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

[Whispering_Jack 29,240]

... came down upon his head ASADA invokes Lance Armstrong dope formula

An excerpt of the notice seen by The Sunday Age states:''After reviewing the evidence in this matter I have determined it is possible that you have used the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4 during the period between about January 2012 and September 2012.''Specifically, it is alleged that you used Thymosin Beta 4 through your participation in an injection regime organised by Mr Stephen Dank and conducted in his office at the Essendon Football Club premises.''Your actions may constitute a possible violation of clause 2.01 (2) (b) of the National Anti-Doping (NAD) scheme established by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006.''

[Cards13 9,117]

God it is a hard one for the players, "allegedly" and "possible" and they have to prove it didn't allegedly, possibly happen...

So nice of Dank and or Essendon (who Dank alledges has all of the records of what was taken and by who) to help the players out right now.

[Ted Lasso 18,786]

I am predicting the court challenge to fair miserably and the players to follow up by taking essendope to court, surely this is a breach of their contracts

[jazza 1,323]

Just realised the sad part of this ordeal.

When the time finally comes to admit guilt and say yes we cheated,the hatred that this club has engendered by not admitting guilt so far and doing everything in their power to unbalance the whole competition and not show any care towards the players,will be like crying wolf.

Not one club or person outside of the EFC will care 2 hoots about them again,very sad really.

[Dee Dee 1,102]

I think the real tragedy for the players will be seen in 10,20, 30 years time!!!

[jnrmac 19,905]

Maybe the players should be suing Dank.

Get all his records.....

Come to think of it. Why haven't the club? Why haven't they compelled him in court to reveal what the players took?

There is only one answer to that. They already know.

[mauriesy 7,160]

Tim Lane is right in The Age:

"If the club is successful in the Federal Court, averting disaster on a technicality bearing no relationship to the case at issue, it will achieve an outcome repugnant to most. Its triumph will be Australian sport’s shame. The nation’s reputation for a commitment to clean sport will be tarnished.

This would be the type of deflection of a doping case that Australian sports lovers have come to detest. It would rightly leave all bar blinkered partisans feeling that, when push comes to shove, our sporting standards are no better than those of the international fixers we read about in the press."

[mauriesy 7,160]

The other related issue is the distinction between the "good" thymosin and the "bad" thymosin.

Dank also tried to say he meant "thymomodulin". That just has similar properties to the "good" thymosin i.e. treats bad immune response in the thymus.

I agree. Why would a sports scientist be interested in anything other than what helped in muscle repair (i.e. Thymosin Beta 4)?

[wretched.sylph 164]

I can understand why that is done, making the athlete ultimately responsible. But the EFC situation demonstrates to me why the player is not the one in the best position to make the decision.

Jackson Merrett and Elliott Kavanagh were Essendon's first two picks in the 2011 ND. They were 18. They walk into a club with Hird as coach, Bomber as assistant and Bruce Reid as a 40 year sports medical practitioner. During the PS they are asked to sign a document and undergo a "supplements" program. Watson's doing it, Fletcher's doing it, Hirdy and the Doc say it's fine and Corcoran, who ran Athletic's Australia and as such was very aware and involved in the drug situation give it the big tick.

So they do it. If people can't see they've been duped then I feel for them.

Caro's article is spot on. Guilty people are escaping and the players are taking the fall. They should take their 6 months, sue the club and fight to have the instigators of all of this held to account.

Very sad for the players.

There is something in this that the poster, and other player-sympathisers, don't seem to have noticed. The example picks out Essendon's two youngest (at the time). It is indeed easy to feel sympathy for these two players, but they are not representative of "the players". However, the example also picks out two other players: "Watson's doing it, Fletcher's doing it".

But all it needed was for one player to ask "what the hell is going on here?"

And that was Watson's job.

Where were the senior players, the "leadership" group? What happened to their duty of care towards the young players they were supposed to be "leading"?

They were busy slandering the one guy who did have the integrity to ask that pertinent question, Kyle Reimers. [link] [not a great one, but most of the Reimers stuff seems to have vanished]

And yet to our knowledge - that didn't happen. Can I ask you M, do you believe that the players knew they were doing wrong and turned a blind eye thinking they would never get caught or do you believe they were naive, negligent and just plain foolish to not ask questions.

Even given the stupidity of football players generally, it is statistically impossible for all of them to be so stupid as to think all was well. It is quite clear that they were intimidated with science-jargon over particulars of the drugs involved, but the processes were so outrageous that they could not have failed to provoke that uncomfortable "this is not good" feeling: waivers for massive numbers of injections off site... and if anybody asks, it's "vitamins". Seriously? It is much easier to ignore and transgress moral or legal prohibitions as one-of-many than as one-and-alone, and that is precisely what they did — not "it's okay because everyone else is", but "i'll be okay because everyone else is".

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

I've had the exact same experience.

One bombers supporting adamant that they're saving the code:

"Be serious. This is the only action to take. & every Club would if they could afford it. 11 clubs, including yours are thankful for this witch hunt.

"If you thought your club hadn't taken any illegal substances, would you want them to admit they had just foot the good of the game. Sorry, but no [censored] way.

"Taking a penalty is admitting they systematically doped players. They believe they didn't. We compromised once - we got [censored]. Never again."

Don't be surprised at their attitude, most here still think CC was joking and we didn't tank. It's the same thinking that says Caro is a terrible journo when she comments on MFC (remember we hated her when she was anti Schwab well before the tanking fiasco) but terrific when she comments on EFC. Tribal culture and support is a very strong instinct.

I totally agree with Redleg, if I was a player manager, player legal adviser, mentor, trusted friend or parent I'd be telling the player to take the offer and move on. But interestingly the same ethos that got them into this trouble is probably stopping them doing it.

I also agree with the penalty. 6 months is a good compromise taking into account the fact the players were duped and also the need to enforce some sort of punishment. My view is that if they don't take the offer they get 2 years and that would be terrible for footy.

Little and Hird are two of the most dislikeable humans I know.

Finally it's important that Little, Hird, Reid, Little and his Board and Corcoran don't see the inside of a footy club again.

[jnrmac 19,905]

"Whatever it takes"

Good riddance

[Older demon 2,674]

Nick McKenzie does not get the credit he deserves at the Age.

He is the terrier who caught out Dank admitting to using Thymosin beta 4 and as posted earlier the ASADA cases is all around the purchase of the raw material, the chemist making it up to spec and receipts for its purchase.

Essendon have conveniently lost those records and Dank has said nothing. It would appear that Dank has made the error thinking himself smarter than ASADA and that he could influence them. In other words he was right and they weren't.

I applaud Nick for his questioning of Dank, keeping the transcripts and publishing Dank's response in yesterdays AGE. I sincerely hope that the legal system doesn't allow Essendon to slip through and get away with its irresponsible behaviour.

[Whispering_Jack 29,240]

Don't be surprised at their attitude, most here still think CC was joking and we didn't tank. It's the same thinking that says Caro is a terrible journo when she comments on MFC (remember we hated her when she was anti Schwab well before the tanking fiasco) but terrific when she comments on EFC. Tribal culture and support is a very strong instinct.

I totally agree with Redleg, if I was a player manager, player legal adviser, mentor, trusted friend or parent I'd be telling the player to take the offer and move on. But interestingly the same ethos that got them into this trouble is probably stopping them doing it.

I also agree with the penalty. 6 months is a good compromise taking into account the fact the players were duped and also the need to enforce some sort of punishment. My view is that if they don't take the offer they get 2 years and that would be terrible for footy.

Little and Hird are two of the most dislikeable humans I know.

Finally it's important that Little, Hird, Reid, Little and his Board and Corcoran don't see the inside of a footy club again.

Agree with most of your conclusions but the start of your post seeks to create an analogy that's so far off the mark that it is truly as funny as the Connolly joke and the circumstantial case against it, Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly who conducted themselves in a way the AFL CEO had previously publicly indicated was permissible.

The situation with our tanking prosecution was that the board did a fantastic job in the face of venomous opposition and did the right thing by its membership in settling the matter without resorting to litigation. This, despite the fact that counsel for the AFL and MFC had given advice that sanctions against the club could not be sustained in court. To its credit the club avoided the heavy cost in terms of both money and it's standing in the football community by taking the right step.

In Essendon's case, the AFL never approved of peptides and had actually warned clubs about them and the reliance on sport scientists. The players have therefore been given an offer they can't refuse. Taking a six month penalty puts the players in a much better position than they should ever be placed on my reading of the WADA Code. The penalty is far more lenient than those imposed against Ahmed Saad (18 months) or Bailey and Connolly and yet the seriousness of their situation is far greater. The players need to consider it closely but I can understand that in the bully boy atmosphere that pervades in this case, they will find it hard to break ranks.

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

If one breaks ranks, he's a traitor. If two break ranks, it's up to the individual and he'll have to live with the consequences. If three break ranks, the ranks crumble.

[beelzebub 23,200]

There is something in this that the poster, and other player-sympathisers, don't seem to have noticed. The example picks out Essendon's two youngest (at the time). It is indeed easy to feel sympathy for these two players, but they are not representative of "the players". However, the example also picks out two other players: "Watson's doing it, Fletcher's doing it".

And that was Watson's job.

Where were the senior players, the "leadership" group? What happened to their duty of care towards the young players they were supposed to be "leading"?

They were busy slandering the one guy who did have the integrity to ask that pertinent question, Kyle Reimers. [link] [not a great one, but most of the Reimers stuff seems to have vanished]

Even given the stupidity of football players generally, it is statistically impossible for all of them to be so stupid as to think all was well. It is quite clear that they were intimidated with science-jargon over particulars of the drugs involved, but the processes were so outrageous that they could not have failed to provoke that uncomfortable "this is not good" feeling: waivers for massive numbers of injections off site... and if anybody asks, it's "vitamins". Seriously? It is much easier to ignore and transgress moral or legal prohibitions as one-of-many than as one-and-alone, and that is precisely what they did — not "it's okay because everyone else is", but "i'll be okay because everyone else is".

top post

[demonique 314]

Don't be surprised at their attitude, most here still think CC was joking and we didn't tank. It's the same thinking that says Caro is a terrible journo when she comments on MFC (remember we hated her when she was anti Schwab well before the tanking fiasco) but terrific when she comments on EFC. Tribal culture and support is a very strong instinct.

I totally agree with Redleg, if I was a player manager, player legal adviser, mentor, trusted friend or parent I'd be telling the player to take the offer and move on. But interestingly the same ethos that got them into this trouble is probably stopping them doing it.

I also agree with the penalty. 6 months is a good compromise taking into account the fact the players were duped and also the need to enforce some sort of punishment. My view is that if they don't take the offer they get 2 years and that would be terrible for footy.

Little and Hird are two of the most dislikeable humans I know.

Finally it's important that Little, Hird, Reid, Little and his Board and Corcoran don't see the inside of a footy club again.

6 months is a good penalty if it runs from March through end of August !!

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

Agree with most of your conclusions but the start of your post seeks to create an analogy that's so far off the mark that it is truly as funny as the Connolly joke and the circumstantial case against it, Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly who conducted themselves in a way the AFL CEO had previously publicly indicated was permissible.

The situation with our tanking prosecution was that the board did a fantastic job in the face of venomous opposition and did the right thing by its membership in settling the matter without resorting to litigation. This, despite the fact that counsel for the AFL and MFC had given advice that sanctions against the club could not be sustained in court. To its credit the club avoided the heavy cost in terms of both money and it's standing in the football community by taking the right step.

In Essendon's case, the AFL never approved of peptides and had actually warned clubs about them and the reliance on sport scientists. The players have therefore been given an offer they can't refuse. Taking a six month penalty puts the players in a much better position than they should ever be placed on my reading of the WADA Code. The penalty is far more lenient than those imposed against Ahmed Saad (18 months) or Bailey and Connolly and yet the seriousness of their situation is far greater. The players need to consider it closely but I can understand that in the bully boy atmosphere that pervades in this case, they will find it hard to break ranks.

Jack you and I differ one whether we tanked, that is well known and not at issue. I was commenting on the way supporters generally will respond to things. Melbourne supporters are much more likely to believe we didn't tank, Essendon supporters are much more likely to think Essendon players didn't take banned drugs.

Like you with me, I agree with much of the rest of your post. As for the strength of the penalty I've commented on that at length earlier and my view differs from yours.

[pantaloons 2,019]

Don't be surprised at their attitude, most here still think CC was joking and we didn't tank. It's the same thinking that says Caro is a terrible journo when she comments on MFC (remember we hated her when she was anti Schwab well before the tanking fiasco) but terrific when she comments on EFC. Tribal culture and support is a very strong instinct.

I never cared whether we tanked or not. I've always maintained that there's nothing wrong with doing so and that there are a thousand shades of grey on the issue. Wilson was either unable to comprehend or unwilling to pay attention to the way in which teams around the modern (ie. leagues with drafts and salary caps) sporting world have utilised list management practices, blown up seasons and shelved players for future betterment. She was completely unable to grasp that if you have some sort of moral high horse issue with these practices, then the way to deal with it is structurally, usually in the form of a draft lottery.

It was the intellectual genocide she attempted to inflict on the sporting public and the unwarranted slander of the MFC that irritated me.

[Outside fifty 967]

The one thing about the bombers supporters that does impress me is that they all sing from the same hymn book. Their denial is absolute. Unfortunately I'm surrounded by them at work and too a man they cannot or will not accept that they have done anything wrong. It's as if they are members of a cult and have taken a drink from the cool aide because St James told them to.

[titan_uranus 24,631]

Quite right. Not a single shred of evidence whatsoever if you ignore the several thousands of documents, some of them over 100 pages, including statements and records of hundreds of interviews, some of them lasting up to 9 hours and statutory declarations from witnesses including chemists, nurses, club officials, the players themselves, waiver documents, receipts, SMS's and lots more accumulated over 16 months of investigation ... nothing ... nada ... zilch ...

Evidence is not always a case of quantity over quality. Lots of paper and words doesn't necessarily equate to actual evidence of anything.

That being said, I'm sure they have plenty of good evidence. It's just that a positive test is not part of that (and would make this all so much easier for ASADA and worse for Essendon if such a test existed).

You don't need a positive drug test. Lance Armstrong didn't have one positive test in his career. Yet he was found out by a massive amount of corroborated evidence and data.

The evidence is not particularly 'circumstantial' if the weight of it points to a breach. I'm assuming the 300+ interviews and 150,000+ documents that ASADA have collected point towards definite use.

I know you don't need a positive test.

The point that I was making was that any case that tries to allege a person took a drug without evidence that at any point in time they actually had it in their system is a lot harder, and a lot different, to a case where there is a positive test but the player tries to argue they had no idea they took it (like the one you mentioned).

It's a circumstantial case because they don't have that test - they're trying to allege (and most likely will succeed in alleging) that the players took Thymosin, but to show that they have to show that the circumstances can only be that they took it (e.g. they signed the form, injections were given, they recovered quicker etc.). But without a test, this is a circumstantial case, and that's not easy to make out in any court.

Given that the ASADA CEO is basically offering 6 month bans, with some of the ban in season and some out, to players who aceept a no fault finding, any half sensible lawyer would be telling his client to grab it ASAP.

That means that a player could be banned for the rest of this season and half the pre season training, have no finding as a drug cheat and be free to resume his career at the start of 2015.

If I was a player with a Notice i would be at the front door of ASADA now asking for a pen to sign the deal.

This will drive a huge wedge between the club and players IMO.

This is the chance to end this and the club and its former Coach are doing the opposite.

I suggest the entire Essendon Board and its Doctor, think seriously about immediately retiring.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'no finding as a drug cheat' - they still get found guilty of a breach of the Code, they just get the mitigation provisions to reduce the penalty.

I'm with you that a 6 month penalty is nothing in the scheme of things, but it's not a 'deal' or a certainty at this point I don't think. The AFL decides on the penalties at first instance, not ASADA, so whilst McDevitt says it could be 6 months it's not his decision I don't think.

If there was some negotiation by which ASADA, the AFL and the players could all agree to 6 month bans, with findings of guilt, then the players should take them.

[Macca 16,643]

I never cared whether we tanked or not. I've always maintained that there's nothing wrong with doing so and that there are a thousand shades of grey on the issue. Wilson was either unable to comprehend or unwilling to pay attention to the way in which teams around the modern (ie. leagues with drafts and salary caps) sporting world have utilised list management practices, blown up seasons and shelved players for future betterment. She was completely unable to grasp that if you have some sort of moral high horse issue with these practices, then the way to deal with it is structurally, usually in the form of a draft lottery.

It was the intellectual genocide she attempted to inflict on the sporting public and the unwarranted slander of the MFC that irritated me.

I generally agree with your post 'pantaloons' but I would like to see the governing bodies of the various sports around the world do something about tanking or at least be proactive about the issue. They'll never eradicate tanking but to turn a blind eye is dangerous.

Where tanking occurs in sports around the world, there's always the risk of a team, club or franchise just flagrantly disregarding the rules of fair play (for instance, Carlton tanked on numerous occasions)

We could draw the same conclusion with Essendon and the alleged use of PED's. In their minds they may have believed that a number of "other" clubs were overstepping the mark with the whole "sports science" thing so therefore, they then followed suit but took it way too far.

With regards to the whole tanking saga, we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the whole scheme of things, our alleged indiscretions will largely be forgotten about. We were found not guilty after all.

As for the Bombers ...

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

The players face an interesting dilemma. If they admit they were injected but claim not to know what was used, they get the six-month suspension and that admission plus the paper-trail is enough to convict the club. If they hold off and the club's desperate legal gamble fails, they'll get a longer suspension which for some will be the end of their footy careers. I agree that a lot of players are dim bulbs at best, but quite a lot of them are pretty bright, had a rough idea of what the club seas doing and will want to find the best way out.

[daisycutter 29,341]

I generally agree with your post 'pantaloons' but I would like to see the governing bodies of the various sports around the world do something about tanking or at least be proactive about the issue. They'll never eradicate tanking but to turn a blind eye is dangerous.

Where tanking occurs in sports around the world, there's always the risk of a team, club or franchise just flagrantly disregarding the rules of fair play (for instance, Carlton tanked on numerous occasions)

We could draw the same conclusion with Essendon and the alleged use of PED's. In their minds they may have believed that a number of "other" clubs were overstepping the mark with the whole "sports science" thing so therefore, they then followed suit but took it way too far.

With regards to the whole tanking saga, we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the whole scheme of things, our alleged indiscretions will largely be forgotten about. We were found not guilty after all.

As for the Bombers ...

Although macca it seems they may be deemed "not guilty" on the AOD aspect. Seems asada must feel there was a bit of confusion/doubt over certain communications of its illegality

[Redleg 40,219]

I'm not sure what you mean about 'no finding as a drug cheat' - they still get found guilty of a breach of the Code, they just get the mitigation provisions to reduce the penalty.

I'm with you that a 6 month penalty is nothing in the scheme of things, but it's not a 'deal' or a certainty at this point I don't think. The AFL decides on the penalties at first instance, not ASADA, so whilst McDevitt says it could be 6 months it's not his decision I don't think.

If there was some negotiation by which ASADA, the AFL and the players could all agree to 6 month bans, with findings of guilt, then the players should take them.

ASADA through its CEO has said that it is prepared to accept a No Fault finding, based on an acceptance by the individual admitting taking banned drugs. It has further said that it believes the players may have been duped into taking banned drugs while being told they were legal.

Co-operation by the players and the guilty plea could lead to a 75% reduction of the mandatory 2 year ban and in an unbelievable move, they have even offered to accept part of the ban in the off season. That means if Player A pleads guilty and co-operates with further interviews, he would be banned for the rest of this season and from training with the club until the end of the year. In Jobe Watson's case he would probably keep his Brownlow. In other player's cases they would be free to play and train from January 1, next year, have the whole matter behind them and not be regarded as a drug cheat, who knowingly took banned drugs.

I think the Mafia call that an offer too good to refuse.

The alternative is to fight on for years, with the reultant mental, physical and financial strain and probably cop 2 years anyway at the end of it all and possibly carry the label of a drug cheat for the rest of their lives.

These poor boys have to already live with the fear of future side effects, from the unknown ( according to the club ), substances, that this disgraceful club injected them with.

[beelzebub 23,200]

If I was a halfway handy Ess player id suck it up...take the 6m hit and seek trade to another club.

Of course that might require a modicum of intellect and thats not been shown to date.