Redleg

I meant end of story as to how they came to that conclusion, not that it wouldn't go further.

Whately waived a copy in front of the camera on 360 last night.

I thought Prestia was signed until end of 2016.

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand. The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4. It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it. There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players. There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug. END of story.

No wonder I am still working at my advanced age.

I do as a Taxpayer.

You would be in the absolute majority.

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.

Quite easy as they would handle criminal and civil matters, where the onus of proof is on the party bringing the action, be they the Crown or private litigants and where the standard of proof is "from beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal trials to "the balance of probabilities" in civil cases. Comfortable satisfaction is somewhere in the middle. Not too big a stretch I would have thought.

Glad that you usually agree with me. Remember that this Tribunal was composed of 2 former County court Judges and a Barrister. The normal Tribunal is usually 3 ex players and is only guided by Jones, who does not make the decision. So this Tribunal is different to the match day Tribunal. Being ex footballers doesn't necessarily mean bias, it may just mean understanding of the environment in which this shambles occurred. The pressure to comply bit can be safely ignored then.

"McDevitt said that despite Tuesday's disappointment, he was proud of his organisation. "I am incredibly proud of the team at ASADA for the extraordinary work they have done in assembling a very complex and comprehensive brief which has been recognised as such based on circumstantial evidence. We didn't have a postive test which is always an easy start, we have witnesses which everybody knows the credibility of those people, and by the way, you can't force people to attend." McDevitt also said that ASADA did everything it could to compel witnesses Shane Charter and Nima Alavi to attend the tribunal hearing." As I said.

I think we need to stop slamming the Tribunal. I know all three personally and they are honourable and learned men. They decided on the evidence before them and it was as they said not persuasive enough to find guilt. That is not their fault. I could imagine their private feelings on the matter may not be in line with their decision which was based on the law. Incidentally 2 of them are former footballers and would have an idea how football clubs work and the pressure for footballers to comply with directions, from their Coaches/Administration.

I can't believe that there were no records kept, that just beggars belief as to how you could measure progress. I believe they were disposed of immediately after the tip off. Assume the health records were in one cabinet, easy to dispose of. Purchase records in another. Again, easy to get rid of. Main witnesses are either got at, or refuse to comply of their own volition. They refuse to swear to their statements or appear before the Tribunal. No positive tests. No case.

A drug doesn't have to be illegal to harm you. The simple fact that you were injected with an unknown substance, against your wishes, would found a case. I think their rights are intact.

I am starting to think that ASADA won't appeal as they didn't have the evidence in the manner needed. An AFL Appeals Tribunal might come to the same conclusion. I think that maybe if there is to be an Appeal, it will be by WADA, taking the heat off ASADA and going to CAS, a different type and fully independent body.

Probably a significant one, as he will direct the back line.

Wade Lees was done for attempting to take a banned substance.Perhaps, if he fought the case, on the basis that he would have checked with ASADA before taking the substance and that if banned, he wouldn't have taken it, then there would have been no attempt to take it, which is what he apparently got done for. Just trying to think laterally.

He said yesterday that he won't play this year as it wasn't worth coming back for the last couple of games at best. Hopefully we have 2 former number 2 picks playing their best footy for the club next year and for many more to come.

Colin, while I admit I was wrong on my prediction, I have learned more today and can, I think, answer your questions pretty simply. Essendon ran a supplements program that according to the AFL and their own admitted report, was a shambles. They were dealt with by the AFL for their lack of Governance. The Players were charged with attempting to, or actually using, banned substances. The Tribunal had to reach a stage of comfortable satisfaction of guilt. It didn't. Why not you ask? Answer: because the evidence led by ASADA was unsworn, unsigned, not given before the tribunal orally and therefore not able to be properly scrutinised or tested. The Players would have given evidence that they didn't intend to take anything illegal, that they were told what they took was legal and that they basically didn't know absolutely what was injected into them. That then leads to only one conclusion when the ramifications are so serious and that is, that the Prosecution evidence can't be relied on and therefore the Tribunal doesn't get to a Comfortable Satisfaction of guilt. Were Charters, Alavi, etc got at and told not to comply or just protected their own position, maybe/probably. I now think that ASADA may consider not even appealling.

That's been one of our problems, we don't play like that.

Not if Ablett plays as a permanent forward.

I wonder how Wade Lees feels? He got 18 months purely and simply becuase he co-operated and told the tuth. He never took anything, never even touched it, only admitted to ordering it. Didn't know his supplement contained an illegal ingredient. If he had denied ordering it, would he then have got off? Probably not, he is a VFL player, not an AFL player.

I was wrong.

Looks like another quiet news day, today.

I think you would agree there is a pretty big difference between the cause and effect in both matters.Essendon's behaviour before, during and since has been nothing short of disgraceful. ATM I have some sympathy for Collingwood, I have none for Essendon.