AFL players to appeal doping bans

In your rush to jump down my throat you have completely forgotten the timeline. The word thymosin was used on the consent forms LONG BEFORE Dank publicly uttered his use of TB4 on the EFC players. Dank chose to use the very unclear and misleading 'thymosin' on the consent forms for the same reason he told Robinson (via text messages) not to call peptides, peptides. He didn't want people to know what he was actually doing. The players should have insisted on much more detail and greater clarity exactly what they were given, not some catch-all umbrella word. We're also supposed to believe the players all knew they were on different injection regimes, yet one blanket 'generic' consent form is supposed to be good enough? Doesn't wash. Not one bit. They tried to play the 'don't ask, don't tell' game. Doesn't work. They have all known for YEARS they are responsible for everything that goes in their bodies regardless of whether they turn a blind eye or not.

AFAIK no one else has ever lacked any sort of record keeping regarding what they have taken. Most either knew they took something that was banned and tried to cover it up by lying (e.g. Lance Armstrong) or took something with ingredients they were unaware of (e.g. Amaad Saad). Again, AFAIK, the Essendon 34 are the only convicted sports dopers in history who cannot say with any certainty what they took.

Because people who argue in bad faith (ie seek to disqualify people's opinions rather than argue on facts and logic) don't deserve hugs and kisses.

"But it appears you are only interested in looking at the parts of the findings that suit your narrative. You even converted the Tribunals “not comfortably satisfied” verdict to “proven innocent”" Which part of the Tribunals facts, logic, or opinions have I used to support my view that the players were innocent? I made it clear several times that my belief in their innocence stems from their observed behaviour for which there is no plausible explanation other than their innocence. I believed that before and after the Tribunal and before and after the CAS. None of it changed because it is impossible for the players to be anything other than innocent based on their observed behaviour. "You don’t have to accept all the findings of the AFL Tribunal or CAS hearings. but your credibility suffers when you claim things as facts that are just speculation and you misinterpret, minimise or completely ignore elements you don’t like to try and make your arguments look stronger." Good one.

Maybe she was sleepwalking if we are going to engage in this ridiculous hair-splitting. Like I said, the players had a firm belief that they were innocent - still do. On that basis it makes perfect sense for them to defend themselves. Your comment is just as inane as Mikey's and leads to the exact same inane conclusion - nobody should *ever* defend themselves on doping charges. If you are accused, you are guilty.

"Simple. Dank thought it was legal. Until he was told it wasn’t. I can very easily ask the same type loaded question to illicit the exact opposite response. Watch:" Wow! An attempt to answer the salient question. But you run into a very fundamental problem Samantha. If the Club used it and then found it it was legal then why on earth would they have handed those consent forms over to ASADA? And then, when offered a deal (once the 100 per cent irrefutable proof of them taking TB-4 was given) did they not take it? "Why would they have thymosin, a very unclear catch-all term, on it unless the Club was trying to hide something?" Que? If they were going out of their way to cover their tracks then they would have called it Vitamin C or something that couldn't possibly be confused with a banned substance. At any rate you completely contradicted yourself. If they used it then found out it was banned, why would they subsequently put consent forms out with the name on it at all? That makes zero sense. On the other hand if they consent forms were done before the TB-4 was found to have been banned then how clearly they couldn't have used the vague catch-all 'thymosin' to cover it up then could they (because it would already have been on the consent form. You see, it is simply impossible to make a plausible case that Essendon ran an illegal doping regime.

Lindy Chamberlain didn't BELIEVE she was innocent she KNEW 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT she didn't do the crime. There is a huge difference between belief and knowing. Apples and Oranges comparison.

"Why would they have thymosin on it if the Club was engaging in a clandestine doping regime?" Simple. Dank thought it was legal. Until he was told it wasn't. I can very easily ask the same type loaded question to illicit the exact opposite response. Watch: Why would they have thymosin, a very unclear catch-all term, on it unless the Club was trying to hide something? Wouldn't it have been easier to spell out exactly what was being used in black and white, rather than a term that covers 30 some odd varieties of substances, some legal, some not?

You are the last person I would consider taking instruction from in this regard. You use inflammatory language and make personal attacks on people who disagree with you. Why do you do that?

rtp - no song and dance. Just trying (like hopefully everyone) to objectively as possible assess what has happened. But it appears you are only interested in looking at the parts of the findings that suit your narrative. You even converted the Tribunals "not comfortably satisfied" verdict to "proven innocent" You don't have to accept all the findings of the AFL Tribunal or CAS hearings. but your credibility suffers when you claim things as facts that are just speculation and you misinterpret, minimise or completely ignore elements you don't like to try and make your arguments look stronger.

"So please refer me to the expert witnesses they presented that refuted Dr Cox’s testimony. I agree that it is possible that Dr Cox got it wrong but at this stage I haven’t seen any other expert opinions that have demonstrated that." What a stupid question. If you think that his testimony - right or wrong - damns the players, then explain how exactly do you think he did this? "Based on your reasoning it seems the next time I have a medical issue I shouldn’t go to a health professional, I should contact you or Bruce Francis for an expert analysis of my problem." If you were smart you would go and see a practitioner (or several for the tricky/severe cases) and then make up your own mind based on which advice made the most sense bearing in mind that you and you alone face the costs of getting it wrong. But I have no doubt that you would be one of those people who will end up taking 75 different pills just to get by every day (assuming you are not already).

rtp - "Why didn’t they accept deals if it became clear that the thymosin that they took was of the banned variety?" Not sure how many other ways to say it - but it is pretty clear that the players had no idea what they were being injected with. But they put their faith in what the club was telling them and didn't believe ASADA/WADA would be able to find enough evidence to convict. But yes I agree that it was lunacy not to take a deal - especially when they were relying on the integrity/competency of Dank who is the only person (according to Hird)who should really know what was injected . And who also wasn't prepared to lift a finger to help them.

"I refer you again to the findings of the AFL Tribanal:" I can't make you up. I really can't. You make such a big song and dance about the fact that the AFL Tribunal is the fount of all wisdom but completely ignore the fact that the AFL Tribunal found virtually no evidence whatsoever that the players were guilty. Indeed, as much as they thought something very strange went on, they couldn't even envisage a chain of circumstances in which the players *would* be guilty. What is it? Am I supposed to have blind faith in the Tribunals' opinions or not?

"““the consent form signed by the players was a fatally flawed document that ensured the players had no actual knowledge of the substance with which they were injected;”" The fact that you think this is an answer says a great deal about the quality of your response in general. Whatever the Tribunal is trying to imply it has precisely nothing to do with my points. Why would they have thymosin on it if the Club was engaging in a clandestine doping regime? Why did they hand it over to the investigators? Why didn't they accept deals if it became clear that the thymosin that they took was of the banned variety?

"They were found innocent by people who actually looked for evidence rather than reasons to fit a predetermined outcome." That is genuine comedy gold right there!!!!!! Seriously you think the tribunal appointed by the AFL, who would never choose any 'panellists' that wouldn't deliver the outcome the AFL pre-determined it wanted, is somehow more legit? You truly are blinded by your desire to defend EFC at any cost. You literally spent almost two years bashing the AFL every chance you got for being corrupt, trying to steer the outcome and perverting the course of natural justice, but somehow the panel they hand-picked is the 'legit' one? In fact here's what you said later on in this very same thread: rtp said | February 8th 2016 @ 11:55am | Report comment I have known from day dot that the AFL wanted the club to be punished but the players to get off. So this panel designed to get the players off, because that's what the AFL wanted from day dot, is the panel that came out with the correct verdict?

In part yes, but Essendons premiums will skyrocket too. And doubtful any other insurer would touch them at this point.

Rtp you said “Why are you so dishonest? Your argument was that doctors hardly ever *did* get them confused and the fact that Dank did so after a leading question should be more than sufficient to have him banned for life.” I said nothing of the sort. Perhaps I can try and word it differently for you. We all make mistakes and we all have bad days. But I would suggest that the timing of Dank’s bad day was most unfortunate. This wasn’t two old mates having a chin wag over a couple of beers. This was an interview with an investigative journalist asking probing questions. So I would have thought it pretty important that you come across like you know what you are talking about and in that moment Dank failed badly. Actually it wasn’t just a moment – it took him until the next day to correct his mistake. If we were looking at this as an isolated situation and everything else about the supps programme (and Dank in general) was found to be beyond reproach then maybe you could view this as just Dank having a bad day. But of course we know that this wasn’t that only thing that lead to questions about Dank’s integrity and competency. It was just one of the many strands in the cable. And to clarify something else for you – it wasn’t me that banned Dank for life - it was your friends at the AFL Tribunal who did that.

Rtp you said “So the players and Hird should be punished because Charter, Alavi and Dank – two of whom had absolutely nothing to do with the club’s supplements regime weren’t cooperative!!!???!!! I refer you again to the findings of the AFL Tribanal: “To assess the case the parties agreed there were three indispensable elements or links: (a) TB4 was procured from sources in China; and (That was allegedly Charters role) (b) TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and (c) Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player I would suggest that their evidence was very important to this case particularly in the context that the AFL Tribunal case failed at the first element which involved Charter. And James Hird himself has now stated that Dank is the only person who should know what was injected into the players. So I would have thought his testimony would be critical to the players defense – particularly when WADA are presenting expert witnesses that support the accusation that he injected the players with an illegal substance..

Rtp you said “And you still didn’t answer my main point…And even in the one in a googolplex likelihood either of those things happening, why on earth would they not accept a deal after they realised that the thymosin they were using was of the banned variety?” I think I did answer all your questions but rather than try and explain it again myself I will refer you back again to the AFL Tribunal who found: ““the consent form signed by the players was a fatally flawed document that ensured the players had no actual knowledge of the substance with which they were injected;”

Rtp you said “You need to read his actual arguments rather than just blindly support him because he agrees with you.” Actually that was the job of the players defense team. So please refer me to the expert witnesses they presented that refuted Dr Cox’s testimony. I agree that it is possible that Dr Cox got it wrong but at this stage I haven’t seen any other expert opinions that have demonstrated that. And by ‘expert’ I mean people who are trained professionals with many years of experience behind them and are also well respected in their area of speciality. But definitely not a lay person who has done a bit of google research in their spare time. Based on your reasoning it seems the next time I have a medical issue I shouldn’t go to a health professional, I should contact you or Bruce Francis for an expert analysis of my problem.