THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[John Crow Batty 8,255]

I have my hand in the air for the last spot adc

Can I expect demonland support?

Yes, but you must not forget to pork barrell the club or you will end up labled as a sellout.

[old dee 22,854]

You've got my vote 'old dee'...

Wow my votes have doubled already!

[old dee 22,854]

Yes, but you must not forget to pork barrell the club or you will end up labled as a sellout.

Every game at the G is must.

[deespicable me 1,434]

I was at a BBQ with a mate who is close to the case and he says its a 50/50 call as to the players getting off or convicted.

Apparently the Essendon lawyers aren't disputing the legality of the drug Thymosin, everyone is pretty convinced the players got the illegal stuff. What they are arguing is the pathway of the drug to Essendon and wether they are completely satisfied that even though it is pretty clear Essendon were trying to inject the players with the bad Thymosin because of the complex pathway from China and the people involved and their less than convincing reputations are we completely positive that the players were given that drug.

Further he said that Hird's reputation has taken an absolute battering and nobody regards him as acting with any moral compass at all throughout the whole saga. Text messages that haven't come out yet are damning.

He also suggested the reason Hird wasn't sacked around their B&F night was because they were going to sack him because of his appeal and legally Hird could have sued for wrongful dismissal or some legal point. If they just had of sacked him and stated it wasn't really anything to do with the court case, new start etc, they could have and should have already got rid of him.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Did they say why he was given a 2 year extension on the back of the drug revelations?

[beelzebub 22,225]

I was at a BBQ with a mate who is close to the case and he says its a 50/50 call as to the players getting off or convicted.

Apparently the Essendon lawyers aren't disputing the legality of the drug Thymosin, everyone is pretty convinced the players got the illegal stuff. What they are arguing is the pathway of the drug to Essendon and wether they are completely satisfied that even though it is pretty clear Essendon were trying to inject the players with the bad Thymosin because of the complex pathway from China and the people involved and their less than convincing reputations are we completely positive that the players were given that drug.

Further he said that Hird's reputation has taken an absolute battering and nobody regards him as acting with any moral compass at all throughout the whole saga. Text messages that haven't come out yet are damning.

He also suggested the reason Hird wasn't sacked around their B&F night was because they were going to sack him because of his appeal and legally Hird could have sued for wrongful dismissal or some legal point. If they just had of sacked him and stated it wasn't really anything to do with the court case, new start etc, they could have and should have already got rid of him.

Ok...in simple terms.. Essendon used ( or at worst tried to use ) TB4 which according to this they dont argue..

Slam dunk!!

edit :

pathway is somewhat irrelevant and another case of the Hill Mob trying to cloud the actual issues. These guys are seriously clowns.

What are they arguing...whether it was the 9:15 bus or the 10:45 train ??

For the novices ...which seems to be the legal counsel for the defendants Thymodulin can be taken orally and is available as such ( quite easily btw ) and needs NO compounding.

So we're back to looks like, sounds like, walks like a

Edited February 23, 2015 by beelzebub

[ManDee 7,080]

I was at a BBQ with a mate who is close to the case and he says its a 50/50 call as to the players getting off or convicted.

Apparently the Essendon lawyers aren't disputing the legality of the drug Thymosin, everyone is pretty convinced the players got the illegal stuff. What they are arguing is the pathway of the drug to Essendon and wether they are completely satisfied that even though it is pretty clear Essendon were trying to inject the players with the bad Thymosin because of the complex pathway from China and the people involved and their less than convincing reputations are we completely positive that the players were given that drug.

Further he said that Hird's reputation has taken an absolute battering and nobody regards him as acting with any moral compass at all throughout the whole saga. Text messages that haven't come out yet are damning.

He also suggested the reason Hird wasn't sacked around their B&F night was because they were going to sack him because of his appeal and legally Hird could have sued for wrongful dismissal or some legal point. If they just had of sacked him and stated it wasn't really anything to do with the court case, new start etc, they could have and should have already got rid of him.

DM it doesn't matter what they actually took. If they intended to take it they are guilty.

PS: Welcome to the nut house.

[biggestred 4,311]

I was at a BBQ with a mate who is close to the case and he says its a 50/50 call as to the players getting off or convicted.

Apparently the Essendon lawyers aren't disputing the legality of the drug Thymosin, everyone is pretty convinced the players got the illegal stuff. What they are arguing is the pathway of the drug to Essendon and wether they are completely satisfied that even though it is pretty clear Essendon were trying to inject the players with the bad Thymosin because of the complex pathway from China and the people involved and their less than convincing reputations are we completely positive that the players were given that drug.

Further he said that Hird's reputation has taken an absolute battering and nobody regards him as acting with any moral compass at all throughout the whole saga. Text messages that haven't come out yet are damning.

He also suggested the reason Hird wasn't sacked around their B&F night was because they were going to sack him because of his appeal and legally Hird could have sued for wrongful dismissal or some legal point. If they just had of sacked him and stated it wasn't really anything to do with the court case, new start etc, they could have and should have already got rid of him.

SO their whole argument is "we have no idea what it actually was they were given"

wow.

[beelzebub 22,225]

SO their whole argument is "we have no idea what it actually was they were given"

wow.

well..."we ordered the GOOD stuff ( nudge nudge wink wink say no more ) but arent sure what we actually jabbed into the bunnies I mean players......"

[biggestred 4,311]

well..."we ordered the GOOD stuff ( nudge nudge wink wink say no more ) but arent sure what we actually jabbed into the bunnies I mean players......"

haha "the guys who we asked to get it are really dodgy so we arent sure they got us the right stuff which we ordered"

[beelzebub 22,225]

SO their whole argument is "we have no idea what it actually was they were given"

wow.

in reality id suggest they actually have no argument , only a statement of position

[ManDee 7,080]

Welcome to the Titanic (Essendon FC) never mind the icebergs (rules of world sport) full steam ahead!

Now if we hit an iceberg, just move the deck chairs (destroy all records) then get the musicians (press) out on the poop deck and get them the play a few songs (spread some bullshyt). We have a wonderful Coach in Francesco Schettino (James Hird) from the Costa Concordia he knows how to leave a sinking ship.

See what happens when you let a narcissistic criminal run things.

[deespicable me 1,434]

Yes because of the lack of "firm" evidence through blood tests or actual discovery of the drugs on the premises, regardless of what the players thought they did or didn't take can the court be 100 per cent sure it was the illegal Thymomodulin taken.

Quite a few of the players are really upset with the way they've been treated. Hird will struggle to survive whichever way it goes.

I think getting Hird out of footy is the number one priority.

[beelzebub 22,225]

They dont need blood tests.

They can show probabilities

They can show intent

They can show waivers which list amongst items, Thymosin

They can show quantities

They can describe the routine of injections and can establish the protocol for use.

Its is like describing a hole. There may be nothing actually in the hole but its size, its location and intended use can.

In actuality there are contents to that hole. 34 players, a coach and a despicable club.

And they put themselves in it !!!

[daisycutter 28,559]

Yes because of the lack of "firm" evidence through blood tests or actual discovery of the drugs on the premises, regardless of what the players thought they did or didn't take can the court be 100 per cent sure it was the illegal Thymomodulin taken.

Quite a few of the players are really upset with the way they've been treated. Hird will struggle to survive whichever way it goes.

I think getting Hird out of footy is the number one priority.

they don't need to be "100% sure"

check out the rules for proof. it has been discussed many times before. it is not a criminal court trial.

[beelzebub 22,225]

[Clintosaurus 6,440]

They know what they took and so does ASADA. The records and the chain of custody are the inconvienent truth. Hird wasn't prepared to wait 3-4 years to be able to compete with Geelong/Collingwood etc, hence the Bummers players got huge quick, trying to fit 3 preseasons into 1. Turns out it was too quick and their bodies could not deal with the stress.

[binman 38,147]

they don't need to be "100% sure"

check out the rules for proof. it has been discussed many times before. it is not a criminal court trial.

Whilst it is not a court of law the burden of proof falls on ASADA where there is no positive test, despite what BB maintains.

BB you asked for evidence and i haven't had time yet to find it. Just put a big comment up with links but stuffed up and navigated off the page and lost it all (annoying). Anyway this google page has tones of articles clarifying this issue.

Page 2 includes a thread from Richard Ings twitter feed that addresses this very issue. he is adamant that ASADA has the burden of proof to establish players took TB4 not the other way around.

Comments on the thread note that Sam Lane appears to be confused about this issue and that perhaps this is because at the show cause stage the burden of proof does indeed fall on the players. But not at the tribunal stage. link here

[Wilbur 447]

Welcome to the Titanic (Essendon FC) never mind the icebergs (rules of world sport) full steam ahead!

Now if we hit an iceberg, just move the deck chairs (destroy all records) then get the musicians (press) out on the poop deck and get them the play a few songs (spread some bullshyt). We have a wonderful Coach in Francesco Schettino (James Hird) from the Costa Concordia he knows how to leave a sinking ship.

See what happens when you let a narcissistic criminal run things.

Hird reminds me of the captain who used the classic excuse of "I tripped and fell into a lifeboat"

[biggestred 4,311]

21

World Anti-Doping Code

•

2009

2.2

Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete ’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

.

[Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1. For example, Use may be established based upon reliable analytical data from the analysis of an A Sample (without confirmation from an analysis of a B Sample) or from the analysis of a B Sample alone where the Anti-Doping Organization provides a satisfactory explanation for the lack of confirmation in the other Sample

22

World Anti-Doping Code

•

2009

2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_anti-doping_code_2009_en_0.pdf

not sure why the formatting has gone nuts but all they need to prove is that use was ATTEMPTED via documentary evidence, witness statements etc.

Edited February 23, 2015 by biggestred

[binman 38,147]

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_anti-doping_code_2009_en_0.pdf

not sure why the formatting has gone nuts but all they need to prove is that use was ATTEMPTED via documentary evidence, witness statements etc.

Yes but you make it sound easy to prove this. ASADA has the burden of proof to establish to the tribunal comfortable satisfaction they players actually were administered banned drugs. Its not a simple matter to do this.

Its up to ASADA to make a compelling case not up to the players to make a case why they didn't used a banned drug. They get to defend themselves and make rebuttals.

[beelzebub 22,225]

Whilst it is not a court of law the burden of proof falls on ASADA where there is no positive test, despite what BB maintains.

BB you asked for evidence and i haven't had time yet to find it. Just put a big comment up with links but stuffed up and navigated off the page and lost it all (annoying). Anyway this google page has tones of articles clarifying this issue.

Page 2 includes a thread from Richard Ings twitter feed that addresses this very issue. he is adamant that ASADA has the burden of proof to establish players took TB4 not the other way around.

Comments on the thread note that Sam Lane appears to be confused about this issue and that perhaps this is because at the show cause stage the burden of proof does indeed fall on the players. But not at the tribunal stage. link here

Part of that burden of proof referenced towards ASADA is also the response from the players to the SCN...they arent actually separate things.

ASADA asks, having shown a likely scenario to the players as per the SCN, that the players show that they DIDNT in fact take TB4 as surmised and that they took something else, possibly Thymomosin.

If the players cant show this then that in itself goes towards the case that ASADA require to satisfy ' comfortably' to the tribunal that the players/club/coach have been naughty boys. Its not of itself the only thing or all thats required but its part and parcel thereof

We're dealing with the two ends of the same piece of string. Many a commentator ( moreso those with agendas ) wish to portray this as two different beasts.

All ASADA need to show is all roads lead to Rome and ask the players to show that they werent in Rome. If they cant...theyre cooked

[biggestred 4,311]

Yes but you make it sound easy to prove this. ASADA has the burden of proof to establish to the tribunal comfortable satisfaction they players actually were administered banned drugs. Its not a simple matter to do this.

Its up to ASADA to make a compelling case not up to the players to make a case why they didn't used a banned drug. They get to defend themselves and make rebuttals.

no, they need to prove that they attempted to take tb4, and that thats what was ordered.

if they have evidence that tb4 was ordered by dank through charter, charter went to china to get it from a factory that makes tb4 and no other thymosin, charter went to alavi and then dank picked it up from alavi - id say thats more than enough to prove that the club at least attempted to administer banned drugs...

the hole in that would be if essendon could turn around and say, actually they got x instead.... which they cant as they dont know what they were given!

Edited February 23, 2015 by biggestred

[beelzebub 22,225]

Yes but you make it sound easy to prove this. ASADA has the burden of proof to establish to the tribunal comfortable satisfaction they players actually were administered banned drugs. Its not a simple matter to do this.

Its up to ASADA to make a compelling case not up to the players to make a case why they didn't used a banned drug. They get to defend themselves and make rebuttals.

Is it that hard either.

No one disputes the players were injected with something, never been in question.

Essendon cant show any supply of an approved substance having been sought and purchased. Essendon cant show a supplements schedule that would match a benign substance. ASADA CAN portray a protocol for a banned substance and a pathway to the club , indeed actions by the club and or its agents to procure.

essendon actually have to show to the comfort of the Tribunal they they did INDEED use something else , that this is what it is/was , and this is proof of how and when. i.e records/ invoices etc

So far it seems ASADA have a mountain of circumstantial evidence and can tie it together with many and detailed messaging between the main culprits.

Essendon keep moving the goalposts in some hope to confuse people. The tribunal wont be had by this incredulous toying .

[ManDee 7,080]

no, they need to prove that they attempted to take tb4, and that thats what was ordered.

if they have evidence that tb4 was ordered by dank through charter, charter went to china to get it from a factory that makes tb4 and no other thymosin, charter went to alavi and then dank picked it up from alavi - id say thats more than enough to prove that the club at least attempted to administer banned drugs...

the hole in that would be if essendon could turn around and say, actually they got x instead.... which they cant as they dont know what they were given!

NO.

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

Read rule 2: 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Read and understand what is said. Use or attempted use ....

Read rule 7: 7. Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method

Read and understand what is said. Trafficking or attempted trafficking...

Read rule 8: 8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

Read and understand what is said. Administration or attempted administration......

Go to the ADADA site and read it.

Essendon are guilty.