Chris

The players don't need to check the contents of every vile, just what the substance is called. This is also where trust of the person who is giving you the drugs comes in, if they lie and give you something else then you are still guilty and face suspension, but if you were clear on what you agreed to be injected with (which the players weren't), then you could sue the pants of the person who deceived you and possibly get a shortened suspension due to the no significant fault clause. In my view the players failed on simple due diligence and as such are as guilty as the club, or Dank.

I agree with your point re AOD and there being a mix up, however, if the players had checked it would have come up as banned on the ASADA website. The issue of the club giving players stuff they haven't told them about again comes back to the players responsibilities. If the players actually took responsibility and checked every substance, and signed for each substance then they may be able to claim no intent, and then sue the club for all it's worth, but they would still be guilty. Not doing this has left the players open and from the outside looks like a hatchet job at trying to make the players look innocent. If they were truly innocent then they would have taken their own responsibilities seriously.

Hi All, Have been lurking for a long time but the discussion around intent has got me log on and put in my two cents worth. I think people are looking at intent too individualistically. There is too much separation put between what the club wanted to do and what the players wanted to do. I view it like this. The players signed on to go along with what the club were doing, with the stipulation that nothing was banned. The form they signed in a poor attempt to do this included one banned substance (AOD) and an ambiguous substance that may have been banned (Thymosin). The players simply trusted the club and Dank that these things were not banned. By not following up with appropriate due diligence (checking with ASADA is the only option), the players have not actually shown any reasonable or responsible steps to ensure what they were being given was not banned. This shows a clear intent to do as the club wants, with no personal responsibility. It follows then that if the club intended to use banned substance (Dank is part of the club), then so did the players by association. The only way they could counter that would be for the players to have done their own checks of every substance mentioned.