Saga should be over soon.

[The 747]

That press release from the AFLPA is pretty ordinary work, I would imagine those relatively few AFL players with a brain might be asking some questions about what sort of outfit is trying to represent them.

 

[BlueWorld]

I'm glad he did because players would have to be dealing with this during the season. Court case delayed this to after the season. It also highlighted the corruption, by Gil in particular, involved in writing that interim report. Also players were intimidated by SCNs when there was no evidence given because they didn't know what they were facing. Club saw most of the evidence from discovery orders ... and as a result players were given evidence as part of new SCNs.

Money well spent.

Hird is appealing because he's looking for a stick to go to town on some people with.

Funny how they're suddenly in a hurry to sort this out. They were in no hurry in June when the SCN were first issued. If they were so convinced of their innocence why didn't they respond then and not bother waiting for the outcome of the court action? Show us the evidence and we'll decide whether you've got enough to know what to do.

 

[fishardansin]

Selective memory from another hirdite. BECAUSE Hird said he would resign if the players were put on the register of findings.

It has no influence on the cases .... and being put on that register or given an infraction notice is not guilty of doping. I'm google detectiving for that quote. Can you send me a link?

 

[Argy]

Dude you're arguing semantics. What is proof? As a published academic in the fields of science and mathematics let me break it down for you. Proof is proof .... there are levels of proof. That is what is the case here. So to a certain level ASADA has to prove the case. They normally have an easy job when there is a positive test.

Again with the semantics. The standard of proof is not 100%. This means a player can be convicted even if there is some doubt (not much, but some).

 

[imperial_oz]

Dude you're arguing semantics. What is proof? As a published academic in the fields of science and mathematics let me break it down for you. Proof is proof .... there are levels of proof. That is what is the case here. So to a certain level ASADA has to prove the case. They normally have an easy job when there is a positive test.

I think I can see the problem here. I'm also published in the field of science and the word proof in science has different connotations to the use of the word in law. I was pointing out the difference.

Maybe don't bite where there is no dispute. We were in agreement over everything except the connotations

 

[romeoh]

Pretty sure ASADA being the professional organisation that they had their brief completely ready to go before issuing the notices and can grant the players hearings immediately.

I mean surely there wasn't just 350 pages of a fishing expedition that hoped the players pled guilty for "backdated" bans.

Least they have paperwork!

 

[Gigantor]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

that's about it

 

[Gigantor]

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

except it's up to ASADA to make the case

 

[Gigantor]

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

do people think that's a real possibility after 21 months?

 

[BlueWorld]

I love this angle. Apparently you can't be a credible witness if you have been convicted of a crime. Better throw open the doors of Barwon Prison and let out all the blokes who have been put behind bars on the testimony of fellow crims!!!

Ps he is also a bio-chemist. But you and your mates keep high fiving with each other that he has been convicted of a crime in the past = can't be credible.

But trustworthy enough to supply drugs to the players.

 

[Zephyr Effekt]

Nope, the matter won't end until the players sue the club. Which, incidentally, is what I'm looking forward to the most.

Technically, aren't players employees of the AFL. To sue the club would be to sue the AFL.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

interesting take on it. The only way a "lettuce leaf slap" can come is via a deal, not via a tribunal.

I'd say the players have clearly been given a "wink wink" that the evidence isn't going to hold up at the tribunal, like some of us have said for ages, and that they want to get it tested.

If they thought the evidence was strong the statement would be talking about approaching ASADA for deals. The writing is on the wall people.

You realise you're talking about the AFL, yeah?

An orchestrated outcome is always a chance w ith these guys.

 

[brmiau]

Excuse my ignorance but were ASADA compelled to include ALL the evidence in the SCN's against the players? Could they have provided a summary but kept some key evidence to them self to use at the hearing?

 

[fishardansin]

You should be worried about the truth, not about sanction.

I'm actually pretty comfortable about the truth. I think those that have haunted this board for most of the saga have been a long way from it.

and if ASADA could send their briefs of evidence to the AFL at the same time that they put it up to the ADRV Panel, it will be even quicker, because the AFL does not rely on the ADRV Panel or a RoF entry to issue injunctions (in the absence of an AAF), so ASADA would merely be wasting time if they didn't follow the PA's suggestion

I wonder if ASADA "hanno i coglioni" to go to the tribunal or if they will delay the process in an attempt to upset the players preseason. Doubt they were expecting the players to not accept deals!

 

[Seadog]

I notice the players remain steadfast in their belief the have done nothing wrong, which is not quite the same as believing they were never injected with a banned substance.
Sounds like blame shifting to me.

 

[Carlo]

Since Matt Finish left the AFLPA they have actually started doing their job, In the interest of the players and not the AFL.

 

[Gigantor]

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.

the earlier part can actually be expedited
"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."
the AFL does not actually rely on the ADRV Panel or a RoF entry to issue infraction notices (where an AAF does not apply), so ASADA could actually send the briefs of evidence to the AFL at the same time as it sends them to the ADRV Panel, and if the AFL legal counsel thought there was sufficient evidence, they could issue infraction notices immediately, and not wait for the ADRV Panel
in fact
the AFL could issue infraction notices right now, such is the vague wording of the AFL's code

 

[evo]

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

you can't promise that because it is rubbish.

there are plenty of people in the wider community both involved in footy and not that are disgusted with Essendon's shenaghins. Even if you do somehow weasel out of these charges one thing is certain: you disgraced out favourite sport ( at least in the Southern states). Thats what "bringing the game into disrepute" actually means!

Richmond supporters still cop s**t 10 years later for some campaigner who spat on Spud Frawley.If you think no-one gives a s**t about this, you're sadly mistaken.

 

[compact72]

Excuse my ignorance but were ASADA compelled to include ALL the evidence in the SCN's against the players? Could they have provided a summary but kept some key evidence to them self to use at the hearing?

Correct.

may not be the full evidence, just summary for them to respond or move at least. Rather than launch another legal action

IMO, ASADA knew Essendon were going to take them to court, which is why they didn't include the evidence in the first round.

 

[threesixpio]

Hopefully immediately put into a register of finding and then straight to the tribunal.

I have heard that one player will go first and it'll be shown that even if there is a circumstantial case that TB4 was at Essendon that is very different to showing that this individual was given TB4 ... when there was less than 34 doses ever at the club .... if circumstantial case against those 26 vials holds up .... despite the only witness who could put them there never being interviewed and the person who gave them to him saying he doesn't know where they went.

Then the other 33 will go as a group case and all get off on the same principle.

Okay. Not impossible. But can they explain the side effects? Really hard for any of us to guess without seeing the evidence. Also, the briefs are all tailored to individuals so that strategy might not work.

 

[Gigantor]

Bullshit.
"Proof" is with respect to the act of proving.

imperial oz does not like the verb "to prove"

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You have shamed yourself so frequently and so comprehensively, lance, that you no longer know where the truth begins and your bullshit ends.

quoted for lols.

 

[BlueWorld]

I'm extremely confident we will get off without bans, The Essendon football club will be completely vindicated.

You can only be vindicated if you can prove you are innocent. All I am hearing is there is not enough proof that you doped.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I'm actually pretty comfortable about the truth. I think those that have haunted this board for most of the saga have been a long way from it.

But if the club claim not to know, then how could you know.

If you, or Essendon were really concerned about player welfare, then they should be working with the AFL and relevant parties to form a comprehensive investigation into what the players were given.

 

[Gigantor]

Has to go to the ADRVP first.

no
that's the point
it does NOT have to go to the ADRV Panel
the AFL could issue infraction notices today if it was so inclinded
such is the vague wording within the AFL code