Bobby Charlton
Club Legend
- Aug 17, 2013
- 1,050
- 554
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Leicester City
Absolute made-up false journalistic tripe from The Age anti-Essendon rag:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ust-as-hird-set-to-return-20140729-zy52m.html
AFL CODE:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ust-as-hird-set-to-return-20140729-zy52m.html
The burden of proof lies with the AFL, not with the player, according to both the AFL code and the WADA Code....the 34 players issued with show-cause notices will almost certainly have to prove they were not administered illegal substances.
AFL CODE:
WADA CODE:15. PROOF OF DOPING
15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof
AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Rule Violation has occurred.
The AGE also still doesn't know the massive difference between "illegal substances" and substances which are prohibited in sport. Jon Pierik is either an ignorant person or a malicious one.ARTICLE 3: PROOF OF DOPING
3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof
The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.
Last edited: