No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[Barry Roundhouse]

did the charter interview happen?
watched the news for the first time in ages and only got updates on Kim Kardashian and a bunch of mud slinging from liberal and labor...

 

[Nifft]

I don't believe ASADA would want it open.
Why highlight the fact that they ****** up the investigation to the public
they can doctor the tribunal hearing events to suit the needs of the pitchfork carrying mob when it is reported on at a later date
Oh and yeah it will be Hird's fault

This is one of the reasons I'd like it to be open, so ASADA can't make up any BS afterwards. However, what the players want is most important of all, and if that's closed then so be it.

 

[yaco55]

So just very quickly, ASDA was formed in 1999 in response to WADA being formed the same year. However, the first WADA code was not written until 2004 and was first implemented in the Athens Olympics of that year. This was the same year that Mark French had his appeal upheld. After Mark French won that appeal, because of the gross miscarriage of justice, ASDA was disbanded and the ASADA act was written and implemented and aligned with the new WADA code which has obviously been developed since then and most significantly in 2009. Trying to align Essendon with the Mark French case, a case where a guy was certainly guilty and got off, does not really do Essendon any justice where there seems to be much more ambiguity and much less evidence to support a doping charge. Mark French will never happen again.

So you are suggesting that ASDA charged French under their own anti-doping code or the Cyclist's Federation anti-doping code. Which means that as far as ASDA was concerned, French committed a possible doping violation, went to a hearing was found guilty by ASDA, French then appealed to the equivalent of CASA and was found not guilty. Whether ASADA was called ASDA or whether there was a WADA code is irrelevant - French was charged under the Anti-Doping code at the time and was ultimately found not guilty. ASDA and the appeal body couldn't comfortably prove that French used EPO - It was a circumstantial case without a positive blood test - The same as the Essendon situation - You can continue that the two cases are completely different.

I couldn't agree more with that notion. It really has turned into a complete circle jerk and waste of time.

I'm surprised ppl you are talking to aren't more confident.. I guess it depends on their slant. I was more nervous about things 6 months ago than now.. as I said.. 3 different people, 2 of whom have directly seen the 'evidence' against two players.. and they are both more confident now than they were 6 months ago.. I agree that no one knows for sure what is going to happen.. but all of these people aren't known for 'false bravado'.. and they are adamant the players will be cleared..

You are right that no one knows how the tribunal will see things.. but there doesn't seem to be any confidence in the ASADA case by anyone.. including at least one lawyer at ASADA itself.. the general feeling being there is enough evidence to prove "something MIGHT have happened".. hence the SCN's etc.. but no where near enough to prove "something DID happen" which is required for conviction/guilty.

Also seems Charters isn't that willing to claim he imported banned substances any more.. interesting.. like maybe he is a lying sack of s**t or something.. or wanted his 5 minutes of fame.. or realised that he is in enough deep water without making it worse by playing the patsy.. who friggen knows... but it sounds like he might not show.. which would leave ASADA where exactly???

Rines

You know full well that the ASADA legals strongly suggested that the case be dropped - But how do you stop political interference.

 

[yaco55]

The more Charters speaks in public about the case, the more likely that a tribunal will disregard his evidence. Keep Shane talking.

 

[Go_Blues!]

So you are suggesting that ASDA charged French under their own anti-doping code or the Cyclist's Federation anti-doping code. Which means that as far as ASDA was concerned, French committed a possible doping violation, went to a hearing was found guilty by ASDA, French then appealed to the equivalent of CASA and was found not guilty. Whether ASADA was called ASDA or whether there was a WADA code is irrelevant - French was charged under the Anti-Doping code at the time and was ultimately found not guilty. ASDA and the appeal body couldn't comfortably prove that French used EPO - It was a circumstantial case without a positive blood test - The same as the Essendon situation - You can continue that the two cases are completely different.

I am arguing that the laws that they were charged under were completely different. Lets be clear, in the French case they found among other things, a syringe containing eGH with a needle attached which had his DNA on it. French admitted to purchasing eGH from a German pharmacist, importing it to Australia, preparing the substance and injecting himself. French had 2 team mates that testified that they witnessed him taking eGH. The steroid that French admitted to taking and was found in the syringe was called Testicomp and Testicomp was labeled as containing eGH. Testicomp was a banned steroid. French successfully argued that just because Testicomp claims to contain eGH, in the absence of a positive blood test, there is no evidence that the particular Testicomp that he took, despite the labeling that said it did, actually contained eGH.

Now, which parts of this case are remotely similar to Essendon?

I am not arguing that because they were called ASDA rather than ASADA is significant, what I am arguing is that the ASDA act at that time was entirely lacking any consideration for a doping conviction against someone without a positive test. French did not test positive so they had to rewrite the legislation to broaden the terms of what constituted a doping offence to avoid someone who was clearly guilty from getting off on a technical argument again.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Was the Charter interview suppressed? I didn't watch the news. Anyone???

 

[dougyboy]

I am arguing that the laws that they were charged under were completely different. Lets be clear, in the French case they found among other things, a syringe containing eGH with a needle attached which had his DNA on it. French admitted to purchasing eGH from a German pharmacist, importing it to Australia, preparing the substance and injecting himself. French had 2 team mates that testified that they witnessed him taking eGH. The steroid that French admitted to taking and was found in the syringe was called Testicomp and Testicomp was labeled as containing eGH. Testicomp was a banned steroid. French successfully argued that just because Testicomp claims to contain eGH, in the absence of a positive blood test, there is no evidence that the particular Testicomp that he took, despite the labeling that said it did, actually contained eGH.

Now, which parts of this case are remotely similar to Essendon?

I am not arguing that because they were called ASDA rather than ASADA is significant, what I am arguing is that the ASDA act at that time was entirely lacking any consideration for a doping conviction against someone without a positive test. French did not test positive so they had to rewrite the legislation to broaden the terms of what constituted a doping offence to avoid someone who was clearly guilty from getting off on a technical argument again.

Its one thing charge French for what he did, but in our case ARSADA are now trying to charge the witnesses with use because they got some residue on them when they put the syringes in the bin eg: no intent to dope up

 

[Dan Cooper]

ASAD's key witness in its case against the 34 current and former Essendon players will meet briefly with ASADA on Thursday to finalise the statement on which the anti-drugs agency will rely.

But biochemist and convicted drug trafficker Shane Charter has not guaranteed that he will attend the AFL's anti-doping tribunal – which will hear the cases stemming from the Bombers' 2012 supplements regime.

"We're hoping two or three more hours tomorrow we'll finalise that document," Charter told Channel Seven. "When that document is finalised and my lawyer has signed off on it, my lawyer will then give me directions as to where I go from there, as to whether I'm exposed legally."

ASADA representatives have spent the week in Melbourne talking with Charter, finalising the details of his submission.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...depends-on-lawyer-advice-20141119-11q1v3.html

 

[rines]

I think Charters is absolutely motivated to 'do the right thing'... all this talk of multi-million dollar deals for tell all interviews and documentaries etc is just 'noise' really...

I'm glad our national doping body has such a reliable, upstanding and honourable man in their corner. Absolutely rock solid is Mr Charters.

How does it take you two years to finalise your evidence? Either you ordered it or you didn't.. surely it isn't that hard?

 

[rumply]

ASAD's key witness in its case against the 34 current and former Essendon players will meet briefly with ASADA on Thursday to finalise the statement on which the anti-drugs agency will rely.

But biochemist and convicted drug trafficker Shane Charter has not guaranteed that he will attend the AFL's anti-doping tribunal – which will hear the cases stemming from the Bombers' 2012 supplements regime.

"We're hoping two or three more hours tomorrow we'll finalise that document," Charter told Channel Seven. "When that document is finalised and my lawyer has signed off on it, my lawyer will then give me directions as to where I go from there, as to whether I'm exposed legally."

ASADA representatives have spent the week in Melbourne talking with Charter, finalising the details of his submission.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...depends-on-lawyer-advice-20141119-11q1v3.html

more nuts than a fruit cake

 

[Pweter]

Either you ordered it or you didn't.. surely it isn't that hard?

Charters: I don't recall

How you like them apples ASADA? Huh, HUH?

 

[Doss]

So Dank has been making noises for two years that he would help the players but hasn't delivered.

Now Robinson and Charter have both, within a day of each other, made noises that they will.

Argh- who knows what to think or believe anymore.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You know full well that the ASADA legals strongly suggested that the case be dropped - But how do you stop political interference.

yaco, can you please provide a source or some kind of justification for making this statement?

 

[Doss]

yaco, can you please provide a source or some kind of justification for making this statement?

Ditto. I can't recall any solid evidence of this, beyond speculative theorising of it being the case.

 

[Pweter]

yaco, can you please provide a source or some kind of justification for making this statement?

Ditto. I can't recall any solid evidence of this, beyond speculative theorising of it being the case.

On the flip side it's confirmed that an ex federal court judge reviewed the case and deem there's enough there to proceed.

I've heard a few on here state that ASADA's lawyers either didn't want to proceed or have suggested their case isn't strong, but I can't recall seeing it reported as such through the media (recognising I haven't really read too much on this for the last 12 months).

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Ditto. I can't recall any solid evidence of this, beyond speculative theorising of it being the case.

I have a feeling it's a mutation of the early reports of asada legals saying they'd be mad to prosecute on AOD, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt briefly...

 

[Doss]

I have a feeling it's a mutation of the early reports of asada legals saying they'd be mad to prosecute on AOD, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt briefly...

You mean wires of information have possibly been crossed by people at different points in this whole debacle?

Colour me shocked, Lancelot.

 

[boncer34]

Argh- who knows what to think or believe anymore.

If it helps I believe you.

 

[Doss]

If it helps I believe you.

Your faith always means the most, bonce.

 

[boncer34]

Your faith always means the most, bonce.

Aww shucks.

Though now I'm less inclined to believe you after that blatant lie.

 

[rines]

Widely rumoured in legal circles that the internal legal team at ASADA were not keen.. hence why no action under AA..

Then Government gets involved.. appoints ex-Judge.. who finds that they should 'go ahead'... widely rumoured this wasn't considered ideal.. then took 3 more months to get something close to a case together (witness statements/ SCN wording etc) and then needed the appointment of McDumbass to be stupid enough to put his face to this charade..

So not sure if the media has reported it or not.. but legal fraternity is pretty small tbh especially in these matters.. so it is what it is.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Widely rumoured in legal circles that the internal legal team at ASADA were not keen.. hence why no action under AA..

Then Government gets involved.. appoints ex-Judge.. who finds that they should 'go ahead'... widely rumoured this wasn't considered ideal.. then took 3 more months to get something close to a case together (witness statements/ SCN wording etc) and then needed the appointment of McDumbass to be stupid enough to put his face to this charade..

So not sure if the media has reported it or not.. but legal fraternity is pretty small tbh especially in these matters.. so it is what it is.

Haven't been following the last couple of days

Go ahead as in there is enough evidence for players to get bans?

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Haven't been following the last couple of days

Go ahead as in there is enough evidence for players to get bans?

I think she means go ahead with issuing show cause notices and prosecution regardless of result. I think the government would not want an all clear without attempted prosecution after all the hullabaloo.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

I think she means go ahead with issuing show cause notices and prosecution regardless of result. I think the government would not want an all clear without attempted prosecution after all the hullabaloo.

Ahh got ya.

Asada had to do something to justify their 2 year bs investigation at the expense of EFC and the players which pisses me off.

 

[Jade]

It occurs to me that we all might be overstating what it is ASADA has done to this point because of the fact that it is so front and centre of public view.

Just imagine for a sec (and this will give you a giggle trust me) that this ENTIRE DEBACLE had actually occurred behind closed doors - which in reality is exactly what should have happened.

ASADA investigates, and presents findings of a POSSIBLE ADRV to the appropriate panel - that is their role.

In private, it doesn't really matter if they have a strong or weak case - what matters to them is the possibility, which they present to an ADRVP / Tribunal.

I think the public nature of these events has skewed the idea that ASADA should have a slam dunk case in order to proceed.