That's not how it works. To be found guilty of use or intending to use, you don't need to know that what you intend to use contains a banned substance.

The players got off because the tribunal weren't convinced that the "TB4" they were injected with was actually TB4.

Without a blood test (or similar), how would they ever prove that what was injected was actually X unless someone spills the beans, or (foolishly) records of X are kept.

Sounds like a license to use drugs for which no test has yet been developed, especially if a club's managers are prepared to lie to the players.

Without a blood test (or similar), how would they ever prove that what was injected was actually X unless someone spills the beans, or (foolishly) records of X are kept.

Sounds like a license to use drugs for which no test has yet been developed, especially if a club's managers are prepared to lie to the players.

Exactly.

Which is why programs like the Blood Passport scheme have been introduced, but also why cases without positive tests can be difficult to prove - as we've just seen.

Further to my previous post about australian Olympic athletes attitudes to the ESSENDON saga, where these links didn't work, I think they will now. Even though the articles aren't the latest, they do demonstrate the one rule for the wealthy and another for the also rans. Not everyone agrees with ABBOTT and Hird, thank goodness. I particularly like the last one. Absolutely spot on if you ask me. Says it all, and particularly says why there is no way known that these guys can get off in the face of CAS if everyone is treated equally globally, which is what WADA's job is.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-saga-shows-we-need-to-change-protocol-20130831-2sxoy.html

http://www.therunningreview.com/2013/06/19/athlete-qa-tamsyn-lewis-manou/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/play-it-straight-and-take-the-medicine/story-fni0fhh1-1226703731898

Further to my previous post about australian Olympic athletes attitudes to the ESSENDON saga, where these links didn't work, I think they will now. Even though the articles aren't the latest, they do demonstrate the one rule for the wealthy and another for the also fans. No everyone agrees with ABBOTT and Hird, thank goodness.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-saga-shows-we-need-to-change-protocol-20130831-2sxoy.html

http://www.therunningreview.com/2013/06/19/athlete-qa-tamsyn-lewis-manou/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/play-it-straight-and-take-the-medicine/story-fni0fhh1-1226703731898

If it ends here '2014, I suspect the clamour from other sports will become a din, which is why you're probably right about WADA taking on the case. It's certainly about much more than 34 players now.

Anyone want to have a stab at how long it will take to get to the CAS?

Anyone want to have a stab at how long it will take to get to the CAS?

3-6 months maybe as a guess

Not sure if this has been mentioned, the Social Litigator comments on the decision/appeal. Interesting read for anyone interested:

A question of proof: might an ASADA appeal have legs?

"Consider this: Those teammates who testified to taking a banned substance (c.f. participating in a banned practice such as blood doping) could not know that the substance they took was EPO. Instead, they thought it was.

Now consider this: Evidence which to USADA was so compelling it was overwhelming, might fail to satisfy the AFL Tribunal, according to its reasons published to date.

So too, whilst this evidence met the standard of beyond reasonable doubt (the highest criminal standard) for USADA, for the AFL Tribunal, such evidence might not even reach the lesser comfortable satisfaction test."

Not sure if this has been mentioned, the Social Litigator comments on the decision/appeal. Interesting read for anyone interested:

A question of proof: might an ASADA appeal have legs?

"Consider this: Those teammates who testified to taking a banned substance (c.f. participating in a banned practice such as blood doping) could not know that the substance they took was EPO. Instead, they thought it was.

Now consider this: Evidence which to USADA was so compelling it was overwhelming, might fail to satisfy the AFL Tribunal, according to its reasons published to date.

So too, whilst this evidence met the standard of beyond reasonable doubt (the highest criminal standard) for USADA, for the AFL Tribunal, such evidence might not even reach the lesser comfortable satisfaction test."

Thanks Bing. It's pretty much as Jack has been saying all along, though the article also provides plenty of other things to think about.

Although I probably should have added that it's a bit disconcerting to realise that every time I buy a packet of Panadeine from the chemist, and without testing each and every tablet, I can only ever have the confidence of believing it's Panadeine. Lucky we have the placebo effect to keep all those drugs working.

Thanks Bing. It's pretty much as Jack has been saying all along, though the article also provides plenty of other things to think about.

I think she's nailed it.

From the first time I read those parts of the decision that were released, I felt there was a lack of logical consistency in the decision-making of the Tribunal which led me to think that the test it applied was not that enunciated in the Briginshaw case. Enough for me to believe that an appeal was available and that WADA should take it to CAS so that the case can be determined in accordance with the way the anti doping laws are meant to be dealt with and not in accordance with the black letter of our common law.

It was said above that two members of the Tribunal played AFL football and that this was somehow an advantage in reaching a decision. Buffoons like Sam Newman are applauding the verdict but I disagree with that view entirely.

Borrowed from Bigfooty

Comment on Dank's "qualifications"!

(Has anybody here tried to make an appointment with a endocrinologist? The real ones are are very busy people!)

whatsthego said: ↑

gee you make some good pints there-- hows these for answers?
Dank is a biochemist/sports scientist-- same amount of college time-- but fair enough-- OK he wasn't a doctor-- i didn't even know that-- still they trusted him, as a person-as a professional - who was highly qualified
the fact they went to the club is just what they thought was right to do

......................................................................

anoncomment said:

I'm late to the party on this piece of nonsense. To become a doctor in the position of practicing independently, one must complete a minimum of 5 years of university, and 4 years of postgraduate training. If we're talking a specialist physician, the only person I would trust to have sufficient expertise in an area as complex as endocrinology, they must do a minimum of 5 years university, 1 year of internship, 3 years of basic physician training, 3 years of advanced training, and likely a year-long fellowship. That comes to a minimum of 13 years, just to get your foot in the door. This compares to Dank's 3 year undergraduate degree, and an incomplete Master's degree. After this he pursued a career selling dodgy genetic testing to gullible sporting teams. He is a pseudo-scientist. He's a shill, a snake-oil salesman, a charlatan.

. . . Dank was apparently well enough qualified for Hird to turn him loose on the playing list!!

......................................................................

anoncomment said:

I'm late to the party on this piece of nonsense. To become a doctor in the position of practicing independently, one must complete a minimum of 5 years of university, and 4 years of postgraduate training. If we're talking a specialist physician, the only person I would trust to have sufficient expertise in an area as complex as endocrinology, they must do a minimum of 5 years university, 1 year of internship, 3 years of basic physician training, 3 years of advanced training, and likely a year-long fellowship. That comes to a minimum of 13 years, just to get your foot in the door. This compares to Dank's 3 year undergraduate degree, and an incomplete Master's degree. After this he pursued a career selling dodgy genetic testing to gullible sporting teams. He is a pseudo-scientist. He's a shill, a snake-oil salesman, a charlatan.

. . . Dank was apparently well enough qualified for Hird to turn him loose on the playing list!!

Dank's qualifications are a bit of a mystery to say the least and as subject to mythologising as anything else to do with this whole saga. A while ago I came across some Essendonian claiming that he (Dank) has 50 published biochemistry papers so I went to Google Scholar and did a search. Nothing. Not by Dank anyway (although I did give up after about five pages). A few papers mentioning Dank and the Cronulla/Essendon cases, but that was all. Still, he tells us he's the expert and who are we to disagree.

Dank's qualifications are a bit of a mystery to say the least and as subject to mythologising as anything else to do with this whole saga. A while ago I came across some Essendonian claiming that he (Dank) has 50 published biochemistry papers so I went to Google Scholar and did a search. Nothing. Not by Dank anyway (although I did give up after about five pages). A few papers mentioning Dank and the Cronulla/Essendon cases, but that was all. Still, he tells us he's the expert and who are we to disagree.

Indeed!

i just got it

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it's not a duck unless you have a certified dna test

must remember next time i go to colonel sandes kentucky chicken

Social Litigator article has been updated, has more background material and some interesting input/comments.

http://sociallitigator.com/2015/04/03/a-question-of-proof-might-an-asada-appeal-have-legs/

i just got it

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it's not a duck unless you have a certified dna test

must remember next time i go to colonel sandes kentucky chicken

It looks, quacks and waddles like a duck so it's a . . . Giraffe??

I think she's nailed it.

From the first time I read those parts of the decision that were released, I felt there was a lack of logical consistency in the decision-making of the Tribunal which led me to think that the test it applied was not that enunciated in the Briginshaw case. Enough for me to believe that an appeal was available and that WADA should take it to CAS so that the case can be determined in accordance with the way the anti doping laws are meant to be dealt with and not in accordance with the black letter of our common law.

It was said above that two members of the Tribunal played AFL football and that this was somehow an advantage in reaching a decision. Buffoons like Sam Newman are applauding the verdict but I disagree with that view entirely.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Tribunal seemed to think that proving to their comfortable satisfaction that they players believed they took TB4 and that they actually took TB4 were significantly different conclusions. In particular, the second was not shown to their comfortable satisfaction, but I am unclear what they thought about the first. The Social Litigator article seemed to imply that the basis of the appeal could be that they only need to be comfortably satisfied that the players believed they took TB4, not that they actually did.

FWIW Jack, if Sam Newman is in favour, then I am generally against it, whatever it is ...

i just got it

if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it's not a duck unless you have a certified dna test

must remember next time i go to colonel sandes kentucky chicken

IIRC there was a time when that mob could legally serve rabbit as chicken. Somehow, duck would be preferable for me ...

Also, you probably don't want to know the reason why a certain other company refers to thick shakes rather than milk shakes ...

Tomorrow's headlines today:

Bombers blame loss on Airport "sniffer" dogs, border security full of labour stooges claims Hird!

Jab and the injectors simple ran out of the good stuff.

The match stats from the Essendon v Sydney game were an interesting read..

Appeals Board could sway an ASADA challenge, says lawyer

I don't agree with an appeal to any place other than to CAS which is really the only place where you're going to get finality and a proper interpretation in a legal framework of the events that occurred at Essendon in 2011/2 as we know them at the present time.

Glad I taped the Swans/Bombers game from last night.

What a dramatic transformation from the commentators blathering on at half time about Essendon's "Cinderella" story to the end result and a win to Sydney?

In the first half it was all about Essendon winning because it was letting out the pent up frustration of the ASADA investigation and when it all went wrong, they blamed the lack of a proper preparation. I blame it on having a pathetic coach. Bomber Thompson would have known how to stop the run on.

Herald Sun are such a disgrace,,, a day after violent protests across Australia, their front page story and picture is of that fat dope Jobe Watsons ugly mug

That rag couldnt be any more pro-Bombers if it tried

Appeals Board could sway an ASADA challenge, says lawyer

I know this has been raised many times, but this para really gets me:

In terms of new evidence, Dank has said he has detailed records of the 2012 injecting program but has yet to present these to any investigation.

So despite him having evidence that proves the players innocent he has let them be dragged through the dirt for 2 years by not presenting it.

Yet the media still go to that $#^%# for comments.