bing181

That's an assumption on your part. From everything I've read, it's irrelevant whether they're there or not. Charters said as much himself. I also feel that the Subpoena was just ASADA covering themselves, dotting i's and crossing t's. When it comes to sports law, ASADA have access to the best in the business. I know there's this image put around of them being some kind of Keystone Cops, but you only have to look at who's presenting their case at the tribunal to realise that that's far from the reality. In any case, the main game is Dank, and it will be hard for the players to get around his McKenzie interview/confession. Then there's the players' testimonies that they took "Tymosin", the injection schedules that match the schedule for TB-4, Alavi's forged signature, etc. etc. Rather be in ASADA's shoes than the players.

The evidence from Charter and Alavi can still be included, they just can't be questioned on it. But as Charters said himself, ASADA have all the evidence from him they need in the form of hard evidence (copies of mails, receipts etc. etc.). Difficult to see how it changes anything. There's even the argument presented here (and elsewhere), that in not joining in the Subpoena process, the players have actually weakened their case because of the negative inference that can be drawn.

To the extent that it's known what they took, the WADA code is clear. It's Dank/Essendon who have done their best to muddy the waters. Has worked with some it seems.

How any reasonable person, reading through all that, could believe that there should be no penalties is beyond me. Sometimes in these discussions people talk about the Lance Armstrong case. The evidence to convict Armstrong was never as clear or comprehensive as this.

Just for the photos. It's the reverse of what used to happen with Playboy: "I only buy it for the articles"

Players not to attend it seems. Presumably ASADA have all the evidence they need from them.

It was a good indicator of Cardiovascular efficiency and V0 max capability without lactic acid levels increasing. Fitness.

To those following these Paleo-type diets, wondering what you're doing for breakfast? Suggestions? I have two teenagers at home. We're vegetarian, have always been healthy-eaters, but do enjoy our pastas and Saturday night pizzas. Not sure how far I could push it! (A gnat's under 6 foot, 64 kg ... do a lot of fairly serious bike riding)

HSun's latest beat-up/non story: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/essendon-doping-secret-email-reveals-asadas-job-lure-to-key-witness-shane-charter/story-fni0fiyv-1227149197014?nk=5cf4ae66eaa75cec092cf0a63a3b19a8 "The Herald Sun has also learned ASADA held internal discussions about giving Charter a role; however, he was never formally offered one. Sources say that ASADA talked about recruiting him to educate athletes about the dangers of doping, but the idea was terminated after checks with Victoria Police."

ASADA also wanted it behind closed doors. As these cases always are/have been. No surprises.

Your club's best 22 for round one, 2015 B: Neville Jetta, Lynden Dunn, Colin Garland HB: Heritier Lumumba, Tom McDonald, Jack Watts C: Jack Viney, Bernie Vince, Daniel Cross HF: Jeremy Howe, Cameron Pedersen, Dean Kent F: Christian Salem, Jesse Hogan, Jeff Garlett R: Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones, Dom Tyson I/C: Jack Grimes, Viv Michie, Sam Frost Sub: Angus Brayshaw New: Heritier Lumumba (Collingwood), Jeff Garlett (Carlton), Sam Frost (Greater Western Sydney) Unavailable: Chris Dawes (suspended), Jack Trengove (navicular injury) Bit of water to go under the bridge, but not too sure re the above. Both ANB and Stretch have played senior footy, so would probably be closer than Brayshaw. Salem perhaps, but then based on training reports only (early days though ...) Toumpas and JKH could also be knocking on the door. Bloody Dawes. Unnecessary suspension.

More late night reading: the suggestion is that in going for a subpoena on Dank's companies, ASADA are not necessarily doing so in relation to the Essendon case, but as part of a wider investigation into athletes who may have purchased peptides (from MRC). Though it begs the question for me: who else but sportsmen/women would be buying TB-4 etc?? ASADA subpoena bid could widen scope of investigation beyond Essendon

I noticed that as well, and was somewhat astonished (understatement) that out of all the draftees of the last couple of years who are ready to make their marks, they included an unheard of rookie from Canberra. I would have thought there would be 50 players ahead of Vandenberg - but would be very happy to be proved wrong. Great time of the year - the good news just keeps on coming. (I'm actually not sure Petracca will do all that much this year, I don't know that he has the tank to do an Ollie Wines. Brayshaw is another story though.)

Yes - as he has in the past. (The famous McKenzie interview). I believe so.

A decent season would suffice. When did Nathan Jones ever have a breakout season? Incremental improvement.

With Tappy not being re-rookied, thought this trio needed a farewell thread. They're somehow emblematic of our past 5+ years, and encompass the ups and downs ... mainly downs ... we've experienced along the way. Unfair to lump it all on them, or even to lump any of it on them, but through the Bailey and Neeld sackings, the Tanking, 186 and strings of horrible horrible defeats, they were the ever-present three, somehow rubbing our faces in how our drafting and/or development hadn't worked, how bleak our future looked, and how we'd become the laughing-stock of the competition. With their departure, it feels like a chapter of Demons history closes, the chapter that covers all the above, but equally takes us through the untimely deaths of Jimmy, Dean Bailey, Sean Wright and Robbie, as well as the Icarus-like fall of Liam Jurrah ... (to select just a few of our lowlights). Perhaps now, more than ever, we can move forward. Thanks for the memories guys. Amongst it all, there was the odd moment. Hope you have better luck at your next clubs.

It's not even illegal to take it - unless you're a sportsperson.

Apologies if my post requesting that we stay on-topic, has taken the thread off-topic. In a word, I was just suggesting that we all respect that we see things differently, and that we try to keep these more information-based threads (as opposed to opinion-based threads) on-topic. I also feel that some of what is reported here gets a bit lost in translation. I can imagine how a light-hearted exchange with a player could lead a conversation into places that just aren't going to look good on paper.

It'll take more than one pre-season.

More bedtime reading: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-doping-scandal-shane-charters-admission-gold-says-asada-20141203-11zgf5.html In regards to the recent radio interview: "ASADA sources say the reality is his admission was as good as what the anti-doping agency could expect to hear from him in a tribunal. He just led his own evidence in chief for the prosecution," a Canberra source said, after studying a transcript of the interview."

I pulled into Nazareth ...

Just ignore it. Am I the only one who gets sick of what's valuable and great about these training threads getting sidetracked by petty discussions of the form rather than the content? Comments about Saty and his questions/photos have been done to death, and presumably, everyone has had their say and pitched their tents. Time to move on.

Yes, that's how it reads. But there's nothing in the WADA code (that I can see) covering the right to silence and adverse inference in regards to non-accused. Wonder if it doesn't let the genie out of the bottle.

Had too much time on my hands, came across this, perhaps the legals here might like to comment. It's from the WADA code, and covers the "right to silence" and/or refusing to answer questions: 3.2.4 The hearing panel in a hearing on an anti-doping rule violation may draw an inference adverse to the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation based on the Athlete’s or other Person’s refusal, after a request made in a reasonable time in advance of the hearing, to appear at the hearing (either in person or telephonically as directed by the hearing panel) and to answer questions from the hearing panel or the Anti-Doping Organization asserting the anti-doping rule violation. [Comment to Article 3.2.4: Drawing an adverse inference under these circumstances has been recognized in numerous CAS decisions.]

Reading this, just not sure what any of the recent developments will have on the fundamentals of the case. Hours of tapes of interviews that can be played at the Tribunal? http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/essendon-doping-key-witness-shane-charter-says-bombers-dudded-by-asada/story-fni0fiyv-1227142664750