Adam Schwab is a business director and commentator; Crikey. He writes: The CAS then noted that while the players stated that the injections undertaken by Dank had no beneficial effect, CAS found that “Essendon had conspicuous success at the start of the 2012 season, winning eight of nine games before being destabilised by injuries”. In short, the CAS appeared to say that Essendon won a lot of games in early 2012, so they must have been doping. For a legal body to draw such a conclusion is perplexing. There was also another challenge for WADA: the case involved a team, rather than an individual athlete That means even if WADA were able to prove that one or several of the Essendon players injected a banned substance, that doesn’t mean every single player was also guilty by implication. Moreover, only a small subset of seven players actually gave evidence before CAS. The CAS ruling noted that (1) Dank sent a text message that said “all injections…completed”; (2) Dank sent four random messages to specific players regarding injections; (3) Dank was incentivised to inject all players to get the best possible results; and (4) the players kept no records and had difficulty recollecting events. This finding seems to me a significant stretch of legal reasoning, in the same sense that someone lurking around a crime scene who later denies their presence isn’t necessarily a criminal. It may be suspicious, but it’s not proof of guilt. Read the full article below. If you haven't already signed the petition, please do so and share it with your friends. If you have already signed, please continue to share this article/petition to your friends. Thank you for your support.