McDevitt made mention of Dank in his press conference - along the lines of 'tell us what you know' & 'produce the records'. Of course, Dank is at the centre of all this so McDevitt does have a point.

If WADA can place the TB4 at Essendon they might be able swing it their way in Switzerland but as has been pointed out in the above posts, it's not like the players ordered the TB4 in.

I reckon WADA/ASADA are going to need some new evidence - something along the lines of Dank admitting that he injected the players with TB4 ... what are the chances of that happening? How reliable would his testimony be and if he produced the records, could the records be believed anyway? It's not like they would have been signed off on.

If Charter spoke up as well it might help but with so many different 'supplements' involved, it would be difficult for those deciding the fate of the 34 players to be able to come up with a guilty verdict.

If the tribunal comes down really hard on Dank, he might decide to do a 'tell all' ... but ASADA only have 21 days to act and then WADA get a further 21 days after that time expires.

Yes now its all about weak links in the chain.

Ones that can be worn down and broken by an organisation like the ACA who I would imagine have a degree of interest in this miscarriage..

WADA might be able to implicate Essendon at the court of arbitration in Switzerland but not the players ... do they have the power to do that? Can they change tack?

If they can place the TB4 at Essendon and prove that Essendon imported it in as such, Essendon could be found guilty and face sanctions. We know they received sanctions from the AFL for governance issues but that wasn't a WADA ruling.

  On 01/04/2015 at 11:17, Macca said:

WADA might be able to implicate Essendon at the court of arbitration in Switzerland but not the players ... do they have the power to do that? Can they change tack?

If they can place the TB4 at Essendon and prove that Essendon imported it in as such, Essendon could be found guilty and face sanctions. We know they received sanctions from the AFL for governance issues but that wasn't a WADA ruling.

Not sure whether they can 'change tack', the current charges are against the players so it wouldn't really be by virtue of appealing this decision. I suppose if they wanted to go after the club ASADA would have to charge the club under the Code first - not sure though.

However, as for placing TB4 at Essendon, Gerard Whateley's article shows that this was ASADA's key problem - they couldn't do this because they couldn't prove to the required standard that the thing imported from China was TB4. That was one of three keys to their case (along with the TB4 being provided to Dank, and Dank then injecting it into the players). They couldn't prove it was actually TB4, in part due to the fact that their case rested on Charter, Alavi and Dank and their credibility is extremely questionable.

Amazed at how many people who had nothing much to say about the case are suddenly slapping themselves on the back and saying "I told you so".

  On 01/04/2015 at 11:21, titan_uranus said:

Not sure whether they can 'change tack', the current charges are against the players so it wouldn't really be by virtue of appealing this decision. I suppose if they wanted to go after the club ASADA would have to charge the club under the Code first - not sure though.

However, as for placing TB4 at Essendon, Gerard Whateley's article shows that this was ASADA's key problem - they couldn't do this because they couldn't prove to the required standard that the thing imported from China was TB4. That was one of three keys to their case (along with the TB4 being provided to Dank, and Dank then injecting it into the players). They couldn't prove it was actually TB4, in part due to the fact that their case rested on Charter, Alavi and Dank and their credibility is extremely questionable.

I'm thinking that ASADA step aside (done discretely of course) and WADA step in and go after the club instead (at the CAS)

First of all, are they able to do this and if they are able to do this, they'd then need to have proof that the TB4 can be placed at the club (and imported in) If what you say is true, that proof isn't there yet or at least in the tribunals eyes, it isn't there.

I believe ASADA going after the players alone is probably not going to work - unless there's new, irrefutable evidence. But then again, we haven't seen the actual findings of the tribunal yet so there may be more to this than meets the eye.

EFC werent attempting to supercharge the performance of the Bowls team

It wasn't they who signed the waivers.

You know....2+2 does = 4

Despite the PED issue being the basis of the afl tribunal, the bigger fear for Essendon in my opinion is the health of the players and future children.As essendon keep saying we dont know what the players players took but it was not harmful etc( not logical in itself) the hal hunters of world could make it interesting demanding records etc. The potential negligence case could be huge unless they keep doing weapon payouts (STFU). If the records appear thru Dank, watch this space.

  On 01/04/2015 at 06:26, beelzebub said:

And they plainly decided wrong...giving all allowances to the players and afl as opposed common sense and logic

Theyre your mates. Good for you

The tribunal was a sham

Red. Prior to the decision there was a thinking amongst many that even upon the evidence in the public domain it was almost inconceivable that the players could be exonerated. if I recall correctly your opinion was of this persuasion also.

How do YOU reconcile the outcome with what was known let alone what we didnt ?

Plainly the AFL got the decision it not only wanted but needed. Referendums are often won or more likely doomed by way of wording. I can only believe that the terms of reference given by the AFLfor this tribunal were such as to all but guarantee its preference.

Firstly they are not my mates, well one probably is.

Yes I thought they would be found guilty.

I have reconciled the outcome and posted on it on this thread. I believe the Tribunal acted according to legal principles. Just because so many are disappointed, doesn't make the Tribunal wrong.

The terms of reference are given by the Act not the AFL.

Yes the AFL got the decision it wanted, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Whately tonight quoted from the Written Decision, of which he showed a copy he was holding, God knows how he obtained it, if the Players haven't as yet agreed to release it.

Whately said that the Tribunal found as a fact, that Dank and Charters intended to give the players TB4 and that it was a banned drug.

What it couldn't find was that they actually received TB4 and used it on the players.

In other words, for example if the Chinese supplied Charters a different drug, then end of story. No one knows the answer to this. If Dank got TB4, but used it elsewhere like his clinics, using another drug on the players, end of story.

There were no positive tests of TB4, nor records, nor sworn evidence.

Therefore the Tribunal could not be comfortably satisfied that the players and each or which of them, took TB4.

Therefore I completely understand the verdict.

Hopefully you now do too.

PS :To find 34 players guilty, the Tribunal would have had to find that EVERY player took TB4 or attempted to.

  On 01/04/2015 at 11:58, Redleg said:

Just because so many are disappointed, doesn't make the Tribunal wrong.

It does in their eyes.

I'm glad the players got off. I'm glad we can, at least for the present, get on with playing footy.

I'm pizzed to the back teeth that those that administered and orchestrated this thing are anywhere other than facing criminal charges.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:06, Baghdad Bob said:

I'm pizzed to the back teeth that those that administered and orchestrated this thing are anywhere other than facing criminal charges.

You would be in the absolute majority.

  On 01/04/2015 at 06:44, Whispering_Jack said:

From what I can see, there was ample evidence

But as you've said previously you have only seen part of the evidence. I would have thought your legal training and logical thought would have led to a position of support for the tribunal who, as Redleg has so clearly pointed out, are honourable men of your profession.

After all Jack, they've seen it all and you haven't. Having said that I accept that when you have read it all (I can't understand how you have the energy) you won't change your view.

I think your apparent anger is misplaced.

But you should be angry, that I agree with.

  On 01/04/2015 at 11:58, Redleg said:

Firstly they are not my mates, well one probably is.

Yes I thought they would be found guilty.

I have reconciled the outcome and posted on it on this thread. I believe the Tribunal acted according to legal principles. Just because so many are disappointed, doesn't make the Tribunal wrong.

The terms of reference are given by the Act not the AFL.

Yes the AFL got the decision it wanted, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Whately tonight quoted from the Written Decision, of which he showed a copy he was holding, God knows how he obtained it, if the Players haven't as yet agreed to release it.

Whately said that the Tribunal found as a fact, that Dank and Charters intended to give the players TB4 and that it was a banned drug.

What it couldn't find was that they actually received TB4 and used it on the players.

In other words, for example if the Chinese supplied Charters a different drug, then end of story. No one knows the answer to this. If Dank got TB4, but used it elsewhere like his clinics, using another drug on the players, end of story.

There were no positive tests of TB4, nor records, nor sworn evidence.

Therefore the Tribunal could not be comfortably satisfied that the players and each or which of them, took TB4.

Therefore I completely understand the verdict.

Hopefully you now do too.

PS :To find 34 players guilty, the Tribunal would have had to find that EVERY player took TB4 or attempted to.

ffs you of all ppl read the code they didnt have to TAKE it

Intent was sufficient but thise clowns chose their path for whatever suited their reasons.

The act does not provide the brief or the terms of reference for the tribunal only the mechanism.

If TAKING was the bar they were sold a pup and show ignorance of the code. I cant believe theyre that stupid. So why werent they found guilty.

Not all 34 had to be...another furphy.

You seriously buying this shlt Red ?

Surely the tribunial will deliver the dank verdict in asadas appeal window , if not this really stinks and needs to be exposed as an absolute sham by the other clubs and us the fans

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:13, beelzebub said:

ffs you of all ppl read the code they didnt have to TAKE it

Intent was sufficient but thise clowns chose their path for whatever suited their reasons.

The act does not provide the brief or the terms of reference for the tribunal only the mechanism.

If TAKING was the bar they were sold a pup and show ignorance of the code. I cant believe theyre that stupid. So why werent they found guilty.

Not all 34 had to be...another furphy.

You seriously buying this shlt Red ?

Honestly bb you talk some a grade tosh. Intent? The players? Are you saying they had intent to take a banned substance. Not efc, not hird,not dank - the players. It is accepted the players had no clue what they were taking. They signed forms saying nothing was against code. Where was their intent? Lees (not his doctor, ciach, parent) attempted to import a banned substance to use. That's intent.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:28, binman said:

Lees (not his doctor, ciach, parent) attempted to import a banned substance to use.

Not quite right. Lees attempted to import a supplement - but he didn't know it contained a banned substance.

It's not like he went to Peptides-R-Us.com and ordered a vial of TB4.

The moral of the story is that if you get your coach/club to employ some dodgy guys to import your drugs from china and dont test the substance in a lab and get them to tell you its something else you can dope as much as you like.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:28, binman said:

Honestly bb you talk some a grade tosh. Intent? The players? Are you saying they had intent to take a banned substance. Not efc, not hird,not dank - the players. It is accepted the players had no clue what they were taking. They signed forms saying nothing was against code. Where was their intent? Lees (not his doctor, ciach, parent) attempted to import a banned substance to use. That's intent.

Didn't Jobe state what he took?

People may have accepted the line the players knew nothing but that doesn't make it truth.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:32, bing181 said:

Not quite right. Lees attempted to import a supplement - but he didn't know it contained a banned substance.

It's not like he went to Peptides-R-Us.com and ordered a vial of TB4.

True but that is very hard to prove. The point remains it is a completely different scenario to the efc players. Lees imported the supplement himself with the intention of ingesting it

If Essendon the club attempted (or succeeded) to take banned stuff then Essendon the club should be banned by CAS.

Do they need to ban the players if they could go the entire club?

Edit:

And as posted by a previous poster, an appeal to CAS is not limited to the evidence previously presented.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-chief-reveals-concern-that-essendon-records-may-have-been-destroyed-20150401-1mcthw.html

Another exclusive in The Age.

  Quote

"I think everybody involved is just so, so surprised at the extraordinary lack of records. My understanding with sporting bodies is that, with their supplements regimes, there's extensive documentation and you would expect to be able to find that. In this case it's just extraordinary that there is no documentation to be found. So, I have a suspicious mind and I'd love to know what happened to the records if there were records." - McDevitt

  Quote

In response to Mr McDevitt's comments, an Essendon spokesman said the AFL had forensic accounting firm Deloitte seize every computer hard drive and other records at the club as soon as it revealed it had reported its supplements program to the anti-doping authority in February 2013.

Isn't that convenient that everything was seized right after they decided to self-report to the AFL.

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/exbomber-hal-hunter-steps-up-supplements-case-against-essendon-20150401-1mcxkn.html

Reckon thatd be a fairly lay down misere case if their defence was "we have no records"

I think it's all whistling dixy, all talking sh£%&t, and really I don't care anymore, just let it go,the AFL have to make sure it never happens again.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:13, beelzebub said:

ffs you of all ppl read the code they didnt have to TAKE it

Intent was sufficient but thise clowns chose their path for whatever suited their reasons.

The act does not provide the brief or the terms of reference for the tribunal only the mechanism.

If TAKING was the bar they were sold a pup and show ignorance of the code. I cant believe theyre that stupid. So why werent they found guilty.

Not all 34 had to be...another furphy.

You seriously buying this shlt Red ?

Dank & Hird had intent..They set up the program

Which is exactly why Dank and his henchmen refuse to speak, I am disgusted the system of Anti Doping has allowed this...It makes a mockery of all Governments statements concerning the "Blackest Day in Sport"

I am sure Dank has known all along the he has had the right to remain silent and refuse to turn up to ANY hearing

The players didn't have intent...Blind Faith in Hirdy, but not intent

If WADA cannot nail Dank my interest in professional Sports will drop off very quickly.

Wouldn't it be ironic if James's kids were coached by one of the guys handing out ice pre game...