News Dons ASADA scandal (Latest: Pg 101 - CAS verdict. Guilty, 12 months.)

[MyManLynch]

Yes

The case WADA prosecute at CAS will be completely re-heard.
The decisions of the AFL Tribunal will have no effect on what CAS decide.

But if there isn't enough evidence for a tribunal to convict the supplier of Thymosin Beta 4, how can another tribunal/hearing then convict the receiver? The evidence either exists or it does not.
It looks as though the evidence (a) doesn't exist or (b) is flimsy at best.
Cannot see the players being found guilty on appeal.

 

[76woodenspooners]

But if there isn't enough evidence for a tribunal to convict the supplier of Thymosin Beta 4, how can another tribunal/hearing then convict the receiver? The evidence either exists or it does not.
It looks as though the evidence (a) doesn't exist or (b) is flimsy at best.
Cannot see the players being found guilty on appeal.

If I understand correctly ...

... It centres around the burden of proof...

... 'Comfortable satisfaction', 'Beyond reasonable doubt', 'balance of probabilities', etc, etc, etc.

Some seem to think the burden of proof wasn't applied correctly in the AFL hearing.

That goes some way to explaining how it's possible to get a different outcome with the same set of evidence.

 

[76woodenspooners]

My layman attempt to explain the burden of proof (happy to defer to the legal folks Reykjavik DaVe86 Lord Wilberforce ) ...

Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar?

Imagine there's a chocolate chip cookie missing from the cookie jar. You have two kids, Jack and and Jill. You know Jack loves chocolate chip cookies and Jill doesn't.

Did Jack steal the cookie from the cookie jar?

Balance of probabilities: Guilty
Comfortable satisfaction: Not Guilty
Beyond reasonable doubt: Not Guilty

You find cookie crumbs in Jack's bed ...

Balance of probabilities: Guilty
Comfortable satisfaction: Guilty
Beyond reasonable doubt: Not Guilty (could have been planted)

You notice bits of chocolate cookie around Jacks mouth ...

Balance of probabilities: Guilty
Comfortable satisfaction: Guilty
Beyond reasonable doubt: Guilty

 

[MarkT2]

If I understand correctly ...

... It centres around the burden of proof...

... 'Comfortable satisfaction', 'Beyond reasonable doubt', 'balance of probabilities', etc, etc, etc.

Some seem to think the burden of proof wasn't applied correctly in the AFL hearing.

That goes some way to explaining how it's possible to get a different outcome with the same set of evidence.

I keep going back to the same problem. This is not a case against Essendon. This is a large number of individual charges against individuals and there is little to no evidence in any specific individual case.

 

[TradeDraft]

Heard that Nathan Brown has said the Players want both the boys back

 

[Kappa]

So the players were found to be innocent of taking any prohibited substances, so you'd have to assume what was injected was legal.

So why is the man who administered those supposedly legal substances getting a lifetime ban? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Either Essendon, and therefore Dank, did nothing wrong, or they both did.

AFL is trying to have its cake and eat it too. If Dank deserves a lifetime ban, then the players should have been penalised, and vice versa.

Melbourne got punished for not tanking

Dank banned for giving players legal drugs

The AFL

 

[Wooljay]

Heard that Nathan Brown has said the Players want both the boys back

They'd know that they aren't systematic dopers, and would know a little more about the 'truth' of it than anyone externally.

Not surprised they'd want them to stick around.

 

[TradeDraft]

Melbourne got punished for not tanking

Dank banned for giving players legal drugs

The AFL

They Try and Hide everything that is Bad News for the AFL

 

[Markfs]

news of another addiction scandal from another club...

 

[TradeDraft]

news of another addiction scandal from another club...

Though Different Kind of Drugs

 

[35Daicos]

Though Different Kind of Drugs

Maybe a different kind of addiction, Dave.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

If I understand correctly ...

... It centres around the burden of proof...

... 'Comfortable satisfaction', 'Beyond reasonable doubt', 'balance of probabilities', etc, etc, etc.

Some seem to think the burden of proof wasn't applied correctly in the AFL hearing.

That goes some way to explaining how it's possible to get a different outcome with the same set of evidence.

Exactly

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I keep going back to the same problem. This is not a case against Essendon. This is a large number of individual charges against individuals and there is little to no evidence in any specific individual case.

Not true

There is a mountain of evidence and its the reason why WADA are appealing

 

[MarkT2]

Not true

There is a mountain of evidence and its the reason why WADA are appealing

It is true and it's been ruled upon that way thus far in what was an obvious outcome IMO.
There is broadly evidence against Essendon, Dank etc but which player has taken exactly what?
I don't doubt the lack of detail is deliberate and highly suspicious but that doesn't make the case against Watson or Hurley or any specific player.

 

[TradeDraft]

We know why Guy McKenna got the Sack

 

[Markfs]

We know why Guy McKenna got the Sack

evidently he forgot to say prayers before training once and half the team turned on him...

 

[Baltimore Jack]

If TB4 is a naturally occurring substance found in the body, it would be interesting to know what naturally occurring levels are and then compare those levels to the levels found in the two Essendon players.

The other thing is if the levels exceed natural levels why haven't the two players been charged i.e. a positive test for a banned substance?

 

[MarkT2]

Certainly an interesting development. Love to know how many players samples were frozen over what period and what the results of retesting are. Presumably that will come out in the case when it is heard. Reading between the lines and looking at the fall off in Essendon's form I suspect players were told about testing of frozen samples a little while back.

 

[ppoiter]

If TB4 is a naturally occurring substance found in the body, it would be interesting to know what naturally occurring levels are and then compare those levels to the levels found in the two Essendon players.

The other thing is if the levels exceed natural levels why haven't the two players been charged i.e. a positive test for a banned substance?

Thats exactly what they would have been testing for. They would have a very good idea of what constitutes 'normal' TB4. For a lab like that to report an abnormality like this they would have to be extremely certain

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Thats exactly what they would have been testing for. They would have a very good idea of what constitutes 'normal' TB4. For a lab like that to report an abnormality like this they would have to be extremely certain

Yep, agree with that

But let's say normal bodily levels, for arguments sake, are 80 to 100 parts per million
What would constitute abnormally high levels 200 ppm, 300ppm?
Would 120ppm be considered high?

Just trying ti get a handle on the weight of the new evidence

 

[OEP MKII]

The current test still don't make it conclusive, but it doesn't have to be. This is what so many people (Essendon supporters), and especially the AFL, got wrong. Most believe like in criminal law the burdon of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offence took place, but this isn't criminal law and the burdon of proof for WADA is much lower, they only need to make a eeasonable case that the drugs were taken and then the defense must prove they weren't, that's why these test are so damaging for Essendon's chances of successfully winning the case. Oh and the fact they destroyed all records of the injections.

 

[MarkT2]

The current test still don't make it conclusive, but it doesn't have to be. This is what so many people (Essendon supporters), and especially the AFL, got wrong. Most believe like in criminal law the burdon of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offence took place, but this isn't criminal law and the burdon of proof for WADA is much lower, they only need to make a eeasonable case that the drugs were taken and then the defense must prove they weren't, that's why these test are so damaging for Essendon's chances of successfully winning the case. Oh and the fact they destroyed all records of the injections.

The qualification on that which was a stumbling block for ASADA and will be for WADA is proving a case against an individual. These tests may help in those specific cases but not necessarily in cases against other individuals.

 

[ppoiter]

Yep, agree with that

But let's say normal bodily levels, for arguments sake, are 80 to 100 parts per million
What would constitute abnormally high levels 200 ppm, 300ppm?
Would 120ppm be considered high?

Just trying ti get a handle on the weight of the new evidence

They will be relying on either published data or their own in-house numbers which will have a margin of error, and would record anything outside of those error bars as abnormal. You cant tell from the reports how far above those error bars the players samples were but you can be reasonably confident that the margin of error on their benchmark would be quite small, depending on how much levels of TB4 naturally fluctuate

 

[good4footy]

I find responses by Essendon on the issue across the years laughable.

Now we have the 'but it is a naturally occurring chemical in the body, nothing to see here'.
So what, so is testosterone and people get banned for elevated levels of that chemical. They knew about these new tests before it hit the media. Surely you can come up with something better than that!!

The responses from senior people at that club is astonishing.

 

[good4footy]

They will be relying on either published data or their own in-house numbers which will have a margin of error, and would record anything outside of those error bars as abnormal. You cant tell from the reports how far above those error bars the players samples were but you can be reasonably confident that the margin of error on their benchmark would be quite small, depending on how much levels of TB4 naturally fluctuate

Wada seem to make it clear that the levels indicated are only possible by external means ( can't think of the scientific term). You would then think the levels are such that they feel can not be produced naturally by the body. I think that you would need some science behind you that is indicative of natural levels.