SYL i think this is the case. Ive always thought he would have to have a set/copy of what he was doing. He would want to know....he is after all a Scientist ( lol )

exactly.

Contacts, Networks, Follow up Working arrangements. He will have detailed records stored somewhere. Up till now he has not been compelled to show them.

I hope WADA/CAS have more clout.

SYL i think this is the case. Ive always thought he would have to have a set/copy of what he was doing. He would want to know....he is after all a Scientist ( lol )

He has publicly said he has records of the program.

He has publicly said he has records of the program.

he has publicly said many things......all of which should be taken with a grain of salt.....lol

he has publicly said many things......all of which should be taken with a grain of salt.....lol

I agree ..anything he says is rubbery but that in and of itself doesnt preclude the notion that he would have wanted/needed a record of his 'experimentations" How else can you draw results, modify etc.. You need to no what went in and outcomes. Thats how it works..methodology requires records. Matters not whether your dDr Evil or Curie.. the way of doing things is still pretty much the same !!

I do.

He's (Robson) been very smart to move on 'jnrmac'. I think he probably has questions to answer but he's got good relationships with the media and handles himself particularly well.

Whilst not the best of circumstances by a long way he wouldn't have had the long term personal relationship that Evans had that's made life very difficult post EFC for him (Evans).

I would have thought it could potentially be a dangerous ploy by Hird, i'm sure Robson would have some information WADA wouldn't mind getting their hands on

yeah...... but Hird is SOooooooooooo clever !!!!

Whatley is and always has been my very favorite sports commentator and caller. A class act who knows his stuff and says what he means.

Well done.

Generally YES...but for a while he went off with the fairies and seemed to go along with some fanyboy ideals. Hes obviously 'woken' up again..Interesting...He wont be alone in finding a realignment back to the 'truth'

SO many though run with the Hare and hunt with the hounds !!

This is an interesting commentary on the process that the AFL is taking no part in

They already know these are the "not guilty Bombers"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-12/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-wadas-appeal-against-the-not-guilty-bombers-?camefrom=EMCL_631316_27260120

Generally YES...but for a while he went off with the fairies and seemed to go along with some fanyboy ideals. Hes obviously 'woken' up again..Interesting...He wont be alone in finding a realignment back to the 'truth'

SO many though run with the Hare and hunt with the hounds !!

as bjelke joe would say, a bit like eating your cake and running with the hounds, bub

The best part about the WADA appeal is it is now totally out of the AFL's hands

McLachlan, Fitzpatrick and the EFC will feel so powerless, because they are. I love it.

Phone taps and SMS's wouldn't have just picked up about just "the good stuff".

It could have observed things like "does this come in ten or twenty mg's have a look will yu"

ERR have a look at what. The Blackboard!!

THERE"S YOUR ANSWER...

"It will re-hear the arguments and will be prepared to hear new evidence and will operate under the rules of the AFL. It means the League's rules on evidence, and the standard of proof, remains the same as it was through the AFL Tribunal hearing. WADA and CAS cannot compel witnesses to appear."

Quoted from http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-12/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-wadas-appeal-against-the-not-guilty-bombers-?camefrom=EMCL_631316_27260120

How true are these statements by Callam Twomey. I was under the impression that CAS operates under it's own rules, and wouldn't operate under AFL rules.

And CAS standard of proof differed from the AFL tribunal's.

"It will re-hear the arguments and will be prepared to hear new evidence and will operate under the rules of the AFL. It means the League's rules on evidence, and the standard of proof, remains the same as it was through the AFL Tribunal hearing. WADA and CAS cannot compel witnesses to appear."

Quoted from http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-12/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-wadas-appeal-against-the-not-guilty-bombers-?camefrom=EMCL_631316_27260120

How true are these statements by Callam Twomey. I was under the impression that CAS operates under it's own rules, and wouldn't operate under AFL rules.

And CAS standard of proof differed from the AFL tribunal's.

The burden of proof at CAS will be the same as at the AFL tribunal. Where it may differ is in how they apply it. Many people, including WADA, believe that the AFL applied the comfortable satisfaction burden far to far too high a standard, bordering on beyond reasonable doubt. That is why they couldn't be satisfied it was TB4 when they had people saying that was what was ordered, that was what was made, but there was a possibility that it was something else. A bit like saying it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it might be a pigeon.

The burden of proof 'comfortable satisfaction' is actually a bit of a fluid beast. The judges will need to decide where it sits based on the Briginshaw test. This basically says that the greater the consequence of a guilty finding, the higher the burden should be. CAS are far more familiar with dealing with this in the sports setting that the AFL tribunal.

In short, while the burden of proof is the same, it may (or may not) be applied differently when being heard by CAS. WADA is relying on them lowering it from the stratospheric heights the AFL tribunal took it to.

The burden of proof at CAS will be the same as at the AFL tribunal. Where it may differ is in how they apply it. Many people, including WADA, believe that the AFL applied the comfortable satisfaction burden far to far too high a standard, bordering on beyond reasonable doubt. That is why they couldn't be satisfied it was TB4 when they had people saying that was what was ordered, that was what was made, but there was a possibility that it was something else. A bit like saying it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it might be a pigeon.

The burden of proof 'comfortable satisfaction' is actually a bit of a fluid beast. The judges will need to decide where it sits based on the Briginshaw test. This basically says that the greater the consequence of a guilty finding, the higher the burden should be. CAS are far more familiar with dealing with this in the sports setting that the AFL tribunal.

In short, while the burden of proof is the same, it may (or may not) be applied differently when being heard by CAS. WADA is relying on them lowering it from the stratospheric heights the AFL tribunal took it to.

it's pretty black and white, they rejected ASADA's evidence but..

they have multiple player statements saying they saw bottles labeled thymosin, or had officials say they were getting thymosin,

the tribunal ruled out thymomodulin, so it was TB4 or something else totally,

all other types of thymosin are banned.

to me that's comfortable satisfaction right there.

This is an interesting commentary on the process that the AFL is taking no part in

They already know these are the "not guilty Bombers"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-12/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-wadas-appeal-against-the-not-guilty-bombers-?camefrom=EMCL_631316_27260120

as bjelke joe would say, a bit like eating your cake and running with the hounds, bub

JBP also said never set up an enquiry without knowing the outcome first. (Brought him down in the end but served him well for a long time.)

The AFL set up their tribunal with the end result planned. Not so now that they are facing CAS and WADA.

The burden of proof at CAS will be the same as at the AFL tribunal. Where it may differ is in how they apply it. Many people, including WADA, believe that the AFL applied the comfortable satisfaction burden far to far too high a standard, bordering on beyond reasonable doubt. That is why they couldn't be satisfied it was TB4 when they had people saying that was what was ordered, that was what was made, but there was a possibility that it was something else. A bit like saying it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it might be a pigeon.

The burden of proof 'comfortable satisfaction' is actually a bit of a fluid beast. The judges will need to decide where it sits based on the Briginshaw test. This basically says that the greater the consequence of a guilty finding, the higher the burden should be. CAS are far more familiar with dealing with this in the sports setting that the AFL tribunal.

In short, while the burden of proof is the same, it may (or may not) be applied differently when being heard by CAS. WADA is relying on them lowering it from the stratospheric heights the AFL tribunal took it to.

Thanks Chris.

it's pretty black and white, they rejected ASADA's evidence but..

they have multiple player statements saying they saw bottles labeled thymosin, or had officials say they were getting thymosin,

the tribunal ruled out thymomodulin, so it was TB4 or something else totally,

all other types of thymosin are banned.

to me that's comfortable satisfaction right there.

A few things with your comment, the tribunal only ruled out thymomodulin being what was imported in this case, they never actually made a ruling about what the players took. They also said that in the one conversation that Dank did not mean thymomodulin but TB4. They also weren't satisfied about the link between Dank and the club. They left themselves just short of having to make rulings on the players.

To me it is like a set of dominos. The first to fall is the 'was it TB4 that was imported question?' Surely having tests show it could be, the manufacturer saying it was, and the people who ordered it saying it was is enough to provide comfortable satisfaction. The tribunal didn't agree so the case fell over right here.

If that domino falls then the next is did Dank take it to the club. To answer this you need to ask what was the thymosin on the form and in the vials. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary you would have to say it is the only thymosin shown to be in Danks possession, being TB4 (unless he can show otherwise). By not agreeing it was TB4 the tribunal never assessed or made a ruling on this part of the case.

Whether or not there is enough to join the dots required is up to CAS, for mine the tribunal didn't even try to and balked at the first hurdle.

I doubt records were kept, because the more that comes out, the more I feel this was a deliberate attempt to cheat.

If EFC was sure all the substances were legal, then they would have full records that would be very easy to track and produce. Footy clubs record everything, and I have no doubt any fully above board supplement regime would be fully documented to determine what is working and what is not. Dates, dosages, side effects, results etc etc. Anyone with any legit scientific or medical background would do this UNLESS they knew they were cheating and wanted there to be no evidence of it. Which is what it appears EFC were doing. Perhaps, maybe, possibly, a paper record of dosages was kept, but as soon as things went bad, it was destroyed. Footy clubs keep records of the legit things they do - kms run, weight sessions, nutrition, supplements, everything. EFC weren't undertaking a legit supplement program though.

For Hird to think that anyone other than a biased EFC supporter would believe the story he conjured up last night is beyond me.

If Essendon were running a deliberate and elaborate programme they would have had 2 sets of records. One to be destroyed and another for ASADA / WADA.

No matter which way you look at it they didn't do whatever they were doing well.

He's (Robson) been very smart to move on 'jnrmac'. I think he probably has questions to answer but he's got good relationships with the media and handles himself particularly well.

Whilst not the best of circumstances by a long way he wouldn't have had the long term personal relationship that Evans had that's made life very difficult post EFC for him (Evans).

All he has said is that he had no idea on the extent of what went on. The footy department and Doc Reid were in charge and everyone expected protcols would be followed. Now that might be self serving but CEO's dont micromanage staff like that, particularly a long standing doctor and club legend. So it does sound feasable he had little knowledge.

As far as the 34 players involved, 8 were NOT involved. Those 8 were the youngest and newest at the club, as witnessed by those who played NAB cup. Why were only the newest not involved? I would have thought those 8 players would have been the first ones to benefit from an increase in body muscle. Look at new players they nearly always need bulking up, but at EFC they wernt in the program.

I believe they wernt included because as they were the newest, the EFC wernt sure of their silence. The chance of 8 from 42 rejecting the program and they were all the newest, you have better odds on Tattslotto.

All this guf about the team this and the team that is just that..... guf. that they didn't buy into the program is wrong, they wernt trusted in the program. WHY? If this was all above board why wernt those most at need of that program in it. After all as people keep saying they are a team. A team of 42 not 34.

The burden of proof at CAS will be the same as at the AFL tribunal. Where it may differ is in how they apply it. Many people, including WADA, believe that the AFL applied the comfortable satisfaction burden far to far too high a standard, bordering on beyond reasonable doubt.

I thought the burden of proof at CAS was "balance of probability" rather than "comfortable satisfaction"? Apologies if this has been explained before.

All he has said is that he had no idea on the extent of what went on. The footy department and Doc Reid were in charge and everyone expected protcols would be followed. Now that might be self serving but CEO's dont micromanage staff like that, particularly a long standing doctor and club legend. So it does sound feasable he had little knowledge.

Yep, it does.

...be interesting to know his take on Hird sometime down the track. If he was close to Evans I'm thinking it wouldn't be overly positive.

I thought the burden of proof at CAS was "balance of probability" rather than "comfortable satisfaction"? Apologies if this has been explained before.

Nope, it's all comfortable satisfaction. They did used to use balance of probabilities at times for these hearings at certain levels (not sure if at CAS), but it was all made uniform after the Mark French case where the appeal was heard to a different level to the original case. It makes far more sense to hear them all at the same level.

Nope, it's all comfortable satisfaction. They did used to use balance of probabilities at times for these hearings at certain levels (not sure if at CAS), but it was all made uniform after the Mark French case where the appeal was heard to a different level to the original case. It makes far more sense to hear them all at the same level.

Hey Chris. Your comments seem both informed and considered (unlike some of us who are rather zealous on this subject - me included).

Without giving anything away are you close to/have experience with anti-doping cases, ASADA etc

Would you like to hazard a guess on the appeal outcome...reading between the lines of your posts, it would appear WADA will win the appeal.

Has anyone ever sighted, or cited, the said consent forms?

Surely this could be seen as somewhat important in any act of human experimentation.