THE DRUG SCANDAL: AFL TRIBUNAL DECIDES

[John Crow Batty 8,826]

Didnt Worksafe fine Grocon some pitifully small amount like 50k for killing a few civilians who were simply walking along a city street when a wall collapsed?

They wont do anything to Essendon, they area soft corrupt joke

Yeah, if Worksafe investigate and find them guilty, the fine will be likely easily covered by a couple of tin rattles. No suspensions, sacking or lost PP's here. The only hope for justice is WADA taking over the prosecution. There will be less chance of meddling by vested interests for outcomes in the international arena. Edited April 1, 2015 by america de cali

[beelzebub 23,249]

Just reading between the lines, this is just going to be a long exercise.

Essendon played the long game hoping for a favorable outcome - which they now THINK they have.

But the long game ends with WADA, and the end result is the same. It hasn't changed, it will always remain the same.

Essendon have continued to buy time, every action they have taken has been about delaying the inevitable.

WADA has the last word, and the AFL will not be final arbiter's of the end result - a court will be. Nothing has changed.

Essendon just buy themselves time, as they have done throughout this whole process.

and in so doing mitigate the damage done to the4 playing stocks whilst firmly giving the Bird to all and sundry and playing Gil the Dill and mates with contemptuous glee.

No wonder WADA want to review this whole debacle. I expect sweeping changes to their protocols as a result.

[beelzebub 23,249]

A day on, and still feel somewhat empty in response to the decision.

Some great points/posts above. We do not have clarity, and we do not have closure, though I accept that the tribunal was bound to come to the decision they did, given the difficulty with Charter and Alavi's evidence.

Suspect that the AFL's greatest impact on the next revision of the WADA code will not be adjustments for team sports, but a rewrite where not being able to produce records of what you've been injected with will become a doping offence.

This HAS to become the default position . No records...you're done.. No receipts, you're done. The use of non -qualified people ...you're done. No sign off from your own medico's....you're done

[Sir Why You Little 36,740]

and in so doing mitigate the damage done to the4 playing stocks whilst firmly giving the Bird to all and sundry and playing Gil the Dill and mates with contemptuous glee.

No wonder WADA want to review this whole debacle. I expect sweeping changes to their protocols as a result.

As each year passes 1-2 of the little guinea pigs drop off out of the nest

I hope WADA act as quick as possible, they must already have begun to some capacity

Edited April 1, 2015 by Sir Why You Little

[titan_uranus 24,912]

Give it a rest TU. Clearly WJ meant the technicality of not getting the statements signed or being able to compel those jokers to give evidence. Are you suggesting the statements were a work of fiction?

I have no idea what was in the statements and I have no idea whether Charter and/or Alavi might be the kinds of people to take to lying (could well be a possibility given their shady pasts).

But it's not a 'technicality' when you don't have enough evidence. ASADA didn't have enough. It remains to be seen whether sworn statements from Charter and Alavi would be enough on their own to get the job done.

I think we need to stop slamming the Tribunal.

I know all three personally and they are honourable and learned men.

They decided on the evidence before them and it was as they said not persuasive enough to find guilt.

That is not their fault.

I could imagine their private feelings on the matter may not be in line with their decision which was based on the law.

Incidentally 2 of them are former footballers and would have an idea how football clubs work and the pressure for footballers to comply with directions, from their Coaches/Administration.

Agreed.

The vitriol being spewed towards them is so incredibly unfounded and misguided (e.g. linking them to Jill Meagher's death).

You're kidding, right.

From what I can see, there was ample evidence but the Tribunal in its wisdom decided that they weren't prepared to accept that the evidence presented was sufficient for them to conclude to their comfortable satisfaction what was ingested into the systems of the players and the reason for them reaching that conclusion was the fact that the likes of Charter and Alavi refused to sign off on statements they had already made to the investigators. I look forward to reading their 100 page plus decision but, based on what I've read, I personally am in no doubt that the players were (among other things) given TB4 and that an appeal by WADA to CAS would have a strong chance of succeeding. In other words, it was open to the Tribunal members to come to their decision but I believe they were not only wrong but have done the sport a great disservice.

Kidding about what?

We have all seen snippets of evidence and pieces of the reasons but we haven't seen the whole thing, nor have any of us been privy to how it was presented in the Tribunal. You also don't know that the reason was solely the refusal of people to swear their statements. As I said, have a look at Jake Niall's article. He claims that another issue was that, if ASADA was right, the amount of TB-4 injected exceeded the amount that was brought in from China. That doesn't add up. He also notes that there was a real issue as to whether it was TB-4 or some other thing called TB 500, based in part on the evidence of the scientist. The charge was use of TB-4, so if there was a real debate as to whether it was this other thing, obviously there was some doubt that must have begun to creep in.

The only people who heard and saw all the evidence were the Tribunal members. Unlike biased football supporters who hate Essendon, they were in the best position to decide whether the charges were made out. If, as you admit, it was open to the Tribunal to come to their decision, then by definition the decision can't have been 'wrong'. It might not be what you wanted, though.

You only need to look at people's reactions to McDevitt's press conference to see what the underlying problem is. People hate Essendon and wanted the players to be suspended because that destroys Essendon. McDevitt slammed Essendon, not the players, and people loved it. I mean, look at McDevitt's words himself. He focuses on the club ('it was not a supplements program. It was an injections regime' - irrelevant to the players and the charges). He even starts moving towards sympathy for the very players he charged! ('The absolutely deplorable and disgraceful lack of records of these injections means we still have young men not knowing what was injected into them'). The misguided focus of most at the verdict is that Essendon has escaped (reinforced by the disgust most have for Essendon people and supporters talking about 'vindication'), which annoys people. Unfortunately, Essendon wasn't charged, the players were.

[bing181 9,117]

I'm not sure WADA will weigh in on this, even though CAS is a separate court. If the evidence to join all those dots just isn't solid enough now, hard to see how it would be in the future.

Hope I'm wrong.

[bing181 9,117]

But it's not a 'technicality' when you don't have enough evidence. ASADA didn't have enough.

He also notes that there was a real issue as to whether it was TB-4 or some other thing called TB 500, based in part on the evidence of the scientist.

- It would appear that ASADA had enough, but didn't have enough accepted or given enough weight. A subtle difference, but in many people's eyes, an important one.

- TB500 is just a "commercial" version of TB-4. Same substance ... or is supposed to be (which is once again, where the argument becomes about "proof" and lack of ...).

[beelzebub 23,249]

I'm not sure WADA will weigh in on this, even though CAS is a separate court. If the evidence to join all those dots just isn't solid enough now, hard to see how it would be in the future.

Hope I'm wrong.

all depends on who's charged with joining the dots ?? and what 'weight' a pencil you're given

[titan_uranus 24,912]

- It would appear that ASADA had enough, but didn't have enough accepted or given enough weight. A subtle difference, but in many people's eyes, an important one.

- TB500 is just a "commercial" version of TB-4. Same substance ... or is supposed to be (which is once again, where the argument becomes about "proof" and lack of ...).

'Appear' based on select leaked pieces of information. Again, we have to wait and see. As for not being given weight or accepted, sometimes evidence is given less weight because it's unreliable, and that doesn't just apply to Charter and Alavi. Who knows what other evidence ASADA led that the Tribunal queried or questioned, for some reason?

At any rate, evidence that can't be accepted doesn't really do anything. If ASADA had a tonne of evidence but it was all flawed and got thrown out (not what happened here of course), then that's the same as having no evidence. They only discharge their burden by presenting evidence that actually stands up.

I think the issue with TB 500 is that it wasn't the alleged substance. ASADA can't just say 'they took something' and get by on that.

[beelzebub 23,249]

'Appear' based on select leaked pieces of information. Again, we have to wait and see. As for not being given weight or accepted, sometimes evidence is given less weight because it's unreliable, and that doesn't just apply to Charter and Alavi. Who knows what other evidence ASADA led that the Tribunal queried or questioned, for some reason?

At any rate, evidence that can't be accepted doesn't really do anything. If ASADA had a tonne of evidence but it was all flawed and got thrown out (not what happened here of course), then that's the same as having no evidence. They only discharge their burden by presenting evidence that actually stands up.

I think the issue with TB 500 is that it wasn't the alleged substance. ASADA can't just say 'they took something' and get by on that.

no one needs to prove they TOOK anything

[DeeSpencer 24,947]

no one needs to prove they TOOK anything

I think they did. It seems inconclusive that it was the banned Thymosin in Dank's possession, but even then the link to which if any players took it was tentative. If the Essendon players had imported the stuff or had gone to the clinic to get the stuff it wouldn't matter so much. But as the Essendon players didn't go anywhere for any particular purpose it's not enough to just cover them all with it. That's my understanding of the 2 biggest cracks in the ASADA case.

[DeeSpencer 24,947]

Anyway, no more AFL tribunals please.

There needs to be an Australian sports tribunal set up to hear all cases with totally independent staff and it needs to be given the proper powers to summons people to give evidence.

ASADA on one side prosecuting. The guilty parting on the other side. The sporting body can sit in and witness the evidence and be given a copy of results but this notion of them setting up the tribunal is just foolish.

[Gorgoroth 12,757]

So dank, charter and Alavi all thought they were buying and compounding TB-4

But they can't say what it was...

Bring on CAS.

[beelzebub 23,249]

I think they did. It seems inconclusive that it was the banned Thymosin in Dank's possession, but even then the link to which if any players took it was tentative. If the Essendon players had imported the stuff or had gone to the clinic to get the stuff it wouldn't matter so much. But as the Essendon players didn't go anywhere for any particular purpose it's not enough to just cover them all with it. That's my understanding of the 2 biggest cracks in the ASADA case.

no they dont... read the Wada code

and there's Nothing inconclusive about TB4 at all...dont buy into it GRRM

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Wade Lees was suspended for the "attempted use of a prohibited substance".

Can someone explain to me why this "attempted" does not apply to Essendon?

[beelzebub 23,249]

Wade Lees was suspended for the "attempted use of a prohibited substance".

Can someone explain to me why this "attempted" does not apply to Essendon?

go ask the 3 supposed learned ones !!

[beelzebub 23,249]

So dank, charter and Alavi all thought they were buying and compounding TB-4

But they can't say what it was...

Bring on CAS.

I agree the Bullshlt meter goes in the red and maxs out !!

[Flying Cloud 152]

Essendon and by and large their supporters have not learnt a thing.

What we continue to hear is " We had an out of control drug program, BUT...", or "We should have done better" BUT...." They always have a BUT at the end.

BUT ASADA has taken too long, BUT the AFL made us self report, BUT all the other clubs were doing it, BUT all the the other clubs supporters are picking on us, BUT the evidence was collected illegally, BUT the players are innocent pawns.

I listened to Little and Hird yesterday. Little actually sounded contrite in his prepared statement. However as soon as the questions started he reverted to form. Hird didn't even wait until the questions started "I am sorry BUT......"

Well perhaps we might not be so down on Essendon and supporters if they just stood up and said

"We did the wrong thing we are sorry. What we did was totally wrong. We accept that we were very lucky to penalized as little as we were. NO BUTS."

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Didnt Worksafe fine Grocon some pitifully small amount like 50k for killing a few civilians who were simply walking along a city street when a wall collapsed?

They wont do anything to Essendon, they area soft corrupt joke

Didnt Worksafe fine Grocon some pitifully small amount like 50k for killing a few civilians who were simply walking along a city street when a wall collapsed?

They wont do anything to Essendon, they area soft corrupt joke

WorkSafe investigate workplace practises and come down harshly where unsafe practises lead to death or injury of employees. The Grocon incident killed a 3rd party not an employee. The penalty would be legal liability not worksafe.

[picket fence 16,806]

Just reading between the lines, this is just going to be a long exercise.

Essendon played the long game hoping for a favorable outcome - which they now THINK they have.

But the long game ends with WADA, and the end result is the same. It hasn't changed, it will always remain the same.

Essendon have continued to buy time, every action they have taken has been about delaying the inevitable.

WADA has the last word, and the AFL will not be final arbiter's of the end result - a court will be. Nothing has changed.

Essendon just buy themselves time, as they have done throughout this whole process.

And dya know what The AFL have acted very smartly with this!! They have deflected the obvious decision knowing that WADA and ASADA will immediately smell a rat and launch an appeal, Thus leaving the AFL not holding the Baby!!

Smart thinking BUT Mud still sticks!!

[rjay 24,678]

I think they did. It seems inconclusive that it was the banned Thymosin in Dank's possession, but even then the link to which if any players took it was tentative. If the Essendon players had imported the stuff or had gone to the clinic to get the stuff it wouldn't matter so much. But as the Essendon players didn't go anywhere for any particular purpose it's not enough to just cover them all with it. That's my understanding of the 2 biggest cracks in the ASADA case.

Wade Lees was suspended for the "attempted use of a prohibited substance".

Can someone explain to me why this "attempted" does not apply to Essendon?

I think 'George' has explained it well. Lees ordered the stuff and it can be directly linked to him. The EFC players didn't order it and the tribunal couldn't make a 100% certain link that the players used what it appears Dank had ordered.

Look, I reckon they used it but proving it to the satisfaction of the tribunal was the problem. It will be interesting to see the evidence if it is ever released.

It should also be interesting to see how the CAS view the evidence if it gets that far.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I think 'George' has explained it well. Lees ordered the stuff and it can be directly linked to him. The EFC players didn't order it and the tribunal couldn't make a 100% certain link that the players used what it appears Dank had ordered.

Look, I reckon they used it but proving it to the satisfaction of the tribunal was the problem. It will be interesting to see the evidence if it is ever released.

It should also be interesting to see how the CAS view the evidence if it gets that far.

That makes sense, I thought that might have been the case.

[biggestred 4,850]

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/asada-failed-to-prosecute-bombers-due-to-mystery-over-prohibited-drug-thymosin-beta-4/story-e6frf3e3-1227288292492

According to this, the tribunal didnt believe to the standard necessary that the substance from china was TB4.

[Deecisive 1,709]

This case has been difficult for ASADA to prosecute due to the inside leaking by the AFL to Essendon to newspapers, well to everyone. The stupid ALF stunt of letting the cat out of the bag and the passing of inside information to Essendon (most likely from the head of the AFL) give Essendon advance notice of the investigation perhaps before ASADA was ready, they may have had a few more phone taps and other things to assist their case.

Funny so many injections and the players did not ask what they were being injected with, etc... that the club was happy to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this program while not understanding ever the most basic aspects of it, yet at the same time james hird and a couple of other have asked for some anti-aging injections

I personally do not believe their are no records, just no records found. Danks is supposed to be a sport scientist, this means keeping thorough records so he can tweak his drugs and write up how good he is etc... I suspect he kept them pretty close to his chest and walked away with them. If he had any sense he would still have a copy somewhere just in case he needed them not to come out again.

WADA has had to let ASADA run the case with the AFL, and while ASADA was poor leaving to the AFL alone would have been far worse, or at least finished with a not guilt verdict 2 years earlier.

I don't know the 3 amigos who heard the evidence but could not or did not believe the dots joined, but I suspect they are as someone said old school, everything must be perfectly aligned or else. This is not a court of law but a sporting tribunal so the level of proof is far less than a court would require.

WADA is now faced with a real challenge against their authority and the honesty of the system. To allow Essendon to thumb their nose at the anti-doping authority sends the wrong message to all the little sports clubs etc everywhere, where they will try on the Essendon excuses to their local authorities to escape penalties. I suspect ASADA will be asked to let it go through to the keeper where WADA will pick it up. WADA will bring in better qualified people to go over what there is in the way of evidence and take it to the sports tribunal, where it is up to the players etc to prove they are not guilty, anything charters and co have written will be used in evidence against them and it will be up to Danks, charters and co to prove otherwise.

The essendon players are all now known. If the tribunal had found them guilty and given them a 4 week suspension probably backdated then maybe WADA would not pursue it, but because of the not guilt WADA needs to follow up and the punishment they will be meting out will most likely be far more stringent than the afl. In the mean time we have an ex player going at the club for data and records, etc.. it will be interesting to see how soon they settle with him, maybe he wants to study in france for a year or so..

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

Wade Lees was suspended for the "attempted use of a prohibited substance".

Can someone explain to me why this "attempted" does not apply to Essendon?

Because he didn't do it in a tent