Stephen Dank found not guilty of Thymosin Beta 4 charges

Correct Smokey. That is what is lost in all of this. As Demetriou has said since his departure the whole saga was probably politically instigated-by an unpopular government in an election year. Since that fateful press conference we have seen all parties involved scrambling to protect their 'brand'. We have learnt of government collusion, skewing of evidence, lies and even intimidation. None of that seems to matter, certainly not to the general public whose petty 'tribalisms' inform them where 'guilt' should be apportioned. Livelihoods and reputations have been damaged-sacrificial lambs to appease the 'brand'. A senate inquiry is a must.

Evidence of Illegal substances were found in Essendon fridges but no evidence of being administered to players due to key people keeping quiet and paperwork not being found, mafia code of omerta comes to mind.

No JB, Means exactly the same thing. Look it up.

The problem was persuing and charging the players BEFORE they had any evidence.

Ahh right dishonesty is a social problem not just afl.

This whole saga has a stench drifting up to high heaven. Funny how the documents got lost??? This is like most cases in AFL, it happen, but it didnt really happen.

One of the complications about the whole tribunal stage, and I'm not really 100% sure why this eventuated in this manner, but Dank's charges were heard simultaneously with the charges of the 34 players. Why is that an issue? Because the bulk of the charges made against Dank actually were not connected with the EFC (two other footy clubs, and at least one other sport were involved), furthermore, most of the charges against Dank didn't actually involve TB4. If that wasn't a sufficient complication, Dank partly owns a company which sells all of this stuff to the general public, and it would appear that it does so legally. So why were Dank's charges heard at the same time as those of the 34 players? Just one more aspect of this saga to which none of us can have a satisfactory answer.

Right you are - have changed.

Which is different to the dishonest circus of politics, religion, business, art or any other human endeavour in what way?

So Dank has been found to have a whole cocktail of illegal substances; he gave them to carlton, a baseball club and who knows who else...but definitely not Essendon. The tribunal is a joke. "not guilty of assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or covering up the administration of the banned substance to Essendon"...I thought that they couldn't be sure what was given...so how can they be sure that he is not guilty...surely, the best that they can say, is that there is no proof that he did anything wrong...

ASADA went thorugh the correct process in getting this to the AFL anti-doping tribunal. However, I do have some concerns: 1. ASADA's own in-house counsel advised McDevitt against proceeding; 2. ASADA failed to get sworn statements from their key witnesses; and 3. in the end, the evidence presented to the tribunal was well, well short of the requisite standard. I appreciate people still have concerns about EFC's governance, but the AFL already clobbered the club for that.

What do you guys reckon for a settlement andrew d got 2 million what will dank get?

I agree MF, that the tribunal couldn't have convicted the players on the available evidence. My concern is that so much evidence appears to have been misplaced, destroyed or withheld. It's not credible to suggest that there were no records of what the players were injected with. Indeed it's totally fanciful. So what happened to those records? And why did everyone who could've shed light on the matter refuse to give evidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment suggesting that the tribunal made the wrong decision. Under the circumstances, they made the only decision they could. But what I object to are the suggestions that ASADA and the AFL were wrong to pursue the case in the first place. There were strong indications that PEDs had been administered to the players and even stronger indications that those involved in the program were more interested in covering their tracks than in helping to clear up reasonable questions about the program. Given these circumstances, there were - or should have been - alarm bells going off all over the place. The fact that, in the end, the evidence couldn't secure a guilty verdict doesn't mean that the case should never have been pursued. And it certainly doesn't mean that Hird and the players have been 'vindicated', as some on this site have tried to suggest.

Were they tipped off by the afl , mr demitriou and his little phone calls, mrs hird thinks so.

It was widely known that Dank dealt in a range of prohibited substances, in fact, his company continues to sell them online to the general public. However, the charges against the EFC players were specifically about the use of TB4 and ASADA were incapable of presenting any evidence of use to the tribunal.

To be fair to the tribunal, it seems that someone went to great lengths to conceal the evidence of what happened at Essendon in 2012; and there wasn't enough evidence left to prove one way or the other what the players were injected with. Indeed that was the entire basis of the players' defence - "we have no idea what was in those injections so you'll never know either, and therefore you can't prove it was a banned substance. Oh, and please ignore all the circumstantial evidence that it was TB4." In that context, the tribunal had little choice. You can't prove something if the cover-up is good enough. The only real unanswered question is who did the covering up; and we may never even know that.

So he's been tried and found guilty on the evidence, but you still think there's no evidence?

I am very much in favour of the presumption of innocence. I accept there is insufficient evidence to prove any wrong doing. BUT.......To my understanding these are the facts that are not in dispute: 1. Essendon systematically injected players with a substance in order to improve performance 2. Players had no real understanding of what they were being asked to take 3. Many at the club assumed everything was above board but made no real investigation to be sure 4. It's still unclear which players took which supplements and when. Surely to God this is not an ethical, moral or professional way for a club to treat its players......especially when many are young men who put their trust in the club to take care of their welfare. This would never be allowed to occur in another industry.

Watch your headlines Roar - there is a very big difference between Innocent and Not Guilty

What a joke the AFL tribunal are, they find Dank guilty of having all those substances, yet expect people to believe that he didn't give any of it to the Essendon players