THE DRUG SCANDAL: AFL TRIBUNAL DECIDES

[John Crow Batty 8,871]

How can anyone have any faith in a trial conducted in secrecy? Even the most serious criminal trials are openly conducted. I only thought these things happened with dictatorships. No one knows the guts of the evidence presented.. So how can anyone agree with the decision in any form? The tribunal has been shown in the past to be loose with interpreting the rules when it suits the AFL. It is all sham and nothing will convince me otherwise.

[ManDee 7,162]

I agree with your point re AOD and there being a mix up, however, if the players had checked it would have come up as banned on the ASADA website.

The issue of the club giving players stuff they haven't told them about again comes back to the players responsibilities. If the players actually took responsibility and checked every substance, and signed for each substance then they may be able to claim no intent, and then sue the club for all it's worth, but they would still be guilty. Not doing this has left the players open and from the outside looks like a hatchet job at trying to make the players look innocent. If they were truly innocent then they would have taken their own responsibilities seriously.

Good point on AOD, but if the players were given copies of the WADA AOD ruling it would be different.

Very hard for a player to check the composition of every vial of drugs given to them, remember we are talking about hundreds of injections.

I find it hard arguing for the EFC players, because my gut feeling is that they are guilty. But the counter argument to a conspiracy needs to be raised, I suppose I am today's devils advocate.

[Dees2014 2,377]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

No it is not the end of story. McDevitt, one of Australia's most senior cops, and a Supreme Court judge both look at the evidence in detail and concluded differently. The AFL tribunal was set up to come to these conclusions. It will be an entirely different matter when they are reviewed by an entirely objective forum ie CAS - free from political and sporting body interference, and media pressure.

[ManDee 7,162]

How can anyone have any faith in a trial conducted in secrecy? Even the most serious criminal trials are openly conducted. I only thought these things happened with dictatorships. No one knows the guts of the evidence presented.. So how can anyone agree with the decision in any form? The tribunal has been shown in the past to be loose with interpreting the rules when it suits the AFL. It is all sham and nothing will convince me otherwise.

Or disagree for that matter.

[jnrmac 20,109]

Oh please guys it is all over it was never going to be any different.

There was never any proof of who took what or when.

Yes we all know what happened but as is quite often the case in matters of law knowing is one thing proving it is another.

Only breast beating left by Asada and Wada.

We didn;t even get your wet lettuce! THere was no lettuce at all!!

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

We didn;t even get your wet lettuce! THere was no lettuce at all!!

History rewritten already. It was a wet tram ticket (number unspecified) ... although Old Dee has used the lettuce leaf before. Maybe it transmogrified somewhere along the line.

[Chris 2,892]

Good point on AOD, but if the players were given copies of the WADA AOD ruling it would be different.

Very hard for a player to check the composition of every vial of drugs given to them, remember we are talking about hundreds of injections.

I find it hard arguing for the EFC players, because my gut feeling is that they are guilty. But the counter argument to a conspiracy needs to be raised, I suppose I am today's devils advocate.

The players don't need to check the contents of every vile, just what the substance is called. This is also where trust of the person who is giving you the drugs comes in, if they lie and give you something else then you are still guilty and face suspension, but if you were clear on what you agreed to be injected with (which the players weren't), then you could sue the pants of the person who deceived you and possibly get a shortened suspension due to the no significant fault clause.

In my view the players failed on simple due diligence and as such are as guilty as the club, or Dank.

[hardtack 10,556]

History rewritten already. It was a wet tram ticket (number unspecified) ... although Old Dee has used the lettuce leaf before. Maybe it transmogrified somewhere along the line.

a case of cos and effect.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

If I got that big that fast, I'd certainly be asking what was in the magic needles I was being prodded with.

I think the players are as liable as anyone else. If they didn't explicitly know what was in the needles, then they were just being wilfully ignorant to allow for plausible deniability.

[FireOath 290]

Hi All,

Have been lurking for a long time but the discussion around intent has got me log on and put in my two cents worth.

I think people are looking at intent too individualistically. There is too much separation put between what the club wanted to do and what the players wanted to do.

I view it like this.

The players signed on to go along with what the club were doing, with the stipulation that nothing was banned. The form they signed in a poor attempt to do this included one banned substance (AOD) and an ambiguous substance that may have been banned (Thymosin). The players simply trusted the club and Dank that these things were not banned.

By not following up with appropriate due diligence (checking with ASADA is the only option), the players have not actually shown any reasonable or responsible steps to ensure what they were being given was not banned. This shows a clear intent to do as the club wants, with no personal responsibility. It follows then that if the club intended to use banned substance (Dank is part of the club), then so did the players by association. The only way they could counter that would be for the players to have done their own checks of every substance mentioned.

Firstly, welcome.

But a quick question to throw something else in the mix, what about the other players that CHOSE not to take the injections? Doesn't that give some leverage to the argument of reasonable or responsible steps?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Barra17

[ManDee 7,162]

The players don't need to check the contents of every vile, just what the substance is called. This is also where trust of the person who is giving you the drugs comes in, if they lie and give you something else then you are still guilty and face suspension, but if you were clear on what you agreed to be injected with (which the players weren't), then you could sue the pants of the person who deceived you and possibly get a shortened suspension due to the no significant fault clause.

In my view the players failed on simple due diligence and as such are as guilty as the club, or Dank.

So if Dank has the vials labelled Thymosin, what do the players do?

The players are then only guilty if there is a positive test (no test exists for TB4) or if they intended to take an illegal substance and Thymosin is not illegal (or beneficial).

The club has been very clever, it will in my opinion be their downfall. The club still intended to administer PED's they are guilty. And also the long term effects to the players and ongoing and future legal stoushes.

[Chris 2,892]

Firstly, welcome.

But a quick question to throw something else in the mix, what about the other players that CHOSE not to take the injections? Doesn't that give some leverage to the argument of reasonable or responsible steps?

The players not being involved, which as far as we know is one as the others players may have been injected but couldn't be linked to TB4, only adds to the question of why the players who were injected didn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves.

[Chris 2,892]

So if Dank has the vials labelled Thymosin, what do the players do?

The players are then only guilty if there is a positive test (no test exists for TB4) or if they intended to take an illegal substance and Thymosin is not illegal (or beneficial).

The club has been very clever, it will in my opinion be their downfall. The club still intended to administer PED's they are guilty. And also the long term effects to the players and ongoing and future legal stoushes.

If the players had done their checks and Dank said this is Thymosin, then they should have refused to have the injection. Thymosin is ambiguous in its meaning and could well be TB4. If you go to the ASADA site and plug in Thymosin it asks for more information. If Dank was saying Thymosin then the players should have been asking for more information. They should also have known exactly what he was giving them.

The players needed to know what each thing was to the degree that they could be satisfied by ASADA that is what not banned. Their own waiver shows they did not take this measure. That is why I argue they had intent.

[ManDee 7,162]

If the players had done their checks and Dank said this is Thymosin, then they should have refused to have the injection. Thymosin is ambiguous in its meaning and could well be TB4. If you go to the ASADA site and plug in Thymosin it asks for more information. If Dank was saying Thymosin then the players should have been asking for more information. They should also have known exactly what he was giving them.

The players needed to know what each thing was to the degree that they could be satisfied by ASADA that is what not banned. Their own waiver shows they did not take this measure. That is why I argue they had intent.

Chris fastest to 5 posts?

Today's ASADA site is different to 2011/2012 as is the WADA site. Example AOD9604

I agree that the players should have sought more information. But if a program of misinformation was undertaken by the club you can understand the pressure for the players to go along. Why would you not trust the club? Perhaps some players did have misgivings, who knows?

Imagine the club plans a PED program where senior management are kept in the dark (plausible deniability) the players are lied to. All records are destroyed. A legal firewall is placed around key protagonists. Sound familiar, I think it likely that was Essendon's plan from the outset in case the shlt hit the fan. So far it is working.

[Chris 2,892]

Chris fastest to 5 posts?

Today's ASADA site is different to 2011/2012 as is the WADA site. Example AOD9604

I agree that the players should have sought more information. But if a program of misinformation was undertaken by the club you can understand the pressure for the players to go along. Why would you not trust the club? Perhaps some players did have misgivings, who knows?

Imagine the club plans a PED program where senior management are kept in the dark (plausible deniability) the players are lied to. All records are destroyed. A legal firewall is placed around key protagonists. Sound familiar, I think it likely that was Essendon's plan from the outset in case the shlt hit the fan. So far it is working.

Probably fastest to 5, haha. I tend to not stop on this as it pi55e5 me off that much!

I don't disagree with what you are saying, except around the players. I went through ASADA training many moons ago (mid 90's) and still remember it being made clear to trust no one, even checking prescriptions from your GP, as you are responsible, and the only cover you have is the receipt of your conversation with ASADA (there was no internet portal then). If this wasn't drilled into the players then the training is wrong. Each player should check every substance themselves with ASADA and the clubs should be encouraging/enforcing this. If the clubs aren't then my suspicions rise.

I also don't think this is only an Essendon player problem, it is across the board, including Melbourne, we only dodged a bullet due to the confusion with AOD!

[ManDee 7,162]

Probably fastest to 5, haha. I tend to not stop on this as it pi55e5 me off that much!

I don't disagree with what you are saying, except around the players. I went through ASADA training many moons ago (mid 90's) and still remember it being made clear to trust no one, even checking prescriptions from your GP, as you are responsible, and the only cover you have is the receipt of your conversation with ASADA (there was no internet portal then). If this wasn't drilled into the players then the training is wrong. Each player should check every substance themselves with ASADA and the clubs should be encouraging/enforcing this. If the clubs aren't then my suspicions rise.

I also don't think this is only an Essendon player problem, it is across the board, including Melbourne, we only dodged a bullet due to the confusion with AOD!

Remember, no positive tests for the players, no proof that they took anything. No proof of intent to take anything illegal.

The outcome was predictable given the facts.

As I said I still think that they took TB4 and possibly other illegal PED's.

Stay angry Chris, hopefully they will be found guilty in the end. Get the EFC first is my feeling. Ban the cheats.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

Hi,

Long time reader first time poster.

I agree with Chris. The players are fully responsible for what goes in their body. No ifs no buts. Doesn't even matter what the club doctor says. They need to check with ASADA.

I am guessing that they get told this from very early on.

[ManDee 7,162]

Hi,

Long time reader first time poster.

I agree with Chris. The players are fully responsible for what goes in their body. No ifs no buts. Doesn't even matter what the club doctor says. They need to check with ASADA.

I am guessing that they get told this from very early on.

Welcome DIITD.

What went into their bodies? Please provide proof source not innuendo.

There is no evidence of anything going into their bodies.

Edit: That is the problem. Those vials may have been placebo's.

Edited April 2, 2015 by ManDee

[Chris 2,892]

Welcome DIITD.

What went into their bodies? Please provide proof source not innuendo.

There is no evidence of anything going into their bodies.

Edit: That is the problem. Those vials may have been placebo's.

That is why in comes down to intent, you and I differ on intent. Under my opinion of what is intent the whole list who signed up to the program should be done, if you can show the program intended to inject banned drugs. Unless the players can show the took reasonable steps to insure things were not banned, then they intended to follow the program.

[deanox 9,945]

Got to love an active discussion without personal insults.

Yes, "Theres no requirement that they knew it to be prohibited. Only that it is and they intended to use it"

But that ignores the possibility that they were told one drug (legal) and given another (illegal drug). In that case they did not intend to use a prohibited drug. They intended to use a legal drug. Then it falls to a positive test, If positive they are guilty under a different rule.

This isn't true at all.

They are responsible for everything that goes into their bodies, even if it was put there by someone else.

The code gets blurry here because it talks about how the decision to rely on any medical or sport staff is a decision made by the athlete and they are responsible for what their doctor does (I.e. choose your own doctor). But obviously in afl you don't get to choose your own doctor.

What you do get to do though is go and rub a Google search, or ask you manager to call asada and check, the nans of all the drugs on the waiver form to do your own due diligence.

None of the players did this.

They are responsible and they took no responsibility. I don't believe a positive test is needed. Ignorance is not a defence.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

Thanks ManDee,

Not arguing if something went into there body. (No Evidence - Paper Shedder)

Just saying that it if something was administered into their body. No matter who did it, or who proscribed it. They are need to check with ASADA that it isn't illegal.

[Redleg 40,989]

Not questioning any of this Mr Leg but where are these findings reported? Has a full judgement been leaked and summarised somewhere?

Whately waived a copy in front of the camera on 360 last night.

[Redleg 40,989]

No it is not the end of story. McDevitt, one of Australia's most senior cops, and a Supreme Court judge both look at the evidence in detail and concluded differently. The AFL tribunal was set up to come to these conclusions. It will be an entirely different matter when they are reviewed by an entirely objective forum ie CAS - free from political and sporting body interference, and media pressure.

I meant end of story as to how they came to that conclusion, not that it wouldn't go further.

[Willmoy1947 4,104]

There is no conceivable way on this planet that those records on those premises would have gone missing without intent...

[deanox 9,945]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

Whately waived a copy in front of the camera on 360 last night.

Redleg have you read a copy or have some inside information? Because your recent set of statements appear to contradict what I understood from reports thus far.

I had read that they were satisfied tb4 was ordered and compounded and provided to Dank.

That they were satisfied that "good thymosin" or thymoddulin was never on premises.

But they weren't satisfied whether the tb4 was used at Essendon by Dank or in his private clinic etc.

Also my understanding is that there were receipts of Essendon paying for some of these drugs? (Not sure if tb4 specific)

And also that 11 of the 34 admitted in the interviews to being injected with "thymosin but I don't know any more about it (I.e. tb4 or alpha etc.)".

If these last statements are true, I don't know how we could come to a "not enough evidence argument". Can you provide other thoughts?

Also, based on your statements you seem quite categorical that there was no evidence of most things. Do you have any thoughts as to how this got though mcdevitt and the supreme Court judge and why it took 7 (?) days to present?

Finally, does this mean you believe there will be no appeal by ASADA or WADA?

Edited April 2, 2015 by deanox