organised crime and juice of the elephant pt V

[Card Shark]

So the AFL allow Essendon to considerably top up their player roster due to multiple WADA suspensions but won't allow the other 4 clubs affected by Essendon's actions, with ex-Essendon players, to add a player or 2.

Wow.

 

[gUt]

Add this to the other million ways that competition is compromised and just can't understand why there are any fans of it at all.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...h/news-story/22f0e12cbe31a7d4d53ca76d98a5895f

Stephen Dank denies giving peptides to Cronulla’s Jon Mannah

The Australian
February 16, 2016 12:00AM
Simon King
Senior reporter
Sydney

The banned sports scientist at the centre of the Essendon and Cronulla drug saga has given sworn evidence for the first time since the scandal broke three years ago.

Stephen Dank took the witness stand in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday in his legal case against News Corp Australia, publisher of The Australian, over reports of the death of young Cronulla Sharks player Jon Mannah published in The Daily Telegraph.

Mannah, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2009, returned to play for the Sharks but died in September 2013 following a relapse of the *disease.

He played five games during the 2011 season, when Dank was overseeing a controversial supplement program at the club *involving peptide injections.

Mr Dank claims that in April 2013 journalists Rebecca Wilson, James Hooper, Josh Massoud and Yoni Bashan suggested that during Mr Dank’s time at the club, he administered Mannah two growth hormone-releasing peptides, CJC-1295 and GHRP-6, which caused the ultimately fatal cancer to return.

Counsel for Mr Dank, Clive Evatt, did not argue the science but denied his client administered the supplements. During his testimony, Mr Dank was guided by Mr Evatt through his history as a “scientific consultant” to a large number of football clubs across most codes and the introduction of his first supplements program at NRL club Manly in 2004.

He revealed he referred to players as “patients, not athletes”.

When Mr Evatt tried to qualify Mr Dank as an expert, he hit *repeated objections by lead counsel for the defendant Tom Blackburn. Mr Evatt asked an increasingly red-cheeked Mr Dank, “did you administer or cause to be administered CJC1295 or GHRP6 to Jon Mannah?”

“No,” he replied.

Mr Evatt spent about 90 minutes reading through the newspaper reports pointing to the presentation and repetition of key points.

“For the ordinary reader there’s no doubting Dank administered GHRP6 and CJC1295 to Mannah which, because he was suffering from leukemia, triggered a return of that disease — there can be no other meaning,” he said.

The trial continues today.

 

[Card Shark]

As much as I hate Dank for what he brought to my club, I hate the fools at the Telegraph more.

Hope he smashes them in the courtroom.

 

[Wizardman]

Did the Sharks fail in their duty of care regarding Jon Mannah? A fair and reasonable question after this verdict today.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...h/news-story/fecc53798d1c4e5290ffabf42c200820

Stephen Dank: Sports scientist gave dangerous peptides to cancer sufferer, NRL player Jon Mannah

SPORTS scientist Stephen Dank showed “reckless indifference” to the life of NRL player Jon Mannah by providing him with dangerous peptides that may have accelerated his death from cancer, a jury found yesterday.

In the NSW Supreme Court, a jury of three men and one woman found defamatory meanings alleged by Mr Dank in an article published by The Daily Telegraph in April, 2013, concerning Mr Mannah’s death from non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma could be defended on the basis of truth.

Mr Dank sued Nationwide News, the publisher of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, for defamation on the basis of three articles published about the supplements and peptides he administered while working for the Cronulla Sharks between March and May, 2011.

Mr Mannah died in January 2013 after suffering a relapse of his cancer.

Mr Dank alleged a story published three months after Mr Mannah’s death by Telegraph journalists Rebecca Wilson, Josh Massoud and James Hooper conveyed that “by administering peptides to Jon Mannah, (Dank) accelerated Mannah’s death from cancer”,

The jury agreed the story suggested this, but then indicated that the claim “was substantially true”.

They returned the same verdict of truth to the imputation that “(Mr Dank) acted with reckless indifference to Mannah’s life by administrating dangerous peptides to Mannah while he was in the remissions stage of cancer”.

And they also found the imputation that “(Mr Dank) administered dangerous and cancer causing supplements to Jon Mannah and other football players, thereby exposing them to risk” was also true.

Giving evidence at the hearing last month, Mr Dank *denied that he had given peptides to Mr Mannah.

He said Mr Mannah had told him he would not participate in the program for health reasons:.

“I never applied any of the two peptides to Jon during my time at Cronulla,” he said.

Another article, published in The Sunday Telegraph, was found by the jury to not convey the imputations that had been alleged by Mr Dank.

The jury is deliberating on an issue related to another *article and will continue their considerations this morning after being given directions yesterday by Justice Lucy McCallum.

 

[shaggs]

Did you read line that says Dank stated he never gave any peptides to mannah. So if he never took any then what's it got to do with Cronulla.

 

[T.S Quint]

Telegraph journalists Rebecca Wilson, Josh Massoud and James Hooper

Any evidence from actual medical professionals, or just these three stooges?

 

[Mickyd39]

Did you read line that says Dank stated he never gave any peptides to mannah. So if he never took any then what's it got to do with Cronulla.

Dank would never lie, very credible person.:sarcasm:

 

[Wizardman]

A jury said that Dank gave the peptides to Mannah.

 

[Pete Cash]

It is very interesting that the jury backed news ltd claim was true.

 

[Eion]

The jury didn't want to give dank any money. That was what this was about. They made the right call and gave him diddly squat.

 

[shaggs]

A jury said that Dank gave the peptides to Mannah.

No a jury said that what was printed in the article wasn't untrue enough to give him a payout.

This case wasn't about who he gave peps to or not. This was a defamation case. They decided he wasn't defamed.

 

[Pete Cash]

From Fairfax

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/cr...imal-compensation-lawyer-20160315-gnjj66.html

The NSW Court jury found on Monday that Dank had acted with "reckless indifference" to NRL player Jon Mannah's life by giving him dangerous peptides that may have accelerated his death from cancer.
Although jurors agreed Dank had established that the meanings conveyed by articles by Josh Massoud, James Hooper and Rebecca Wilson were defamatory, the jury also found those meanings were substantially true.

Another article by Yoni Bashan did not convey the meanings complained of by Dank, the jury found.

Justice Lucy McCallum on Tuesday ordered that Dank pay the defendants' costs in the legal battle over those articles.

But a 2013 article that claimed Dank gave warfarin to Cronulla footballers was defamatory, the jury declared.

The jurors found that Sunday Telegraph editor Mick Carroll and journalist Phil Rothfield had failed to make their defence of "contextual truth".

-------

Basically the jury declared the article about mannah in their opinion based on what was presented true.

 

[Patorick]

THE Daily Telegraph has succeeded in doing what law enforcement and anti-doping bodies around the world failed — namely to prove in court that so-called “sports scientist” Stephen Dank administered banned peptides to Cronulla Sharks players that may have accelerated Jon Mannah’s death from cancer.

The Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the World Anti-Doping Authority all failed to prove his involvement.

But this week Nationwide News, a subsidiary of News Corp Australia, publisher of The Daily Telegraph, won almost all aspects of a defamation case brought by Mr Dank following a series of articles about him published in both The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph.

On Monday a civil jury of three men and one woman in the NSW Supreme Court found Mr Dank had acted with “reckless indifference” to the life of Mr Mannah, the Sharks player who died in January, 2013, after a relapse of Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

In April, 2013, journalists Rebecca Wilson, Josh Massoud and James Hooper published an article in The Daily Telegraph questioning if there was a link between Mr Dank’s peptide program at the Sharks, involving substances banned by WADA, and Mr Mannah’s fatal relapse.

The jury rejected claims of defamation by Mr Dank, who is not a qualified doctor, ruling the article’s imputation that he “accelerated Mr Mannah’s death from cancer” due to the peptides was “substantially true”.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...graph&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial

So what we did was ok.

Substantially.

 

[siv]

Now the question is

Was he diagnosed with cancer before 2011 season

And if yes did the Sharks management know about it

 

[carcharias]

FFS his own family have called this claim by the daily telegraph bullshit.
He was already sick and knew what he could and couldn't take.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/mannahs-family-refutes-cancer-peptides-link/4653924

 

[Pete Cash]

Well the evidence presented to the jury in the defamation case had them believing the opposite to whatever standard needs to be met in cival action.

 

[carcharias]

I heard Wilson on MMM say that Dank basically helped kill John Mannah.
She waffled her arse off trying to word it ..but that was the gist of it...and then she gave the club 2 weeks before it would close.

That was about 4 years ago.
suck arse Wilson you pisshead.

He had cancer for 2 years prior to Dank showing up.
He couldn't play for a long time while at the Sharks because of it.

 

[_snafu_]

Well the evidence presented to the jury in the defamation case had them believing the opposite to whatever standard needs to be met in cival action.

Balance of probabilities.

 

[LESStar58]

So what we did was ok.

Substantially.

Jesus Christ.