On 22/12/2015 at 23:04, ManDee said:

Can I preface this by saying I think Essendon & the players are guilty.

I am not aware of any such leak from the CAS hearing. If Richard Young presented said evidence and the small number of players questioned did not mention it you are jumping to conclusions to suggest they were lying. The players questioned may have only been given x & y, others may have had xy&z. Perhaps we are talking about the earlier hearing, perhaps the players were told that they did not receive z so they would all deny it. I don't think this is the "admission of unequivocal guilt" that we hope for.

Here is the link: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/essendon-bombers/cas-concern-over-why-bombers-omitted-to-mention-thymosin-injections-20151204-glfnbm.html

The article says several players failed to mention using Thymosin even though they were convinced it was legal. 

You are right that it may be an innocent omission due to them not getting thymosin injections but given Dank said Thymosin would be the base of the whole program I would suggest they were. They may also have forgotten about it, who knows. It certainly doesn't look good.

You are also right that it doesn't give us the admission of unequivocal guilt that we hoped or, but I never said it would, it is just one more brick in the wall.

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:06, Lucifer's Hero said:

Just a small clarificatoin 'Chris':  I don't think it was during the ASADA interviews for their investigation of the supplements saga (where all players had time tocook up the same story). 

I think it was that the players withheld information at the time of the in season drug testing in 2012 ie while they were taking the supplements.  Players are obliged/reguired to declare any medication/supplements at these routine drug tests.  These tests are done at various intervals/samples so very difficult to collaborate on en mass.  As you say they all forgot to mention z which was ie Thymosin (good or bad).  Looked suspicious! 

I mention the clarification (home you don't mind) as I believe it is a greater condemnation of the players silence as it was before anything had been discovered.  Rhetorical question:  why keep it a secret!!  We will find out in a few weeks!!

Correct me anytime, I certainly don't think I know all the answers and only ever post my understanding of the situation, happy for that understanding to be improved. 

Almost makes it look worse if it was the year before!

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:06, Lucifer's Hero said:

Just a small clarificatoin 'Chris':  I don't think it was during the ASADA interviews for their investigation of the supplements saga (where all players had time tocook up the same story). 

I think it was that the players withheld information at the time of the in season drug testing in 2012 ie while they were taking the supplements.  Players are obliged/reguired to declare any medication/supplements at these routine drug tests.  These tests are done at various intervals/samples so very difficult to collaborate on en mass.  As you say they all forgot to mention z which was ie Thymosin (good or bad).  Looked suspicious! 

I mention the clarification (home you don't mind) as I believe it is a greater condemnation of the players silence as it was before anything had been discovered.  Rhetorical question:  why keep it a secret!!  We will find out in a few weeks!!

OK that is very suspicious. OK beeb off to the gallows with them.

  On 22/12/2015 at 22:59, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Isn't that the central point of the players' argument? That they didn't take "z"?

I'd hardly expect the players to say they took "z" if they honestly believe they did not. If they know they took "z" and haven't fessed up, that's a very different proposition.

In 2012 the players signed 'consent' forms for some type of Thymosin (lets assume the good one). 

As I mentioned the silence was during 2012 routine drug tests. 

Why did no player tested during 2012 mention the good Thymosin at the time of testing?  They believed it to be legal, knew it was WADA approved and knew they had taken it.  After all it was for the good Thymosin they signed the consent forms. 

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:15, Lucifer's Hero said:

In 2012 the players signed 'consent' forms for some type of Thymosin (lets assume the good one). 

As I mentioned the silence was during 2012 routine drug tests. 

Why did no player tested during 2012 mention the good Thymosin at the time of testing?  They believed it to be legal, knew it was WADA approved and knew they had taken it.  After all it was for the good Thymosin they signed the consent forms. 

I wonder if Tanner was behind the scenes before the players went to CAS teaching them his best political 'i don't recall' routine?

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:15, Lucifer's Hero said:

In 2012 the players signed 'consent' forms for some type of Thymosin (lets assume the good one). 

As I mentioned the silence was during 2012 routine drug tests. 

Why did no player tested during 2012 mention the good Thymosin at the time of testing?  They believed it to be legal, knew it was WADA approved and knew they had taken it.  After all it was for the good Thymosin they signed the consent forms. 

I have no idea why they didn't mention it. But signing a consent form only tells us that they accepted they would take Thymosin if it were to be provided, not that they actually were injected with it.

 

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:30, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I have no idea why they didn't mention it. But signing a consent form only tells us that they accepted they would take Thymosin if it were to be provided, not that they actually were injected with it.

 

In a text Dank said Thymosin would form the base of the program so I would be comfortable to presume they all got it in their individual programs. Although thinking about it Dank doesn't seem the be the most reliable of people. 

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:21, Chris said:

I wonder if Tanner was behind the scenes before the players went to CAS teaching them his best political 'i don't recall' routine?

probably why only one of the called in players was a current essendon player?

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:54, daisycutter said:

probably why only one of the called in players was a current essendon player?

Further to that - only one player called in was a current AFL player, anywhere.

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:58, Lucifer's Hero said:

Further to that - only one player called in was a current AFL player, anywhere.

May have thought they would get closer to the truth if the players in question had little/less to lose. 

There are a lot of players now who have no reason not to fess up, that haven't, I really don't understand why those players haven't taken deals and blown this wide open yet?

 

 

  On 23/12/2015 at 00:55, Peter Griffen said:

There are a lot of players now who have no reason not to fess up, that haven't, I really don't understand why those players haven't taken deals and blown this wide open yet?

 

 

I don't think they know what they took, that would make it hard to make a deal for anything other than 'they injected me with stuff I didn't know about', which is being covered by Workcover as we speak. Unless the players come forward and say 'he injected us all with x, y, and z and they told us not to say anything then there really is little value. 

I will be very surprised if in the case of being found guilty there isn't a queue outside the EFC office of lawyers and players baying for blood and suing left right and centre. 

  On 23/12/2015 at 01:00, Chris said:

I don't think they know what they took, that would make it hard to make a deal for anything other than 'they injected me with stuff I didn't know about', which is being covered by Workcover as we speak. Unless the players come forward and say 'he injected us all with x, y, and z and they told us not to say anything then there really is little value. 

I will be very surprised if in the case of being found guilty there isn't a queue outside the EFC office of lawyers and players baying for blood and suing left right and centre. 

Agree. What might be worse is if they were told they were only being injected with x and y, which were legal and which they consented to and then were also injected unwittingly with z, which was on the banned list, and which they did not consent to.

  On 23/12/2015 at 01:19, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

if they were told they were only being injected with x and y, which were legal and which they consented to

The signing of the consent forms has always puzzled me - what was the thinking behind having these "sign ons"?

  On 23/12/2015 at 01:22, Tim said:

The signing of the consent forms has always puzzled me - what was the thinking behind having these "sign ons"?

Apparently it was driven by the players who wanted some protection and surety that it was all above board. The players then just trusted what was listed and didn't do any checks of there own, if they had they would never have signed with 'thymosin' being on the form as it is too ambiguous. 

  On 23/12/2015 at 01:19, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Agree. What might be worse is if they were told they were only being injected with x and y, which were legal and which they consented to and then were also injected unwittingly with z, which was on the banned list, and which they did not consent to.

and don't forget there was aod which was a wada banned substance

  On 23/12/2015 at 01:52, daisycutter said:

and don't forget there was aod which was a wada banned substance

Essendon faithful: 'but but but but we were told it was fine, ASADA said so in a letter we can't produce, and Dank called them and asked and they said it was fine (even though they actually said to check further), and everyone else was using it, and it's ASADA's fault as they are completely incompetent. HIRD RULES!!!!!!!!!'. 

  On 22/12/2015 at 23:30, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

But signing a consent form only tells us that they accepted they would take Thymosin if it were to be provided, not that they actually were injected with it.

I think you're arguing that though it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it could still be a warthog.

Have you ever signed a consent form for something that didn't happen?

The consent forms came about when the players realised that if the mitt hit the pan, they could be in a spot of bother. So they wanted indemnity. "You can't blame us. We didn't do this off our own bat; see here."

But they made two mistakes. One, they had Dank write the forms. I saw somewhere else that he based it on an x-ray consent form from a pathology clinic. Legal wiz, that guy. Two, the forms actually indemnified the club against the players!

I have thought for a long time that the thing that will sink the players, if they are sunk in the end, will be that they put in writing that they were prepared to take these substances.

Another leak from the CAS hearing. Queries over sentencing discounts for Bombers

It doesn't pay to read too much into this kind of stuff, but it strikes me that none of the CAS hearing leaks have been favourable to the bombers.

The consent forms were ready to be rolled out anytime....

WADA made a concerted push on the evidence from a mass spectrometer reading of what it argues was thymosin beta-4 – the banned substance the players are accused of being administered – by calling a second expert from Canada, in addition to ASADA's expert witness David Handelsman, to give evidence on the "second batch" of alleged TB4. The mass spectrometer reads the molecular weight of a substance and while this was close to a match for TB4 (4971 compared with TB4's 4963, as measured by Bio21 at Melbourne University), it was only one of two batches of the substance ASADA and WADA claimed were compounded and given to Stephen Dank by chemist Nima Alavi. The CAS has to be "comfortably satisfied" TB4 was administered to specific players.

 

I'm no scientist but 4971 to 4963 is a difference of only 8. 

that's less than  .1 of a % away from TB4.

Of course the machine would have some error factor built in, but I'm willing to guess it's probably in the range of half a %

That they had a mass spectrometer reading of TB4 is pretty much what the afl tribunal wanted because they wanted proof that it was actually TB4. 

Well there you go guys, it was. Dots joined.

  On 23/12/2015 at 14:54, biggestred said:

That they had a mass spectrometer reading of TB4 is pretty much what the afl tribunal wanted because they wanted proof that it was actually TB4. 

Well there you go guys, it was. Dots joined.

Go CAS

  On 23/12/2015 at 14:54, biggestred said:

That they had a mass spectrometer reading of TB4 is pretty much what the afl tribunal wanted because they wanted proof that it was actually TB4. 

Well there you go guys, it was. Dots joined.

The AFL tribunal had the spectrometer reading as well, but they got stuck on it not being an a exact match. Just one of the points of concern they had with bits of evidence.