Public Opinion: Will EFC players get Infraction Notices? (Poll included)

[Graffy4242]

The rule said if a banned substance entered a player's body, unless he is unconscious he is gone.

As such, you would have to make VERY VERY sure of the people you recruit to run any supplements program.

Maybe even more so when your stated aim was to "push the boundaries" and go "close to the edge".

And yet Hird still thinks in his own mind he has done no wrong.

 

[LanceRomance]

J.Zig ‏@jp_zaga 20m "@MasterSharky: Sandors legal representative has just said that Sandor did not deal to other @NRLplayers!! @Blakey19792008

wonder who he is accused of dealing to then.

Maybe lower levels? or perhaps.... another code.

 

[questionable]

based on the publicly available information, they certainly should be receiving infraction notices. but if you think it's inconceivable that there's some kind of back scratching three-way going on with the AFL, the federal government and ASADA, you're wrong. WADA are a trickier proposition, but who knows.

i wonder if it's just a coincidence that in the rudd reshuffle, the sports ministry was given to don farrell - the most faceless of faceless men; a totally underhanded dog of a man

http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/political-fixers/don-farrell

 

[pazza]

It is unlikely.

For infraction notices to be issued, there has to concrete proof of actions taken.

Dank clearly needs to speak no matter what happens.

 

[peanuts!]

Is it possible because they have not kept records of which players took which supplements but ASADA believes there was an attempt to systematically dope (ie they believe: there is evidence of banned substances/PEDs/invoices on site and an Essendon employee (Dank) was in possession of them and the lack of records was a systematic attempt to conceal what had been taken) that the club could be banned but the players could be cleared due to inconclusive evidence, (ie we dont know who took what)? The alleged, (by some,) destruction of records could hypothetically save the players but also could possibly see the club banned for two years.

Also it is my understanding (could be wrong on this) that when you request a ruling from ASADA on the banned status of a drug that you are given a receipt number. Does Dr Garnham have a receipt number from ASADA when he called up on the status of AOD9604? I dont believe any journalist has asked this question.

In addition, if there is a facility at ASADA for email requests on banned substances, (not 100% sure if there is) why would Dr Garnham not use this facility as the written word is far more useful as reference and evidence?

 

[Malifice]

For infraction notices to be issued, it has to be established that it was very likely a doping violation occurred.

Fixed.

 

[Malifice]

From our board:

Poster on TC said Roy Masters was on radio yesterday and said he is certain infraction notices will be handed down (he has been told by people in canberra). NRL infraction notices in November and AFL in December.

 

[DrEvil]

I would assume the AFL would grant concessions to allow you to draft mature age players from the lower comps as a stop-gap measure.

You'll be s**t for a year or two on field.

Its the financial consequences that should worry you.

Suspensions will lead to class actions against the club by all players involved. That's likely to be in the value of tens of millions of dollars in damages against the club.

Add to that the financial ramifications of loss of revenue from sponsors and members, gate takings from being s**t for a year or two, legal costs, players walking out on the club etc.

Tens of millions of dollars. Hat in hand to the AFL kind of stuff.

Like where we were a few years ago.

Much worse than where Carlton were a few years ago, and so was their "bad governance issue".

 

[pazza]

Fixed.

Changing a person's comments to suit a argument is pretty ******* pathetic.

 

[Sunbot]

I would think that it would raise more questions of impropriety if ASADA did not issue infractions based upon the current interpretation of the WADA code. However, penalties are in the hands if the AFL, so it could well turn out that infractions are issued and the AFL use their own AD Code to bat them away with (I) special circumstance (2) full cooperation and (3) first offense. Therefore the record can show substances were used but no real damage done to the competition. Except for Dank - 100% certainty their gunning to get him big time "he has a lot to answer for"

 

[zaharakamania]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...arged-for-doping/story-fndv8gad-1226706967570

ESSENDON players now look increasingly certain to escape doping charges.

​

The extraordinary events at League Central in Sydney yesterday gave a rare insight into ASADA's practices - when there is cause to act, the anti-doping body acts swiftly.​

Canberra player Sandor Earl - who has been linked to sports scientist Stephen Dank - admitted using and trafficking the peptide CJC-1295 in a recent interview with ASADA.

Already, he has been stood down and faces a suspension of up to four years under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

For as long as ASADA says its investigation into Essendon remains open, it's impossible to be categorical, but Earl's case presents a stark contrast to happenings in the seven-month probe into the Bombers.
In that case, 130 witnesses have been interviewed, and no infractions issued. Thirteen thousand documents have been reviewed. No infractions. An internal review and then a 400-page ASADA interim report have been handed down. Still no infractions.
Even as AFL charges against the Bombers and four officials were read out by league general counsel Andrew Dillon this month, he made it a point to declare on evidence before the AFL, there would be no infraction notices.
AFL deputy chief Gillon McLachlan gave the strongest indication yet that the league - a joint partner in the ASADA probe - was not expecting bad news.
McLachlan said on Wednesday that he believed it would take "definitive new evidence" for doping charges to be brought.
"Ultimately ASADA have that power but what is important to understand is that there is not one scintilla of evidence to say that players had any knowledge of what was going on here.
"We can't control where ASADA goes. I think there would have to be definitive new evidence for them to issue infraction notices."
ASADA was this month granted new powers that enable it to compel witnesses to submit to interview, under pain of a fine of $5000 a day.
Dank has not submitted to an interview and has indicated he will not.
Yet if "definitive new evidence" was to come to light, it would surely have to come from him.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

For AOD-9604? Absolutely not. Its use now isn't in dispute by any party, yet here we are with no infraction notices. I think we all know why (hint: Gerard Whately was right).

For another substance? I wouldn't completely rule it out, but it's looking unlikely at this stage. The AFL have stated on multiple occasions now that further evidence (to that available now) would be required.

 

[rand corp]

They did play the rules ask Dank why he didn't.

Think your being a little naive!!!!

 

[manboob]

I can't help but wonder what impact poor record keeping might have? Now if it does have an impact changes will have to be made to ensure no club (of any persuasion ) resorts to poor record keeping as a pathway to avoid penalties. Not that I'm suggesting that is what Essendon have done.

As I've said before I think poor recording keeping almost has to be viewed in the same light as a masking agent. Can you imagine if it was deemed a "valid excuse"...

 

[Blue1980]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...arged-for-doping/story-fndv8gad-1226706967570

ESSENDON players now look increasingly certain to escape doping charges.

​

The extraordinary events at League Central in Sydney yesterday gave a rare insight into ASADA's practices - when there is cause to act, the anti-doping body acts swiftly.​

Canberra player Sandor Earl - who has been linked to sports scientist Stephen Dank - admitted using and trafficking the peptide CJC-1295 in a recent interview with ASADA.

Already, he has been stood down and faces a suspension of up to four years under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

For as long as ASADA says its investigation into Essendon remains open, it's impossible to be categorical, but Earl's case presents a stark contrast to happenings in the seven-month probe into the Bombers.
In that case, 130 witnesses have been interviewed, and no infractions issued. Thirteen thousand documents have been reviewed. No infractions. An internal review and then a 400-page ASADA interim report have been handed down. Still no infractions.
Even as AFL charges against the Bombers and four officials were read out by league general counsel Andrew Dillon this month, he made it a point to declare on evidence before the AFL, there would be no infraction notices.
AFL deputy chief Gillon McLachlan gave the strongest indication yet that the league - a joint partner in the ASADA probe - was not expecting bad news.
McLachlan said on Wednesday that he believed it would take "definitive new evidence" for doping charges to be brought.
"Ultimately ASADA have that power but what is important to understand is that there is not one scintilla of evidence to say that players had any knowledge of what was going on here.
"We can't control where ASADA goes. I think there would have to be definitive new evidence for them to issue infraction notices."
ASADA was this month granted new powers that enable it to compel witnesses to submit to interview, under pain of a fine of $5000 a day.
Dank has not submitted to an interview and has indicated he will not.
Yet if "definitive new evidence" was to come to light, it would surely have to come from him.

If I was an Essendon supporter this wouldn't leave me brimming with confidence.

An investigation into a whole team is far different to an individual.

Funny how it came from News Ltd.

I'm not desperate for players to get infraction notices, but I'm almost certain they will.

 

[rand corp]

It is unlikely.

For infraction notices to be issued, there has to concrete proof of actions taken.

Dank clearly needs to speak no matter what happens.

Incorrect, there does not have to be concrete proof, this has already been done to death on here.

 

[jaxter600]

As I've said before I think poor recording keeping almost has to be viewed in the same light as a masking agent. Can you imagine if it was deemed a "valid excuse"...

That's been a concern from the beginning for mine, a dark path would open up in front of the entire competition. Every team trying to be as inept as possible.

 

[kaiserchief13]

For AOD-9604? Absolutely not. Its use now isn't in dispute by any party, yet here we are with no infraction notices. I think we all know why (hint: Gerard Whately was right).

For another substance? I wouldn't completely rule it out, but it's looking unlikely at this stage. The AFL have stated on multiple occasions now that further evidence (to that available now) would be required.

The AFL don't know what evidence ASADA has.

Facts are - If Essendon players have signed off on receiving AOD and Thymosin injections and there is proof that they received them they are gone, regardless if they thought well everyone in the team is getting them so they must be fine.

All it would've taken is 1 player to google them both and then bring it up with all the other players so they could then all start asking questions, but it seems this never happened. Essendon players must be dumber than dogshit.

 

[lones37]

Dank is going to be facing ASADA in the next fortnight.

Im certain the ACC will get involved and he will sing.

This will be the last piece to the jigsaw of this sorry tale.

If Dank wasn't doing clinical trials and ripping off the club, this would still be going.

That article is crap. As has been stated they have enough to go with now, AFL want clean air for finals.

 

[telsor]

I'm not sure the players will be hit, due to the record keeping issue.

That said.

Essendon acquired non-approved drugs (at least).
Essendon no longer has said drugs.
Essendon can't say where they went, but the strong suspicion would be they gave them to or used them on the players.

As ASADA can't say which players, they need to go the club, and it's officials...Hard. Hard enough that nobody thinks having the dog eat their homework (paperwork) is a valid option.

Not sure what the AFL/ASADA rules say, but cycling teams have been banned from competition, so while I wouldn't expect that, some pretty hefty penalties would seem to be possible.

 

[Blue1980]

I'm not sure the players will be hit, due to the record keeping issue.

That said.

Essendon acquired non-approved drugs (at least).
Essendon no longer has said drugs.
Essendon can't say where they went, but the strong suspicion would be they gave them to or used them on the players.

As ASADA can't say which players, they need to go the club, and it's officials...Hard. Hard enough that nobody thinks having the dog eat their homework (paperwork) is a valid option.

Not sure what the AFL/ASADA rules say, but cycling teams have been banned from competition, so while I wouldn't expect that, some pretty hefty penalties would seem to be possible.

Essendon need to somehow pin all the stuff that Dank ordered was going to his own dodgy practices, which is almost impossible with the existing consent forms and.circumstantial evidence piling up.

 

[Malifice]

Changing a person's comments to suit a argument is pretty ******* pathetic.

I was just making sure you were giving an honest statement in relation to the legal burden of proof that needs to be met by ASADA to establish an ADRV.

If ASADA feel they can establish an anti doping rule violation over 'the balance of probabilities' but without having to be 'beyond reasonable doubt', then they have no option other than to recommend infraction notices to the ADRV panel.

It only (legally) needs to be established that it is 'very likely' on the facts than an ADRV has occurred, for an infraction to be issued, and a case to be proven. Its slightly above the civil standard of proof, but its below the criminal threshold.

ASADA don't have to be 'absolutely certain' as you claimed. s**t; ASADA dont even need to be persuaded 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Read the AFL charge sheet against Essendon. If half the s**t in there is found to be true, it is clearly beyond 'very likely' that players were administered AOD, TB4, Lube all plus (horse medicine) and some other (redacted) drug - all of which are prohibited.

Those players are also specifically named in the same report (but names redacted).

Explain how an ADRV cant be issued to those players?

 

[yebiga]

Yes, it will.



The AFL cant just 'excuse itself' from ASADA and WADA. And the Feds simply wont allow it either.

The AFL would bend over backwards to allow Essendon draft allowances to field a side for the duration of the sanctions.




Worst case scenario, the AFL survived perfectly well without Fitzroy, it can survive perfectly well without Essendon.

Not that it'll come to that. The AFL will appoint administrators to run the club, and allow Essendon special draft concessions (and emergency funding money) so they could survive should worse come to worse.




Come again?

Let me see if I can help you understand
Your 18 yr old son recruited to Essendon is suspended as a drug cheat
The investigation by the afl and the charges by the afl against Essendon reveal a sequence of events where the Essendon fc and the afl have allowed an unsafe working environment where your son has been endangered by unknown substances

The afl has already made these findings facts

You take it to court and sue the afl and Essendon for damages to your reputation, your income potential, your long term health risk.... You can fill in the gaps

Now tell me they don't have a case, tell me the court will blame the18, 19' 20 year old

So infraction notices against Essendon players is a disaster of unimaginable consequences. The players will without a shadow Of a doubt be advised To sue Essendon and the afl for not providing a safe environment and the afl has already conceded they knew something was wrong 18 months earlier...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Let me see if I can help you understand
Your 18 yr old son recruited to Essendon is suspended as a drug cheat
The investigation by the afl and the charges by the afl against Essendon reveal a sequence of events where the Essendon fc and the afl have allowed an unsafe working environment where your son has been endangered by unknown substances

The afl has already made these findings facts

You take it to court and sue the afl and Essendon for damages to your reputation, your income potential, your long term health risk.... You can fill in the gaps

Now tell me they don't have a case, tell me the court will blame the18, 19' 20 year old

So infraction notices against Essendon players is a disaster of unimaginable consequences. The players will without a shadow Of a doubt be advised To sue Essendon and the afl for not providing a safe environment and the afl has already conceded they knew something was wrong 18 months earlier...

ASADA doesn't care about Essendon, the AFL or the players. They care about keeping sport free of drug cheats. Of course Essendon and the AFL will be sued but that's the price they have to play for ******* up so badly. For the players well like the cliche says stay in school kids, as a more knowledgable person might've thought to investigate what they were being injected with.