I am sure would be implications for those testifying that there were in the opinion of ASADA not cooperating with or hindering the investigation.

I thought it would be on the same loguc as those that refuse or fail to attend a drug test.

I am sure would be implications for those testifying that there were in the opinion of ASADA not cooperating with or hindering the investigation.

I thought it would be on the same loguc as those that refuse or fail to attend a drug test.

As I don't think Dank would ever get another job in the field.......I just wonder what the implications would be???

Bans..??? Fines....????......If he is no longer in the profession how then can he be punished.......Just wondering..

Just a point I'd like to be cleared up......With this new legislation.....As far as I read it Dank must present himself for interview by ASADA and produce all documents in relation to same.....I don't see anywhere where it says that he must answer any questions put to him.....Even a person charged with murder has the right to say nothing.....Dank has stated that he has no documentation and left all paper work with Ess...Can someone please inform me if this is correct or notThanks

The new Government legislation states that if undesirables like Dank won't talk they will be fined 5,000 dollars a day, I don't agree with it as its every Australians right to say no comment.

As I don't think Dank would ever get another job in the field.......I just wonder what the implications would be???

Bans..??? Fines....????......If he is no longer in the profession how then can he be punished.......Just wondering..

At the moment Danks is not guilty of any crime.

At worst he is a disreputable scoundrel that has broken the law. At best he has been seriously character assassinated and scapegoated for the failings of others. The truth is likely somewhere in between those two extremes.

Now what I put forward is speculating possible scenarios.

Depending on the facts and his legal counsel advice, he may have the opportunity to cordially cooperate with the ASADA and possibly with the evidence he has clear his name and project his integrity. If that is the case, then he has a valid claim to scapegoating in the worst possible fashion with probable litigation opportunity. He may also have the opportunity to reclaim his good standing if he can show he has seriously victimised. His future in the sports industry has been irreparably damaged but he can claim he was victimised. He has no criminal record or cheating smear. He could still be eligible for employment outside the industry.

On the other hand he may have determined with counsel that to participate in the proceedings may significantly prejudice his situation. He may well have dabbled in the dark side of supplements as alleged. If he does not co operate he will be liable for criminal charges under the ASADA/ WADA codes and possibly open to civil litigation if exposed. His name and reputation in the sports industry cannot be recovered. More importantly his good name and standing including his eligibility to hold senior office anywhere, get a job or even a bank loan will be jeopardised.

I guess what I am saying is depending on the situation Danks and his advisers see him in he either has a small window of redemption or he is in hot water and he is trying to delay the day of judgement possibly hoping there is some contingent outcome to secure some limited upside.

It's not all good for him but we don't know for sure all is lost.

At the moment Danks is not guilty of any crime.

actually Im going to pull you up at this point. Didnt bother reading further because this is on a par with the Catholic church assuming the ascension and then laying out the book after it.

What you may have MEANT is he hasnt been convicted of anything but guillt goes with the action not the ajudiucation, not really. The guilty know their guilt.

Everything SD has done and said to date is consistent with someone with a very great deal to suppress and hes been foxing ( brilliantly I may add ) ever since.

please dont confuse guilt with conviction

actually Im going to pull you up at this point. Didnt bother reading further because this is on a par with the Catholic church assuming the ascension and then laying out the book after it.

What you may have MEANT is he hasnt been convicted of anything but guillt goes with the action not the ajudiucation, not really. The guilty know their guilt.

Everything SD has done and said to date is consistent with someone with a very great deal to suppress and hes been foxing ( brilliantly I may add ) ever since.

please dont confuse guilt with conviction

If you wanted to be really smart you would said he has not charged with any crime. And that would have been right. But you decide to be petty and fantasise the facts about guilt.

You know as much as I do ( possibly less) on whether or not Danks is actually guilty of anything. There is no doubt he like Essendon has been reckless and has contributed to the Essendon saga but as to guilt we can only guess. And you have done no more than that.

fantasised about nothing RR

Youre retreating to rhetoric. fail

Can someone please tell me why it is so hard to work out:

a. whether Essendon players took AOD9604

b. whether AOD9604 is a banned drug?

(Repeat for other drugs Dank may have supplied.)

Can someone please tell me why it is so hard to work out:

a. whether Essendon players took AOD9604

b. whether AOD9604 is a banned drug?

(Repeat for other drugs Dank may have supplied.)

youve got me stuffed there Maurie/

Its hardly a difficult construct is it .

My thoughts are WADA/ASADA havent finished. What we are seeing is the Vlad and Fitz show. They like the song and dance. They like bright lights and fuzzy facts and spin. WADA deal in none of this.

Interesting times ahead.....still

a) is the hard question ASADA is trying to determine and possibly access to Danks records may provide some clear evidence on what has been alleged in the media.

b) the drug has not been approved for human use by WADA. It is/was still subject to clinical test. So in effect it is banned until it is cleared. The confusion came when in the ACC report AOD-9604 was stated as not being banned. That statement is not correct. There was an allegation that ASADA had advise that the drug was OK for use but mysteriously neither Essendon nor anyone involved kept a copy nor can it be located. There is doubt about its actual existence. Richard Inge the former ASADA has stated that anyone who has used the drug since 2011 would be guilty of an anti doping violation.

If they can establish that a) did occur then based on b) infraction notices would be issued to those who took the drug and case to answer for those culpable of administering it.

Danks is , not so much the key, but a facilitator of direction.

Essendon will be hoping he remains as obstructive as he has proved. I suspect ASADA's new ramped powers will come through in the end. Danks may like to sit back on 'silence' but if the fiscal forensci boys ( and gals) do their work they may unearth leverage.

The key is linking A with B. I dont think anyone supposes there is NO link between them, but just need it nutted out.

If they can establish that a) did occur then based on b) infraction notices would be issued to those who took the drug and case to answer for those culpable of administering it.

Jobe Watson admitted taking it. You say ASADA says it's been banned since 2011. Where's the infraction notice?

it is an interim report.

the players will NOT receive infraction notices until the FINAL report.

The new Government legislation states that if undesirables like Dank won't talk they will be fined 5,000 dollars a day, I don't agree with it as its every Australians right to say no comment.

Sorry I must have missed this right when I read the Australian Constitution.

Anyway I guess he can always still say No Comment as long as he is prepared to pays up to $5,000 a day.

Jobe Watson admitted taking it. You say ASADA says it's been banned since 2011. Where's the infraction notice?

Correct me but I thought Jobe Watson believed he had taken it. It still needs to be established that he did actually use the drug despite his stated beliefs.

If there is collaborating evidence that supports that belief that he did in fact use the drug then my understanding is he and others caught by that evidence would be issued infraction notices.

Can someone please tell me why it is so hard to work out:

a. whether Essendon players took AOD9604

b. whether AOD9604 is a banned drug?

(Repeat for other drugs Dank may have supplied.)

Damien Barrett writing on the AFL site says there is carnage yet to come - AFL v Essendon: who will blink first?

I think most of us would like to know is exactly what was injected into the Essendon players off site and for which they signed waivers?

The simple truth will do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't players be banned if they can't prove what they took?

Ie with the dodgy receipts etc saying they took AOD but not what kind, they can still be charged.

Very classy analysis thanks gents

No comment thus far re mystery Mexican drug?

Presumably not peyote but no one knows what it might have been (though it definitely wasn't harmful)

Keep up the good work

mjt, on 14 Aug 2013 - 2:27 PM, said:

The new Government legislation states that if undesirables like Dank won't talk they will be fined 5,000 dollars a day, I don't agree with it as its every Australians right to say no comment.

Edited August 14, 201311 yr by sue

Go Bombers!

Go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Take on the AFL...do it...do it...do it.

This could soak up all your millions.

Please let James Hird have his way. QCs at 50 paces and $10,000 a day plus prep time plus junior counsel. It's gonna be great and it will go on for months.

Burnside's bills will make Dank's pseudo-medico stuff look like a bargain basement.

Go James, Go Paul Little...wreck the dynasty.

mjt, on 14 Aug 2013 - 2:27 PM, said:

You apply this principle to industrial matters involving union officials too I assume.

But on topic, it will be interesting to see what happens when Essendon delist some C class players who have been part of the experiment - what they and their parents might do will be illuminating.

the truth will out...as they say

If you wanted to be really smart you would said he has not charged with any crime. And that would have been right. But you decide to be petty and fantasise the facts about guilt.

You know as much as I do ( possibly less) on whether or not Danks is actually guilty of anything. There is no doubt he like Essendon has been reckless and has contributed to the Essendon saga but as to guilt we can only guess. And you have done no more than that.

thats right BB if anybody would know more than you it would be RR

keep your opinions to youself, don't dare share them

thats right BB if anybody would know more than you it would be RR

keep your opinions to youself, don't dare share them

Ugh ugh.

mjt, on 14 Aug 2013 - 2:27 PM, said:

You apply this principle to industrial matters involving union officials too I assume.

But on topic, it will be interesting to see what happens when Essendon delist some C class players who have been part of the experiment - what they and their parents might do will be illuminating.

I just keep thinking of Reimers and what else we might hear from him. In fact I want to hear more from him, even though [censored] Dons fans will say he is a disgruntled ex employee