They are purely your views Iva , as to evidence  and how vague anything is.  I would have thought the whole issue was actually quite focused and that there was much evidence. I sense WADA also thinks along these lines hence it's appeal.

 

Now exactly what question of mine are you referring..and what answer ?

And the evidence is?

Quote

The current situation is actually predicated on the opinion by WADA that the AFL returned an incorrect finding. That WADA think ASADA could have done better is incidental  but not the motive for their action.

Quote

The current investigation is predicated on the basis that WADA believe that ASADA stuffed the whole thing up.

You have answered your own questions in these 2 quotes.  If we are to accept your contentions, as cited above, then that is hardly substantive.  The fact remains, assuming for a moment that there existed compelling and material evidence, it has not been discovered and in my view, WADA are saying that the AFL and ASADA were delinquent in their investigations.  Whether that is so or not, in the absence of hard evidence, then how do you sustain a case against individual players, who, as naive as they might of been, did what they were instructed to do by their employer, with the assurance that nothing was illegal.  The Chemist and the so-called sports scientist have remained schtum on this, Essendon cannot find the records and their former "boss" maintains that he is innocent.

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by iv'a worn smith

23 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

And the evidence is?

 

48 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Now exactly what question of mine are you referring..and what answer ?

Do you guys want me to move those posts in the Milkshake thread over here for you to make things easier/?

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

And the evidence is?

surely you jest.. you want me to go back through it all ??

But a precis....and only partial at that :

Some is anecdotal...some refers to publicised text messages , some references to interviews and articles ..but  as an amalgamation.

Danks is the cornerstone. His clinic doesnt deal with Thymomodulin. Its quite well know for  extolling the virtues of TB$ amongst other things.

Danks was caught out admitting it was TB4 that Essendon were looking at his to use.  Only when highlighted did he "kinda " change track

Hird was known to be interested in these peptides. He is known to have had discussions with Charter  about amongst various substances one being Thymosin ( the 'god ' one  wink -wink )  Hird was even warned by the AFL about peptides including the use of TB4

Of the two better known variants of Thymosin  , Thymomodulin does not need to be compounded. Most applications are topical and not subcutaneous .

The usage ( i.e administering thereof ) of TB4 matches the injection timetable as derived from interviewing players and staff.

EFC caught out with invoices for  Thymosin , but later suggest either it wasnt an invoice meant for them or it was the wrong Thymosin !! Alavi was forwarded  the ingredients via Charters to make the compound as prescribed by Danks.  Danks later suggests it either wasnt the afore mentioned compound for the EFC or it was, but for someone else...or......or

The Chinese companies mentioned as sources dont deal with Thymomodulin but DO deal with ingredients  such as TB4 as well as masking agents

Players exhibit all of the classic benefits of a TB4 program.

When asked about what they believed they were taking players neglected ( and co-incedentally to a man , the same bullshlt story )  to mention the Thymosin injections, either by way of how many, how often or at all.

The AFL even , managed to extract a list of many of the substances that EFC used but the EFC couldnt explain everything that the players ACTUALLY were injected with  or indeed what some even were.

The EFC cant prove that they used the 'safe' Thymosin not that there would have been any real advantage in having done so. TB4 is the 'good stuff"

There is more .,thats just off the top of my head

Sorry HT, when it comes to IT I am a luddite of the highest order

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

You have answered your own questions in these 2 quotes.  If we are to accept your contentions, as cited above, then that is hardly substantive.  The fact remains, assuming for a moment that there existed compelling and material evidence, it has not been discovered and in my view, WADA are saying that the AFL and ASADA were delinquent in their investigations.  Whether that is so or not, in the absence of hard evidence, then how do you sustain a case against individual players, who, as naive as they might of been, did what they were instructed to do by their employer, with the assurance that nothing was illegal.  The Chemist and the so-called sports scientist have remained schtum on this, Essendon cannot find the records and their former "boss" maintains that he is innocent.

Nice try Iva

 

Youre saying the reason why WADA is doing this is simply because they think ASADA stuffed up.

Again....they are doing it because they feel the AFL stuffed up.   Thats why  they are appealling.  They also have an opinion of ASADA but  thats not the motive for the action.  Its a clear difference.

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

You have answered your own questions in these 2 quotes.  If we are to accept your contentions, as cited above, then that is hardly substantive.  The fact remains, assuming for a moment that there existed compelling and material evidence, it has not been discovered and in my view, WADA are saying that the AFL and ASADA were delinquent in their investigations.  Whether that is so or not, in the absence of hard evidence, then how do you sustain a case against individual players, who, as naive as they might of been, did what they were instructed to do by their employer, with the assurance that nothing was illegal.  The Chemist and the so-called sports scientist have remained schtum on this, Essendon cannot find the records and their former "boss" maintains that he is innocent.

I assume by 'hard evidence' you are meaning test results or clear records, neither are needed and the lack of the later is actually another point in the case for WADA, not against it. Who on earth spends $750k on a program without any monitoring or record keeping?

The second part I highlighted is also of absolutely no consequence and if it was it would be a dereliction of the players duty to not be properly informed. It is no excuse no matter how hard done by they think they are. 

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Chris
spelling

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

surely you jest.. you want me to go back through it all ??

But a precis....and only partial at that :

Some is anecdotal...some refers to publicised text messages , some references to interviews and articles ..but  as an amalgamation.

Danks is the cornerstone. His clinic doesnt deal with Thymomodulin. Its quite well know for  extolling the virtues of TB$ amongst other things.

Danks was caught out admitting it was TB4 that Essendon were looking at his to use.  Only when highlighted did he "kinda " change track

Hird was known to be interested in these peptides. He is known to have had discussions with Charter  about amongst various substances one being Thymosin ( the 'god ' one  wink -wink )  Hird was even warned by the AFL about peptides including the use of TB4

Of the two better known variants of Thymosin  , Thymomodulin does not need to be compounded. Most applications are topical and not subcutaneous .

The usage ( i.e administering thereof ) of TB4 matches the injection timetable as derived from interviewing players and staff.

EFC caught out with invoices for  Thymosin , but later suggest either it wasnt an invoice meant for them or it was the wrong Thymosin !! Alavi was forwarded  the ingredients via Charters to make the compound as prescribed by Danks.  Danks later suggests it either wasnt the afore mentioned compound for the EFC or it was, but for someone else...or......or

The Chinese companies mentioned as sources dont deal with Thymomodulin but DO deal with ingredients  such as TB4 as well as masking agents

Players exhibit all of the classic benefits of a TB4 program.

When asked about what they believed they were taking players neglected ( and co-incedentally to a man , the same bullshlt story )  to mention the Thymosin injections, either by way of how many, how often or at all.

The AFL even , managed to extract a list of many of the substances that EFC used but the EFC couldnt explain everything that the players ACTUALLY were injected with  or indeed what some even were.

The EFC cant prove that they used the 'safe' Thymosin not that there would have been any real advantage in having done so. TB4 is the 'good stuff"

There is more .,thats just off the top of my head

Sorry Bub, but that is purely hearsay and conjecture.  None of what you said sustains a case that banned substances were used.  

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Sorry Bub, but that is purely hearsay and conjecture.  None of what you said sustains a case that banned substances were used.  

Evidence trails of invoices and supply of substances isn't hearsay or conjecture, neither are injection regimes (although due to lack of clear records it must be taken from the players as well as from what records there are), and both hearsay and conjecture are admissible. It is up to CAS to join the dots of all the bits of info there is. 

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Chris

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

Evidence trails of invoices and supply of substances isn't hearsay or conjecture, neither are injection regimes (although due to lack of clear records it must be taken from the players as well as from what records there are), and both hearsay and conjecture are admissible. It is up to CAS to join the dots of all the bits of info there is. 

Agree, and therein will lie the problem.  Invoices, made out to the EFC, in and of themselves, still don't make the players guilty.  Also, I have never denied a "regime" of injections.  What I am saying is, it cannot be proven as to what the players took.

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Sorry Bub, but that is purely hearsay and conjecture.  None of what you said sustains a case that banned substances were used.  

And here lays another misconception that you too are perpetuating.  No one needs to prove use.  The WADA code emanates from the idea of 'intent"

Just now, beelzebub said:

And here lays another misconception that you too are perpetuating.  No one needs to prove use.  The WADA code emanates from the idea of 'intent"

Yes, no dispute.  So what was the players' intent?  EFC's may have been different, but what were players thinking they were taking?  Are you saying that players from EFC are the only ones within the AFL that have had injected supplements and therefore the practice was so unusual that the players should have know better?

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Agree, and therein will lie the problem.  Invoices, made out to the EFC, in and of themselves, still don't make the players guilty.  Also, I have never denied a "regime" of injections.  What I am saying is, it cannot be proven as to what the players took.

Agree it will be hard to 'prove' they took it to a beyond reasonable doubt standard, but that is not needed. Joining the dots of TB4 ordered, TB4 delivered, TB4 gone to EFC, and Playeres getting injections in line with TB4 regime and showing the classic signs of TB4 use may well be enough. 

One place ASADA fell over was getting the TB4 to Essendon, they showed it ordered and delivered but missed that link according to the tribunal, although the tribunal also questioned if it was TB4 even though that was what the supplier said it was as they did not deal in thymomodulin. 

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Yes, no dispute.  So what was the players' intent?  EFC's may have been different, but what were players thinking they were taking?  Are you saying that players from EFC are the only ones within the AFL that have had injected supplements and therefore the practice was so unusual that the players should have know better?

The players intent was to trust the club take what ever they were told to take, especially in the early stages. The consent forms weren't until the program had been going a while. 

This doesn't show intent to cheat but does show intent to comply, in my book that does not get them off. 

those that may want a refresher on the AFL charge sheet

AFL charge sheet

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

those that may want a refresher on the AFL charge sheet

AFL charge sheet

Which has already been proven to be a travesty and a farce

29 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Which has already been proven to be a travesty and a farce

How so? Given the charges laid by the AFL were done too soon and were jumping the gun but if you look through the timeline and details of the paper it outlines many things that have gone wrong and the use of banned substances. If there is evidence to back up 20% of what is in there (which you would assume there is as EFC accepted the findings) then they are stuffed. 

45 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

And here lays another misconception that you too are perpetuating.  No one needs to prove use.  The WADA code emanates from the idea of 'intent"

 

1 minute ago, Chris said:

How so? Given the charges laid by the AFL were done too soon and were jumping the gun but if you look through the timeline and details of the paper it outlines many things that have gone wrong and the use of banned substances. If there is evidence to back up 20% of what is in there (which you would assume there is as EFC accepted the findings) then they are stuffed. 

Precisely.  The AFL investigation was botched.  They failed in their due diligence, could not make subpoenas stick so as to get the Chemist and Dank before the Federal Court.  Make no mistake, I think the EFC have been badly negligent in all of this and their actions make the MFC 'tanking' investigation look like a fractured fairy tale.  But let's not forget where this current debate began.  We witnessed a presser where a couple of politicians, representing a government which was clearly on the nose with the electorate, saying that this saga was the darkest day in Australian sport and that they would ensure the full force of the law would be brought down upon the perpetrators.  Let's show that we are a strong Government.  Not likely.  It simply did not happen.

The current discussion began on another thread, as to whether Jake Melksham would get to run out with the red and blue in round 1 of 2016.  My view is he will, as despite the appalling actions of the EFC, he and his brothers had no intent to take banned substances.

 

40 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

 

Precisely.  The AFL investigation was botched.  They failed in their due diligence, could not make subpoenas stick so as to get the Chemist and Dank before the Federal Court.  Make no mistake, I think the EFC have been badly negligent in all of this and their actions make the MFC 'tanking' investigation look like a fractured fairy tale.  But let's not forget where this current debate began.  We witnessed a presser where a couple of politicians, representing a government which was clearly on the nose with the electorate, saying that this saga was the darkest day in Australian sport and that they would ensure the full force of the law would be brought down upon the perpetrators.  Let's show that we are a strong Government.  Not likely.  It simply did not happen.

The current discussion began on another thread, as to whether Jake Melksham would get to run out with the red and blue in round 1 of 2016.  My view is he will, as despite the appalling actions of the EFC, he and his brothers had no intent to take banned substances.

 

The federal court case is separate from the AFL investigation and the charges in the attached file. They also didn't fail to subpoena them to the Federal court as they never tried. There are three cases/trials here you seem to have confused.

1: The AFL charges for bringing the game into disrepute. This is what the charge sheet relates to. This was decided on by the AFl commission, there was no court involved and no subpoenas sought or issued. The charges were based on the interim report from ASADA and the AFL should have waited for the final ASADA report before acting. ASADA were not happy the AFL acted and this caused division between ASADA and the AFL. The AFL acted here to try and put a dampener on the whole thing in an attempt to cover it up as much as possible. 

2: Hird and EFC took the AFL and ASADA to court to try and show that their investigation was illegal in an attempt to get the whole show shut down. They failed dismally and Hird then tried again and failed again. Investigation stands.

3: AFL tribunal sit after the issuance of infraction notices to the players. This is where subpoenas were sought and due to the nature of the tribunal they failed in this attempt. This was highlighted as a failing int eh process by the tribunal as key testimony could not be tested by the tribunal.

These are three separate actions and have now been followed by an appeal of the AFL tribunal decision by WADA.

I agree the government went too strong and probably should have stayed out of it all together but that is politics for you. That in no way lessens the wrongs done or justifies why they have been pursued for this long and this hard.

You assertion that the players had no intent to take banned substances is also flawed. How can they show they had no intent? They intended to trust the club and to take what was asked, they did not go to their managers, or more importantly to ASADA to ask what was not banned. They were negligent in their responsibilities as athletes (I don't consider them elite as they are not compared to other athletes I know from other sports, just look at their drinking to see why). Only after months of injections did they do anything to even seem to attempt to ensure they were not cheating, and even then the form they signed contained an ambiguous substance that if they did 2 minutes checking they would have seen was banned. That points to a lack of intent to be sure not to cheat and a clear intent to follow the club no matter what. If the clubs intention was to inject banned substances (knowingly or not) then that was the intent of the players as well.

 

There was a young gymnast at the last Olympics, or maybe the one before who followed what her coach wanted and didn't intend to cheat, but he intended to inject her with banned substances, and did so. She lost her medal and was banned for 2 years, she was 13 or so from memory. The coach was banned for life. It is laughable that adult footballers can not be held to the same standard. 

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Chris

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

The federal court case is separate from the AFL investigation and the charges in the attached file. They also didn't fail to subpoena them to the Federal court as they never tried. There are three cases/trials here you seem to have confused.

 

My apologies. I meant the Supreme Court action.

 

dateline 12 December 204

 

Quote

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority on Friday lost its bid to subpoena Shane Charter and compound chemist Nima Alavi before the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing, due to start on Monday.

ASADA said it had done everything within its power, including the Supreme Court bid, to get the witnesses to physically appear before the tribunal.

It alleges Mr Charter procured raw materials for banned peptide Thymosin Beta-4 and provided it to Mr Alavi, who compounded the materials into an injectable form, Mr Alavi then provided the peptide to a "support person", ASADA alleges.

The support person is believed to be former Essendon sports scientist Steven Dank.

ASADA said ideally it would have been able to present firsthand testimony delivered in person by all witnesses.

"Unfortunately, the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal does not have the power to compel certain witnesses who do not wish to attend and give evidence in person," ASADA said in a statement.

  

7 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

My apologies. I meant the Supreme Court action.

 

dateline 12 December 204

 

  

What about the rest of the post? The subpoena was only a very small part of it.

For goodness sake 

12 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

For goodness sake 

I take it then that you have no reply to the facts I put forward and that the players did have intent and that that is backed by precedent. 

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

those that may want a refresher on the AFL charge sheet

AFL charge sheet

I guess the one redeeming aspect as far as the MFC's interest in the proceedings is the fact that the eight persons (admin, coaching etc) in item 11) of the 34 page charge sheet did not include Goodwin. I cannot see why WADA would run the risk of weakening their case by expanding it to include anybody else (apart from the players) at this stage.