ASADA left fuming at AFL tribunal's findings on Dank

Conchie - what you have quoted is the Tribunal questioning the veracity of some of the documents presented by ASADA. This is part of the reason ASADA was unable to prove its case. But you are taking a very long bow to suggest that ASADA purposely corrupted the investigation. Here's why: "ASADA fabricated evidence" - Could you please provide your evidence that points to ASADA fabricating evidence. From what I understand there was no suggestion during the tribunal hearing from the Players legal defence that ASADA had fabricated evidence. This is a very serious allegation so one would think there would be some reference to it somewhere. I haven't seen it but please enlighten me if you have. "Offered witnesses potential employment" - I believe this was raised in the EFC/Hird legal challenge and if true I would agree that it was not a prudent tactic to coerce a potential witness to cooperate. But even if that was true, it doesn't automatically mean they wanted the witness to give false testimony. "Changed evidence" - Again a very serious allegation. Which evidence did they change? "Omitted evidence" - The role of ASADA is to present their case as to why they believe illegal substances were used. The players legal defence had equal opportunity to present the evidence - including "omitted" evidence - that will hep clear the players. However, as I understand it, the players defence was basically "We have no idea what we were injected with, but ASADA can't prove it was TB4" if my interpretation of the findings is incorrect please point out where I am wrong and what exactly this omitted evidence was?

ASADA fabricated evidence, offered witnesses potential employment, changed evidence and omitted evidence. The AFL tribunal, which this week cleared 34 current and former Essendon players of doping allegations, expressed “grave doubts” about the authenticity of documents relied on by ASADA to show a second batch of peptides containing the banned substance Thymosin Beta 4 was shipped to the Melbourne pharmacist at the centre of the doping scandal.

MakG - "despite his best attempts to fabricate it" A big statement Mark - I am wondering on what you have based that comment on. I haven't seen anything that suggests ASADA tried to fabricate evidence, but perhaps I have missed something? There is a legal interpretation called "cumulative impact" which rather than look at each piece of evidence in isolation, puts it all together to paint a picture of what might occurred. I agree that ASADA were unable to prove their case that TB4 was administered to the players. And looked at in isolation that was probably the correct decision. But when you look at the cumulative evidence, the findings are hardly convincing or reassuring: - It appears everyone in the process - including Dank - believed that TB4 was the substance in question. There was just no scientific proof to confirm this. (The missing records issue). - There is no explanation as to what actually happened to the mystery substance (whether it was TB4 or something else). - Dank stated in an interview that he gave the players TB4 (later retracted after he discovered it was banned). - There are no records. The EFC say they don't have them. Dank says the EFC have (had) them. Therefore one of them is lying. - The players signed consent forma that the tribunal found completely inadequate that ensured the players didn't know what they were injected with. - The tribunal was comfortably satisfied on a number of the charges that Dank was trafficking/supplying banned substances. That is a very simplified summary of what has happened - it actually looks worse if you were to break it down in more detail. It is great that the players got off, but I struggle to understand anyone who argues that this investigation was a waste of time - or that evidence was fabricated. ASADA couldn't prove its case, but when you look at the cumulative evidence, it is an ugly picture that is damming on everyone involved - including the players for signing the nondescript consent forms in the first place. How can the players claim they know they are innocent when they signed forms that didn't provide specific details of what they would be injected with?

This guy continually complains when he doesn't bully his way to an outcome. Has he ever thought that perhaps the reason why there is no compelling evidence (despite his best attempts to fabricate it), is that nothing illegal was administered,

The ABC today noted that Danks was present at seven (7) aussie rules clubs?? The way AFL handled the Essendon saga we will never know what happen at the other clubs. What a stench.

Mr Football - it did surprise/confuse me that the tribunal made findings on Dank for non-AFL related issues - I thought their charter was only in regards to what happened at the EFC. It reinforces my point that the outcome was the one that best suited the AFL - nail Dank for something, but nothing in regards to the EFC. A little too neat, whichever way you look at it.

criminals ? lol, back to the NRL bored

The AFL tribunual is 3 independant judges my dear. 3 independant JUDGES

They are highly credentialed. They were also hand picked by the AFL. There is every chance that they were chosen because they are the most likely to deliver verdicts the AFL wanted. That doesn't mean the individuals were persuaded in any way by the AFL; just that (like any independent government report) the history of the individuals was probably looked at in order to increase the chances of delivering the result we got. It really should be completely independent of both the AFL and ASADA. That said, some of McDevitt's comments suggest there is a massive hole in the code and a lot of behaviour which should be unacceptable is entirely legal. That may well be where EFC ended up. Unless full reasons for decisions are made public as are all still speculating.

"And he was found guilty of trafficking offences in baseball. Finally, Dank was found guilty of trafficking the banned substances GHRP6 and Mechano Growth Factor to customers at the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic. " Wow, serious, serious, sltuff. Dank sold anti-aging treatments through his anti-aging clinics - call the police!! And the great sport of baseball forever sullied.

Everytime he opens his mouth he embarrasses himself.

It sort of looks like the tribunal had a $1 each way. They were comfortably satisfied of his guilt of a number of charges not directly related to the EFC players, but not comfortably satisfied on the charges related to the players. From an AFL perspective this appears to have delivered an almost perfect outcome. The players are in the clear (so no disruption to the competition and less likely of legal action from the players against the EFC/AFL) but Dank is still likely to face a life ban from the AFL and possibly all sports. So Dank will still be held accountable for his actions at the EFC in a roundabout way. I understand the tribunal had a very tough job, but my scepticism is raised when the AFL tribunal delivers a verdict that fits so neatly with the AFL's best-case scenario outcome.

Should all law enforcement agencies give up on investigations to save money because criminals destroyed therecords of their crimes. afl apologists must get sick of the mention of the given how obvious the afl is shamefully trying dismiss it, but questions should be asked until these players retire.

The afl tribunal has done nothing but smear those who served on it.

Right, so according to some ASADA is the problem. Not cheats who have no documentation of drugs administered into their players. Documents which have vanished???? Also a tribunal cannot be independent if it is managed by the AFL.

Give up ASADA. It's over. Your witch hunt was flawed from the beginning through lack of evidence which would ever stand up in a tribunal or court. What an embarrassing waste of tax payer funds.

Well said Gil

McDevitt? Definitely.

But there is nothing to sweep under the carpet.

Yep let's just sweep this under the carpet, hope it will all just go away!