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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately, the wise minds at AFL HQ brought in rules that say even if the players were duped, they're still guilty.

Those wise minds have avoided much in the way of criticism so far, which surprises me.

No i dont agree with that.

The rules have to be that way, if you are found to have a banned drug you are guilty. you cant have the possibility of athletes blaming support staff in order to get an advantage and avoid bans.

This is why the doping issue is so broad, because the rules have to be unjust to protect the sport. However there is the possibility (as we may be seeing here) that innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong are facing bans due to another individual.

Its not right but short of redoing the entire system and allowing certain substances and the way it is policed, and doing that for all sports, this system is the one that "works" for now
 
Jul 2, 2007
8,852
3,487
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
True but if the AFL wants to be really known as a clean sport then they should put all the clubs under a microscope.
Alternatively, if they want to be known as a clean sport, they isolate the problem to just one club, create a narrative and then ensure that everyone involved no longer works in football again.
Clean as a whistle.
 

rines

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Sep 28, 2007
8,339
9,345
AFL Club
Essendon
I must be reading Chip's article a little differently to others. For mine it actually helps our case in some ways. Essentially we now have a scenario where we understand where ASADA is coming from.

So China is saying that the 26 vials contained TB4. So TB4 came into the country as ordered by CHARTERS (who was NEVER employed by EFC). TB4 then 'presumably' went to Alavi.. and then Alavi gave it to Dank and no one knows what really happened with it after that...

We also have Charters EXPRESSLY declaring that the substance was NOT for human use. So IF he has supplied it to Dank with the intention to 'treat' EFC players then he has broken a LEGAL contract/promise to the supplier. This should lead to criminal charges.

It is also possible that the TB4 was never meant for EFC... at all.. and hence why it never appeared on invoices (or it appeared and then was reversed) and why they can only track one very small shipment...

As others have said, I would be far more worried if, say, 6 players got SCN's.. and it directly related to one series of injections.. but the fact that 34 players got one suggests that even ASADA can't be sure who may, or may not, have got any potentially tainted injections.

Also.. the Chinese supplier can say "it was TB4".. but without independent tests verifying that.. ASADA will not have enough to prosecute (according to CAS).. when it has been shown that even a 'labelled bottle' was not enough to prove what a substance was.. there needs to be independent verification of the substance by some means.

The problem you have now is that both sides are equally invested in 'winning' to save face.. which could lead to a lengthy battle. I still think that some kind of deal that sees players miss 1-2 games is going to be appealing to the players.. it will suck big time.. be completely unfair but life sucks.
 

IggypopsTshirt

Cancelled
Jun 27, 2013
3,975
9,773
AFL Club
Essendon
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1414727990.743374.jpg
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Aug 7, 2009
2,977
4,009
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
No i dont agree with that.

The rules have to be that way, if you are found to have a banned drug you are guilty. you cant have the possibility of athletes blaming support staff in order to get an advantage and avoid bans.

This is why the doping issue is so broad, because the rules have to be unjust to protect the sport. However there is the possibility (as we may be seeing here) that innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong are facing bans due to another individual.

Its not right but short of redoing the entire system and allowing certain substances and the way it is policed, and doing that for all sports, this system is the one that "works" for now
I'm still struggling with "the rules have to be unjust to protect the sport" - has the sporting community lost the plot if this is the belief ? Or is it just easier for sport to be unjust - and use a 'the end justifies the means' mentality - than to come up with a better set of rules ?

What you could do is modify the rules so that if it is established to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the tribunal that a player has doped, then the burden of proof reverses and the onus is then on the player to prove how they took all reasonable steps to avoid doping and why they should not face (full) punishment - this concept already exists in a weaker form in the AFL anti-doping code.

In this model, a player can't just claim 'my doctor gave me the bad drugs - I didn't know' - the burden of proof is with the player to prove it (with a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof or higher).

If they do manage to prove it, it doesn't necessarily eliminate all of the penalty, but it eliminates the part of the penalty that is there just to punish. In the current saga, any prospective penalty handed down would be purely for punishment purposes - the purported benefits from the banned drugs taken in 2012 would have disappeared by now, so making players miss games in 2015 is just about punishment, not about ensuring that those games are 'fair'. So this penalty would be eliminated if the players were able to prove they were not to blame.

This would also enable an effective declaration by the tribunal that a player is not a drug cheat, as they would have been officially deemed by the tribunal to not be at fault.

It would be a little different in situations where ASADA didn't drag its heels - i.e. when the tribunal hearing is not long after the alleged doping - as the merit of suspending players for games to ensure those games were 'fair' would be higher. But there would still be the concept of players not being punished for punishment's sake, as there is now. In other words, players would miss games just where necessary to ensure fairness, not because they deserve punishment.

And in situations where the player successfully proved that they were mislead / deceived / betrayed / etc., the AFL and / or the player's club would be expected to pursue the culprit for breach of contract / misconduct / illegal actions / etc.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Aug 7, 2009
2,977
4,009
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
We also have Charters EXPRESSLY declaring that the substance was NOT for human use. So IF he has supplied it to Dank with the intention to 'treat' EFC players then he has broken a LEGAL contract/promise to the supplier. This should lead to criminal charges.
Criminal charges, or being sued for breach of contract ?

I thought what Charters agreed was not to use it for human use without following the appropriate handling (so there was an avenue there for him to use it for human use if he could sort out the appropriate handling) ?
 
I'm still struggling with "the rules have to be unjust to protect the sport" - has the sporting community lost the plot if this is the belief ? Or is it just easier for sport to be unjust - and use a 'the end justifies the means' mentality - than to come up with a better set of rules ?

What you could do is modify the rules so that if it is established to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of the tribunal that a player has doped, then the burden of proof reverses and the onus is then on the player to prove how they took all reasonable steps to avoid doping and why they should not face (full) punishment - this concept already exists in a weaker form in the AFL anti-doping code.

In this model, a player can't just claim 'my doctor gave me the bad drugs - I didn't know' - the burden of proof is with the player to prove it (with a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof or higher).

If they do manage to prove it, it doesn't necessarily eliminate all of the penalty, but it eliminates the part of the penalty that is there just to punish. In the current saga, any prospective penalty handed down would be purely for punishment purposes - the purported benefits from the banned drugs taken in 2012 would have disappeared by now, so making players miss games in 2015 is just about punishment, not about ensuring that those games are 'fair'. So this penalty would be eliminated if the players were able to prove they were not to blame.

This would also enable an effective declaration by the tribunal that a player is not a drug cheat, as they would have been officially deemed by the tribunal to not be at fault.

It would be a little different in situations where ASADA didn't drag its heels - i.e. when the tribunal hearing is not long after the alleged doping - as the merit of suspending players for games to ensure those games were 'fair' would be higher. But there would still be the concept of players not being punished for punishment's sake, as there is now. In other words, players would miss games just where necessary to ensure fairness, not because they deserve punishment.

And in situations where the player successfully proved that they were mislead / deceived / betrayed / etc., the AFL and / or the player's club would be expected to pursue the culprit for breach of contract / misconduct / illegal actions / etc.

What you have just posted is both very logical and seems like a system that would work perfectly. It would require only thourough planning and solid reasoning by forward thinking people to implement.


It thus has no chance of ever being implemented by any Government or legislative body and we will continue to have the piece of crap system we currently do.:D

I do totally agree with you mate, the system is broken, it shouldnt be that way, but atm it is that way until a total overhaul is done. Im not happy with an unjust system but there is so much in our society that is unjust im almost over caring at this point.
 

Pweter

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 12, 2010
15,387
20,561
Right here, right now
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Central Districts, Detroit Pistons
Haha

The HTB think that EFC only getting 2 Firday Night games is a sign from the AFL that players are coping bans.

I wouldn't say just the HTB. A bloke here at work who's been reasonable in his discussion throughout didn't say it was THE reason for only 2 Friday night games, but he did say he wondered whether the AFL is protecting it's own interests in the event suspensions do happen.
 
Sep 12, 2006
10,283
16,499
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
I wouldn't say just the HTB. A bloke here at work who's been reasonable in his discussion throughout didn't say it was THE reason for only 2 Friday night games, but he did say he wondered whether the AFL is protecting it's own interests in the event suspensions do happen.
and tbh, based on the AFL's actions, that's not an entirely inappropriate question to ask.

protect the brand, innit
 
Apr 11, 2002
33,567
34,643
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, Georgia.
I must be reading Chip's article a little differently to others. For mine it actually helps our case in some ways. Essentially we now have a scenario where we understand where ASADA is coming from.

So China is saying that the 26 vials contained TB4. So TB4 came into the country as ordered by CHARTERS (who was NEVER employed by EFC). TB4 then 'presumably' went to Alavi.. and then Alavi gave it to Dank and no one knows what really happened with it after that...

We also have Charters EXPRESSLY declaring that the substance was NOT for human use. So IF he has supplied it to Dank with the intention to 'treat' EFC players then he has broken a LEGAL contract/promise to the supplier. This should lead to criminal charges.

It is also possible that the TB4 was never meant for EFC... at all.. and hence why it never appeared on invoices (or it appeared and then was reversed) and why they can only track one very small shipment...

As others have said, I would be far more worried if, say, 6 players got SCN's.. and it directly related to one series of injections.. but the fact that 34 players got one suggests that even ASADA can't be sure who may, or may not, have got any potentially tainted injections.

Also.. the Chinese supplier can say "it was TB4".. but without independent tests verifying that.. ASADA will not have enough to prosecute (according to CAS).. when it has been shown that even a 'labelled bottle' was not enough to prove what a substance was.. there needs to be independent verification of the substance by some means.

The problem you have now is that both sides are equally invested in 'winning' to save face.. which could lead to a lengthy battle. I still think that some kind of deal that sees players miss 1-2 games is going to be appealing to the players.. it will suck big time.. be completely unfair but life sucks.


It's all very interesting isn't it.

Just hypothesizing I do wonder though if Dank did indeed use TB4 at EFC, why then did he use Thymomodulin at MFC (which is not disputed that I am aware of) & where did he source the Thymomodulin from? It wasn't from that particular Chinese supplier as it appears they dont make it, so Dank must have had another source.
 
I always hated Friday nights anyway because that's the game where the umpires are all over their "random rule of the week".. the one they've completely forgotten by Saturday night/Sunday.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Aug 7, 2009
2,977
4,009
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
I wouldn't say just the HTB. A bloke here at work who's been reasonable in his discussion throughout didn't say it was THE reason for only 2 Friday night games, but he did say he wondered whether the AFL is protecting it's own interests in the event suspensions do happen.
That 'protection' would be a gamble - if suspensions don't happen, then you've unnecessarily reduced the appeal of your Friday night TV lineup.
 

60sbomber

Club Legend
Jul 4, 2011
1,882
2,044
Frankston
AFL Club
Essendon
If - for the sake of argument - you accept that Dank means what he says, then it implies that helping / clearing the players would impose a significant cost for Dank, which is why he's leaving it until the very end of the process in the hope that he won't have to do it.

What could the significant cost for Dank be ? In the absence of a better explanation provided by Dank, I subscribe to the theory that the cost would be the exposure of something he doesn't want exposed.

One thing that could fit would be if Dank were obtaining the thymomodulin from some illegal dodgy source. Can organised crime manufacture peptides like they do methamphetamines?
It still doesn't explain who was paying for it and how Dank stood to profit from it.
None of the explanations, ASADA's or anyone else's, have the answer to who was paying for it (whatever "it" was).
 

carloss

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2007
3,520
3,491
around
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Sheffield Wednesday
Sydney then the Hawks in the fixture. I guess the AFL have already determined the outcome (with players missing a small number matches) and want to seen as being tough.
 

IggypopsTshirt

Cancelled
Jun 27, 2013
3,975
9,773
AFL Club
Essendon
Haha

The HTB think that EFC only getting 2 Firday Night games is a sign from the AFL that players are coping bans.

They would know.

I don't know why, but I was banned from the place a while ago. Some of those lads have bone fide mental health issues and I'm greatful to the interweb overlord who removed my ability to peruse that horseshit.
 
Apr 11, 2002
33,567
34,643
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Iggles, Georgia.
AFP asked to investigate ASADA head over possible crime
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4118770.htm

ELIZABETH JACKSON: The Australian Federal Police has been asked to investigate whether the head of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), Ben McDevitt, broken the very laws he's supposed to enforce.

The issue relates to an interview Mr McDevitt gave to the ABC's Offsiders program in August, in which he divulged information about the sports scientist at the heart of the drugs in sports scandal, Stephen Dank.

A legal academic has asked the AFP to investigate because he believes Ben McDevitt has committed a crime under the ASADA Act in relation to privacy.

The maximum penalty for such an offence is a two year jail term.

David Mark reports.

DAVID MARK: The Deakin University law lecturer, Martin Hardie, believes the CEO of ASADA, Ben McDevitt, has committed a Commonwealth crime.

MARTIN HARDIE: I believe that there should be an investigation into whether or not Mr McDevitt has breached section 71 of the ASADA Act, which creates a criminal offence for people to release what we call NAD Scheme personal information prior to certain events occurring.

The penalty for a breach of that section is imprisonment for two years.

DAVID MARK: The NAD scheme is the National Anti-Doping Scheme.

Mr Hardie has written a letter to the AFP in relation to this short exchange on the ABC's Offsiders program in August, when the host, Gerard Whateley, asked Ben McDevitt, a question of the sports scientist, Stephen Dank.

GERARD WHATELEY: Has Stephen Dank been placed on the register of findings?

BEN MCDEVITT: Yes, Stephen Dank has been placed on the register of findings.

DAVID MARK: Essentially that means Stephen Dank has a case to answer that he's breached anti-doping rules.

But Martin Hardie believes Ben McDevitt has broken the Commonwealth law simply by mentioning Stephen Dank's name.

The ASADA Act states the CEO is allowed to publish information if he or she believes it's in the public interest.

But:

MARTIN HARDIE: Immediately after that appears the word "or he has received consent," which he has not, and then after that paragraph it says "and any of the following apply".

In this case that means it needs to have been a final decision handed down by a sporting tribunal in accordance with the WADA (World Anti-Doping Authority) code in respect of Mr Dank, which hasn't occurred.

There has been no AFL tribunal hearing and there has been no NRL tribunal hearing and nor has Mr Dank received an infraction notice from either of those organisations, and given that that hasn't happened, he has not been able to waive any hearing, which is another criteria or refused to recognise the jurisdiction of any of those bodies.

So if Mr McDevitt believed or was advised that he could do it because he thought it was in the public interest, he was wrongly advised.

DAVID MARK: Why have you asked the AFP to investigate this matter?

MARTIN HARDIE: Because in the past the AFP have investigated matters which appear to be breaches of the National Anti-Doping Scheme personal information provision and the provision clearly carries a criminal offence and it is as such a Commonwealth crime and it's the AFP's duty to investigate Commonwealth crimes.

DAVID MARK: This isn't about a personal vendetta against Ben McDevitt or the way ASADA has operated in the anti-doping saga that's gone on for the last two years?

MARTIN HARDIE: I have no personal vendetta against anybody. My interest in this is to ensure that the anti-doping system in this country is not further damaged by the way that these cases over the last two years have been handled.

DAVID MARK: The Australian Federal Police wrote to Mr Hardie today telling him his referral had been received and was being evaluated by the appropriate investigative area.

The World Today sought comment from ASADA but as of going to air, we hadn't received a reply.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: David Mark reporting.


I only had to see the headline to know who would be the s**t stirrer behind this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back