Certified Legendary Thread Sympathy for *essendon - congratulations on '16 Wooden Spoon (RIP The Scales)

[Mav]

From the statement (copied and pasted below for those too lazy to google), it seems they are hoping to bring the matter to the ADRVP within the next week which will almost certainly lead to infraction notices being issued (if I remember the process correctly) and then it will be down to the corruption of the AFL to decide if these turn into bans and what length bans, etc




The AFL Players’ Association can confirm the players’ lawyers have reviewed the summary of evidence that has been provided by ASADA in support of the amended show cause notices.

The players’ legal team have had discussions with the players about the show cause packs and the material on which ASADA’s case is based.

The players affirmed their commitment to seek an expeditious process to give them the opportunity to remove the cloud that has hung over them for almost two years.

The players do not intend to respond to the show cause notices.

It is important to note that the onus of proving the allegations against the players that they were administered the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4, rests with the AFL. While ASADA is only required to demonstrate to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel a ‘possibility’ of a violation, the much higher standard proof of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ is required to be proved by the AFL at the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.

The players’ lawyers have written to ASADA and the AFL informing them that the players do not intend to respond to the show cause notices and requested that ASADA expedite the process by bringing the matter before the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel within seven days.

In the event that ASADA is not able to meet that timeline, ASADA has been requested to simultaneously provide the AFL General Counsel and the players’ legal team with all the documentation and evidentiary material it has in this matter so that the matter can be dealt with in accordance with the AFL Anti-Doping Code.

We urge ASADA to take all necessary steps to accede to the players’ request for this matter to be fast-tracked, particularly given that:

- the players remain steadfast in their belief they have done nothing wrong;

- the players have cooperated fully throughout the entire process;

- the evidence should have been provided when the show cause notices were originally issued in June; and

- the unnecessary delays that the players have had to endure that are in no part attributable to them, without there being any finality to this saga.

This process has already taken up 21 months – about half the average AFL player’s career. The prospect that players would have to endure a third season with these proceeding hanging over their head is simply unacceptable.

The players want this matter resolved quickly and fairly. It is time to bring this matter to an end.

How can they say they have fully cooperated when they tried to have the whole thing thrown out by the courts over a technicality. It might have been * going to court but it was always stated that it was being done for the players*

I just keep thinking if you replaced "*" with "Chinese Swim Team" and "AFL" with "Chinese Olympic Committee" the Australian media AND public would be in an uproar about their sleazy backdoor trickery trying to worm out of it. Australians would be discussed if they got anything less than 2 years.

 

[astrovic]

On one level, not responding to a show cause notice recognises that there is a "possibility" that the players have doped.

Plus the AFLPA's statement chooses some interesting language:

- the players remain steadfast in their belief they have done nothing wrong;

"Belief". "Done nothing wrong."

- the players have cooperated fully throughout the entire process;

Because they steadfastly opposed the Federal Court action and requested that the court throw it out so that they could get on with the process, amirite?

- the evidence should have been provided when the show cause notices were originally issued in June; and

Actually no. Nor, given the way in which they've decided not to oppose the SCN's, would it have mattered. They were hoping for a free hit and made ASADA do all this extra work in case one materialised. Which isn't exactly "cooperating fully with the process".

- the unnecessary delays that the players have had to endure that are in no part attributable to them, without there being any finality to this saga.

So....a complicated investigation beset by threats of legal action was unnecessarily delayed? ASADA took about 15 months to complete their investigation and issue SCN's - that sounds pretty bloody efficient to me, given how messy this was for them to unravel. The 4 months of delays since have been entirely attributed to *, *Hird and the players for running the Federal Court case and, in the players' case, demanding unnecessarily that the SCN's be supported by evidence when the process does not require that.

No sympathy. I really hope ASADA/AFL doesn't do deals on this one. If they've breached, they deserve the full whack.

 

[Twinkletoes]

I wonder what the ban for excess Vitamin C actually is?

Having to look like Mark McVeigh for life.

Scary.jpg

 

[Horace]

I wonder what the ban for excess Vitamin C actually is?

The ban is that you end up sitting on the throne. Excess vitamin C can give you the s**** and a sore a***.

But *they are already in that position now really.

 

[RobZombie]

From the statement (copied and pasted below for those too lazy to google), it seems they are hoping to bring the matter to the ADRVP within the next week which will almost certainly lead to infraction notices being issued (if I remember the process correctly) and then it will be down to the corruption of the AFL to decide if these turn into bans and what length bans, etc

I think so. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but once it goes from SCN to the ADVRP, the burden of proof shifts to ASADA. The *players and *their *lawyers must think there's more to be gained from arguing no significant fault at the ADVRP than trying to dispute the SCNs so thoroughly and substantially that they would be withdrawn.

Arguing no significant fault == it did happen but *we were tricked.

a.k.a ... the *players are ready to throw *jimmah under the bus!

 

[GarnerSmash]

I think so. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but once it goes from SCN to the ADVRP, the burden of proof shifts to ASADA. The *players and *their *lawyers must think there's more to be gained from arguing no significant fault at the ADVRP than trying to dispute the SCNs so thoroughly and substantially that they would be withdrawn.

Arguing no significant fault == it did happen but *we were tricked.

a.k.a ... the *players are ready to throw *jimmah under the bus!

The ADRVP is not a panel that sits to allow both parties to make a case. It purely determines whether or not the information put together by ASADA is compelling enough to ensure that the cases are to be placed on the register of findings. If yes, then infraction notices are drawn up and issued to players. If not the case stops and there are no infraction notices to answer.

If infraction notices are issued the AFL then needs to organise tribunal hearings for each case, although they do not need to wait for the ADRVP to make that determination, as per the AFLPA request this morning that if the ADRVP doesn't sit within a week that the AFL tribunal convene anyway. Ultimately it is the AFL Tribunal who will determine if bans are to be handed out to players. According to their own Anti-Doping code the

This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or other Person alleged to have committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation to rebut a presumption or establish
specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.5 where the Player must satisfy a higher burden of proof.

The AFL could determine that the case against the players is insufficient given the severity of the allegations and choose not to pursue bans. or they could offer meagre bans given the players 'were duped' or they could smack the living s**t out of them. My money is on the middle ground, with no further punishment for the club or club officials.

 

[Kimbo]

The AFL could determine that the case against the players is insufficient given the severity of the allegations and choose not to pursue bans. or they could offer meagre bans given the players 'were duped' or they could smack the living s**t out of them. My money is on the middle ground, with no further punishment for the club or club officials.

You're probably right BT on the basis that the AFL's decision making won't be about "what is appropriate", given the circumstances, but "what do the various stakeholders think and how can we strike the right balance in our sanctions". They are very susceptible to public opinion and to club pressures etc.

So, on the one hand they'll recognise the sentiment of the players and those who sympathise with them (they were duped) and on the other the view that cheating is not acceptable but that two years or even one year is too harsh.

 

[GarnerSmash]

You're probably right BT on the basis that the AFL's decision making won't be about "what is appropriate", given the circumstances, but "what do the various stakeholders think and how can we strike the right balance in our sanctions". They are very susceptible to public opinion and to club pressures etc.

So, on the one hand they'll recognise the sentiment of the players and those who sympathise with them (they were duped) and on the other the view that cheating is not acceptable but that two years or even one year is too harsh.

That is my line of thinking Kimbo. Its as much about politics and perception as it is about what actually happened.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

2 years for every player involved.

Hird banned for life + ongoing legal proceedings looking in to his shady dealings

* lose sponsors and WorkSafe comes in for the final whack


andddddddd GO!

 

[GarnerSmash]

You're probably right BT on the basis that the AFL's decision making won't be about "what is appropriate", given the circumstances, but "what do the various stakeholders think and how can we strike the right balance in our sanctions". They are very susceptible to public opinion and to club pressures etc.

So, on the one hand they'll recognise the sentiment of the players and those who sympathise with them (they were duped) and on the other the view that cheating is not acceptable but that two years or even one year is too harsh.

Further to this Kimbo, I also wonder how much forethought the AFL has put into this given the potential ramifications of guilty verdicts. THere could be a whole host of flow on effects from the delivery of bans, be they long or short.

Most certainly the *club will be open to legal action from the players, the people involved could be open to bans for traffiking, Dank and Alavi will most certainly come under significant scrutiny in a legal sense and I am sure there are other ramifications unseen or unknown at this point. TBH I am as much interested in how this will play out after the tribunal as I am in the tribunal result.

 

[Kimbo]

Further to this Kimbo, I also wonder how much forethought the AFL has put into this given the potential ramifications of guilty verdicts. THere could be a whole host of flow on effects from the delivery of bans, be they long or short.

Most certainly the *club will be open to legal action from the players, the people involved could be open to bans for traffiking, Dank and Alavi will most certainly come under significant scrutiny in a legal sense and I am sure there are other ramifications unseen or unknown at this point. TBH I am as much interested in how this will play out after the tribunal as I am in the tribunal result.

Some of this, like the trafficking, may not be an issue (?) on the basis of a distinction between bans on performance-enhancing drugs and illegal drugs I guess. I'm assuming the players won't sue *essendon if the bans aren't too long and they don't lose money. They want this over.

 

[RobZombie]

The ADRVP is not a panel that sits to allow both parties to make a case. It purely determines whether or not the information put together by ASADA is compelling enough to ensure that the cases are to be placed on the register of findings. If yes, then infraction notices are drawn up and issued to players. If not the case stops and there are no infraction notices to answer.

If infraction notices are issued the AFL then needs to organise tribunal hearings for each case, although they do not need to wait for the ADRVP to make that determination, as per the AFLPA request this morning that if the ADRVP doesn't sit within a week that the AFL tribunal convene anyway. Ultimately it is the AFL Tribunal who will determine if bans are to be handed out to players. According to their own Anti-Doping code the

The AFL could determine that the case against the players is insufficient given the severity of the allegations and choose not to pursue bans. or they could offer meagre bans given the players 'were duped' or they could smack the living s**t out of them. My money is on the middle ground, with no further punishment for the club or club officials.

*sigh* and I thought I was relatively across this procedural business.

So the ADRVP simply determines the fact that a violation has taken place based on the SCN and whether or not it was contested? And there is no further independent deliberating body before it is heard by the sport's own ruling body? Setting aside my general view that they're all guilty as hell and the penalties the *club already received aren't nearly enough, that's a bit screwy.

My money would be on token player bans and extensive bans further up the food chain.

 

[jacko57]

How can they say they have fully cooperated when they tried to have the whole thing thrown out by the courts over a technicality. It might have been * going to court but it was always stated that it was being done for the players*

I just keep thinking if you replaced "*" with "Chinese Swim Team" and "AFL" with "Chinese Olympic Committee" the Australian media AND public would be in an uproar about their sleazy backdoor trickery trying to worm out of it. Australians would be discussed if they got anything less than 2 years.

Yet again, they contradict themselves. Their actions don't match their words.

 

[Dodecahedron]

No response? Ummm....2years each. Had enough.

 

[GarnerSmash]

*sigh* and I thought I was relatively across this procedural business.

So the ADRVP simply determines the fact that a violation has taken place based on the SCN and whether or not it was contested? And there is no further independent deliberating body before it is heard by the sport's own ruling body? Setting aside my general view that they're all guilty as hell and the penalties the *club already received aren't nearly enough, that's a bit screwy.

My money would be on token player bans and extensive bans further up the food chain.

Yeah, ADRVP would look at all the information provided, by both ASADA and the athlete (if the SCN has been answered - forgot about that bit before) and makes a call as to whether they place the athlete on the RoF. Then it's off to the AFL Tribunal

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Some of this, like the trafficking, may not be an issue (?) on the basis of a distinction between bans on performance-enhancing drugs and illegal drugs I guess. I'm assuming the players won't sue *essendon if the bans aren't too long and they don't lose money. They want this over.

That may be so but if money is lost and names tarnished I think they would try and take down everyone. I know I would anyway.

 

[Kimbo]

That may be so but if money is lost and names tarnished I think they would try and take down everyone. I know I would anyway.

Depends on how things get worded, I guessing.

While ASADA won't necessarily care, I imagine the AFL Tribunal will say things like "taking into account..." and "not completely in their control..." but "regrettably, at the end of the day, the player is responsible..."

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Bit worried that the players have the inside word on the outcome (settle with light slap on the wrist). Otherwise why wouldn't they take the maximum amount of time (10 days)? unless they know they are screwed.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

*sigh* and I thought I was relatively across this procedural business.

So the ADRVP simply determines the fact that a violation has taken place based on the SCN and whether or not it was contested? And there is no further independent deliberating body before it is heard by the sport's own ruling body? Setting aside my general view that they're all guilty as hell and the penalties the *club already received aren't nearly enough, that's a bit screwy.

My money would be on token player bans and extensive bans further up the food chain.

Is it also correct though that if ASADA feel the penalties are insufficient for the offence, they can take it off to the CAS?

 

[muttley45]

For some reason, * seem to think that the tribunal will find that there is not enough evidence to record a guilty verdict, and therefore they will wriggle off the hook, scott free, dont think so, #stillgrasping@straws

 

[Jay-Z]

*sigh* and I thought I was relatively across this procedural business.

So the ADRVP simply determines the fact that a violation has taken place based on the SCN and whether or not it was contested? And there is no further independent deliberating body before it is heard by the sport's own ruling body? Setting aside my general view that they're all guilty as hell and the penalties the *club already received aren't nearly enough, that's a bit screwy.

My money would be on token player bans and extensive bans further up the food chain.

Is it also correct though that if ASADA feel the penalties are insufficient for the offence, they can take it off to the CAS?

Yep, as Charlie has alluded to, the only thing stopping the afl (who are corrupt as hell as we know) from making a self-serving decision is that they are ultimately answerable to ASADA and WADA. Let's hope this is enough incentive to get a fair verdict and we don't have to wait through another appeal!

 

[astrovic]

For some reason, * seem to think that the tribunal will find that there is not enough evidence to record a guilty verdict, and therefore they will wriggle off the hook, scott free, dont think so, #stillgrasping@straws

That's fine. If ultimately the players get off because ASADA can't prove their case to the required level of satisfaction, that's fine. There's no egg on anyone's face if that outcome occurs, because quite clearly there is a case to be made and answered (you just have to look at the Ziggy report to see that), but if the case can't ultimately be made out, then so be it. Prosecutors don't always win, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't prosecute.

It does mean * and *Hird will look like (even greater) idiots for running the Federal Court case, to try and prevent a case that ultimately proved to be unsuccessful. Wasted everyone's time, effort and money.

Not that I think that will occur. My gut feel is that the players are gawn. Like, Max Gawn gawn. Not sure to what extent - whether the full Maxy or just a partial Maxing - but yeah, I reckon they're more screwed than Melbourne's player development abilities. And maybe it's just me, but the way we've heard bugger all out of * and the very tame AFLPA statement since the beefed up SCN's were issued, but I get the distinct impression that they know they're in the s**t and are concentrating on damage control approaches (ie get the penalties reduced by playing along and being "co-operative") rather than their usual bluff and bluster "fight them on the beaches" approach?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

If the penalties are too light, that will give a green light to every sporting club in the world to systematically dope.

I can't see that happening.

 

[GarnerSmash]

If the penalties are too light, that will give a green light to every sporting club in the world to systematically dope.

I can't see that happening.

Just as long as you keep zero records, use untraceable substances and have a fall guy to blame in place.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Just as long as you keep zero records, use untraceable substances and have a fall guy to blame in place.

The one thing that stands out for me is, why wouldn't you keep records of what you are administering?

Surely, if you wanted a program like this to work, you would keep detailed records of what was given to each and every player so you can judge if the program was successful or a giant waste of time.

Surely.