Essendon Saga continues

[God is an Englishman]

One of the players admitted it - pretty good level of proof

[Bomber]

One of the players admitted it - pretty good level of proof

Give me evidence of what you last had injected. I'm sure you have an idea of what it most likely was and could tell anyone, but I doubt you could prove it. A blood sample could, but wait.............despite that being undoubted proof, you're recollection of what you thought it might be would trump actual result. Yeah, that makes sense.

Would you seek legal advice with a view to appeal if your son/daughter was found guilty of something based on flimsy evidence? For arguments sake, they tell you they may have done something wrong in hindsight based on gut feel, but were given the all clear by their boss, a policeman, that for shooting practice the "sack of potatoes they were shooting into" couple years earlier may have actually contained a human body, now deceased due to gunshot wounds. Only evidence - 2 years later they discover a body near the sack of potatoes. Your kids simply thought it was a sack of potatoes and naturally assume that given the cop was their boss with assurances all it was were potatoes. In your mind, Kids are guilty as they should have known what was contained in the sacks, regardless of what their boss said. They also find that gun/bullets used are the same as the copper's pistol, but he says he didn't shoot the sack that day, but the kids did and he honestly believed that there were only potatoes there. You'd accept a guilty of murder verdict with this and no other evidence?

[God is an Englishman]

That would be manslaughter, not murder.

The first thing I would tel my son would be not to admit it.

Now onto the injections, again I refer you to the 100m final in this year's Olympics. The winner has taken a banned substance and admits it but says that his coach said it was alright.

Does he keep his gold medal and let off?

[N5 1BH]

One of the players admitted it - pretty good level of proof

Give me evidence of what you last had injected. I'm sure you have an idea of what it most likely was and could tell anyone, but I doubt you could prove it. A blood sample could, but wait.............despite that being undoubted proof, you're recollection of what you thought it might be would trump actual result. Yeah, that makes sense.

Would you seek legal advice with a view to appeal if your son/daughter was found guilty of something based on flimsy evidence? For arguments sake, they tell you they may have done something wrong in hindsight based on gut feel, but were given the all clear by their boss, a policeman, that for shooting practice the "sack of potatoes they were shooting into" couple years earlier may have actually contained a human body, now deceased due to gunshot wounds. Only evidence - 2 years later they discover a body near the sack of potatoes. Your kids simply thought it was a sack of potatoes and naturally assume that given the cop was their boss with assurances all it was were potatoes. In your mind, Kids are guilty as they should have known what was contained in the sacks, regardless of what their boss said. They also find that gun/bullets used are the same as the copper's pistol, but he says he didn't shoot the sack that day, but the kids did and he honestly believed that there were only potatoes there. You'd accept a guilty of murder verdict with this and no other evidence?

Just to clarify. in the scenario above was the kid a licensed professional fully trained in the use of firearms and so was comprehensively educated and regularly reminded of their responsibility to inspect all potato sacks before firing as there was a likelihood it could contain a live person for which they would be held responsible

[Bomber]

That would be manslaughter, not murder.

The first thing I would tel my son would be not to admit it.

Now onto the injections, again I refer you to the 100m final in this year's Olympics. The winner has taken a banned substance and admits it but says that his coach said it was alright.

Does he keep his gold medal and let off?

So if he already admitted firing the gun, then what? He cant retract and then state there were circumstances involved?

On to your question. If his blood sample shows he indeed took a banned substance, then he loses the medal. If he chirps up and says "yeah I took 10 tons of steroids" immediately after the race - does he immediately lose his medal purely on what he says, even though it may be considered somewhat absurd (and afterwards tests show he didn't have steroids in his system)?

[God is an Englishman]

That would be manslaughter, not murder.

The first thing I would tel my son would be not to admit it.

Now onto the injections, again I refer you to the 100m final in this year's Olympics. The winner has taken a banned substance and admits it but says that his coach said it was alright.

Does he keep his gold medal and let off?

So if he already admitted firing the gun, then what? He cant retract and then state there were circumstances involved?

On to your question. If his blood sample shows he indeed took a banned substance, then he loses the medal. If he chirps up and says "yeah I took 10 tons of steroids" immediately after the race - does he immediately lose his medal purely on what he says, even though it may be considered somewhat absurd (and afterwards tests show he didn't have steroids in his system)?

Does he keep his gold medal and let off?

[Bomber]

One of the players admitted it - pretty good level of proof

Give me evidence of what you last had injected. I'm sure you have an idea of what it most likely was and could tell anyone, but I doubt you could prove it. A blood sample could, but wait.............despite that being undoubted proof, you're recollection of what you thought it might be would trump actual result. Yeah, that makes sense.

Would you seek legal advice with a view to appeal if your son/daughter was found guilty of something based on flimsy evidence? For arguments sake, they tell you they may have done something wrong in hindsight based on gut feel, but were given the all clear by their boss, a policeman, that for shooting practice the "sack of potatoes they were shooting into" couple years earlier may have actually contained a human body, now deceased due to gunshot wounds. Only evidence - 2 years later they discover a body near the sack of potatoes. Your kids simply thought it was a sack of potatoes and naturally assume that given the cop was their boss with assurances all it was were potatoes. In your mind, Kids are guilty as they should have known what was contained in the sacks, regardless of what their boss said. They also find that gun/bullets used are the same as the copper's pistol, but he says he didn't shoot the sack that day, but the kids did and he honestly believed that there were only potatoes there. You'd accept a guilty of murder verdict with this and no other evidence?

Just to clarify. in the scenario above was the kid a licensed professional fully trained in the use of firearms and so was comprehensively educated and regularly reminded of their responsibility to inspect all potato sacks before firing as there was a likelihood it could contain a live person for which they would be held responsible

No, he was a "professional" police cadet only, being trained by his superior. He had no knowledge of the full internal workings of guns at the time as he wasn't a trained gunsmith. His superior was though. His superior was found guilty of negligent conduct and mismanagement only and received a fine and was no longer allowed to train cadets for one year.

[God is an Englishman]

That would be manslaughter, not murder.

The first thing I would tel my son would be not to admit it.

Now onto the injections, again I refer you to the 100m final in this year's Olympics. The winner has taken a banned substance and admits it but says that his coach said it was alright.

Does he keep his gold medal and let off?

So if he already admitted firing the gun, then what? He cant retract and then state there were circumstances involved?

On to your question. If his blood sample shows he indeed took a banned substance, then he loses the medal. If he chirps up and says "yeah I took 10 tons of steroids" immediately after the race - does he immediately lose his medal purely on what he says, even though it may be considered somewhat absurd (and afterwards tests show he didn't have steroids in his system)?

Was he told the gun was loaded? Was he told there was a person in the potatoes? Was he told the person was alive?

Your analogy requires him to admit to having shot the person, because that is the equivalent of what the essendon player said

[God is an Englishman]

No, he was a "professional" police cadet only, being trained by his superior. He had no knowledge of the full internal workings of guns at the time as he wasn't a trained gunsmith. His superior was though. His superior was found guilty of negligent conduct and mismanagement only and received a fine and was no longer allowed to train cadets for one year.

You're right, we should let off all drug cheats if they were ignorant of the law. In fact let anyone off if they didn't realise it was wrong.

Now i'm off to take some steroids ahead of the olympics, it's OK because my coach tells me it's OK and i don't know they're banned.

[Bomber]

That would be manslaughter, not murder.

The first thing I would tel my son would be not to admit it.

Now onto the injections, again I refer you to the 100m final in this year's Olympics. The winner has taken a banned substance and admits it but says that his coach said it was alright.

Does he keep his gold medal and let off?

So if he already admitted firing the gun, then what? He cant retract and then state there were circumstances involved?

On to your question. If his blood sample shows he indeed took a banned substance, then he loses the medal. If he chirps up and says "yeah I took 10 tons of steroids" immediately after the race - does he immediately lose his medal purely on what he says, even though it may be considered somewhat absurd (and afterwards tests show he didn't have steroids in his system)?

Was he told the gun was loaded? Was he told there was a person in the potatoes? Was he told the person was alive?

Your analogy requires him to admit to having shot the person, because that is the equivalent of what the essendon player said

Not at all but like I said previously, you stop the story when it suits your argument but don't consider what transpired since. Other answers: Gun was loaded (bullet or blank, he had no idea, but he believed it was a bullet). He believed no one was in danger, so no he knows of no-one being in the sack. But did he shoot a weapon? Yes, so he believed he may have well killed him.

[God is an Englishman]

Sounds like manslaugter to me then.

[Bomber]

No, he was a "professional" police cadet only, being trained by his superior. He had no knowledge of the full internal workings of guns at the time as he wasn't a trained gunsmith. His superior was though. His superior was found guilty of negligent conduct and mismanagement only and received a fine and was no longer allowed to train cadets for one year.

You're right, we should let off all drug cheats if they were ignorant of the law. In fact let anyone off if they didn't realise it was wrong.

Now i'm off to take some steroids ahead of the olympics, it's OK because my coach tells me it's OK and i don't know they're banned.

Again, using the black/white analogy. I'm glad you're not a court judge. Trial would be over in 2 minutes and guilty each time.

[God is an Englishman]

So you ask for an answer and then complain when you get one.

[Bomber]

Sounds like manslaugter to me then.

My lawyer would get me off, almost 100% certain. And rightly so. If you want to blame anyone, look beyond the black and white of the case. Why was someone there to begin with? Who put that person there? Was he there against his will? But no, guilty anyway (in your eyes, and probably WADA).

[Bomber]

So you ask for an answer and then complain when you get one.

I answered NBH and then you piped in and steered away from the case in point. You clearly don't take into account all facts - just the ones that suit you.

[God is an Englishman]

Only one problem though - you admitted shooting the gun into the "potatoes"

[God is an Englishman]

So you ask for an answer and then complain when you get one.

I answered NBH and then you piped in and steered away from the case in point. You clearly don't take into account all facts - just the ones that suit you.

I steered away?

I've been saying all along that one of the players admired taking a banned substance.

Why would they say it was a banned substance of it wasn't?

The players are responsible for what's in their bodies, therefore guilty. Ignorance is not a defence

[Bomber]

So you ask for an answer and then complain when you get one.

I answered NBH and then you piped in and steered away from the case in point. You clearly don't take into account all facts - just the ones that suit you.

I steered away?

I've been saying all along that one of the players admired taking a banned substance.

Why would they say it was a banned substance of it wasn't?

The players are responsible for what's in their bodies, therefore guilty. Ignorance is not a defence

Point proven (re black/white). Ask Watson again if he knew he without question that he took a banned substance given the facts that have since unfolded.

[Bomber]

Only one problem though - you admitted shooting the gun into the "potatoes"

And? Where is admission of killing someone? Terrible accident at best, responsible, indirectly yes. Guilty of anything sinister? No. I'd get a not guilty verdict easily.

[Delete Your Account]

There was a positive test. Urine samples were sent to Germany, and they returned a 'higher than usual' reading to TB-4. However, because it's a naturally produced substance, it wasn't taken as proof of doping.

As described here:

There is currently no test for Thymosin Beta-4 (TB-4). The test developed by the Cologne laboratory, and used to test the Players’ frozen urine samples, was not accepted as reliable by the CAS Panel. This was because the test could not reliably determine the difference between TB-4—as naturally produced by the body—and TB-4 injected artificially (CAS Decision [149]). As noted in the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal (AFL Tribunal) hearing, some of the Players were tested between January 2012 and September 2012, but ‘[t]hose tests were not designed to detect TB4’ (AFL Tribunal [33]).

[Delete Your Account]

One of the players admitted it - pretty good level of proof

It's interesting that the AFL AD Tribunal chose to ignore Dank when it was evidenced that he said "I gave TB4 to the Essendon players".

[N5 1BH]

Only one problem though - you admitted shooting the gun into the "potatoes"

And? Where is admission of killing someone? Terrible accident at best, responsible, indirectly yes. Guilty of anything sinister? No. I'd get a not guilty verdict easily.

In a court of law probably involuntary manslaughter but at the police tribunal you would certainly be found guilty of gross negligence and misconduct for failing to follow proper procedures despite repeated instruction by the governing body and as a minimum your firearms licence would be revoked for a period of time, maybe 24 months reduced to 12.

[Bomber]

There was a positive test. Urine samples were sent to Germany, and they returned a 'higher than usual' reading to TB-4. However, because it's a naturally produced substance, it wasn't taken as proof of doping.

As described here:

There is currently no test for Thymosin Beta-4 (TB-4). The test developed by the Cologne laboratory, and used to test the Players’ frozen urine samples, was not accepted as reliable by the CAS Panel. This was because the test could not reliably determine the difference between TB-4—as naturally produced by the body—and TB-4 injected artificially (CAS Decision [149]). As noted in the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal (AFL Tribunal) hearing, some of the Players were tested between January 2012 and September 2012, but ‘[t]hose tests were not designed to detect TB4’ (AFL Tribunal [33]).

So guilty of producing a higher than normal natural substance and "not proof of doping". At times people produce higher than normal testosterone but heaven help them if they're pro athletes.
Good enough for a not guilty there for me.

[Bomber]

One of the players admitted it - pretty good level of proof

It's interesting that the AFL AD Tribunal chose to ignore Dank when it was evidenced that he said "I gave TB4 to the Essendon players".

Didn't he also say he didn't inject them with anything illegal?

[God is an Englishman]

Only one problem though - you admitted shooting the gun into the "potatoes"

And? Where is admission of killing someone? Terrible accident at best, responsible, indirectly yes. Guilty of anything sinister? No. I'd get a not guilty verdict easily.

Can you really fire a gun and claim you didn't realise it might hurt/kill someone?

[God is an Englishman]

So a player admits it

Dank admits it

But there's no evidence

[Bomber]

So a player admits it

Dank admits it

But there's no evidence

Correct, BUT both have also since stated otherwise. I once thought a bird I went out with was the loveliest thing on earth. I then realised some time later that I was wrong and found someone better.

Anyway, sod off for now, have an appointment to go to.

[Bomber]

Only one problem though - you admitted shooting the gun into the "potatoes"

And? Where is admission of killing someone? Terrible accident at best, responsible, indirectly yes. Guilty of anything sinister? No. I'd get a not guilty verdict easily.

Can you really fire a gun and claim you didn't realise it might hurt/kill someone?

Objection, leading the witness.

Re-phrase, were you aware that is was possible that someone was in the sack?

Answer, it is possible, but given the circumstances, it was deemed highly unlikely by myself at the time. especially when all I saw emerge from the sack were sections of mashed potato.

[God is an Englishman]

So a player admits it

Dank admits it

But there's no evidence

Correct, BUT both have also since stated otherwise. I once thought a bird I went out with was the loveliest thing on earth. I then realised some time later that I was wrong and found someone better.

Anyway, sod off for now, have an appointment to go to.

So your opinion on some bird is the same as remembering what you injected someone with?

[Bomber]

So a player admits it

Dank admits it

But there's no evidence

Correct, BUT both have also since stated otherwise. I once thought a bird I went out with was the loveliest thing on earth. I then realised some time later that I was wrong and found someone better.

Anyway, sod off for now, have an appointment to go to.

So your opinion on some bird is the same as remembering what you injected someone with?

Yes. Point being its not black and white and things aren't necessarily what they seem at the time.

You ever heard of cases where several people admitting to the same murder, only to be dismissed as evidence clearly showed it was someone else? In you eyes they'd all be pronounced guilty as they said so.