Did I hear someone say that Dank was going to give evidence for the defence in the case against the 34 players at the Tribunal?

I'd like to see that and I'd like to be on the team doing the cross examining.

Please ...

Think it was Hardie or whatever his name is, say no more, say no more...

Edit: had the wrong 'H' surname...

Danks

'S as dodgy as a $3 note.

Can't hide forever. Have to come up for air sometime.

Don't get too excited Bub. it is not in ASADA's place to hand out penalties. The AFL Tribunal decides guilt and then hands out the appropriate sanctions to those parties who are guilty of any offences.

ASADA/WADA can appeal to CAS but it can't penalise.

WJ

I KNOW

also know how the media gets it all wrong.

Have no doubt itll be announced as an ASADA penalty even if officially dealt out by the AFL

Re Wrechers thoughts I go to what I notice as quite the constant throughout. Much of media would have us believing one thing whilst the courts are deciding quite the opposite. Funny that

LOL Danky has done a runner

Over the past few days, ASADA has been trying to pin down Dank, the Victorian Supreme Court heard yesterday. It has contacted his lawyers, but discovered they no longer act for him. It has been to his last known address to no avail.

Counsel for ASADA Dan Star told Justice Clyde Croft that extensive, serious and continuing effort had been made to contact the support person, as Dank is referred to in court documents, and formally notify him of its plan to apply for a court-issued subpoena to secure company documents from him.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ab75e9f57&nk=4db7cecf88c886252c75f515815eef18

Probably living in Geelong with his mate from Deakin Uni.

WJ

I KNOW

also know how the media gets it all wrong.

Have no doubt itll be announced as an ASADA penalty even if officially dealt out by the AFL

Re Wrechers thoughts I go to what I notice as quite the constant throughout. Much of media would have us believing one thing whilst the courts are deciding quite the opposite. Funny that

It is important to realise as I am sure you do that it is actually the AFL who hands out the penalties. I suspect because of this that the Hirds think they can "get the court of public opinion" to let them off.

Fat chance. If the AFL squib it it goes to CAS where it is taken out of Australian influence entirely. The fact that the Hirds think they can influence the outcome of this via their expensive lawyers and their even more expensive PR machine I guess just shows how stupid they really are.

Danks

'S as dodgy as a $3 note.

Can't hide forever. Have to come up for air sometime.

Found one for you BB

Air getting too dank for dank........

Let's us just take it as fact for the moment that it's illegal to import a substance like TB4 into the country.

Would you be keen to appear before a tribunal in which some of the main issues were -

(i) whether you had prescribed TB4 to a football club for ingestion by its players as part of a supplements programme you had not only devised but helped put into practice?

(ii) whether you had imported and sold TB4 to a sports scientist employed by a football club for possible use by its players as part of such a programme?

(iii) whether you had compounded a substance including TB4 and then on sell it to a football club football club for possible use by its players as part of such a programme?

I'm just trying to get my head around the possible reasons why some people might chose to not make themselves available at a hearing to determine whether players were guilty or innocent of taking a substance that's clearly banned under the WADA Code and the AFL anti doping code. This is especially so given that the people might previously have made statements which are available as evidence on tape concerning those matters.

Then, let's just take it that the players have to prove to my comfortable satisfaction that they didn't ingest a banned substance and these witnesses could possibly provide a reasonable alternate explanation. Surely, the players and their advocates should be champing at the bit to ensure that these witnesses appear in order to clear their names and their reputations?

Where are they providing the appropriate level of assistance to ASADA in achieving a satisfactory outcome if they are in fact found guilty and try to cut a deal?

I'm struggling to work out how the ASADA case which has been overseen by a leading world anti doping figure and an eminent judge is said by some to be on the brink of collapse because some people don't want to turn up to give evidence that could help clear the players if they didn't take TB4.

They are running a decent campaign in the public domain . Had me reconsidering for a second but the admission from Dank and charter is a win and undeniable in a tribunal and im sure there is more .Dislike the heat put on the afl and the competition by the smear campaign . Cant wait to see if any abnormal gains are tabled - compared against seasons following and before . Name and shame .

Let's us just take it as fact for the moment that it's illegal to import a substance like TB4 into the country.

Would you be keen to appear before a tribunal in which some of the main issues were -

(i) whether you had prescribed TB4 to a football club for ingestion by its players as part of a supplements programme you had not only devised but helped put into practice?

(ii) whether you had imported and sold TB4 to a sports scientist employed by a football club for possible use by its players as part of such a programme?

(iii) whether you had compounded a substance including TB4 and then on sell it to a football club football club for possible use by its players as part of such a programme?

I'm just trying to get my head around the possible reasons why some people might chose to not make themselves available at a hearing to determine whether players were guilty or innocent of taking a substance that's clearly banned under the WADA Code and the AFL anti doping code. This is especially so given that the people might previously have made statements which are available as evidence on tape concerning those matters.

Then, let's just take it that the players have to prove to my comfortable satisfaction that they didn't ingest a banned substance and these witnesses could possibly provide a reasonable alternate explanation. Surely, the players and their advocates should be champing at the bit to ensure that these witnesses appear in order to clear their names and their reputations?

Where are they providing the appropriate level of assistance to ASADA in achieving a satisfactory outcome if they are in fact found guilty and try to cut a deal?

I'm struggling to work out how the ASADA case which has been overseen by a leading world anti doping figure and an eminent judge is said by some to be on the brink of collapse because some people don't want to turn up to give evidence that could help clear the players if they didn't take TB4.

But surely the award winning Chief Football Writer for the Herald Sun knows what he is talking about and in maintaining journalistic excellence would not let his love of James Hird introduce bias......

Let's us just take it as fact for the moment that it's illegal to import a substance like TB4 into the country.

...

What you say makes a lot of sense even if the above is not true. But is it illegal to import TB4?

dont use logic around here WJ

What you say makes a lot of sense even if the above is not true. But is it illegal to import TB4?

I thought he imported various items gat could make TB4, not actually imported TB4.

What you say makes a lot of sense even if the above is not true. But is it illegal to import TB4?

It's not even illegal to take it - unless you're a sportsperson.

What you say makes a lot of sense even if the above is not true. But is it illegal to import TB4?

i think (?) it is only illegal (in a wada sense) if the importer is someone who comes under the wada code (i.e, player, club official)

so, if danks was employed at the time of import by essendon then maybe yes

it is complicated because danks had other business interests outside essendon where it might be legitimate

i'd say this (the import) is a grey area under wada code where someone has multiple employments and probably needs clarification in the wada code

I thought he imported various items gat could make TB4, not actually imported TB4.

no, he has admitted to importing tb4. alavi only compounded raw tb4 into a form suitable for injection

I'm struggling to work out how the ASADA case which has been overseen by a leading world anti doping figure and an eminent judge is said by some to be on the brink of collapse because some people don't want to turn up to give evidence that could help clear the players if they didn't take TB4.

WJ what do you think ASADA's strategy is with the subpoenas? If it is just dotting I's and crossing T's shouldn't they have done that a long time ago?

In the Lance Armstrong case they had no positive drug tests but a lot of witnesses giving sworn evidence that they had seen or had been involved in the drug taking. In this case all the players say they don't know and the witnesses are unreliable at best. If ASADA are successful in the subpoenas who knows what they will say on the day anyway.

ASADA declares: Bring on the AFL Tribunal Hearing

"Despite media reports to the contrary, while it is my preference for potential witnesses to front the tribunal in person, I do not believe it is essential.

"It's now time to test this evidence in a tribunal and we are ready."

- McDevitt

What say you now, Connolly?

What you say makes a lot of sense even if the above is not true. But is it illegal to import TB4?

For an individual in Charters' position - I believe it is. I understand you need to be licenced to bring in such products.

WJ what do you think ASADA's strategy is with the subpoenas? If it is just dotting I's and crossing T's shouldn't they have done that a long time ago?

In the Lance Armstrong case they had no positive drug tests but a lot of witnesses giving sworn evidence that they had seen or had been involved in the drug taking. In this case all the players say they don't know and the witnesses are unreliable at best. If ASADA are successful in the subpoenas who knows what they will say on the day anyway.

The AFL and ASADA must do everything necessary to ensure that the witnesses are available irrespective of whether they are reliable. If they don't then they might be challenged as to why they didn't take reasonable steps to have them there and the players representatives would no doubt seek to have inferences drawn as to why they didn't make such attempts. So yes - essentially dotting i's and crossing t's.

But surely the award winning Chief Football Writer for the Herald Sun knows what he is talking about and in maintaining journalistic excellence would not let his love of James Hird introduce bias......

What award did he win?

How to [censored] up a story?

I heard Hardie on rsn this am. Amazing stuff. Seemed to have chrisso and mm convinced it was a beat up and asada had Nada. This despite them introducing him as a dank confidant and efc adviser.

Hardie the Monash legal lecturer

I heard Hardie on rsn this am. Amazing stuff. Seemed to have chrisso and mm convinced it was a beat up and asada had Nada. This despite them introducing him as a dank confidant and efc adviser.

Hardie the Monash legal lecturer

I think you mean the Deakin University lecturer who I've made reference to in this thread on a few occasions.

Apparently, not a bad barrister but he's one of those Essendon supporters who can see no wrong with anything the club's done in the past 3 or 4 years. Sad case.

As the various legal parties prepare for another week of tribunal and court hearings, a former Essendon adviser has cast doubt on whether thymosin beta 4 is banned in Australia.

Legal academic Martin Hardie has claimed there are provisions under the Therapeutic Goods Act that would allow the drug to be used.

"More importantly, when we say there are two types of thymosin, the good thymosin and the bad thymosin, the substance thymosin beta 4, there has never been a decision of any sporting tribunal in the world, or the Court of Arbitration for Sport, that has found that that substance is banned," Hardie said.

"What we have had is the media for the last year saying it is banned. But ASADA actually have to prove that, on a standard very close to beyond reasonable doubt, it is banned. They haven't put up any evidence to support that." ~ ASADA declares: Bring on the AFL Tribunal hearing

This is indeed extraordinary stuff in the context of the case that's about to come before the AFL Tribunal. Hardie isn't arguing whether the players were given TB4. Instead, he's arguing on its status and says ASADA needs to prove why this is so.

Try reading between the lines as to why a barrister, law lecturer, former adviser to the Bombers and a confidant of Stephen Dank is coming from this angle?

Mind boggling!

I'm starting to think that the AFL will issue very low penalties. There will then be 2 outcomes which will protect the EFC and themselves. Either WADA will accept it, so damage limited and EFC will be reasonably competitive. Or WADA will appeal. But by the time that is all over the EFC list will have turned over sufficiently to keep them competitive. I think that is more important to the AFL than being accused of being soft on drugs - they can rely on the sort of fog that was generated recently to help them cope with that.

Also they can whack Hird and the admin without doing much damage to competitiveness. So they can be hard on them and soft on the players which will have broad appeal.