did not occur even in the case of poor or untruthful witnesses. I'm of the view that there must be a case for the issue of infraction notices if they're not making use of the opportunity to interview Dank.

On the other hand, if they don't have enough evidence and they don't avail themselves of the opportunity to interview him then it's a whitewash and I don't believe the judge would allow his reputation to be tarnished in that way.

Oh it's an art is it. If Danks answers the questions with I don't know, I don't recall and I refutes allegations, we can it abstract art.

It is plausible that they may have enough evidence to issue infraction notices.

Seems to me 2 possibilities:

If ASADA finalises without interviewing Dank then I'd assume they have sufficiently strong cases without his input. But you'd still like an explanation of why it was felt he could not add anything, or what legislative restriction prevented him being interviewed.

If their final position is 'nothing to see here' or 'not sufficient evidence', then they'd better have a bloody good story as to why they didn't/couldn't interview him. If they claim lack of resources/legislation to do the job, then you'd expect WADA to have some stern things to say to the Oz govt.

I think M9 and Jacks article from the SMH provide some insight into why he has not been interviewed.

Regardless of the outcome, the issue of resources/ funding is definite issue. In Feb last year, the Govt threw ASADA a hospital hand pass to concurrently investigate Essendon and Cronulla.

It makes sense. The legislation (re compelling persons to appear before ASADA with a $5500 per day penalty for failure to do so) was not in place in 2012.

The government, or whoever, put the legislation in place was not able to make it retrospective. At least that's the gist of what was said on SEN at approx 5:10pm this arvo.

I understand that but they announced the darkest day in sports over 12 months ago and have had ample time to start the please come for a chat if not we will fine you process.

I understand that but they announced the darkest day in sports over 12 months ago and have had ample time to start the please come for a chat if not we will fine you process.

I think if you read the article that Jack quoted from the SMH it should go a long way to answering the question.

And the relevant legislation was only passed in July/August.

And after the Govt. announced the darkest day in Australian sport they threw a timebomb on a woefully under funded statutory authority to investigate the fallout.

Oh it's an art is it. If Danks answers the questions with I don't know, I don't recall and I refutes allegations, we can it abstract art.

It is plausible that they may have enough evidence to issue infraction notices.

It's definitely an art and there's no abstraction involved even when the person being interviewed is determined to say nothing. I've attended interviews as an observer where interviewees who were determined to reveal nothing but were expertly coaxed into making disclosures by expert interviewers. Sometimes, something seemingly innocuous like a person's body language can tell you something that can be used in later examinations if matters go to court. In any event, you don't give up the ghost because you think the interviewee won't talk (unless you believe that you have sufficient to go on to prove your case).

I am damn curious as to the whole Danks non event but as some others suggest it might have been left alone for various reasons. Certainly one glaring aspect about all of this is the reticence of any party to date to go any where near a court room. One suspects there are just too many skeletons and much too much dirty laundry to even begin lifting a lid without fear it in some manner might not return to smear the instigator. No one is without guilt in some manner in all of this.

The AFL...a total fail in all of this. Seemed far too preoccupied with protecting its brand and the power of certain individuals. Essendon, just about as morally corrupt as any entity can be. Still Cronulla appears worse at their involvement but more circumspect fter the fact. ASADA seems inept and amateur in all of this, totally out of their depth. WADA ..must be shaking their head in dismay as so much can come undone. Various media hacks have shown their true colours and inability to preserve perspective let alone the subject of bias

That said it does appear to be finally drawing to its inevitable conclusion......i.e there were some naughty boys and 'spankies" are the order of the day.

whilst Danks may escape this round of the inquisition I cant help but feel a larger spectre looms over his head.

what ever is going to happen is it seems more than likely to start rolling out over the coming month.

Then it , to this observer, becomes inevitable someone will instigate legal proceedings and then at that time a whole new world of hurt will unveil.

Start looking for who starts making themselves scarce and who looks to other fields to further their careers... rats and ships !!

If Notices are served on Bombers players and they fight them, what is the basis of their defence? It can really only be one major point, we didn't take banned substances.

How do you prove that? The club says it has no records. No one at the club can give evidence of exactly what was given, to who and when.That has been stated by the club several times.

Guess who might be the only witness who might have records and might be able to give some evidence in the players' defence?