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

[rumply]

you're right. I just don't understand how anyone can be expected to accept a deal based on you pleading guilty from the local anti doping office, when head office haven't explicitly approved it and can overturn it, after you've conceded your guilt. It's crazy.

& that is mainly what has had me seeing red over the last couple of days - where else in life* would this conduct be considered acceptable??


*life as we lucky western buggers know it

 

[baz_machine]

standard dr reid response would be sufficient

 

[Tassieboy]

It's poetic how the media are whipping up it's a forgone conclusion that the Sharks will accept the punishments since it's such a 'generous' offer from ASADA. They've already moved on to the question of whether Gallen should lose his NSW captaincy for drug cheating. Haha. Brilliant inside job ASADA.

 

[rumply]

Fight like Essendon, NRL players told
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/08/21/fight-essendon-nrl-players-told

Former ASADA boss Richard Ings says NRL players who have been offered reduced bans by the doping body should vehemently oppose the charges like AFL club Essendon have if they are innocent.

Ings believes the 17 current and former Cronulla players, who were at the club during the 2011 season and have been offered sweetheart deals that would result in just a month's suspension, should reject the offer if they are simply looking for a conclusion to the protracted saga.

The players have until Friday to accept the deal or it is off the table.

Essendon are currently awaiting the findings in their Federal Court case questioning the legitimacy of the joint investigation by the AFL and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority into the club.

"My analysis is these are very serious charges, that ASADA has a case for the charges and are trying to get to the bottom of what the fault is for individual players," ex-ASADA chief executive Ings told Sky Sports Radio on Thursday.

"Those that challenge the process and are to be found at fault might face higher bans but the options are on the table.

"At the end of the day a player through their counsel need to make a decision that is in their best interests.

"If they are really have done nothing wrong then this would be the sort of case where they should absolutely challenge that process, as the Essendon players have done very significantly.

"But if they have, even unwittingly, used performance-enhancing drugs the offers on the table would be attractive."

Rugby League Players' Association Boss David Garnsey has urged players to put their rights first as they consider the bans - an approach also suggested by Ings.

"Players should fight these accusations if they do not have foundation," Ings said.

"If I was a player I would be asking ASADA to lay out the evidence before me.

"Exactly what is the basis for the accusations? Look at that evidence, if that evidence has merit, then cutting a deal is the smart move.

"If that evidence has no merit then it should be challenged."

 

[Lance Uppercut]

this bit:

--

"Players should fight these accusations if they do not have foundation," Ings said.

"If I was a player I would be asking ASADA to lay out the evidence before me.

"Exactly what is the basis for the accusations? Look at that evidence, if that evidence has merit, then cutting a deal is the smart move.

"If that evidence has no merit then it should be challenged."

--

All well and good to say it, but ASADA clearly aren't doing that, they are doing the opposite, saying you must accept, on good faith, withing 48 hours.

Y u do dis asada

 

[DonsRule]

this bit:

--

"Players should fight these accusations if they do not have foundation," Ings said.

"If I was a player I would be asking ASADA to lay out the evidence before me.

"Exactly what is the basis for the accusations? Look at that evidence, if that evidence has merit, then cutting a deal is the smart move.

"If that evidence has no merit then it should be challenged."

--

All well and good to say it, but ASADA clearly aren't doing that, they are doing the opposite, saying you must accept, on good faith, withing 48 hours.

Y u do dis asada

I've said too, if ASADA especially with the Essendon case, should offer up the evidence to entice them to deal.

The player may genuinely think they are innocent.But if given access to details on why they were charted than you may be inclined to deal.

That still has the issues talked about above though. If head office decides the deal was too weak after you pleded guilty.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

this bit:

--

"Players should fight these accusations if they do not have foundation," Ings said.

"If I was a player I would be asking ASADA to lay out the evidence before me.

"Exactly what is the basis for the accusations? Look at that evidence, if that evidence has merit, then cutting a deal is the smart move.

"If that evidence has no merit then it should be challenged."

--

All well and good to say it, but ASADA clearly aren't doing that, they are doing the opposite, saying you must accept, on good faith, withing 48 hours.

Y u do dis asada

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I've said too, if ASADA especially with the Essendon case, should offer up the evidence to entice them to deal.

The player may genuinely think they are innocent.But if given access to details on why they were charted than you may be inclined to deal.

That still has the issues talked about above though. If head office decides the deal was too weak after you pleded guilty.

there's literally no reason to with hold evidence and make noises about a deal. Either you have the evidence to ban everyone for 2 years and forget about deals; or say guys, let's do this the easy way, here's the evidence, you're ****ed, take the deal or go down. Outside that is, that you don't actually have enough to make it stick.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why cause I can't see it

 

[DonsRule]

there's literally no reason to with hold evidence and make noises about a deal. Either you have the evidence to ban everyone for 2 years and forget about deals; or say guys, let's do this the easy way, here's the evidence, you're ******, take the deal or go down. Outside that is, that you don't actually have enough to make it stick.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why cause I can't see it

Yep, thats been my thinking too.

if I were in their position and though I was innocent, I would not concede especially if my legal advice said don't talk to them.

But, if I saw the evidence went through it with my lawyer and thought it looked bleek, I'd go for the easy way out if it was indeed on offer. IMO especially with the Essendon case where they seem to be strongly aligned with the club at this point, something to break the deadlock.

I think it would work with me if I saw a strong case laid out in front of me.

 

[Dave]

you're right. I just don't understand how anyone can be expected to accept a deal based on you pleading guilty from the local anti doping office, when head office haven't explicitly approved it and can overturn it, after you've conceded your guilt. It's crazy.

Particularly when the whole system is set up to prevent NADO's from doing "sweetheart" deals in the first place.....

 

[Dave]

they actually have.

There was a sporting body that handed down life bans for a first offence. WADA took them to CAS and had it overturned on the basis of it being out of line with their code

Was one of the English ones I think.

 

[Pweter]

this bit:

--

"Players should fight these accusations if they do not have foundation," Ings said.

"If I was a player I would be asking ASADA to lay out the evidence before me.

"Exactly what is the basis for the accusations? Look at that evidence, if that evidence has merit, then cutting a deal is the smart move.

"If that evidence has no merit then it should be challenged."

--

All well and good to say it, but ASADA clearly aren't doing that, they are doing the opposite, saying you must accept, on good faith, withing 48 hours.

Y u do dis asada

With all the colluding that has gone on behind closed doors, exactly why would a player all of a sudden trust ASADA to be offering anything in good faith?

As my old mate George W Bush says, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

 

[rumply]

there's literally no reason to with hold evidence and make noises about a deal. Either you have the evidence to ban everyone for 2 years and forget about deals; or say guys, let's do this the easy way, here's the evidence, you're ******, take the deal or go down. Outside that is, that you don't actually have enough to make it stick.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why cause I can't see it

It seems ASADA have been getting away with this s**t for so long against non team sports athletes, you know all those sport destroying 17yo hurdlers that cant pee in bottles, & think those tactics will play in a team environment.

Hope Cronulla players as a collective tell them to FO.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yep, thats been my thinking too.

if I were in their position and though I was innocent, I would not concede especially if my legal advice said don't talk to them.

But, if I saw the evidence went through it with my lawyer and thought it looked bleek, I'd go for the easy way out if it was indeed on offer. IMO especially with the Essendon case where they seem to be strongly aligned with the club at this point, something to break the deadlock.

I think it would work with me if I saw a strong case laid out in front of me.

well let's think about it.

What is the rationale for ASADA/WADA offering a deal?

Options:

a) Pragmatism. We want to end this as quickly as possible
b) Political pressure, see a)
c) We believe the players were duped, we want to get the best outcome for them whilst taking down the instigators
d) We do have enough to take out the players, but not to get the guys we really want. Hird, Dank etc. in any case, still see a)
e) We don't have quite enough evidence, so we'll through the dilemma at you of going all in - either take us on, or admit you done it, and go virtually free

Any others?

So, if they are the options, and I'm open-minded that I've missed some, then:

a) If you want to end it, show your cards and end it. If you have a winning hand, the players will fold, straight away.
b) see a)
c) see a)
d) maybe, but how is this possible? If you have enough evidence for a) b) or c) I don't understand how you don't have it for the support staff
e) really?

 

[rumply]

Particularly when the whole system is set up to prevent NADO's from doing "sweetheart" deals in the first place.....

Yes, a little detail that has been for the most part lost in all this - ASADA cannot make deals! So wtf is going on??

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Particularly when the whole system is set up to prevent NADO's from doing "sweetheart" deals in the first place.....

which is why I think any deal MUST have a clause in it saying WADA won't go OTT. Otherwise they can't possibly envisage getting a result. Surely.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Yes, a little detail that has been for the most part lost in all this - ASADA cannot make deals! So wtf is going on??

Mr Abbot come on down.

 

[Dave]

this bit:

--

"Players should fight these accusations if they do not have foundation," Ings said.

"If I was a player I would be asking ASADA to lay out the evidence before me.

"Exactly what is the basis for the accusations? Look at that evidence, if that evidence has merit, then cutting a deal is the smart move.

"If that evidence has no merit then it should be challenged."

--

All well and good to say it, but ASADA clearly aren't doing that, they are doing the opposite, saying you must accept, on good faith, withing 48 hours.

Y u do dis asada

It's the process. Why it's been written that way is interesting.

EDIT: I should say it's allegedly the process. Be interested to see where in the legislation they are prevented from showing an athlete the evidence they hold before an ADRVP or tribunal hearing occurs.

 

[Dave]

there's literally no reason to with hold evidence and make noises about a deal. Either you have the evidence to ban everyone for 2 years and forget about deals; or say guys, let's do this the easy way, here's the evidence, you're ******, take the deal or go down. Outside that is, that you don't actually have enough to make it stick.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why cause I can't see it

Dotting t's, crossing i's

 

[rumply]

Drug cheats lookout...

ABC Grandstand ‏@abcgrandstand 17m
Australia's top-ranked junior #tennis player Brad Mousley has been banned for one year for taking ecstasy http://ab.co/1q1Kpws

 

[Dave]

which is why I think any deal MUST have a clause in it saying WADA won't go OTT. Otherwise they can't possibly envisage getting a result. Surely.

Which they've already said wont happen, so one wonders why they think anyone would trust that such a deal would not be challenged.

And don't call me Shirley!

 

[baz_machine]

ASADA has been having too many meetings with the AFL and now wants to get in on the deal making business

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Drug cheats lookout...

ABC Grandstand ‏@abcgrandstand 17m
Australia's top-ranked junior #tennis player Brad Mousley has been banned for one year for taking ecstasy http://ab.co/1q1Kpws

He faced a two-year suspension but told the tribunal he had not taken the drug to enhance his performance.

He shouldn't be banned for that much like Sadd.

 

[DonsRule]

well let's think about it.

What is the rationale for ASADA/WADA offering a deal?

Options:

a) Pragmatism. We want to end this as quickly as possible
b) Political pressure, see a)
c) We believe the players were duped, we want to get the best outcome for them whilst taking down the instigators
d) We do have enough to take out the players, but not to get the guys we really want. Hird, Dank etc. in any case, still see a)
e) We don't have quite enough evidence, so we'll through the dilemma at you of going all in - either take us on, or admit you done it, and go virtually free

Any others?

So, if they are the options, and I'm open-minded that I've missed some, then:

a) If you want to end it, show your cards and end it. If you have a winning hand, the players will fold, straight away.
b) see a)
c) see a)
d) maybe, but how is this possible? If you have enough evidence for a) b) or c) I don't understand how you don't have it for the support staff
e) really?

A) b) c) I don't disagree with much of that really, if they had a strong hand I don't think any amount spin could get them off it.

With d) Dank does have the SCN from the Essendon side of the investigation, so I would struggle to buy into that one, plus as you said it they can get players to fall, would be easy to take others with them IMO.

e) yeah something fishing on that one. Depends who is taking the risk

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

ASADA has been having too many meetings with the AFL and now wants to get in on the deal making business

Asada is one those dodgy looking car yards with Mcdivitt being the sales man.