Saga should be over soon.

[onemancyclone]

that comment is specific to this thread. I've made the same point myself. It is astounding that some on here, on the "asada barracker" side, have so much angst with this. It should be what everyone wants. No backroom deals, evidence tested, players either suspended under the code or cleared with no lingering stench

Meanwhile still trying to get the investigation thrown out in the courts.

 

[imperial_oz]

At the AFL tribunal the AFL must prove the players were administered the prohibited substance, while ASADA\WADA only have to prove the possibility of a violation. I would think ASADA would appeal if the AFL can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the players were injected with a prohibited substance but ASADA can show the possibility of a violation.

Not a lawyer, but this is how a interrupted the below statement and how the event could unfold espeically with ASADA\WADA appealing the Saad case as well as another case with a VFL player.

<<<
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.
>>>>

You've gotten the whole process a bit confused there.

ASADA present the results of the investigation to the ADRVP who must decide if a doping violation has possibly occurred. If so they refer the matter to the AFL.

ASADA presents the results of the investigation to the AFL, who at this point take control of the process. The General Counsel reviews the evidence and if he decides that a violation may have occurred issues Infraction Notices.

The burden of proof up until this point is reasonably low but note that no violation has been demonstrated and no player has been found guilty.

The next step is the Tribunal where the burden of proof is comfortable satisfaction. ASADA do not present the evidence in the Tribunal, the AFL does. This is the same as any Tribunal process for striking, rough conduct etc but ASADA have requested to be present and this has been agreed to by the AFL.

The AFL now have the burden of prosecuting each case and it does not have to prove anything. It has to show that a violation probably occurred or most likely occurred. The standard required is less than a criminal case where beyond a reasonable doubt has to be achieved. If the Tribunal thinks that Player X most likely was given TB4 then they will uphold the violation and adjuditcate on a penalty. A lot of criminal cases fail in court because juries are instructed that if there is a potential explanation other than that proposed by the prosecution then the jury must acquit.

That isn't the case here. There may be reasonable alternatives but if the Tribunal thinks that an anti-doping violation most likely occurred that is sufficient to make a guilty finding. Look at the conviction rates in the doping cases vs criminal cases and just from what I've remembered over the years, the anti-doping cases are almost always successful. People shouldn't underestimate the possibilities either way.

That said, I haven't seen any of the evidence that the ASADA investigation has uncovered so any comments about the strength of the case or otherwise are pretty pointless. Its worth noting that the ASADA case has been reviewed externally by experts in the field and given approval, so that would lead me to think there is at least a fair bit of substance to it.

 

[Suma Magic]

that comment is specific to this thread. I've made the same point myself. It is astounding that some on here, on the "asada barracker" side, have so much angst with this. It should be what everyone wants. No backroom deals, evidence tested, players either suspended under the code or cleared with no lingering stench

No matter how flawed the system may be, it's the system.

Personally ill be taking a binary view of the outcome. Guilty, or not guilty.

I may be over-simplifying it, but from my perspective this approach makes the most sense.

 

[fishardansin]

There's no guarantee the players will win their court cases against Essendon, but the exciting thing is we might get the chance to hear what REALLY went on at the club in 2012 - since for the first time the players will have direct incentive to tell the truth.

I think we can have wink wink deals with the players now to play for unders allowing some good FA raids with the guarantee that we'll settle out of court with minimal legal costs to players and confidentiality kept. Could give them a cool mil each. Hopefully the club has looked into this.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Didn't "some" say for ages, that this would all be over quickly and in Essendons favor. Didn't some also say, that the court case as to the legality of the investigation would also end in Essendons favor.

so?

 

[fishardansin]

No, not really. Essendon will remain the only team in VFL/AFL history to be banned from playing finals for dru....err "poor governance".

The only thing escaping bans will prove is that ASADA was unable to dig up enough evidence to prove your club's guilt, or that the AFL was too corrupt to go ahead and administer a fair punishment, or a combination of both.


Make no mistake, Essendon will carry the stigma of peptide abuse for years to come regardless of what happens to the players. That I can promise you.

Dude when are you ever going to show the gratitude we deserve for making sure that Hawthorn don't every get investigated for being the leaders of "injections science" in the AFL?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You've gotten the whole process a bit confused there.

ASADA present the results of the investigation to the ADRVP who must decide if a doping violation has possibly occurred. If so they refer the matter to the AFL.

ASADA presents the results of the investigation to the AFL, who at this point take control of the process. The General Counsel reviews the evidence and if he decides that a violation may have occurred issues Infraction Notices.

The burden of proof up until this point is reasonably low but note that no violation has been demonstrated and no player has been found guilty.

The next step is the Tribunal where the burden of proof is comfortable satisfaction. ASADA do not present the evidence in the Tribunal, the AFL does. This is the same as any Tribunal process for striking, rough conduct etc but ASADA have requested to be present and this has been agreed to by the AFL.

The AFL now have the burden of prosecuting each case and it does not have to prove anything. It has to show that a violation probably occurred or most likely occurred. The standard required is less than a criminal case where beyond a reasonable doubt has to be achieved. If the Tribunal thinks that Player X most likely was given TB4 then they will uphold the violation and adjuditcate on a penalty. A lot of criminal cases fail in court because juries are instructed that if there is a potential explanation other than that proposed by the prosecution then the jury must acquit.

That isn't the case here. There may be reasonable alternatives but if the Tribunal thinks that an anti-doping violation most likely occurred that is sufficient to make a guilty finding. Look at the conviction rates in the doping cases vs criminal cases and just from what I've remembered over the years, the anti-doping cases are almost always successful. People shouldn't underestimate the possibilities either way.

That said, I haven't seen any of the evidence that the ASADA investigation has uncovered so any comments about the strength of the case or otherwise are pretty pointless. Its worth noting that the ASADA case has been reviewed externally by experts in the field and given approval, so that would lead me to think there is at least a fair bit of substance to it.

not to argue semantics, but they indeed DO have to prove a violation occurred. Of course they do. They have to prove it to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal

 

[imperial_oz]

dude sorry, there's quite a lot wrong with that.

ASADA/WADA don't "only have to prove the possibility", that is only for the SCN and infraction stage. Once it hits the tribunal the AFL and ASADA must prove to a high level, not reasonable doubt but a high level nonetheless, that a specific player took a specific substance. If the tribunal doesn't find that then ASADA/WADA can appeal, but only on points of law

You might want to check that Lance. ASADA / WADA and as of this year, the player can also appeal the actual decision to CAS not on points of law. If there was any misapplication of the law, the Federal Court would be the correct venue.

 

[fishardansin]

Didn't "some" say for ages, that this would all be over quickly and in Essendons favor. Didn't some also say, that the court case as to the legality of the investigation would also end in Essendons favor.

Because the evidence against Essendon has always been minimal and flimsy and at most pointed to Dank giving TB4 to players when it was sposed to be Thymomodulin ... on one occasion.

It's ASADA that came back again with that "evidence" after most people thought that the issue was dead and buried in August last year.

 

[imperial_oz]

not to argue semantics, but they indeed DO have to prove a violation occurred. Of course they do. They have to prove it to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal

You are arguing semantics. Prove is a term that refers to beyond reasonable doubt. Demonstrate to a comfortable satisfaction is the level to be achieved.

Either way, semantics aside, we are pretty much saying the same thing. Its just that "prove" has connotations that dont really apply here.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You might want to check that Lance. ASADA / WADA and as of this year, the player can also appeal the actual decision to CAS not on points of law. If there was any misapplication of the law, the Federal Court would be the correct venue.

fair enough, I know they can take it to CAS after the appeals tribunal (or before for ASADA/WADA) but I imagined you need more than a lingering sense of dissatisfaction with the outcome, as you do with most appeals - a basis for appeal. Is that not the case?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You are arguing semantics. Prove is a term that refers to beyond reasonable doubt. Demonstrate to a comfortable satisfaction is the level to be achieved.

Either way, semantics aside, we are pretty much saying the same thing. Its just that "prove" has connotations that dont really apply here.

agree

 

[Hinkley Power]

And what is your witness?

• A "rogue" scientist
• An egomaniac coach who never saw a letter from the club doctor, but helped write it?
• The football club that has no records of what was pumped into 34 players
• Or the CEO that injects himself with tanning solution?
• Or the chairman that tries to null all the evidence?

Sorry, I'm confused who is more credible

It's obvious, ASADA and the AFL conspired to go after Hird and the EFC. They hate them and want to see them burn.

They are even prepared to pay off criminals like Charter and find dubious chemists such as Alavi so that they provide false statements so that Hird and the EFC can burn in hell.

But Zaharakis knew what was going and said no. And Reimers knew exactly what the peptides were doing to his body because he was paying attention in team meetings unlike Spike.

And Reid wrote a letter.

No records.

Everybody involved at the EFC including the players, don't know what was in 1600+ injections. Not a clue.

But 20 minutes with Alavi and a hidden wire, and the Carlton football club get a recording of what was given to the players at least from Alavi's premises.

Alavi Recordings mysteriously go missing of course.

'The players haven't done anything wrong"

Except for Zaharakis who is petrified of needles and pricks

 

[Vindicater]

No, not really. Essendon will remain the only team in VFL/AFL history to be banned from playing finals for dru....err "poor governance".

The only thing escaping bans will prove is that ASADA was unable to dig up enough evidence to prove your club's guilt, or that the AFL was too corrupt to go ahead and administer a fair punishment, or a combination of both.


Make no mistake, Essendon will carry the stigma of peptide abuse for years to come regardless of what happens to the players. That I can promise you.

And I can promise you that outside of football forums such as this no one will give a s**t.

 

[onemancyclone]

Because the evidence against Essendon has always been minimal and flimsy and at most pointed to Dank giving TB4 to players when it was sposed to be Thymomodulin ... on one occasion.

It's ASADA that came back again with that "evidence" after most people thought that the issue was dead and buried in August last year.

An athlete was banned for 2 years for failing to answer to reception at his hotel.

Keep wishing up this scenario of the flimsy evidence.

 

[jenny61_99]

Another possibility that I haven't seen exposed is that ASADA could now issue more SCNs.

I would expect them for all support personnel involved.

 

[Play by Numbers]

so?

I'm showing that "some" as you call them, have an unrealistic pattern of thinking, that assumes each new twist will lead to immediate vindication.

The club has employed numerous legal and PR strategems, to avoid responsibility, embarrassment or sanction, somehow extrapolating the latest development, into a hypothetical series of events that will lead to Essendon and it's players being cleared, is beyond silly. The same posters have been claming victory for 18 months.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

The only thing escaping bans will prove is that ASADA was unable to dig up enough evidence to prove your club's guilt, or that the AFL was too corrupt to go ahead and administer a fair punishment, or a combination of both.

..getting in early with your excuses I see...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I'm showing that "some" as you call them, have an unrealistic pattern of thinking, that assumes each new twist will lead to immediate vindication.

The club has employed numerous legal and PR strategems, to avoid responsibility, embarrassment or sanction, somehow extrapolating the latest development, into a hypothetical series of events that will lead to Essendon and it's players being cleared, is beyond silly. The same posters have been claming victory for 18 months.

so you disagree. Whoopee for you

 

[Play by Numbers]

Because the evidence against Essendon has always been minimal and flimsy and at most pointed to Dank giving TB4 to players when it was sposed to be Thymomodulin ... on one occasion.

It's ASADA that came back again with that "evidence" after most people thought that the issue was dead and buried in August last year.

But you don't actually know this.

Also, the language taken is not that Essendon fans hope the club is innocent, nor concern for player safety, simply that they avoid sanction

 

[imperial_oz]

fair enough, I know they can take it to CAS after the appeals tribunal (or before for ASADA/WADA) but I imagined you need more than a lingering sense of dissatisfaction with the outcome, as you do with most appeals - a basis for appeal. Is that not the case?

Not sure I'd describe it those terms but from my understanding (disclaimer - not a lawyer) ASADA / WADA can appeal id they disagree with the decision. Maybe they can simply claim the Tribunal applied too high a standard or say a reasonable person should have arrived at a different decision. Theres not a lot appeals to go by that I've seen on a quick search.

Watch this space I guess

 

[van peebles]

There's no guarantee the players will win their court cases against Essendon, but the exciting thing is we might get the chance to hear what REALLY went on at the club in 2012 - since for the first time the players will have direct incentive to tell the truth.

Lets not get carried away with aflpa statement.
AD and the new Ceo,dont want a court case 2 years from now with some ex EFC player talking about some grubby incidents while suing the club.
They want this whole saga finished and wrapped up for good.With no future recriminations.
ASADA,went to america and got the best advice possible on this case and were told it was gold.
Old chinese saying=This bridge has more water to see flowing under.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

No, not really. Essendon will remain the only team in VFL/AFL history to be banned from playing finals for dru....err "poor governance".

The only thing escaping bans will prove is that ASADA was unable to dig up enough evidence to prove your club's guilt, or that the AFL was too corrupt to go ahead and administer a fair punishment, or a combination of both.


Make no mistake, Essendon will carry the stigma of peptide abuse for years to come regardless of what happens to the players. That I can promise you.

I think this is what Essendon are hoping for, there is a reason ASADA are going to be present in any AFL tribunal hearing, they don't trust them to do their jobs honestly, CAS I feel will be having the last say on this and if it goes there then 2 year bans will be at the ready.

 

[fishardansin]

You've gotten the whole process a bit confused there.

ASADA present the results of the investigation to the ADRVP who must decide if a doping violation has possibly occurred. If so they refer the matter to the AFL.

ASADA presents the results of the investigation to the AFL, who at this point take control of the process. The General Counsel reviews the evidence and if he decides that a violation may have occurred issues Infraction Notices.

The burden of proof up until this point is reasonably low but note that no violation has been demonstrated and no player has been found guilty.

The next step is the Tribunal where the burden of proof is comfortable satisfaction. ASADA do not present the evidence in the Tribunal, the AFL does. This is the same as any Tribunal process for striking, rough conduct etc but ASADA have requested to be present and this has been agreed to by the AFL.

The AFL now have the burden of prosecuting each case and it does not have to prove anything. It has to show that a violation probably occurred or most likely occurred. The standard required is less than a criminal case where beyond a reasonable doubt has to be achieved. If the Tribunal thinks that Player X most likely was given TB4 then they will uphold the violation and adjuditcate on a penalty. A lot of criminal cases fail in court because juries are instructed that if there is a potential explanation other than that proposed by the prosecution then the jury must acquit.

That isn't the case here. There may be reasonable alternatives but if the Tribunal thinks that an anti-doping violation most likely occurred that is sufficient to make a guilty finding. Look at the conviction rates in the doping cases vs criminal cases and just from what I've remembered over the years, the anti-doping cases are almost always successful. People shouldn't underestimate the possibilities either way.

That said, I haven't seen any of the evidence that the ASADA investigation has uncovered so any comments about the strength of the case or otherwise are pretty pointless. Its worth noting that the ASADA case has been reviewed externally by experts in the field and given approval, so that would lead me to think there is at least a fair bit of substance to it.

You were correct up until the AFL not having to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove "to a comfortable satisfaction" that this particular player had TB4. That is more than the balance of probabilities, but less than beyond reasonable doubt. It is still requires some work.

 

[Vindicater]

An athlete was banned for 2 years for failing to answer to reception at his hotel.

Keep wishing up this scenario of the flimsy evidence.

Lol, good context. The situations are almost identical.