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

[old dee 22,946]

If they didn't know what drugs were administered then they are guilty.

They are also guilty of stupidity, of poor process and of failing to care for their players. The fact they circumvented their doctor says it all really.

Oh no, But its Demetriou's fault. FMD. Its a conspiracy.

Why dont they sue Dank to get his records??? Haven't mentioned it have they. Why do you think. they don't want them

That about covers it Jnr

They do have a very easy fix just produce the records and the whole problem is resolved.

But as my father told me a long time ago

"never ask a question for which you do not want to hear the answer "

[nutbean 8,837]

If they didn't know what drugs were administered then they are guilty.

If no one knows what drugs are administered then how can the players be guilty ? ( or Danks and Robinson know but refuse to divulge).

As a player, I would want to see proof that the drugs taken were illegal before accepting ( or not challenging ) any penalty.

You can throw the book at the administration for overseeing a supplement regime with no controls - it brings the game into disrepute,

However if no-one can prove that a banned drug was taken then you can't punish the players.

[jazza 1,323]

However if no-one can prove that a banned drug was taken then you can't punish the players.

Wada/asada have been running with a rule headed INTENT.

[nutbean 8,837]

Wada/asada have been running with a rule headed INTENT.

I would hope they have some proof pointing to the taking of banned drugs before punishing.

[Ted Lasso 16,937]

Apparently the % of show cause notices that result in infraction notices Is 95% so they must need hard proof

[mauriesy 6,822]

If they didn't know what drugs were administered then they are guilty.

There are really two transgressions and imho you're mixing them up.

The first transgression arose from the fact that they didn't seem to know what drugs were administered, didn't keep records, employed Dank, had the program sanctioned by Hird, Thompson etc., and is the reason they got the penalties handed down by the AFL last year ($2m fine, Hird suspended, Thompson fine, team missed finals). That was a failure of governance, integrity, management and administration.

That has been dealt with conclusively, although it still points to and complicates the alleged second transgression, which is the actual drug breaches of the WADA code by players (and coaches).

They need to be separated in the current debate.

[nutbean 8,837]

There are really two transgressions and imho you're mixing them up.

The first transgression arose from the fact that they didn't seem to know what drugs were administered, didn't keep records, employed Dank, had the program sanctioned by Hird, Thompson etc., and is the reason they got the penalties handed down by the AFL last year ($2m fine, Hird suspended, Thompson fine, team missed finals). That was a failure of governance, integrity, management and administration.

That has been dealt with conclusively, although it still points to and complicates the alleged second transgression, which is the actual drug breaches of the WADA code by players (and coaches).

They need to be separated in the current debate.

Thanks for that - makes perfect sense to me.

From my reading - the proof of transgressing - governance, integrity, management and administration - seems undeniable.

The actual drug breaches - I would hope that they require proof of this before handing out punishments.

[Macca 16,173]

If the club purchased the banned drugs then that is possibly enough - there's almost certainly a paper trail if that was the case. Or, if other people who were involved are saying that the players were administered banned drugs, then that is possibly enough. There's other scenarios as well - it's the sum of all the parts at play here.

Circumstantial and corroborated evidence is how many drug cheats are nabbed. It might seem a little unfair but that's how WADA/ASADA/USADA etc have seen things previously.

The precedent has been set on numerous occasions. Armstrong tested positive in the late 90's but it was hushed up. In the end, they got him because his ex teammates spilled the beans. Armstrong could have kept on denying everything but even he knew the jig was up. A lot of money was at stake and he got out while the going was good (IMO)

I'm almost certain that at least one player will talk and then that will be it. They too, might decide to get out while the going is good. As it is, ASADA may well be running with what Kyle Reimers has told them (amongst numerous other bits and pieces from various other sources) Too many people were involved and when push comes to shove, many people in this situation will look after themselves first.

Those who are clinging to the "but none of them tested positive" stance are either naïve or are clutching at straws.

There are strict guidelines in the ASADA/WADA drug code and testing positive to a banned drug is only one part of how things work.

[old55 21,428]

The explanation for Essendon's stance was in Little's address pre match. He doesn't believe (publicly at least) that the players have taken banned drugs.

You'd have to think that ASADA have a pretty good case but the reality is that as far as I know nobody knows what that case is. It's very difficult for the club or the players to decide a course of action when the facts aren't known. And before you dismiss this immediately keep in mind Essendon don't know what drugs were administered. It's quite possible Danks told them one thing and did another. It's possible Danks used Essendon as a conduit to pay for and obtain banned drugs which he then used for others.

The reality is we don't know. This is not to excuse in any way the management of the supplements program which was just dreadful - Hird, Corcoran, Reid and the Essendon board culpable. But if Little genuinely believes the players were not given banned drugs he's in a terrible position.

A scan of a show cause notice was in hardcopy of The Age on the weekend. I can't find it on-line. Basically it said ASADA believe you were administered TB-4 by Dank (not Danks) by injection in his office between March and September 2012.

The response is pretty straightforward:

1. I was never administered anything by injection by Dank etc
2. I was administered with THIS (some detailed list) by Dank etc
3. I don't know what I was administered by Dank so it's quite possible it was TB-4

The ASADA evidence that will be presented to the independent tribunal is likely to run very closely along the lines of MacKenzie's article in The Age previously linked to here.

• Dank ordered TB-4 via Charters and asked how to use it
• Dank said "Thymosin" was key to his plan
• Players signed forms listing Thymosin and the associated dosage matched what Charters told Dank
• Dank told MacKenzie he administered TB-4 and later corrected himself

[Damo 3,012]

Essendon have said they dont have records.

Dank has said he has complete records but will not release them to the AFL but will to a court of Law. This now is a court of law, right?

Why is this not transparent? How can Little say "No-one knows"? Has Dank already shown ASADA but it is kept quiet?

Is this merely a Pi$$ poor defense implying "burn the records then we can say Dank was experimenting on us"?

Or is there more to it... Im not being ingeniousness, I really dont know.

Also is it possible Jobe has started 6 months of penalty without anyone knowing? or is this merely a conspiracy theory? Thanks in advance.

[Ted Lasso 16,937]

We're you injected with a mystery substance? Yes.

Could it have been thymosin beta 4? Probs

Did you sign a legal waver? Yes.

Nah mate we have been dupped by asada.

[deanox 8,721]

Essendon had records. Which means they still have records. These things get backed up and don't get deleted.

Also, given is sounds like the ACC shared some of its evidence with ASADA, it is possible that ASADA already has those records.

If you are summoned by the ACC you are not allowed to reveal that. He may have had to hand his records over 12 months ago. Who knows?

They have 10 days to respond. I expect they'll ask for an extension and receive it, although I hope it is all sorted with a month.

Out of interest 10 days happens to be how long until the first federal court hearing (June 27).

[Canberra Demon 159]

Essendon have said they dont have records.

Dank has said he has complete records but will not release them to the AFL but will to a court of Law. This now is a court of law, right?

Why is this not transparent? How can Little say "No-one knows"? Has Dank already shown ASADA but it is kept quiet?

Is this merely a [censored] poor defense implying "burn the records then we can say Dank was experimenting on us"?

Or is there more to it... Im not being ingeniousness, I really dont know.

Also is it possible Jobe has started 6 months of penalty without anyone knowing? or is this merely a conspiracy theory? Thanks in advance.

I wouldnt like to have dank as my knight in shining armour riding in to the hearing and giving his "awesome" evidence that would clear my club..

Im so happy we didnt employ him in our club

yes i know we had some involvement with him but lucky we didnt do what essendon did

[nutbean 8,837]

Essendon had records. Which means they still have records. These things get backed up and don't get deleted.

Which world are you living in ? A president of the United States went through impeachment because they had records ( tapes) and then they didn't have records ( deleted 18 minutes).

I am tipping that shredders may have been in full swing in possibly a few clubs.

[ManDee 7,091]

If no one knows what drugs are administered then how can the players be guilty ? ( or Danks and Robinson know but refuse to divulge).

As a player, I would want to see proof that the drugs taken were illegal before accepting ( or not challenging ) any penalty.

You can throw the book at the administration for overseeing a supplement regime with no controls - it brings the game into disrepute,

However if no-one can prove that a banned drug was taken then you can't punish the players.

Yes you can.

From ASADA 8 anti doping rule violations.. https://asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

6. Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods.

7. Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method.

8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

[old55 21,428]

I would hope they have some proof pointing to the taking of banned drugs before punishing.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/vfl-player-wade-lees-cops-18-month-ban-for-importing-performance-enhancing-drugs/story-fnelctok-1226541380732

"Lees was then charged with "attempted use of a prohibited substance violation" and banned by AFL Victoria after Round 7 this season."

Edited June 16, 2014 by Fifty-5

[bing181 8,188]

what's "unintentional intent"?

Good question!

When you can be charged with intent for something you didn't intend to do - for example, because you didn't know you were doing it.

Wade Lees: imports a product that he doesn't know contains banned substances. Had intended to use/consume the product, so is charged on that basis, as per previous post.

BTW, it's not a legal term!

Edited June 16, 2014 by bing181

[Ted Lasso 16,937]

to me unintentional intent is like, the bombers say we are going to give you a needle that will help you recover quicker, don't ask what's in it, the players aren't knowingly taking a banned substance but they aren't totally in the dark either

or maybe that's unknowingly knowing?

[deanox 8,721]

Which world are you living in ? A president of the United States went through impeachment because they had records ( tapes) and then they didn't have records ( deleted 18 minutes).

I am tipping that shredders may have been in full swing in possibly a few clubs.

They were on the internal intranet which at Essendon FC is backed up more than weekly to external locations. And it wouldn't surprise me if ASADA or the ACC already have those records.

And regardless, Essendon aren't the CIA, they are a football club with an understaffed/underpaid IT department.

But let's say they did delete the records for the purpose of your argument. If they are completely innocent, why would Essendon delete them?

It can't work both ways. They had the records. If they don't have them any more it is because they were incriminating and they choose to delete them. Any possibility of innocence in absence of those records is obscenely small.

[jazza 1,323]

Right from the start i said Kyle riemers was the key to all this.

His statement was so simple,They{dank/weapon}took us in the room and talked scientific mumbo jumbo and "said sign this form".

We knew to keep quiet and that it was on the edge,but no players from other clubs i spoke to had come across any system like this.

GAME SET MATCH.

[Ted Lasso 16,937]

Right from the start i said Kyle riemers was the key to all this.

His statement was so simple,They{dank/weapon}took us in the room and talked scientific mumbo jumbo and "said sign this form".

We knew to keep quiet and that it was on the edge,but no players from other clubs i spoke to had come across any system like this.

GAME SET MATCH.

the other thing for me was Doc reid, if he felt it was so bad he needed to write a letter asking for it to be stopped, it's a fair indication they are pushing boundaries.

[Slartibartfast 15,906]

A scan of a show cause notice was in hardcopy of The Age on the weekend. I can't find it on-line. Basically it said ASADA believe you were administered TB-4 by Dank (not Danks) by injection in his office between March and September 2012.

The response is pretty straightforward:

1. I was never administered anything by injection by Dank etc
2. I was administered with THIS (some detailed list) by Dank etc
3. I don't know what I was administered by Dank so it's quite possible it was TB-4

The ASADA evidence that will be presented to the independent tribunal is likely to run very closely along the lines of MacKenzie's article in The Age previously linked to here.

• Dank ordered TB-4 via Charters and asked how to use it
• Dank said "Thymosin" was key to his plan
• Players signed forms listing Thymosin and the associated dosage matched what Charters told Dank
• Dank told MacKenzie he administered TB-4 and later corrected himself

I'd want more than that if I was charged with murder. You are assuming that what we know is what there is. There may be more or there may be less. Little doesn't know and we don't know what's happening behind the scenes.

Surely you'd think there is some law that forces Dank to hand over his records. That this could go on is disgraceful. The damage is immense.

There are no winners and few easy decisions.

Great post Maurie. You'll find the distinction is too hard for many.

[jazza 1,323]

I'd want more than that if I was charged with murder. You are assuming that what we know is what there is. There may be more or there may be less. Little doesn't know and we don't know what's happening behind the scenes.

Surely you'd think there is some law that forces Dank to hand over his records. That this could go on is disgraceful. The damage is immense.

There are no winners and few easy decisions.

Great post Maurie. You'll find the distinction is too hard for many.

Your not being charged with murder.

ASADA rules state if the intent is there to take the ped,then thats enough for guilt.This isnt common law its agov/agency law.

A lot of people keep comparing things to police/law/murder.Its an interesting series of events,i will give it that.

[Whispering_Jack 28,023]

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.

Yes ... our views certainly differ but that's because we're looking at anti-doping laws from a different perspective. You're concerned with the concept of punishment of the players and, in that respect, it seems harsh to deprive players who were "duped" (if they were in fact duped) of their livelihood. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a world wide epidemic that needs to be regulated and controlled and in order to do that, there are a significant number of issues including prevention, investigation and punishment where anti-doping laws have been breached. In the latter case, it has been deemed necessary to impose a strict liability standard and having been involved in administration on the athletics side going back three decades, I accept the necessity of that standard as an imperative if we want to clean up sport.

[nutbean 8,837]

But let's say they did delete the records for the purpose of your argument. If they are completely innocent, why would Essendon delete them?

Because they are guilty as hell. I have never said Essendon are not guilty. I am asking a genuine question around what can be proven.