On 16/06/2014 at 05:01, Fifty-5 said:

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

More or less but I believe that ASADA has a lot more evidence all pointing to the substance administered being TB4 and connecting that substance to injections received by specific players.

I think this needs to be tested through the normal processes of an ADRVP so that as much of the truth can come out and be made public, and particularly to the players concerned.

And if I was one of those players and I also believe they know who they are, I would grab the six months on offer while it's on the table if I could be assured that in turn, ASADA would fully inform me of its case and that nature of the substances I have had injected into my body. Six months is a small price to pay for that knowledge.

The CEO seems so confident

  On 16/06/2014 at 05:32, ManDee said:

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.

so point 2 , 6 , 7 - my point exactly - the crux is prohibited substance or method - unless you can prove that they are prohibited - it falls over. The interesting rule is the last part of 8 - " covering up any type of complicity involving anti doping rule violation". Little has consistently stated that they didn't take a prohibited substance - so taking a non prohibited substance is not against anti-doping rule.

To me - for WADA, ASADA to be successful (IMO) they have to have some proof that they took banned substances. I am not convinced by any of the above will stick with the information we have to hand.

I am not saying they are not guilty - they either need a witness to testify as to what they took or something in writing. To my knowledge of what has been reported ( and nothing else) I am not sure they have this. WYL has constantly been saying someone will crack - so be it. But I think they need that to happen.

  On 16/06/2014 at 06:08, Baghdad Bob said:

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

Strange you talk of distinctions when you fail to understand the premise upon how ASADA and the way Sports are governed re drugs etc.

We arent talking murder... but feel free to introduce a bale of straw.

  On 16/06/2014 at 07:22, Whispering_Jack said:

More or less but I believe that ASADA has a lot more evidence all pointing to the substance administered being TB4 and connecting that substance to injections received by specific players.

I think this needs to be tested through the normal processes of an ADRVP so that as much of the truth can come out and be made public, and particularly to the players concerned.

This is my point - all I have been saying all along is to prosecute they need evidence ( edit - I dont know the rules well enough - I will change this to - they should require evidence) . You are suggesting that ASADA has just that.

I have huge sympathy for the players who I believe were duped - but I also understand why they need to be punished. The code is clear that the individuals need to be responsible for what is being administered into their bodies. Unfortunately that this is a first for an AFL club ( systematic doping program) and the players rightly trusted their club is not a defense. But I am pleased that there is room for leniency to the players to reduce their punishment. I will suggest that there is no punishment harsh enough in my opinion for those in positions of power at the club that let this happen.

  On 16/06/2014 at 05:43, Fifty-5 said:

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."

not sure of the context of this - he admitted to exactly what he was going to take and it was a banned substance. ( i think the penalty was harsh btw). My point still remains has anyone owned up to taking or trying to take a banned drug ? Is there evidence of this ? (that hasn't been put in the shredder by Danks or/or the EFC)

edit - if the connection can be made as you suggested from the McKenzie article and on the paper signed by the players there was a drug listed that is banned - then I see a giant issue for the players.

Sandor Earl, look him up. Only one charged with use and trafficking.

  On 16/06/2014 at 04:14, nutbean said:

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.

Because they have all the email records ordering Thymosin 4 and wavers from players saying they will inject Thymosin 4.

Thats all they need. The secrecy surrounding it adds lots of weight and makes it harder for them to deny.

  On 16/06/2014 at 07:48, Cards13 said:

Sandor Earl, look him up. Only one charged with use and trafficking.

I tried to but it kept coming up with this... I think I must have the wrong Sandor

Nutbean you make valid points, good debate.

I think one of the main issues is that in normal law you need to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" but in this case ASADA only need to prove "beyond the balance of probabilities".

That suggests to me the paper records, receipts, testimony and "circumstantial evidence" along with the side "loss" of records and the (presumed at this stage) lack of records of ordering the "good" thymosin will together paint a picture where it is more than probable that the players took the drugs.

The only way in my mind that the players get off are if enough doubt can be shed on what the players were given that it is no longer "likely".

If it can be shown Dank ordered the drugs for other clients, or if there are other email trails discussing the "good" thymosin which confuse the issue.

Does that sound reasonable?

I reckon, just watching it all unveil, that its a lock in. This bloke ( ASADA) isnt going to run this thing out if it wasnt a dead set cert. Thats why they take a time, to get it right

Why people are second guessing the veracity at this point when McDevitts has stated it WILL pass muster.

This has already been looked over by for soundness and whether it would be likely to succeed or fail. It got the big tick.

Little, Hird and cohorts are desperate. Well let them waste their time and money

  On 16/06/2014 at 08:05, PJ_12345 said:

I tried to but it kept coming up with this... I think I must have the wrong Sandor

*sob*

Surely the players could tell that they were feeling better than normal during the program . They will fold and take six months . Little's a moron playing the victim and spin hopefully the board ousts him and we can all get on with it . There are enough good footy people re the bombers to overcome the banning of Hird and co and to facilitate a pay out after being sued by their players . If it was at the dees id be livid and calling for there heads, a life ban . Re visit dank 7.30 report and also on abc text messages leaked . So guilty .

Essendons Federal Court legal action against ASADA: Out of bounds on the full?

Respecting ASADA

To those who wish to excuse the players because they are.......

Lets factor in human nature, there are the mainchancers, the betters, those that dont wont to rock boats, those that are intimidated those that "LOOK" up to others, those that want acceptance, those that.....etc etc etc

point is there is a smorgasbord of differences amongst folks, so there is also at a footy club. Its no different.

But they are people with their own responsibilities. Under ASADA convention its theirs whence comes what they intake. There are NO ifs buts or maybes. Just ask the 1000's of athletes and other codes of players. So why do AFL players think for even a moment they are above it . Do they think that if they are this side of a dumb fu.. that they get away because ......

This is about accountability. All AFL players are inducted and these things explained.

Those that dont care, dont worry....well....dont...dont play AFL because there are rules, as there are for all sports ppl

The smart ones will step up...all else can go to hell

  On 16/06/2014 at 11:23, Whispering_Jack said:

Essendons Federal Court legal action against ASADA: Out of bounds on the full?

Respecting ASADA

tick tick,,,,tick

It is agreed by all parties that the players took something. That something must have been paid for by someone. The amount of drugs suggested would clearly have been expensive and too much for an individual to have paid for. If an individual had indeed paid for the drugs, for the use of the playing list, it is fair to assume he would have been reimbursed by the club.

Therefore where are the invoices, delivery dockets, receipts, cheque butts, proof of payment of these drugs? They must have been in the custody of the club at some time.

The Switkowski Report commissioned and accepted by the club, makes a finding that the club was involved in a massive pharmacological program of experimentation. To come to this conclusion which the club again has accepted, Switkowski must have seen documents relating to the above, or at the very least received overwhelming evidence by oral statements that the program existed.

Where are the documents that the club would have been in possession of? If they are now not in existence, why not and who is resposible. Dank cannot be responsible for that.

Surely the production of these documents would be the key plank in any defence by an honest club, unless they proved guilt.

Very interesting article. It was spot on how the legal action is about Essendon and not the players.

Liked how it said the players had separate legal representation. While i feel for the players, I hope they sue the arse off the individuals who created the mess. The club will survive but those individuals need to accept responsibility for their actions, not run away to France and be paid for it.

  On 16/06/2014 at 08:06, deanox said:

Nutbean you make valid points, good debate.

I think one of the main issues is that in normal law you need to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" but in this case ASADA only need to prove "beyond the balance of probabilities".

That suggests to me the paper records, receipts, testimony and "circumstantial evidence" along with the side "loss" of records and the (presumed at this stage) lack of records of ordering the "good" thymosin will together paint a picture where it is more than probable that the players took the drugs.

The only way in my mind that the players get off are if enough doubt can be shed on what the players were given that it is no longer "likely".

If it can be shown Dank ordered the drugs for other clients, or if there are other email trails discussing the "good" thymosin which confuse the issue.

Does that sound reasonable?

I don't know all the ins and outs of this, had interest.....lost interest.....have vague interest....

But besides the arrogance of Hird the two things that sh#t me to tears are the "no records were kept". Who do they honestly think is buying that. I honestly hope that comes back at them in the form of a rubber fist. The other one is the club Doctor who was so concerned for the players welfare that he wrote an email to Hird then sat on his hands with his back turned......staggering.

I feel for the first, second and even third year players, but f#*k me, with all the education these players are subject to, where were the so called leaders of the playing group. How often would these kids been injected whilst playing TAC or equivalent.....none, that's how much, but everyone thought it was alright because their medical staff said so, which medical staff? The club Doctor was cleared. Some random bloke .....????

Give all the senior players two year, take the Brownlow and give it to Cotchin and ban Hird for life. If he isn't in the hall of fame yet he should never be allowed to be.

Gee it's not hard to tell Mark Robinson is a bombers supporter, in complete and utter denial.

  On 16/06/2014 at 08:18, beelzebub said:

I reckon, just watching it all unveil, that its a lock in. This bloke ( ASADA) isnt going to run this thing out if it wasnt a dead set cert. Thats why they take a time, to get it right

Why people are second guessing the veracity at this point when McDevitts has stated it WILL pass muster.

This has already been looked over by for soundness and whether it would be likely to succeed or fail. It got the big tick.

Little, Hird and cohorts are desperate. Well let them waste their time and money

Its been looked at by the same lawyer who drafted the rules for WADA. Its been looked at by the retired federal court judge. Its been looked at by ASADAs lawyers.

The hypocritical stance of Little is plain to see:

'They took nothing illegal'

'We don't know what they took'

If they don't know they are gone as they have the paper trail saying what was ordered, for who, when etc. Lame Lloyd even tried to claim tonight that they dn't know who Danks other clients are. He might have ordered stuff for them. It contradicts the texts to the Weapon of course. And the texts to Hird. And his statement to The AGE journalist who kindly pointed out to Dank that T Beta 4 was illegal. "Really?' said Dank. 'When did they do that'. Oh, we weren't using that then we were using thymodulin instead.

The fact they are fighting this so hard means they will fall harder. There will be no leniency. There will be no deals.

And if the players stick by the club they have bad advice, Their careers are gone.

The club is cooked and I am not unhappy about that..

  On 16/06/2014 at 12:37, Al said:

I don't know all the ins and outs of this, had interest.....lost interest.....have vague interest....

But besides the arrogance of Hird the two things that sh#t me to tears are the "no records were kept". Who do they honestly think is buying that. I honestly hope that comes back at them in the form of a rubber fist. The other one is the club Doctor who was so concerned for the players welfare that he wrote an email to Hird then sat on his hands with his back turned......staggering.

I feel for the first, second and even third year players, but f#*k me, with all the education these players are subject to, where were the so called leaders of the playing group. How often would these kids been injected whilst playing TAC or equivalent.....none, that's how much, but everyone thought it was alright because their medical staff said so, which medical staff? The club Doctor was cleared. Some random bloke .....????

Give all the senior players two year, take the Brownlow and give it to Cotchin and ban Hird for life. If he isn't in the hall of fame yet he should never be allowed to be.

Wrote it to the Board and the Board says they didn't receive it. (the dog ate my homework)

Who writes a letter to the board and then does nothing about it to follow it up? Did you get my letter? What are you going to do about it? You are circumventing my authority here. blah blah blah.

Reid is as guilty as the rest of them.

  On 16/06/2014 at 12:22, Redleg said:

It is agreed by all parties that the players took something. That something must have been paid for by someone. The amount of drugs suggested would clearly have been expensive and too much for an individual to have paid for. If an individual had indeed paid for the drugs, for the use of the playing list, it is fair to assume he would have been reimbursed by the club.

Therefore where are the invoices, delivery dockets, receipts, cheque butts, proof of payment of these drugs? They must have been in the custody of the club at some time.

The Switkowski Report commissioned and accepted by the club, makes a finding that the club was involved in a massive pharmacological program of experimentation. To come to this conclusion which the club again has accepted, Switkowski must have seen documents relating to the above, or at the very least received overwhelming evidence by oral statements that the program existed.

Where are the documents that the club would have been in possession of? If they are now not in existence, why not and who is resposible. Dank cannot be responsible for that.

Surely the production of these documents would be the key plank in any defence by an honest club, unless they proved guilt.

Some (perhaps not) random points:-

Essendon's employee, Dank, purchased materials which were ultimately injected into the Essendon players who signed waiver forms authorising their use.

Noting that it has been stated that some of those materials cannot be legally sourced in this country where did they come from?

The latest news overnight is that Dank might be in a spot of bother - Victoria Police investigate Stephen Dank over possible Medicare fraud.

Dank was issued with an ASADA Show-Cause Notice in March and has not responded. ASADA has not served an Infraction Notice on Dank to date.

This would seem to leave open the possibility for players to come forward with responses to their SCN's which could result in charges being laid against Dank, thereby activating the 75% remittance enabling them to serve a 6 month suspension partly in season.

Essendon Football Club seems to be concerned about bullying and legal technicalities but from where I sit, there is a major concern about the proximity between the club, it's players and the advice they are getting, particularly about how they should be dealing with the SCNs.

One of these days, some of the characters who have featured in this sorry saga could be housed at the pleasure of Her Majesty. I think very few will have any regrets if that transpires.

  On 16/06/2014 at 14:26, jnrmac said:

Wrote it to the Board and the Board says they didn't receive it. (the dog ate my homework)

Who writes a letter to the board and then does nothing about it to follow it up? Did you get my letter? What are you going to do about it? You are circumventing my authority here. blah blah blah.

Reid is as guilty as the rest of them.

Exactly, agree totally. We all love our game and thought something like this could never happen to it, but it has and those that area guilty must be dealt with accordingly. Missing the finals and Hird paid 1mil doesn't cut it.

Lots of references to croissants and France when people talk about Hirdy.

For some reason (I may have it totally wrong), I thought he was in Singapore, albeit studying at a campus of a french Uni.

A bit like studying in Kuala Lumpa at Monash University, so people assume you are in Melbourne.

Anyway, 1 week in September (soon as H & A season finishes), is my prediction for when the agreements will be reached for 30 players to take either the pre-season or year off. I think there will be legal challengers and in-junctions to protect the draw and tv rights until that point.