Tim Watson was on SEN this morning and having a heated debate with Andrew Gaze who was asking some good questions. Watson basically said the players should indeed look at every avenue they could for their own welfare. In saying that he also mentioned that because of the Fed Court action ASADA has to present their evidence. So is this only Ess using this as a chance to see the evidence and then come up with a story get around the evidence?

Also in the Dank article about the alleged Medicare fraud it mentions witness information and internal emails sent to Dean Robinson, could this be internal Ess witnesses looking at any way to further discredit Dank and Robinson and deflect blame from anyone else at the club?

Tim Watson was on SEN this morning and having a heated debate with Andrew Gaze who was asking some good questions. Watson basically said the players should indeed look at every avenue they could for their own welfare. In saying that he also mentioned that because of the Fed Court action ASADA has to present their evidence. So is this only Ess using this as a chance to see the evidence and then come up with a story get around the evidence?

Also in the Dank article about the alleged Medicare fraud it mentions witness information and internal emails sent to Dean Robinson, could this be internal Ess witnesses looking at any way to further discredit Dank and Robinson and deflect blame from anyone else at the club?

I'm not of the opinion that they do have to present evidence if it's not relevant to the case, Essendon are contesting the validity of the process, show cause notices are just a result, but i also don't think Essendon have a snowballs chance of proving ASADA are beyond their powers working with a relevant sporting organisation when that's what they always do.

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?

it is reasonable - and if their are emails ordering the banned drug and consent forms that they could take a banned drug then that to me is beyond the balance of probabilities.

My only issue is that there seems to be so much conflicting information as to what evidence they do have.

Tim Watson was on SEN this morning and having a heated debate with Andrew Gaze who was asking some good questions. Watson basically said the players should indeed look at every avenue they could for their own welfare. In saying that he also mentioned that because of the Fed Court action ASADA has to present their evidence. So is this only Ess using this as a chance to see the evidence and then come up with a story get around the evidence?

Also in the Dank article about the alleged Medicare fraud it mentions witness information and internal emails sent to Dean Robinson, could this be internal Ess witnesses looking at any way to further discredit Dank and Robinson and deflect blame from anyone else at the club?

Essendon are challenging the validity of the investigation, not the evidence collected.

Cowardice.

They are saying ASADA does not have the authority under its charter to conduct a joint investigation with the AFL.

The ultimate red herring just like the Demetriou did it wold goose chase.

The sooner they are booted out of the comp the happier I will be,

Essendon are challenging the validity of the investigation, not the evidence collected.

Cowardice.

They are saying ASADA does not have the authority under its charter to conduct a joint investigation with the AFL.

The ultimate red herring just like the Demetriou did it wold goose chase.

The sooner they are booted out of the comp the happier I will be,

I find it baffling how they don't think that's within ASADA's powers, and if they have always had this view, why let it go on for 16 months before saying anything?

Essendon are challenging the validity of the investigation, not the evidence collected.

Cowardice.

They are saying ASADA does not have the authority under its charter to conduct a joint investigation with the AFL.

The ultimate red herring just like the Demetriou did it wold goose chase.

The sooner they are booted out of the comp the happier I will be,

I understand that but it may also give them a chance to try and view evidence they ASADA has, is what I gathered from Watson small statement. I may be incorrect.

I find it baffling how they don't think that's within ASADA's powers, and if they have always had this view, why let it go on for 16 months before saying anything?

The perfect time for a nice mixed metaphor... they are clutching at straw men.

I understand that but it may also give them a chance to try and view evidence they ASADA has, is what I gathered from Watson small statement. I may be incorrect.

Timmy would be as desperate as the club, this would be the end of Jobe

Essendon are challenging the validity of the investigation, not the evidence collected.

Cowardice.

If the evidence is there then I agree 100%..

it is reasonable - and if their are emails ordering the banned drug and consent forms that they could take a banned drug then that to me is beyond the balance of probabilities.

My only issue is that there seems to be so much conflicting information as to what evidence they do have.

I agree that many (including myself) have new quick to reach a conclusion without seeing the evidence ourselves.

Unfortunately it is in our nature to for an opinion, not sit on the fence.

And in this case I don't think I've seen/heard much with respect to actual conflicting evidence. I've heard:

"we didn't take illegal substances" but also "we don't know what we took". That screams dishonesty to me.

We have Essendon now fighting the process, not the evidence.

We have "we don't have records" versus "essendon had all the records"

We have "we took TB4" then "oh actually is illegal? Oh we didn't take it we took something else".

Now maybe I have been well led by the media I have read, but I have tried to read both sides and form an onion. I just haven't heard any compelling evidence that suggests that maybe everything really was above board, while it would seem unbelievable for ASADA to have gone through the reviews it has and still come up with the show cause notices. If it wouldn't stick it would be a safer process to back away staying there isn't enough evidence. If it doesn't stick it will destroy ASADA.

The most plausible alternative theory I have heard might have come from you: Dank was purveying the illegal substances through Essendon for other clients. But we've heard nothing of the sort through the media. The only arguments I've heard from the pro Essendon camp have, imo, been clearly misinformation or even downright lies. Attacking the man not the ball.

IMO the challenging in court looks to me like the EFC are backed into a corner and they know it.

Sure its going to drag the process out, sure they want it all to go away but when your left with no avenues of retreat you can either bend over and cop it or stand and fight.

I know if this was happening to us i would want my club to explore every possible loophole and option there is.

Im not saying i want them to get off this thing. If they (ASADA) have enough evidence (and i believe they do) then the people involved need to face the music.

The whole attitude of Little is bizarre. By trying to get the evidence thrown out he is implying that they are guilty. Why else would you want the evidence made non admissible?

If they are guilty why don't they take the 6 months and get it all over and done with?

And to cloud matters more Dank is now under investigation for fraud. I've long held a belief that it's possible he was using Essendon as a conduit to getting illegal drugs but not giving them to Essendon players. This does nothing to allay that possibility.

I think it's arguable and possible that Dank used Essendon to access a supply of illegal drugs but never supplied them to the players but used the drugs to sell on the black market at personal profit.

The WADA code is inappropriate when dealing with this type of situation.

This situation continues to get stranger and stranger.

The whole attitude of Little is bizarre. By trying to get the evidence thrown out he is implying that they are guilty. Why else would you want the evidence made non admissible?

If they are guilty why don't they take the 6 months and get it all over and done with?

And to cloud matters more Dank is now under investigation for fraud. I've long held a belief that it's possible he was using Essendon as a conduit to getting illegal drugs but not giving them to Essendon players. This does nothing to allay that possibility.

I think it's arguable and possible that Dank used Essendon to access a supply of illegal drugs but never supplied them to the players but used the drugs to sell on the black market at personal profit.

The WADA code is inappropriate when dealing with this type of situation.

This situation continues to get stranger and stranger.

You're suggesting that Dank's plan was to order illegal performance enhancing drugs in EFC's name and then on-supply them? Maybe he also have planned to hold up a bank wearing an Essendon jumper?

The whole attitude of Little is bizarre. By trying to get the evidence thrown out he is implying that they are guilty. Why else would you want the evidence made non admissible?

If they are guilty why don't they take the 6 months and get it all over and done with?

And to cloud matters more Dank is now under investigation for fraud. I've long held a belief that it's possible he was using Essendon as a conduit to getting illegal drugs but not giving them to Essendon players. This does nothing to allay that possibility.

I think it's arguable and possible that Dank used Essendon to access a supply of illegal drugs but never supplied them to the players but used the drugs to sell on the black market at personal profit.

The WADA code is inappropriate when dealing with this type of situation.

This situation continues to get stranger and stranger.

I can remember the looks on the faces of all of them at the meeting when the joint announcement was made.

They were guilty. Make no mistake.

I understand that but it may also give them a chance to try and view evidence they ASADA has, is what I gathered from Watson small statement. I may be incorrect.

I don't believe ASADA will have to present the evidence in a trial about whether the investigation is valid or not. So it won't uncover any evidence. I stand to be corrected but thats my understanding.

Ess are trying to knock the whole thing on its head but all it will do is mean they and the players haven't co-operated per se and any potential discounts go out the window. Hence ASADA is saying to the players 'think very carefully about what you do here'.

You're suggesting that Dank's plan was to order illegal performance enhancing drugs in EFC's name and then on-supply them? Maybe he also have planned to hold up a bank wearing an Essendon jumper?

Gold

Whats hard to understand. Of course Little and Hird are trying to invalidate the evidence as they know they cant refute it.

They're desperate to cling to anything that might get them off. Thats off...being proven innocent will be impossible and they know it.

Its almost comical watching them squirm and think they have any hope of absolution.

They can rot and any guilty player without the common sense to seek a deal can rot along with them.

My opinion is that Essendrug know they are guilty but are going to go down swinging.

Or

They are hoping for a Masonic handshake in the courtroom.

They have long ties to the Masonic Lodge

After reading all the posts I noted that Wade Lee's was done for 2 years for importing a banned substance.

It never got to him and was snaffled by customs. So according to Nick McKenzie, ASADA have transcripts from Dank asking Chartres to source the raw material from China, it was reconstituted by the the compound pharmacist and Essendon got an invoice. Then all the records got conveniently lost so no-one knows what they got ...

I can see why ASADA and their overseas WADA expert think they have a case because even if it wasn't administered then the players in the injection program will be guilty under the drug code. It is a different set of rules than we are used to in common law.

Anecdotally the bombers were huge and all looked pumped at the start of the 2012 season and then inexplicably all succumbed to an extra ordinary number of soft tissue injuries. Cannot help but think they got juiced up and then had the juice cut off mid season.

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.

Use or attempted use. Administration or attempted administration...

If the EFC attempted to purchase and or administer a prohibited substance they are stuffed.

They could have been sold a placebo. Still stuffed. If Dank stole the Beta 4 and sold it elsewhere, they are still stuffed.

As Hird said, "get me the good stuff". Whether it was provided or administered is of no legal consequence. They are stuffed.

You're suggesting that Dank's plan was to order illegal performance enhancing drugs in EFC's name and then on-supply them? Maybe he also have planned to hold up a bank wearing an Essendon jumper?

Just remind me again what drugs were given to the players and what internal control were in place to confirm compliance? And how many positive tests have been obtained?

But of course Dank is a trustworthy honest individual who just happens to be under investigation for fraud. I'm sure he wouldn't look to profit from an involvement with a client.

Just remind me again what drugs were given to the players and what internal control were in place to confirm compliance? And how many positive tests have been obtained?

But of course Dank is a trustworthy honest individual who just happens to be under investigation for fraud. I'm sure he wouldn't look to profit from an involvement with a client.

I must be missing something - the part of your theory that doesn't make sense is how Dank could have thought that ordering illegal performance enhancing drugs in the name of a club in Australia's highest profile, peak sport would somehow obscure his access to them? That sounds more like erecting a neon sign pointing to the supply chain. A more likely explanation to me is the one put forward by McKenzie, that he didn't realise the drug he ordered was prohibited.

As time goes on Danks appears more and more dodgy. Essendon is either complicit or severely negligent for not doing due diligence or adequately monitoring programs. Hird cannot or should not survive this. If he ever coaches again or indeed has any role in football it will be an outrage. The other interesting character in this is Doc Reid and his half hearted response to what was happening. Only explanation is blind loyalty to a favourite son. Inexcusable.

I think EFC taking ASADA to the federal court is bringing the game into disrepute.

This is a new offence. The AFL could tell EFC to follow the normal process, they can still have their day in court. To claim ASADA have operated improperly is a blight on our game. This will not clear EFC's name, this cannot make them innocent. It is a legal ploy by EFC.

The AFL have signed up to be under the ASADA umbrella, by extension that includes EFC. For EFC to challenge ASADA they question the AFL and the other 17 clubs.

The clubs and the AFL should demand that EFC follow the legal process as agreed by all parties.

This stalling attempt by EFC creates disharmony and disdain. Further it brings the game into disrepute. It cannot give them the day in court to clear their names they craved for only last year.

If EFC think they have done no wrong they should fight the charges not the system.

We should call on the AFL to tell EFC to take their medicine or fight the charges not the system.

I think EFC taking ASADA to the federal court is bringing the game into disrepute.

This is a new offence. The AFL could tell EFC to follow the normal process, they can still have their day in court. To claim ASADA have operated improperly is a blight on our game. This will not clear EFC's name, this cannot make them innocent. It is a legal ploy by EFC.

The AFL have signed up to be under the ASADA umbrella, by extension that includes EFC. For EFC to challenge ASADA they question the AFL and the other 17 clubs.

The clubs and the AFL should demand that EFC follow the legal process as agreed by all parties.

This stalling attempt by EFC creates disharmony and disdain. Further it brings the game into disrepute. It cannot give them the day in court to clear their names they craved for only last year.

If EFC think they have done no wrong they should fight the charges not the system.

We should call on the AFL to tell EFC to take their medicine or fight the charges not the system.

Good luck with that last line ManDee