THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[sue 8,463]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-03/senior-bombers-players-meet-with-afl-ceo-gillon-mclachlan-as-antidoping-verdict-approaches

Gotta ease them in to what will be the worst news they can get. Enjoy the 2 years off fellas

Unbelievable, first that anyone would think this meeting appropriate and second, why not weeks ago if they needed:

However, the players arranged the meeting to gain a better understanding from the AFL about the Tribunal process.

.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,470]

Wow.

That is a really sad indictment on The Age that they have actually decided to post crap like that.

They've completely disregarded the published text messages for starters.

[Wolfmother 182]

BB now you're getting it. All the players have to do is prove that the evidence presented by ASADA is inadequate to pass the comfortable satisfaction rule. They don't have to actually prove what they took. They don't have to put forward any evidence at all. They just have to argue why ASADA's evidence is not good enough.

So for example they could show that the invoices presented by ASADA can't be relied on as evidence as they can't prove they were really written by Charters and Alavi or whoever. There is a level of evidence that has to be satisfied to accept the invoices. The fact that Charters and Alavi can't be called to give evidence to say "Yes that is the invoice I sent for making up the TB4 that I delivered to Essendon", makes it much harder to prove the invoices are even legitimate. The players only have to argue this to win the case.

Because the onus isn't on them the Tribunal hearing will just be a series of arguments on each piece of evidence. All the players have to do is successfully argue why each piece of evidence is too weak to pass the comfortable satisfaction test. If they can do this to enough of the critical evidence they will win. This is why I argue the legislation needs to be changed so that the onus should fall on the athlete to prove what they took and if they can't prove it they are automatically banned. They are the ones that have total control over the records of what they took not a statutory body like WADA/ASADA who have to do massive investigations to try to find out what records they should have.

It's time, you are correct that ASADA has to still prove it's case to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal panel otherwise the charged are thrown out. I have had this happen to me (when I was a copper) that one of my charges was thrown out as the judge didn't believe I had proved it with the evidence provided so out it went, before the defence had even spoken.

Whilst I agree to the changes in legislation are required the players will have to prove what they took as I think the tb4 will be proven to be a EFC by ASADA so it's up to the players to prove what they took wasn't that drug.

The evidence you depicted as having issues would be very hard to dispute. For example the invoice from alevi could be argued by the defence as not correct and no cross examination could occur. The interviews with charters and Alveri would have been taped which would of allowed the judges to see the meaning behind statements. The invoice whilst question could one be proven by the investigator who obtains it and read all the records of the chemist( I know not the best method but this is not a court of law)

both charters and Alecto are vital to the chain of custody for tb4 but I think the defence wouldn't be attacking their evidence unless there was a major issues with it I can't see. Charter got tb4 from china and gave it alveri who then made into an injectable form and gave it to danks. His invoice was paid by EFC. Dank admits he received the tb4 but it was destroyed because of UV hence I found it hard for the defence to attack that part of the case once as confirmed it was tb4 from china

The issue as I see them would be the fact that the tb4 invoice was refunded in May and a fresh one was paid for thymomodulin??Why was that it looks like it was shuffling paperwork to appear that thymomodulin was paid for rather than thymosin? (Again the defence don't want to touch this)

Or what occurred with the letter that dank requested to be signed by Alveri in May 2012 and was produced with his signature for feb 2012?? (Again defence won't want to touch this)

The defence will want to know to things from Alveri - did he supply anything other(ie tthymomodulin or another substance listed as thymosin) to EFC or was it only tb4 obtain by charters (defence will only want to touch this if they know the answer is positive/in there favour but will be in his statement/interview)

The defence will be only want to speak to alveri about dank and his requirements for tb4 outside his role at essendon and would did he so with the amount given to him??

Sorry I waffled on there about the evidence but I don't think the defence will be arguing about the chain of custody , as it was pretty closed case by the look of it... They will pick up from when dank had custody as how does ASADA prove it went to essendon with no actually stock in type items. He could of taken it all to his clinic and had EFC just pay for it... Maybe that's why the refund occurred he realised he had charged EFC for his clinics order

The evidence of tb4 getting to dank and EFC paying for it originally is pretty tight and about comfortable satisfied as you will get, so I don't think that's were there will be an issue.

The defence need to argue that dank never brought it to EFC or they used something else which they would need invoices for as the players have texts discussing there thymo shots

Edited March 3, 2015 by Wolfmother

[Wolfmother 182]

Time, I have said it many times and attached the relevent ASADA clauses. NO PROOF OF TAKING ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVEN GUILTY. Think Lance Armstrong.

Of course something taken is required for guilt. A positive blood test is not required but lance Armstrong went down for taking epo etc. The fact you are alluding to attempting to take I believe

is a long bow as the players didn't order the product or understand that it was banned, I don't think they can go down for attempted use as the fact it was ordered by someone seperate to them is a massive difference to wade lees or

Similar cases !!

[Wolfmother 182]

if someone would be so good...

Its touted that Golden Boy might at some point sue for wrongful dismissal. If he has been brought before his peers and found to have been grossly at fault what leg does he have to stand upon when countering the club ? Im just curious on this

He was only going to sue for wrongful dismissal if he was sacked for appealing the Middleton case which is what little told him would occur. The fact that he did appeal and bomber Thompson was told he had the job at the b&f didn't last with hird stating you can't sack me for me undertaking my legal rights which the essendon board agreed to and back down from sacking him...

The following rumour has been mentioned multiple times but it was only stated in relation to EFC informing hird that he shouldnt appeal and if he did he faced being sack as the club wanted to move on

Edited March 3, 2015 by Wolfmother

[Wolfmother 182]

In the medium term, I think the club will be sanctioned via WADA/CAS and may have some difficulty maintaining it's very existence.

Longer term I see Workcare looking at charges.

Sorry BBO, I see this dragging on for quite a bit of time.

CHF I don't think WADA can enforce penalties against the club as the code mentions the governing body should penalties and appropriate sanction including lose of points, suspensions from comp etc etc but there is nothing in concrete.

Anyone know any different??

[bing181 8,204]

is a long bow as the players didn't order the product or understand that it was banned

Whether they understood it was banned or not is irrelevant.

Some of the discussion in the last few pages (not directed at anyone in particular ...) turns on a kind of "legalese". But this case isn't either a civil or criminal case, and a number of assumptions being put forward here are just not applicable. The WADA code and its juridic framework is fairly clear.

Regardless of anything else, if ASADA can place TB4 at Essendon, and Essendon can't show that it was disposed of and not used, then the players concerned are in trouble - exacerbated by them having signed consent forms for "Thymosin".

[sue 8,463]

The defence need to argue that dank never brought it to EFC or they used something else which they would need invoices for as the players have texts discussing there thymo shots

Wm, interesting post- how do you know about these texts?

[beelzebub 22,269]

He was only going to sue for wrongful dismissal if he was sacked for appealing the Middleton case which is what little told him would occur. The fact that he did appeal and bomber Thompson was told he had the job at the b&f didn't last with hird stating you can't sack me for me undertaking my legal rights which the essendon board agreed to and back down from sacking him...

The following rumour has been mentioned multiple times but it was only stated in relation to EFC informing hird that he shouldnt appeal and if he did he faced being sack as the club wanted to move on

would have thought that like anyone should he breech ethical standards as required or brought others into harms way hes for the chop

[beelzebub 22,269]

And to that i say

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hird-was-warned-the-inside-story-on-essendons-drug-scandal-20130821-2savu.html

Everyone ought to read reread this a few times..

Amongst the various things it says to me is that there exists, especially in the mind set of Golden Boy , a predisposition to happily go where no coach has gone before. He's only too happy to try this or that, despite known side effects or even where they arent overly well documented.

Now does this really sound like a chap who wants to use a baby formula ?

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

It's time, you are correct that ASADA has to still prove it's case to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal panel otherwise the charged are thrown out. I have had this happen to me (when I was a copper) that one of my charges was thrown out as the judge didn't believe I had proved it with the evidence provided so out it went, before the defence had even spoken.

Whilst I agree to the changes in legislation are required the players will have to prove what they took as I think the tb4 will be proven to be a EFC by ASADA so it's up to the players to prove what they took wasn't that drug.

The evidence you depicted as having issues would be very hard to dispute. For example the invoice from alevi could be argued by the defence as not correct and no cross examination could occur. The interviews with charters and Alveri would have been taped which would of allowed the judges to see the meaning behind statements. The invoice whilst question could one be proven by the investigator who obtains it and read all the records of the chemist( I know not the best method but this is not a court of law)

both charters and Alecto are vital to the chain of custody for tb4 but I think the defence wouldn't be attacking their evidence unless there was a major issues with it I can't see. Charter got tb4 from china and gave it alveri who then made into an injectable form and gave it to danks. His invoice was paid by EFC. Dank admits he received the tb4 but it was destroyed because of UV hence I found it hard for the defence to attack that part of the case once as confirmed it was tb4 from china

The issue as I see them would be the fact that the tb4 invoice was refunded in May and a fresh one was paid for thymomodulin??Why was that it looks like it was shuffling paperwork to appear that thymomodulin was paid for rather than thymosin? (Again the defence don't want to touch this)

Or what occurred with the letter that dank requested to be signed by Alveri in May 2012 and was produced with his signature for feb 2012?? (Again defence won't want to touch this)

The defence will want to know to things from Alveri - did he supply anything other(ie tthymomodulin or another substance listed as thymosin) to EFC or was it only tb4 obtain by charters (defence will only want to touch this if they know the answer is positive/in there favour but will be in his statement/interview)

The defence will be only want to speak to alveri about dank and his requirements for tb4 outside his role at essendon and would did he so with the amount given to him??

Sorry I waffled on there about the evidence but I don't think the defence will be arguing about the chain of custody , as it was pretty closed case by the look of it... They will pick up from when dank had custody as how does ASADA prove it went to essendon with no actually stock in type items. He could of taken it all to his clinic and had EFC just pay for it... Maybe that's why the refund occurred he realised he had charged EFC for his clinics order

The evidence of tb4 getting to dank and EFC paying for it originally is pretty tight and about comfortable satisfied as you will get, so I don't think that's were there will be an issue.

The defence need to argue that dank never brought it to EFC or they used something else which they would need invoices for as the players have texts discussing there thymo shots

Makes a lot of sense. I really hope that in the context of the Tribunals powers they will accept the video statements from Charters and Alavi but I would think they would want to be very careful about relying on them too much as the conclusive evidence or they are very likely to face an appeal. Mind you if found guilty an appeal will probably be practically useless as they wouldn't be able to play and the appeal will probably take as long as the ban. Unless it's longer than 12mths. Maybe that's why the players had their secret meeting with Gil.

It still mystifies me that Dank has left the players out to dry like he has. If he ordered and received the TB4 for his clinics and not for Essendon why wouldn't he just come forward and save the players. (If he could prove it.) The fact that he worked at EFC full time might help to explain why he had it delivered there. I dont' know anything about his clinics, how much time he spent there or why the TB4 wouldn't have been delivered there. But he could have explained all of this if there was an alternative reason. "Oh I'm not going to give any evidence because they didn't ask nicely." What a tool.

[beelzebub 22,269]

Wm, interesting post- how do you know about these texts?

was in many of the rags Sue

Tribunal told Bombers texted each other about ‘Thymo’ injections

[Its Time for Another 4,054]

Of course something taken is required for guilt. A positive blood test is not required but lance Armstrong went down for taking epo etc. The fact you are alluding to attempting to take I believe

is a long bow as the players didn't order the product or understand that it was banned, I don't think they can go down for attempted use as the fact it was ordered by someone seperate to them is a massive difference to wade lees or

Similar cases !!

The big difference with the Armstrong case was that all his teammates over many years were called before Grand Juries and would have faced jail time if they didn't give truthful testimony. That was the key to most of them deciding to give first hand eyewitness accounts of watching him inject himself with PED's and they knew exactly what they were because they admitted to taking them as well. There is no direct evidence like that here.

[beelzebub 22,269]

The big difference with the Armstrong case was that all his teammates over many years were called before Grand Juries and would have faced jail time if they didn't give truthful testimony. That was the key to most of them deciding to give first hand eyewitness accounts of watching him inject himself with PED's and they knew exactly what they were because they admitted to taking them as well. There is no direct evidence like that here.

Be curious to know if any of the 'break away' lads offered up a tad more information that the Windy Hill lot.

[ManDee 7,091]

you tell us.....after all it is your avatar - lol

Damn, missed that altogether. Well played S&S, nice pick up DC.

The avatar is my business logo. I designed its about 20 years ago. The red & blue are obvious (the dees) (blue sky) the green is grass/the earth. I had not considered boomerangs they are inverted ticks in my mind. I like the boomerangs. As for 2 dogs, that's another story.

[ManDee 7,091]

Of course something taken is required for guilt. A positive blood test is not required but lance Armstrong went down for taking epo etc. The fact you are alluding to attempting to take I believe

is a long bow as the players didn't order the product or understand that it was banned, I don't think they can go down for attempted use as the fact it was ordered by someone seperate to them is a massive difference to wade lees or

Similar cases !!

Again.

From :- http://www.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.

In addition to testing athletes, ASADA also has the power to investigate the possible use of prohibited substances, drugs, medications or methods in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection. An athlete does not have to have succeeded in using a prohibited substance or method – if there is sufficient evidence that the athlete has attempted to use a prohibited substance or method, they can be sanctioned. It is the athlete’s responsibility to ensure that no prohibited substance, drug or medication enters his or her body. Not knowing that you have taken something is not an excuse.

Please read the 8 doping rule violations. Please look up the meaning of attempted. Then get back to me.

Edited March 3, 2015 by ManDee

[ManDee 7,091]

Everyone ought to read reread this a few times..

Amongst the various things it says to me is that there exists, especially in the mind set of Golden Boy , a predisposition to happily go where no coach has gone before. He's only too happy to try this or that, despite known side effects or even where they arent overly well documented.

Now does this really sound like a chap who wants to use a baby formula ?

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hird-was-warned-the-inside-story-on-essendons-drug-scandal-20130821-2savu.html

Haven't read that for a while. Well worth a read by anyone commenting here.

[dpositive 1,557]

i say 18 mnths ..but could be 2yrs or more...they havent helped their cause have they

Thanks BB

It has been and still is a fantastic display of power and influence more than just football and is certainly not yet finished. We sit back and wait.

This discussion has been going on at our squash club since the start with Bombers supporters initially defending Hird and the club as the victims.

As it has progressed they have diminished support with comments such as

Im not paying membership to keep the lawyers driving ferraris

Hird is the problem and has to go.

They too are waiting but still have the we were victimised cry.

It will be interesting if out of the wreckage a "what doesnt kill us will make us stronger " will be achieved.

[dpositive 1,557]

would have thought that this meeting was somewhat inappropriate. .. just me ??

SOMEWHAT???????

Wasnt that how it all started Demetriou with an informal off the record chat with Bombers

You know get your house in order, the shits about to hit the fan

The silly buggers turned on the fan>

[Ted Lasso 16,970]

I personally highly doubt that these players have stayed loyal to the club during interviews, obviously confidentiality clauses in their contracts prevent them from saying much to the media but in an interview with ASADA if you were concerned your club had injected you with something dangerous it would be pretty easy to spill your guts and tell them everything.

[hemingway 7,601]

i have learnt more on this thread about the EFC saga than anything I have absorbed from the news media. says something about the informed analysis on this thread compared to what we get from the news media. The differing opinions and interpretations about the process have been fascinating. What a saga......an it continues on.

[beelzebub 22,269]

A thought Ive been toying with and it really only goes to the penalty and not guilt.

The AFL are reknown for playing its own peculiar game. Im just wondering if the AFL wont try and box clever and the tribunal comes down with a guilty verdict and then only issues a 12 mnth ban that together with allowances of time back to SCN issuance ends up being effectively just the rest of the season and a bit of the off. Now most of us here will know that will trigger an appeal by WADA. I couldnt see the players objecting to that , especially after all the evidence had been laid bare, sure theyd be at least 'not so dumb enough" to poke the bear twice.

In doing so the players are banned, for starters and the AFL can look like the benevolent sheriff to the power boys in the game, all the whiles knowing full well WADA will trump in and extend it eventually...but its out of the AFL hands then... they can walk away ( run more like it )

The AFL plays both sides against the middle...hes guys...we did our very best....a Year !!! Hey WADA..well if you must do what you must ......

[deanox 8,733]

I suspect of the players get more than a handful of matches (I believe it should be 12-24 months) the players and Essendon will kick and scream that they were unfairly done by. They won't go quietly.

[ManDee 7,091]

Back on my bandwagon.

Attempted use.

Please consider that the players are ultimately responsible for what goes in their bodies.

It is not acceptable to have a program like the Essendon zealots would have them getting off.

1 Employ a bio chemist to source the drugs.

2 Tell the players it is OK everything is legal.

3 Attempt to use illegal PHD's

4 If caught the players claim they were told it was all koscher.

5 Records containing who took what and when disappear.

If this method was allowed to proceed in sport every sporting body in the world would cheat. No risk to players/athletes as they claim they were duped. No records of who took what so they cannot be guilty.

That is why the code clearly states , use or attempted use. The athletes are responsible for everything that goes into their bodies and not knowing that you have taken a prohibited substance is not an excuse.

Any other criteria will lead to the use of PHD's flourishing.

So to reiterate (sorry to those that already know)

Use or attempted use = Guilty

Not knowing that you have taken or attempted to take an illegal substance = Guilty

It has to be that way to stop rorts.

[daisycutter 28,640]

A thought Ive been toying with and it really only goes to the penalty and not guilt.

The AFL are reknown for playing its own peculiar game. Im just wondering if the AFL wont try and box clever and the tribunal comes down with a guilty verdict and then only issues a 12 mnth ban that together with allowances of time back to SCN issuance ends up being effectively just the rest of the season and a bit of the off. Now most of us here will know that will trigger an appeal by WADA. I couldnt see the players objecting to that , especially after all the evidence had been laid bare, sure theyd be at least 'not so dumb enough" to poke the bear twice.

In doing so the players are banned, for starters and the AFL can look like the benevolent sheriff to the power boys in the game, all the whiles knowing full well WADA will trump in and extend it eventually...but its out of the AFL hands then... they can walk away ( run more like it )

The AFL plays both sides against the middle...hes guys...we did our very best....a Year !!! Hey WADA..well if you must do what you must ......

i suspect that if the tribunal give 12 months that wada will accept that....albeit grudgingly

especially if the afl hit the club instigators hard