I don't hope, I know. We will see over the next months who is right OD: your relentless pessimism seemingly on all things, or my views on informed balance of probabilities. Best of luck!

You were just having a rant it has nothing to do with pessimism.

You were making a statement of fact in your opinion.

I just added you hope.

I hope too but there is no guarantee that the truth will out.

My reading of that is it only applies if the person being accused chooses not to answer questions.

Charter is not the one being accused of the violation, the players are.

Yes, that's how it reads.

But there's nothing in the WADA code (that I can see) covering the right to silence and adverse inference in regards to non-accused. Wonder if it doesn't let the genie out of the bottle.

Jara said: a "sports scientist" with a head like a pig-dog and morals to match.I know this one . . is it ah Steve Dank?Apparently SD is now keen to give evidence at the tribunal . . that's according to "Mr Impartial" Martin Hardie today on 3aw website??

Here's my evidence; it's the vibe, it's Mabo, and it's that [censored] toner cartridge!

I deny that I was the Senior Coach of the Essendon Football Club in 2012.

I deny I know anyone called Tanya.

I deny I had ever played AFL football.

I deny my name is James Hird.

I deny that I was the Senior Coach of the Essendon Football Club in 2012.

I deny I know anyone called Tanya.

I deny I had ever played AFL football.

I deny my name is James Hird.

The sun tan gives away that he's probably had to tuck something under his belt...

It's his shirt... He wants to look smart for the camera's.

More bedtime reading:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-doping-scandal-shane-charters-admission-gold-says-asada-20141203-11zgf5.html

In regards to the recent radio interview:

"ASADA sources say the reality is his admission was as good as what the anti-doping agency could expect to hear from him in a tribunal. He just led his own evidence in chief for the prosecution," a Canberra source said, after studying a transcript of the interview."

Funny how the media noise reaches a crecendo then drops away as each element to this saga comes to light. The last couple of days have been typical froath and bother from a pack of rabid dogs. The reality is they are paid to create sensation and as much as I dislike it that is the fact. Sometimes it is hard to see through to the facts underneath but in this case just cast your mind back to a retired federal court judge and American experts in WADA matters reviewing the case and both reaching a conclusion, that it is a strong case. If the case hinged on the evidence of one or two potentially hostile witnesses they would have seen it and would have highlghted that risk. These peoples assessments would not have been made on some yet to be heard testimony of Charter and Alvi but on the statements and documents contained in the brief. They are still in the brief and are admissible regardless of whether these two testify. Alvi wants to keep his licence to practice pharmacology so he wont testify unless he is forced, he has niothng to gain and lots to loose. Charter likewise has nothing to gain and lots to loose in terms of being forced to make statements that may negatively impact on his fight against the charges against him.

Nothing has changed since those birefs were reviewed except that the weight placed on Alvi and Charters evidence may be reduced as they cannot be cross examined.

What may be interesting is if Dank decides to provide evidence to the defence. That would be worth hearing.

More bedtime reading:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-doping-scandal-shane-charters-admission-gold-says-asada-20141203-11zgf5.html

In regards to the recent radio interview:

"ASADA sources say the reality is his admission was as good as what the anti-doping agency could expect to hear from him in a tribunal. He just led his own evidence in chief for the prosecution," a Canberra source said, after studying a transcript of the interview."

Of course this more balanced perspective comes from Masters. He seems very alone in the media for two qualities. Firstly hes no fanboy , he simply loves sport and finds abhorrent those that seek to sully it and secondly he can actually see something for what it is, not what its 'spun' as.

In these he doesnt have a lot of mates. Sad really

Good article by masters, very different to Connolly's from yesterday. It's almost hard to believe they're writing about the same case.

"Nor does ASADA believe the AFL tribunal will be influenced by a concerted media campaign to have the case quashed."

"Despite front-page headlines in a Melbourne newspaper, declaring "Dons Dudded" – where Charter said ASADA manipulated his evidence – the anti-doping agency is confident AFL tribunal chairman David Jones will not be swayed by media commentary."

Of course this more balanced perspective comes from Masters. He seems very alone in the media for two qualities. Firstly hes no fanboy , he simply loves sport and finds abhorrent those that seek to sully it and secondly he can actually see something for what it is, not what its 'spun' as.

In these he doesnt have a lot of mates. Sad really

Don't post any more today bb as you wont do better than that one.

Don't post any more today bb as you wont do better than that one.

I would not put it past MessyDrug to be paying for favourable media comments.

Is cash for comments back?

Funny how the media noise reaches a crecendo then drops away as each element to this saga comes to light. The last couple of days have been typical froath and bother from a pack of rabid dogs. The reality is they are paid to create sensation and as much as I dislike it that is the fact. Sometimes it is hard to see through to the facts underneath but in this case just cast your mind back to a retired federal court judge and American experts in WADA matters reviewing the case and both reaching a conclusion, that it is a strong case. If the case hinged on the evidence of one or two potentially hostile witnesses they would have seen it and would have highlghted that risk. These peoples assessments would not have been made on some yet to be heard testimony of Charter and Alvi but on the statements and documents contained in the brief. They are still in the brief and are admissible regardless of whether these two testify. Alvi wants to keep his licence to practice pharmacology so he wont testify unless he is forced, he has niothng to gain and lots to loose. Charter likewise has nothing to gain and lots to loose in terms of being forced to make statements that may negatively impact on his fight against the charges against him.

Nothing has changed since those birefs were reviewed except that the weight placed on Alvi and Charters evidence may be reduced as they cannot be cross examined.

What may be interesting is if Dank decides to provide evidence to the defence. That would be worth hearing.

Good post

From today's Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/asada-court-hearing-over-reluctant-witnesses-delayed-for-week/story-fnca0u4y-1227143254363

"ASADA is seeking a subpoena to compel the Sydney-based Medical Rejuvenation Clinic and Institute of Cellular Bioenergetics, of which Mr Dank is a director, to produce: “....all documents in their custody, possession or control which relate to or reference the purchase and or receipt of the following substances during the period August 2011 to September 2012: GHRP-6, CJC-1295, SARM-22, AOD-9604, Hexarelin, Thymosin Alpha, Thymosin Beta-4, Thymomodulin and Melanotan II.’’

It is understood that ASADA has previously attempted, without success, to use its own coercive powers granted last year by the federal parliament to secure company record from Mr Dank…"

Answers why ASADA haven't been able to get info from Dank before. Good to see subpoena requested to get it. If subpoena granted I for one am not confident his info won't go to the same place that EFC's did, so well possible not much will show up.

Yes, that's how it reads.

But there's nothing in the WADA code (that I can see) covering the right to silence and adverse inference in regards to non-accused. Wonder if it doesn't let the genie out of the bottle.

Thats because the onus of proof is on the accused. ts quite simple really. They say you did something and give you an infraction notice. You respond or not.

If you choose not to defend then you are cooked.

As for SC and Alavi, they have made statements. That is all they are required to do. They do not have to be cross examined.

Funny how the media noise reaches a crecendo then drops away as each element to this saga comes to light. The last couple of days have been typical froath and bother from a pack of rabid dogs. The reality is they are paid to create sensation and as much as I dislike it that is the fact. Sometimes it is hard to see through to the facts underneath but in this case just cast your mind back to a retired federal court judge and American experts in WADA matters reviewing the case and both reaching a conclusion, that it is a strong case. If the case hinged on the evidence of one or two potentially hostile witnesses they would have seen it and would have highlghted that risk. These peoples assessments would not have been made on some yet to be heard testimony of Charter and Alvi but on the statements and documents contained in the brief. They are still in the brief and are admissible regardless of whether these two testify. Alvi wants to keep his licence to practice pharmacology so he wont testify unless he is forced, he has niothng to gain and lots to loose. Charter likewise has nothing to gain and lots to loose in terms of being forced to make statements that may negatively impact on his fight against the charges against him.

Nothing has changed since those birefs were reviewed except that the weight placed on Alvi and Charters evidence may be reduced as they cannot be cross examined.

What may be interesting is if Dank decides to provide evidence to the defence. That would be worth hearing.

Well said BD. As I said in an earlier post the Hird/EFC properganda machine has been in full swing in the lead up to the Tribunal hearing in the hope they will influence its outcome. The pattern is very familiar, developed over years by the tobacco industry in their denial about smoking causes cancer and now used extensively by the fossil fuel industry in promoting the so called climate denialist case against climate change.

It goes something like this. In the face of overwhelming evidence, pay some tame so called scientist large amounts of money, usually through a so called research institute set up by themselves, and sponsor "in depth studies" which deny the science. Then use their expensive PR machines to discredit the science via their lackies usually in the Murdoch Press and Channel 10. Then claim the science is in dispute. Unfortunately, both in the case of tobacco and climate change the overwhelming evidence is statistically based so there is a fractionally minute possibility that it could be incorrect so this is blown completely out of proportion via these studies.

Gettin back to Hird and Essendon...they are latching on to issues such as the doubt about Charter's willingness to appear at the tribunal as an indication that asada's case is about to collapse and then gets tame journalists to write nonsense articles in the AGE and the HS that the whole case is about to be thrown out, presumably rather than in exchange for money which happens for CC and tobacco, in exchange for access and privileged information. The case is not about to collapse - ASADA has more than enough evidence already collected for the case to be successful. And even if it were, then it would be taken up by WADA and heard in CAS under European law away from the political interference and hidden agendas so apparent in Australia.

Interestingly, those journos who really know what's going on here and come to it with no baggage, Patrick Smith and Caro Wilson, so far as I am aware haven't written about this so called collapsed case at all in the lead up to the tribunal hearing. They have let their more niave colleagues make fools of themselves, or in the case of Mark Robinson, just continue to make a fool of himself and continue to show why he does not have the integrity or the competence to continue as Chief Football Writer for the HS. MIKE Sheahan must be shaking his head in dispare.

Funny how the media noise reaches a crecendo then drops away as each element to this saga comes to light. The last couple of days have been typical froath and bother from a pack of rabid dogs. The reality is they are paid to create sensation and as much as I dislike it that is the fact. Sometimes it is hard to see through to the facts underneath but in this case just cast your mind back to a retired federal court judge and American experts in WADA matters reviewing the case and both reaching a conclusion, that it is a strong case. If the case hinged on the evidence of one or two potentially hostile witnesses they would have seen it and would have highlghted that risk. These peoples assessments would not have been made on some yet to be heard testimony of Charter and Alvi but on the statements and documents contained in the brief. They are still in the brief and are admissible regardless of whether these two testify. Alvi wants to keep his licence to practice pharmacology so he wont testify unless he is forced, he has niothng to gain and lots to loose. Charter likewise has nothing to gain and lots to loose in terms of being forced to make statements that may negatively impact on his fight against the charges against him.

Nothing has changed since those birefs were reviewed except that the weight placed on Alvi and Charters evidence may be reduced as they cannot be cross examined.

What may be interesting is if Dank decides to provide evidence to the defence. That would be worth hearing.

Dank will be crucified by ASADA QCs. His position is so inconsistent and contradictory. I agree though, it would be worth watching.

Of course this more balanced perspective comes from Masters. He seems very alone in the media for two qualities. Firstly hes no fanboy , he simply loves sport and finds abhorrent those that seek to sully it and secondly he can actually see something for what it is, not what its 'spun' as.

In these he doesnt have a lot of mates. Sad really

Doesnt Roys wife work for asada?

Doesnt Roys wife work for asada?

I have never heard that jazza.

I have never heard that jazza.

Us dumb country people believe any rumour told to us at the front gate.

Us dumb country people believe any rumour told to us at the front gate.

Not saying you are wrong I have just not heard that before.

Not saying you are wrong I have just not heard that before.

I just made it up,Because it sounded good.

Thought i would kick the page into 3rd gear.

I just made it up,Because it sounded good.

Thought i would kick the page into 3rd gear.

Speaking of third gear jazza how is the re bore progressing?

Good article by masters, very different to Connolly's from yesterday. It's almost hard to believe they're writing about the same case.

... or that they're dealing with the same set of legal rules or evidentiary requirements ... and probably this is because much of the media is ignorant of the rules that apply in anti doping matters and they actually relay information told to them by people with vested interests which may not necessarily be correct.

Speaking of third gear jazza how is the re bore progressing?

Thunder=lots of.

Rain=very little and comes in showers more than downpours.

... or that they're dealing with the same set of legal rules or evidentiary requirements ... and probably this is because much of the media is ignorant of the rules that apply in anti doping matters and they actually relay information told to them by people with vested interests which may not necessarily be correct.

I reckon that is right. EFC is keen to throw as much muck in the air as it can so that any negative findings against it will be discounted as unfair and biased by a segment of the public who know even less than these slack journos. Then EFC can play the victim for the next decade and use that to get 'special assistance' without a backlash from supporters of other clubs.

If I was running EFC I'd probably do the same (though I would have put my hands up about a year ago instead.)