Dons more likely to avoid doping ban, says lawyer

[TerryWallet]

well there are so many threads i cant keep track, but wasn't there a thread posted that we had admitted it to investigators?

According to Mark Robinson. Who would be speaking for the EFC.

So yes it has been admitted.

But seeing as there are no positive samples, the players must have their right to an interview and have their say. They may wish to help the investigation.

If the players formally admit to ASADA, they will be stood down immediately.

If they don't admit, then we wait for the investigation to conclude, unless the AFL decide to intervene, which i extremely doubt.

That's my reading anyway.

 

[Can Opener]

According to Mark Robinson. Who would be speaking for the EFC.

So yes it has been admitted.

But seeing as there are no positive samples, the players must have their right to an interview and have their say. They may wish to help the investigation.

If the players formally admit to ASADA, they will be stood down immediately.

If they don't admit, then we wait for the investigation to conclude, unless the AFL decide to intervene, which i extremely doubt.

That's my reading anyway.

Club admits, players deny, AFL may decide to intervene??. wait for the outcomes of an investigation. Seems alot of grey to me dont you think??

 

[TerryWallet]

Club admits, players deny, AFL may decide to intervene??. wait for the outcomes of an investigation. Seems alot of grey to me dont you think??

Not really.

Robbo is reporting the Club have admitted to ASADA.

The players have yet to have their chance to formally admit or deny.

 

[bad setanta]

Baz do you honestly think Carlton have only been injecting vitamens to your boys?

Weak very weak

 

[Evelyn208]

Just because it's not "banned" or "prohibited" by WADA/ASADA, doesn't mean it's ok to take. It just means they haven't got around to banning it yet

Ding ding ding - we have a winner! This is the critical point.

 

[The Dodger]

I don't really get this. As i understand, when ASADA/WADA say "banned" or "prohibited" they mean they've assessed the substance and it's considered performance enhancing, so they then put it on the banned list.

Just because it's not "banned" or "prohibited" by WADA/ASADA, doesn't mean it's ok to take. It just means they haven't got around to banning it yet, because it's still in trials. How can they possibly make a decision to ban or not until the product is fully tested?

All this talk about "ACC said it's not banned" and "ASADA says it's not banned" and "Why did WADA just clarify it then? Must mean they were confused" is just misunderstanding what the term "banned" or "prohibited" mean. Since the introduction of the S0 classification in 2011, all substances without approval from a government regulatory body for theraputic use are prohibited. No-one has to say they are prohibited. ASADA can even say they're not banned (i.e. not on the banned list). You still can't take them.

That about sums it up for me.

It seems there is a belief that someone else was confused (someone who doesn't have to abide by that code to make a living), so you can see how Essendon might be confused.
They are trying to find a grey area that doesn't really apply to them IMO. Just because a grey area exists between 2 govt bodies doesn't mean it has repercussions for the investigation.

AFAIK ASADA gave the ACC some info on a drug. ASADA don't give advice about drugs to people who have the strict liability to make sure they are not taking something prohibited, it is not the same situation. Its not prohibited because it is not approved for human use, why would ASADA consider it correct to have told the ACC that it was ok? They wouldn't.
Its a misunderstanding and for it to apply to Essendon's situation I would have thought Essendon will have to show that they contacted ASADA and got the same information (even though ASADA don't do this).

 

[Tazmania]

The ACC report has no relevance really to essendons defense since at the time they started all this it wasn't in existence.

Besides they already have a clear cut defense anyway...let's just see the approval letter and be done with it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Well, the last bit where it says it is not currently WADA prohibited might; although this appears to be at odds with what WADA has subsequently clarified. The Essendon supporters are right in stating that the lawyers are going to have a field day.

When don't lawyers have a field day?

 

[KGBeast]

That about sums it up for me.

It seems there is a belief that someone else was confused (someone who doesn't have to abide by that code to make a living), so you can see how Essendon might be confused.
They are trying to find a grey area that doesn't really apply to them IMO. Just because a grey area exists between 2 govt bodies doesn't mean it has repercussions for the investigation.

AFAIK ASADA gave the ACC some info on a drug. ASADA don't give advice about drugs to people who have the strict liability to make sure they are not taking something prohibited, it is not the same situation. Its not prohibited because it is not approved for human use, why would ASADA consider it correct to have told the ACC that it was ok? They wouldn't.
Its a misunderstanding and for it to apply to Essendon's situation I would have thought Essendon will have to show that they contacted ASADA and got the same information (even though ASADA don't do this).

Dank maintains that he had approval. Whether he did or not we cannot say. His other defence is that drugs unapproved for human consumption may be legally supplied in Australia if the supplier receives them from a compund chemist. Which Dank did and is an undisputed fact. The snaky tentacles of law start to apply from here on in what with with Dank admitting to the ACC that only six players recieved the unapproved supplement but we are unsure if he has stated which players they are or if they recieved it as an injection or as a cream. Players that did not take the supplement cannot be penalized under WADAs own rules yet it may be impossible to determine who actually took the drug if anyone as Dank may be lying and refuses to speak to ASADA which leaves a massive hole in their investigation. Without having access to the facts of the case any speculation is futile and akin to circle jerking. This is what the media is doing, leaping on any information and extrapolating it to the nth degree without any real solid facts. As this forum is relying on already published fact and hearsay with no real disputation between the two and a healthy (at least 50%) dose of trolls thrown in it would be the last place on earth you would uncover any new or solid information. Hence my own and other Essendon posters total disregard for this section of Bigfooty in the past months.

The really interesting thing is that one of the main Melbourne papers has started to go for the throat in regards to Essendon whereas the other has called off the dogs and now seems to be in support of J Hird and his team. How can you be sure who has the good oil now? One has gone all in and hang the reputation and the other is trying to white knight the club, makes no sense if all of these so called unpublished undisputible facts are truly out there. I find it more confusing now than ever and am yet to see any actual proof of what the Bigfooty experts would have me believe about the club. All that being said, in the short term the haters seem to have bound the team together in a way they haven'y been in over a decade. I hope this thing drags on until October. With results like we're getting wouldn't you?

 

[Blueyboy74]

So this is what whey say about Hexarelin:

Although relatively new, Hexarelin is becoming a popular choice as a performance enhancement drug.

Due to Hexarelin’s ability to increase secretion of natural Growth Hormone, most of its effects are similar to those of synthetic GH, although to a slightly lesser extent.

Effects of its use may include:
* increase in strength,
* growth of new muscle fibers,
* increase in the size of already existing muscle fibers,
* neural protection,
* joint rejuvenation, and
* protection and healing.


and you reckon this was used on officials and not players Please ..

 

[rumply]

wow it's like a second Carlton board on here. Richard 'Malifice' Ings, Terry, medium and LanceR. Keep working boys, you're dreams may come true.

Yep but whats with the distinct lack of Ian 'The Flog' W'?

The lack of 'copy/paste but but but', 'copy/paste but but but' so far in this thread is bringing it down...

 

[blackshadow]

hey hey hey!! Lawyers aren't qualified to argue with google detectives!!

I'm feeling a mxett alert for this thread.

He's also a twitter detective.

 

[jenny61_99]

wow, disregard the whole legal system why don't you

The legal system can and often does, get twisted by clever arsed lawyers. You've heard of the saying "the law is an ass" - well partly it's because of the ******* lawyers that makes it that way.

IMO Essendon would be better accepting any penalties and just moving forward. If they argue this, if they argue against WADA - they are doing further damage to our sport and certainly to their brand. Sure there may be a victory of sorts, but you will always be known as drug cheats that fought for the right to cheat instead of a Club that made some poor errors in judgement.

And of course, this is all over AOD9604. What about the other substances? We still haven't heard about those...

 

[blackshadow]

And the point the lawyer was making was that ACC has said this info was posted on advice given by ASADA.

The main point that makes this completely irrelevant is that the ACC put nothing up until February this year, not when the Essendon players were being pumped full of juice in 2012.

 

[TommyMcG]

Wrong. Clarified last week. Always been banned (erm, meaning 2011).


It always stated it wasn't cleared for human use. Not prohibited does not equal allowed.

Enough said.

 

[rumply]

Thick as two bricks, asada tells acc aod isn't banned, asada tells everyone who asks aod isn't banned, see how it works?

 

[blackshadow]

You do realise this Lawyer isn't representing us right?

The article smacks of a lawyer using the media to try and snare some new clients.

It's all about keeping up the billable hours.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Because they had doctors/sports scientists/etc stating it was not prohibited. Heck even ASADA thought so , according to ACC. Ambiguity can kill a case.

That's like saying "She said she was on the pill, therefore I have no responsibility for the child I have Fathered". It's also irrelevant under WADA code.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Thick as two bricks, asada tells acc aod isn't banned, asada tells everyone who asks aod isn't banned, see how it works?

Essendon acknowledge WADA rules a year before they get busted.

See how it works?

 

[Snake_Baker]

The article smacks of a lawyer using the media to try and snare some new clients.

It's all about keeping up the billable hours.

Yep.

"I have some ideas about a defence here Essendon, drop by and make an appointment."

 

[DesertRoo]

The tribunal set up by WADA is akin to a kangaroo court. You can have as many lawyers arguing semantics as you like. In normal law you'll probably have case and win. If your case is to try and disprove and discredit ASADA all your doing I'd going to piss of the judge, jury and executioner. Not a very wise move.

 

[blackshadow]

Exactly. ASADA/WADA will get reamed in court. ASADA is like the dumb delinquent younger brother of WADA who all belong to a dysfunctional family

Bwahaha if ASADA/WADA say that players should be banned and it's appealed, the appeal will be heard in WADA's home court, the CAS, they don't lose there.

 

[JeffDunne]

So that's it then . . . not-guilty and nothing to see.

I'm guessing this lawyer has access to all the evidence and isn't just cherry picking newspaper reports?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Bwahaha if ASADA/WADA say that players should be banned and it's appealed, the appeal will be heard in WADA's home court, the CAS, they don't lose there.

it it's appealed it's held before a specially convened hearing of the AFL Tribunal appeals board...

 

[BF Tiger]

Now the EFC fans want us to believe what is in the papers. I can't keep up.