Read CAS's statement regarding the Essendon finding

More like "Voice of denial".....time to move on to the other stages of grief.....

Blah Blah Blah - guilty as charged and appeal thrown out without any consideration by the Swiss Appeals body. Time you got your head out of your backside.

Keep beating that drum Mr Football. Essendon fought the bad fight and got stuffed because of it. Shame on all of you apologists - shame on you all.

If speculation and leaps in logic weren't bad enough, it now saddens me to find an example of doctored evidence in the CAS judgement. Para 120 goes through the strings of spaghetti theory, none of it particularly strong in my opinion, but WADA and the CAS appear to have worked on the assumption that the more barely relevant "facts" which are squeezed in, the harder it would be for anyone to counter (they are wrong by the way, it's just one long spiel of speculation and leaps in logic). Take this at sub-para (xi): In 2011, Mr Del Vecchio, who was involved in a business called Australian Medical Solutions, which was considering the purchase of Mr Charter's Doctor Ageless company, had a conversation with Mr Dank in which Mr Dank said he was giving the Essendon players peptides and Mr Del Vecchio advised him that they were prohibited. Sounds damning - except it's not quite accurate. Dank expressed general views about the use of peptides. Mr Del Vecchio researched GHRP-6 (the one Dank used on Sandor Earl), and found it to be prohibited - and advised Dank about that. Interesting stuff, but at no stage has anyone accused the Essendon players of using GHRP-6. Their specific charge was the use of TB4. This is just another example, of many, where the strings of spaghetti include an interesting, fascinating fact which has absolutely nothing to do with whether all 34 footballers actually used TB4.

Calum Yes, it's circumstantial, although I disagree there is a fair amount of it, personally, I would view it as decidedly weak and speculative. Let's take your first assertion, for example: Dank was giving them a drug called ‘thymosin’ everyone accepts that. A drug called "thymosin" was used, and the 34 players signed a consent form which included the term: Thymosin. Now even you are confident that that could only have been TB4 and not one of the other 26 forms of Thymosin - on what basis have you determined that each of the 34 players used Thymosin? Once again, we get back to my main beef with this decision - that the CAS has not had to satisfy itself that each of the 34 players actually used TB4 - they have made a determination en masse - when right through the judgement, they themselves concede that not all circumstances were the same. As just one example, a lot is made on the frequency of injections (apparently corresponding with a recommended injection schedule for TB4) - but the CAS say in the same breath that the frequency of injections were all over the shop - and - we already know from other evidence that the 34 players were subject to differing regiments. We now know that at least one of the 34 players wasn't even part of the program at all - so how did the CAS reach a determination that all 34 players used TB4? It's speculative, it's a guess, it's wrong and unjust.

MF, you mean no there was no -direct- evidence. The evidence was circumstantial, but there was a significant amount of it. Dank was giving them a drug called 'thymosin' everyone accepts that. The circumstantial evidence was that; Dank had early given Earl the TB4 version, he had talked about the benefits of TB4 and procured the TB4 version from a supplier to people at essendon, he had referred to 'TB4' in various texts, he was prescribing the 'Thymosin' at the dose of recommended for TB4, there is no reason why he would give them another version since they don't have the 'regenerative properties' TB4 does a business colleague had said the peptides Dank referred to were illegal Dr Reid wanted them to stop and kept asking for more details on waht was going on, only to be kept in the dark. I have some small amount of sympathy for the players that individual situations should probably be more taken into account, and the McVeigh Melatonin thing is probably the weakest part of the report, but that is all. The players knew they were taking thymosin, and even if you allow that they were told it was just the right side of legal, made absolutely no effort to check (despite saying they were having reservations) and, crucially, failed to declare it on their doping forms - in itself a violation of doping regulations. I wouldn't hold out much hope for these appeals processes, and IMHO the players need to be really careful here. There are people like you that are on their side but as far as i can make out - reading this and other websites - a lot of good will towards the players has evaporated since its been found out they didn't declare what they were taking to doping authorities. Frankly, if i was the players, I'd look for some different advice. As Von Neuman has said below, the AFL just needed to take a small hit to prevent a bigger one. if they had gone the NRL route and cut a deal, this would have been done and dusted a long time ago. In summary -the worlds moved on mate! very few fan trusts sportsman when they say they didn't knowingly take anything, and are suspicious when they don't ask questions or declare the supplements. These thoughts about 'the poor players' are exactly the same ones that fans of MLB, cycling, athletics etc have rolled out over the last decade.

Today Chip Le Grand writes in the Australian that the players are considering an appeal through "the Victorian Supreme Court. If jurisdiction cannot be established there, the Swiss Federal Tribunal also looms as a possibility, though less likely. To successfully appeal anywhere, the players must prove CAS made an error in law in reaching the finding it did. " Le Grand writes: "Instead, the 34 players were dealt with as a job lot. The potential injustice in such an approach is in the detail. A ­majority of the three-man CAS panel were willing to accept that since Stephen Dank’s pre-season plan was to use Thymosin Beta 4 as the “jewel in the crown’’ of his supplements regime, and since all 34 players gave written consent to be treated with Thymosin, anyone who received an injection from Dank must have taken the banned peptide. " An extraordinary leap in logic. He goes onto talk about McVeigh's unique circumstances. McVeigh sought out a peptide to help him sleep, he asked Dank what it was called, he said it was "Melanotan". McVeigh's testimony is that he received no other injections. The CAS refused to accept he took Melanotan because it did not improve McVeigh's tan. But: "Among these is Melatonin, an injectable sleeping agent that doesn’t have a tanning effect. Australian Sports Anti-Doping investigators recovered a bottle of Melatonin from the fridge inside Dank’s basement office. " Despite that being well known by all parties, the CAS has concluded that McVeigh must have taken TB4 because he never got a tan - this is the standard of reasoning used by the CAS the whole way through. AFL Players Association chief executive Paul Marsh said a perplexing aspect of the CAS majority finding was its “one size fits all’’ reasoning. “It just didn’t seem to take into account any individual circumstance and the individual evidence presented by the players,’’ he said. “There were 34 separate pieces of evidence given here. It is difficult to comprehend how they came to a one-size fits all outcome when there were 34 different sets of circumstances.’’

vn This is the problem with your analogy - the CAS has never determined that any TB4 ever made it within coo-ee of the EFC, and/or, whether any of it was used on any player, and which players. We now know that Slattery was not even part of the program, but he has been caught up with the 34, suggesting that at no point was the CAS interested in taking a look at the evidence for each individual footballer, did not even enter their minds to do so. And I say to you: that is wrong and unjust.

Do you not know and recognise the great Mr Football? The original Mr Football? Let me tell you something about the original Mr Football - he was a simple man of working class background, and despite his fame, he never lost the knack of being able to relate to the common man. When I see an all-powerful monolithic organisation like WADA, and its lackey, the CAS, ride roughshod over the rights of individuals - I'm going to back those individuals every time.

Calum that is precisely it, no evidence was presented in relation to any of the 34 players actually using TB4, nor did the CAS seek it - yet they were comfortably satisfied that all 34 used it - the reasoning used to justify it was at times quite ludicrous. It now transpires that Slattery, one of the 34 was not even part of the program - so how on Earth could CAS be comfortably satisfied that he used TB4? Because they reached a decision on the group rather than the 34 individuals - and that is wrong. http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-cas-verdict-dons-seek-appeal-loophole-20160113-gm5c7q.html "One point Hargreaves has noted is that the players were treated by the CAS as a collective and the differences in circumstances and individual evidence were not taken into account in either the verdict or the sentence. " I say to you - that is wrong - and I really do hope the players can find away to question this decision in one of the 3 courts mentioned in this article, afterall, they have a 12 month holiday - why wouldn't you give it a try?

Its actually 'comfortably assured', rather than balance of probabilities. Which is thought to lie somewhere between 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and 'balance of probabilities'.

MF, maybe this pointless, but whatever, Ill have a go. have I got this right? you are asking the question; where is the direct evidence that any one player was injected with TB4? You are right, there is none. But, that is not the evidence level required. These are the questions that panel was answering; are you comfortably assured that Stephen Dank was giving his players thymosin? Yes, everyone is agreed on that. Are we comfortably assured that this was TB4? Now, this is more difficult, but why would Stephen Dank talk about the benefits of one form of the drug (TB4), get hold of that form of the drug from a supplier, supply that form of the drug to someone else (earl). He would do that, but then he would give different form of the drug that has no proven benefits, that he hadn't supplied to anyone else, that he hadn't got hold of? Why would he do that? it would make no sense. Stephen Dank talked about the benefits of TB4, Stephen Dank supplied TB4 to another player (Earl). Then Stephen Dank starts giving the Essendon players 'Thymosin' in the same dosing regime as TB4. You don't need to be one hundred percent sure that he gave the players TB4, you need to be 'comfortably assured' that he did. Now, you can say the evidence level required is wrong - that is a fair argument - but the Essendon players knew that going in.

hehe Bruce, he's trying to get something across I see. But that something is not in the right light. There is a lower bar of evidence here needed, and the report goes into things very clearly. It was also considered that what MF is saying; that the afl took the opposite approach and concluded otherwise, whereby the afl used all that as an excuse not to seriously search deeper and convict them. They cannot be totally blamed for that. Anything with the AFL in all this is a vipers nest. This was a fail of massive proportions all round, from dank to the teams performance, the coach losing control of the situation, the guinea pig aspect of it and then all the injuries, the shoddy record keeping to the point where Dank no longer knew who took what/when, the players shirking responsibility or turning a blind eye to it, or failing to report the usage on 30 occasions, the isolation from the club doctor and management, and, finally, the AFL trying its best to the effect of (non accusation>) to get everyone off the hook [in effect]; which is ultimately a process thing with them they've since worked with ASADA and WADA on. The whole concealment and secrecy thing is enough alone; these types of things are never run in professional sport with good intentions - the ruse of 'hiding it from other clubs so they don't do this tech like us since we're behind already' was just a furby we can say -- in the light presented none of those excuses hold up - its all so dodgy. If you present the 1,2,3 link case anyone can come in and say "we never took a photo of it" sure, it will fall apart. But when you take the CAS approach it all becomes clear. Indeed some of the decision had to include the fact that a domestic body should not shirk the one higher than it, especially when its process are not up to snuff. It required a re-examining at CAS. This just exposes a massive bungle on many levels stretching back years. The decision is right. Had they left this the AFL would have been a ticking time bomb. Do I think they are guilty? Yes. I do think, given its nature, somewhere somehow, now or later or already happened, it would have/was illegal. I can say that with certainty. And I am, like the protocol stipulates - SATISFIED they were doing wrong. __ MF you don't need to see a photo of the illegal activity. You just need to be "SATISFIED" it was dodgy. Lance Armstrong denied for years he was doing anything dodgy, right up until the last minute; do you think the players would even know if they were using illegal things if they had been assured it wasn't illegal. It seems here, the players didn't know it, but they were being very dodgy > this is not open to interpretation. *** Going back to the more simple criminal coke thing. They were at a place with illegal substances and then the substances went missing. Thats literally enough. We can be satisfied they used it, especially when they went to great lengths to set up a system where that was possible, in a series of escalations and they didn't know OR care if it was coke or sugar; they certainly didn't want to tell anyone either. *** The club deserves to be dismantled over this, which I think it effectively has. They should salt the earth almost on windy hill. At least we can be guaranteed this will likely not happen again. 34 players - that is massive. _____ MF can you get back to Bruce on that answer please? It would shed some light on what your thoughts are

Hey MF, great post's mate........there must be 30+ of them with thousands of words.....great stuff. One question....and it only requires a one word answer: Are you an Essendon supporter?

It's interesting that the AFL put forward the suggestion to the Panel that if the evidence of use of Thymosin by any particular player could not be established that the Panel might be obliged to reject the appeal in its entirety (para 125). In para 126, the Panel "rejects the argument". So CAS is saying it does not need to establish that any particular player used TB4. This is important. Even though we are talking about 34 individual charges, the CAS feels it does not need to be comfortably satisfied that each player took TB4. That's quite extraordinary. But that's not the best bit - note the CAS' reasoning: "Thymosin was touted as the jewel in the crown of the regime". CAS leaps from that to concluding that all 34 players must have used TB4. Note that the CAS did not feel the need to establish whether Dank had actually imported TB4 into Australia and had it compounded by Alavi. They did not feel the need to establish that TB4 had ended up at Essendon. They do not even feel the need to establish that all 34 players necessarily used TB4. For them, it appears to be sufficient that Dank had a history of using TB4 and because he saw "Thymosin" (note Thymosin, not TB4) as the jewel in the crown, that is sufficient to conclude that all 34 players must have used TB4.

MF I can see the point, but agree with Mark above. The issue you address above is not to be taken in isolation. Your claim here is invalid, I do apologize. This was a many nails thing, and you are thinking about the prior case too much where 1 thing would break the link. They went over the above aspect in the report. You very well may be correct/up for debate on that point for yourself otherwise. Its by no means a perfect analogy but if 1kg coke is in a house on monday and there is a party tuesday and no coke wednesday, are the party goers addicts? No one saw them take it but we know there is no coke left. One may delve and find out little jenny and tom were out back having a chat when all the coke was consumed. Maybe someone came by and half-forced/persuaded them to take a bit from a fingertip in passing, as a joke, or something "what the heck!" they say, just a little bit... of course at NO other stage under any circumstances in life would they use it. (they just were not thinking right then). We have tests for that, but in the absence of tests, you'd have to assume everyone was taking coke. Or they knew about it. Or they encouraged it, or they had no problem with it. Back to WADA/CAS. When all the things are weighed up in the case, we cannot say anyone is not guilty of something. The report went over this too. No one raised any alarms, no one said 'dont do this, please!". No one. In this aspect - and I am jumping from criminal to civil law and back, sure, sorry btw - but in this aspect, think of it like a bunch of people sourcing bomb-making ingredients. They have them at the house and laid out on a table. "But the salt is for my chips!" he says, 'none of those things are bomb ingredients for a bomb!" (i am using salt in a KNO3/4 thing, nitrate) No. How convenient. He never blew anything up, but all the things are there - he's planning something. __ Those guys at essendon were up to something, it was undocumented, kept on the quiet, never revealed, dodgy substances going round the office, with business ties, and the players treated like gunea pigs; and at any time, any point whats the bet something DID go on. But thats not needed. Its suss as. 1 coincidence is one thing, but 50? And Dank was dodgy as, with a history of using this stuff. And it seemed to me he was conducting an experiment because he wanted to make a business out of this. Could have slipped in any old stuff at any time. __ Following from that, you can look at the words of the report, but what IF you looked at the conversations behind them? They were dealing with people with ciminal links/dodgyness who said interesting things in relation to the case when spoken to. Neither were the players here able to get several figures to come and help out. __ Finally, this is ALL tied to the fact that its UP TO the players to show they are innocent. That is covered in one section (which we all know about anyway). So I do appreciate that we don't have a photograph as such of use, but the inference is massive. I have no doubt in my mind that at some point, this whole thing crossed the line, if not most of the time, then some of it. Hird sent such a text message to 'keep it in bounds'....but he was dealing with people who didn't give a rats what Hird said, because of their own agenda. So I repeat, I have no doubt they are all guilty, some more than others, but guilty. And its just one big sorry issue, really.

so - even had an Essendon player been curious - and asked "What is this" and been told it's Thymosin as per the documents they signed - - would that have helped anything? Sadly the lack of intent to cheat - on behalf of the players - doesn't enter into it. If they signed off on Thymosin in the first instance and assumed that to be what they were receiving and if a player said he saw a vial with 'thymosin' on it - then how is that a fail? You're correct in that the notion of CAS to suggest along the way were WADA's hypothesis correct then it adds another strand - - but, shouldn't at least some of the strands of this cable go from A to Z. Because it seems to me that there will be correct and 'legal' strands in there so the mere presence of the cable - irrespective of its structural flaws - isn't sufficient. Especially to confirm all 34. (I really wondered how they'd manage on that front). WADA however is a bit of law unto itself. It is interesting where it appears the panel of 3 was not unanimous. And that seemed to be in finding against all 34.

Mark Taking the Lance Armstrong case - there was stacks and stacks and stacks of evidence - endless evidence - that's kinda the point. In the absence of an adverse analytical finding, there are actually other forms of evidence, mentioned in the AFL anti-doping code, e.g. witnesses, documentary evidence, etc. Have any witnesses emerged? No. At any point, has either ASADA or WADA being able to nail down a time and place where specific players received injections of what they believe to be TB4? No. Has any documentary evidence emerged linking TB4 (in its proper name) to EFC? No. My main beef is that even if the CAS was able to reach the conclusion that TB4 had made it to the club (and in itself, that is a big conclusion based on the evidence available), and even if they were comfortably satisfied that at least some players received injections of TB4 - it is wrong and a denial of natural justice to jump to the conclusion that all 34 players received injections of TB4.

It appears the assertion that the Thymosin the players might/must have been injected with must be TB4 because of the news article in the Age back in 2013 with an interview with Dank. This is interesting because otherwise there was never any testimony (sworn or unsworn) from Dank. In the ASADA case we saw that there was unsworn statements from Alavi and Charter that couldn't be considered and yet for CAS/WADA an article in a newspaper is sufficient to hang ALL 34 Essendon players. That to me seems odd.

Reading through the judgement, you start to get the idea that WADA and CAS are a bit too cosy, take these paras: 57. On 18 September 2015, the Players wrote to the CAS Court Office objecting inter alia to the accuracy and reliability of WADA's lay witness statements and questioned the admissibility of the proposed expert reports on the basis that such evidence relied upon was available or could have reasonable been relied upon by WADA before the Decision was rendered. 58. The 32 Players: (i) further requested that ASADA be directed to produce the unredacted Doping Control Notification and Doping Control Test Forms for certain research urine samples identified in the expert report of Prof. Thevis and relied upon by WADA in its Supplemental Submission; 61. On 23 September 2015, WADA, the AFL, and ASADA filed objections to the Players' request for the unredacted doping control forms concerning the research urine samples. Later that same day, WADA and ASADA filed their comments in response to the Players' objections concerning the accuracy, reliability, and admissibility ofWADA's lay and expert witnesses and evidence. In addition, under separate cover, WADA submitted its responses to the Players request for information and data concerning the TB-4 test. WADA further supplemented its response in later letters dated 29 and 30 September 2015, and 6 October 2015. 64. On 9 October 2015, the Panel, upon consideration of the parties' submissions, determined as follows: (1) the 32 Players request for further information concerning the interaction and role of WADA's counsel with ASADA, WADA, and the Cologne laboratory during the underlying proceedings was denied; (2) the witness statements/reports of interviews of Dean Robinson, Shane Charter, Nimi Alvia, Vincent Xu, and Stephen Dank were admitted to the file and if and insofar as WADA did not intend to call such persons at the hearing, the weight afforded to their evidence would be a matter for determination by the Panel; and (3) the Doping Control Notification and Doping Control Test Forms should remain redacted so as to preserve the confidentiality of the identity of any athlete not a party to this proceeding. This is the crucial bit - the Doping Control test forms were not provided to the players to preserve the confidentiality of the identity of any athlete not a party to this proceeding, in other words, 12 of the 46 players who were not party to the proceedings may have had such doping control test forms. Why is that important? Because a big, big deal has been made of players not advising ASADA of any supplements they have taken in the previous 7 days - but if there were 12 players not part of the regimen, then they quite rightly would have had a nil return. But even if some of the 34 players had filled in such forms - could they too not have had any supplements in the previous 7 days. So on the one hand WADA has made a big play of this, CAS has bought it, but the players were not allowed to see precisely who they were referring to make a defence. Sounds a bit too cosy? You bet!!