Does anyone REALLY expect the Essendon players to be suspended? (Now with new options!)

[Cronos]

Just as the AFL takes a more educative approach to recreation drugs, it could have done the same in this instance, especially when we are talking about substances which are borderline, afterall, the AFL is ultimately the employer and also the protector of the game's image.

I would argue that a more educative approach from the very start would have been a whole lot better than what we have right now, two years on, regardless of the outcome.

No. Just No.

There is no borderline.

There is Prohibited, and Not Prohibited.

I'm sick to death of an entire generation of sea kayakers who always look for who else besides themselves could possibly be to blame. Sometimes, you just have to admit that you screwed up.

 

[jenny61_99]

At no point did i say that there is a possbility of banned subtances being given.

However there is nothing but circumstancial evidence to support it.

What is your definition of circumstantial?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I don't think they will, but I hope they will

There were a few players when this started who were a little smug about he whole thing
I think that is also why Hird is being hated

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Rubbish.

The AFL could not take a more educative approach to PEDs. Impossible.

And why are the substances borderline? They are clearly not borderline - they are over the border.

Are you now taking a position that the AFL could have stopped the Essendon players from taking banned PEDs through education? That the players took these substances because they didn't know it was even a chance of being a problem?

Find me one AFL player that claims he hasn't been educated that he is responsible for what he injects. And I'll show you a liar.

GG nearly had a good point, but he got a bit off track.

Firstly the issue of the afl is completely separate to efc guilt and potential liability. Even if it's determined the afl could and should have done more, it doesn't dilute or lessen the potential fault at efc if found guilty.

The relevant point is the clubs are operating under an afl system, and it's the AFLs role to minimize and reduce the risk of harm occurring.

When they became suspicious of abuses at efc, they did what many companies did. They tested, got a new result, shrugged, and continued on their way. Why didn't they ask efc and dank to hand over all materials regarding their program? Check the in house inventories at the club? Interview the medical staff?

Now it would not reduce the risk of any punishment on efc, if guilty the horse had already bolted on the timeline. It may have seen the program stopped earlier though, and the number of players effected reduced. At a minimum, once the afl learned of the number of injections happening, and the off site arrangements, they could have brought in new rules prohibiting these arrangements.

People are far too dependent upon testing to affirm compliance, esp for situations like this where the testing is pretty much useless. It's also after the infraction has occurred. It's much better to put into place processes and procedures that reduce the risk of a breach from the beginning:

- introduce a rule that only supplements on an afl approved list can be used at all, and anything outside this (bar for medical purposes) results in an automatic two year ban

- require clubs only procure supplements from afl approved suppliers

- ban non medical staff from administering supplements

- require all supplement use be recorded on a central afl log (listing supp, player, dose, etc)

- advise clubs any violation of these rules will result in fines and the like for the club, and 10 year bans for support staff

All of this is above anything would be doing, but would make it harder for violations to occur. When the afl had concerns about efc, it had grounds to introduce all of this without a positive test or proof of violation.

 

[baldandbroke]

GG nearly had a good point, but he got a bit off track.

Firstly the issue of the afl is completely separate to efc guilt and potential liability. Even if it's determined the afl could and should have done more, it doesn't dilute or lessen the potential fault at efc if found guilty.

The relevant point is the clubs are operating under an afl system, and it's the AFLs role to minimize and reduce the risk of harm occurring.

When they became suspicious of abuses at efc, they did what many companies did. They tested, got a new result, shrugged, and continued on their way. Why didn't they ask efc and dank to hand over all materials regarding their program? Check the in house inventories at the club? Interview the medical staff?

Now it would not reduce the risk of any punishment on efc, if guilty the horse had already bolted on the timeline. It may have seen the program stopped earlier though, and the number of players effected reduced. At a minimum, once the afl learned of the number of injections happening, and the off site arrangements, they could have brought in new rules prohibiting these arrangements.

People are far too dependent upon testing to affirm compliance, esp for situations like this where the testing is pretty much useless. It's also after the infraction has occurred. It's much better to put into place processes and procedures that reduce the risk of a breach from the beginning:

- introduce a rule that only supplements on an afl approved list can be used at all, and anything outside this (bar for medical purposes) results in an automatic two year ban

- require clubs only procure supplements from afl approved suppliers

- ban non medical staff from administering supplements

- require all supplement use be recorded on a central afl log (listing supp, player, dose, etc)

- advise clubs any violation of these rules will result in fines and the like for the club, and 10 year bans for support staff

All of this is above anything would be doing, but would make it harder for violations to occur. When the afl had concerns about efc, it had grounds to introduce all of this without a positive test or proof of violation.

Just to pull out your points:

- introduce a rule that only supplements on an afl approved list can be used at all, and anything outside this (bar for medical purposes) results in an automatic two year ban

Um, we have this. It's called the WADA code.

- require clubs only procure supplements from afl approved suppliers

Um, same again. We have this already. The AFL is not a medical organisation, the rules in place cover what players can take.

- ban non medical staff from administering supplements

All injections are supposed to go through the club doctor aren't they?

- require all supplement use be recorded on a central afl log (listing supp, player, dose, etc)

Not necessary if the first few rules are being followed.

- advise clubs any violation of these rules will result in fines and the like for the club, and 10 year bans for support staff

We already have penalties in place that cover this too. Essendon got a whack for how they handled it financially, and the players will get their whack if they are found guilty.

The point about the AFL educating people is a different one to could the AFL have handled this differently once a breach was deemed possible (as you said). How the AFL handled this isn't the point of this particular discussion, it's about Essendon mouth-pieces trying to apportion blame elsewhere for the place they are in now - and the scrutiny and pressure that they have been under for a couple of years.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think you both have excellent points.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Just to pull out your points:

- introduce a rule that only supplements on an afl approved list can be used at all, and anything outside this (bar for medical purposes) results in an automatic two year ban

Um, we have this. It's called the WADA code.

- require clubs only procure supplements from afl approved suppliers

Um, same again. We have this already. The AFL is not a medical organisation, the rules in place cover what players can take.

- ban non medical staff from administering supplements

All injections are supposed to go through the club doctor aren't they?

- require all supplement use be recorded on a central afl log (listing supp, player, dose, etc)

Not necessary if the first few rules are being followed.

- advise clubs any violation of these rules will result in fines and the like for the club, and 10 year bans for support staff

We already have penalties in place that cover this too. Essendon got a whack for how they handled it financially, and the players will get their whack if they are found guilty.

The point about the AFL educating people is a different one to could the AFL have handled this differently once a breach was deemed possible (as you said). How the AFL handled this isn't the point of this particular discussion, it's about Essendon mouth-pieces trying to apportion blame elsewhere for the place they are in now - and the scrutiny and pressure that they have been under for a couple of years.

You have reacted like a lot of companies, there is a regulation, let's rely on that to protect us. It doesn't work. On your replies:

1) no, 100% wrong. WADA says don't use this, and then has the catch all to include potential items not listed. I'm saying go one step further, the afl has a list of approved items, and they are the only ones players can use for non medical reasons. That means even if an item is wade compliant, if it's not accepted by the afl you get banned. This stops the arms race, and also stops experimentation.

2) no we don't. No where is there any requirement on who you have to buy from. Efc broke no wada rules in choosing to source from convicted drug importer. An afl approved list means the suppliers would have to be reputable meet minimum standards for quality and safety. If it's easy enough for Woolies to do this for suppliers of candy, why is it too hard for the afl?

And before you say "they are not a medical association", well they are choosing to allow supplements to be used, so they need to have appropriate standards in place to protect its stakeholders. They don't even need to design a standard, they would simply pick one of many suitable standards for pharma production and distribution that are used internationally, and have third party auditors do the grunt work.

This will be something a Pfizer would already be compliant too, charter, dank , and Alavi never would be.

3) no. People just assumed that it would happen, and it didn't. I believe the afl has already tightened this up a little

4) wrong. You are yet again making the easy assumption, that people are following the rules. A central log means record keeping is not only required, it's policed. It also allows the afl to police over use of supplements and delivery by non approved people.

5) no, that was the good old bringing the game into disrepute, and the outcome was a deal. Under my proposal, just for having poor records, Reid, Hamilton, Robinson, and dank would be staring at 10 year bans. And that's without a half finished interim report. No docs, lose your career in the afl.

 

[baldandbroke]

You have reacted like a lot of companies, there is a regulation, let's rely on that to protect us. It doesn't work. On your replies:

1) no, 100% wrong. WADA says don't use this, and then has the catch all to include potential items not listed. I'm saying go one step further, the afl has a list of approved items, and they are the only ones players can use for non medical reasons. That means even if an item is wade compliant, if it's not accepted by the afl you get banned. This stops the arms race, and also stops experimentation.

2) no we don't. No where is there any requirement on who you have to buy from. Efc broke no wada rules in choosing to source from convicted drug importer. An afl approved list means the suppliers would have to be reputable meet minimum standards for quality and safety. If it's easy enough for Woolies to do this for suppliers of candy, why is it too hard for the afl?

And before you say "they are not a medical association", well they are choosing to allow supplements to be used, so they need to have appropriate standards in place to protect its stakeholders. They don't even need to design a standard, they would simply pick one of many suitable standards for pharma production and distribution that are used internationally, and have third party auditors do the grunt work.

This will be something a Pfizer would already be compliant too, charter, dank , and Alavi never would be.

3) no. People just assumed that it would happen, and it didn't. I believe the afl has already tightened this up a little

4) wrong. You are yet again making the easy assumption, that people are following the rules. A central log means record keeping is not only required, it's policed. It also allows the afl to police over use of supplements and delivery by non approved people.

5) no, that was the good old bringing the game into disrepute, and the outcome was a deal. Under my proposal, just for having poor records, Reid, Hamilton, Robinson, and dank would be staring at 10 year bans. And that's without a half finished interim report. No docs, lose your career in the afl.

OK - maybe I am missing something ...

1) Are you saying that we dump the WADA code and come up with our own AFL Whitelist system? What about non injections? Sports Drinks etc ... Who is going to fund the policing of this new set of rules? Who is going to fund the setting up of the rules? Players still have to know what all the ingredients are in anything they put into their systems. I don't see how this would work or improve the current situation at all ... In Essendon's case what would that have changed? They apparently didn't check if what they took was ok this time round - right?

2) there are already rules about who can legally supply these drugs, if you are talking about the compounding loophole that dank apparently tried to use - that still requires the compounds to be compliant ... yeah?

3) Not sure on the actual rule here - if it isn't in place then it should be. My understanding was that all medical procedures including injections had to go through the doctor - and when they don't you are going around the system.

4) I'm not making an easy assumption. You cannot just keep handing the next person the responsibility. What if they don't report them to the log? Who checks that? Who checks the checkers? There is a reason why the ultimate responsibility is in the athletes hands - and this cannot change IMO.

5) I think you are wrong, there are rules and penalties that cover this for the club - the coaches - the players.

I am all for a blood passport, in fact I am all for no injections in the AFL at all ... but there is no need to dump the WADA code or the WADA system to implement such changes.

Look I'm no medical or legal expert in this ... these are just my ramblings ... happy to learn more through discussion by those who know more about the fine details.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

OK - maybe I am missing something ...

1) Are you saying that we dump the WADA code and come up with our own AFL Whitelist system? What about non injections? Sports Drinks etc ... Who is going to fund the policing of this new set of rules? Who is going to fund the setting up of the rules? Players still have to know what all the ingredients are in anything they put into their systems. I don't see how this would work or improve the current situation at all ... In Essendon's case what would that have changed? They apparently didn't check if what they took was ok this time round - right?

2) there are already rules about who can legally supply these drugs, if you are talking about the compounding loophole that dank apparently tried to use - that still requires the compounds to be compliant ... yeah?

3) Not sure on the actual rule here - if it isn't in place then it should be. My understanding was that all medical procedures including injections had to go through the doctor - and when they don't you are going around the system.

4) I'm not making an easy assumption. You cannot just keep handing the next person the responsibility. What if they don't report them to the log? Who checks that? Who checks the checkers? There is a reason why the ultimate responsibility is in the athletes hands - and this cannot change IMO.

5) I think you are wrong, there are rules and penalties that cover this for the club - the coaches - the players.

I am all for a blood passport, in fact I am all for no injections in the AFL at all ... but there is no need to dump the WADA code or the WADA system to implement such changes.

Look I'm no medical or legal expert in this ... these are just my ramblings ... happy to learn more through discussion by those who know more about the fine details.

1) no, you make it concurrent, so anything the afl approve is WADA approved. And it would be simple. If a club wants something added to the list, they make a request and the afl annually make a call. It wouldn't be extensive, which is the other good thing, as we don't want players receiving scores of injections for a dozen supplements - or do you think this is a good thing in sport.

And the afl already has done this, remember the illicit drug program is above and beyond what the WADA code requires

2) if this exists, what accreditation and or licensing do dank and charter have?

3) the lines blurred, with people considering physios and sports scientists medics. I'm saying it should be doc or nurse only

4) simple, not on the log, official is banned. This is common in many high risk industries. It's also not about passing the responsibility up, it about having very clear and mandated expectations on compliance, with non investigative no mercy sanctions if broken. This would have seen dank gone in mid 2012, under your grand plan we are still in a tribunal hearing, with inevitable appeals from dank - and virtually nothing on Robinson, Reid, or the other senior officials

5) no, BTGID gives the afl too much wiggle room. Why is Reid still at efc? One minute his going to be sanctioned, the next it's nothing. Also having no mercy mandated means officials with concerns will actually act for fear of person consequences. So Reid and Bomber would have fired up, instead of meekly doing SFA

 

[Bombfire]

What is your definition of circumstantial?

In this case it would be a very weak link to the use of TB4 by Essendon players. Although the tribunal may view the evidence as perhaps reaching the standard of the balance of probabilities that Essendon players were administered a banned substance. If so, case dismissed.

 

[BlueWorld]

In this case it would be a very weak link to the use of TB4 by Essendon players. Although the tribunal may view the evidence as perhaps reaching the standard of the balance of probabilities that Essendon players were administered a banned substance. If so, case dismissed.

Keep telling yourself you know ASADA's evidence is weak. It will make you feel better for the next few weeks.

 

[Bombfire]

Keep telling yourself you know ASADA's evidence is weak. It will make you feel better for the next few weeks.

You seem to know the ASADA evidence is strong. Show us the evidence that would make the Tribunal members determine the ASADA case falls just short of beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[baldandbroke]

1) no, you make it concurrent, so anything the afl approve is WADA approved. And it would be simple. If a club wants something added to the list, they make a request and the afl annually make a call. It wouldn't be extensive, which is the other good thing, as we don't want players receiving scores of injections for a dozen supplements - or do you think this is a good thing in sport.

And the afl already has done this, remember the illicit drug program is above and beyond what the WADA code requires

What gives you the idea that I am for scores of injections? I even said in my last post that I would be happy with a blood passport and no injections.

How do you then find out if someone has taken a substance outside of this whitelist? What tests exist to prove a player has taken something that is OK as far as WADA is concerned, but not on this AFL Whitelist?

The WADA list is very clear in what it bans, I don't see this as being a problem. Do you think that professional athletes are unsure of the rules in this regard? Is this something that needs to change -why?

2) if this exists, what accreditation and or licensing do dank and charter have?

Dank and charter didn't supply the PEDs. What does their accreditation have to do with anything? Do you mean that you would want to control the entire supply chain? Not sure what this does to help anyway, if you want to avoid detection you'd just have non-accredited people supplying banned PEDs to be injected into you off the record.

3) the lines blurred, with people considering physios and sports scientists medics. I'm saying it should be doc or nurse only

If injections are allowed, and a person is qualified to give injections, then I'm ok with it. Not the source of many of the problems around PEDs as far as I'm concerned.

4) simple, not on the log, official is banned. This is common in many high risk industries. It's also not about passing the responsibility up, it about having very clear and mandated expectations on compliance, with non investigative no mercy sanctions if broken. This would have seen dank gone in mid 2012, under your grand plan we are still in a tribunal hearing, with inevitable appeals from dank - and virtually nothing on Robinson, Reid, or the other senior officials

No need to get so snippy. In your scenario what would the players be responsible for - or would the onus be on the official? What if the player does something outside of the official's knowledge - does this instant automatic ban for the official apply still? Is there no right to appeal?

5) no, BTGID gives the afl too much wiggle room. Why is Reid still at efc? One minute his going to be sanctioned, the next it's nothing. Also having no mercy mandated means officials with concerns will actually act for fear of person consequences. So Reid and Bomber would have fired up, instead of meekly doing SFA

This no mercy idea is no good. Each case would need to be dealt with on it's merit. You sound like the Thai Government with drugs - it doesn't work anyway. Even the worst people in our society get the right to defend themselves - but under your scheme AFL officials would be shot down without any regard for their rights.

It seems to me you think the system is very much to blame for Essendon's current predicament. I don't think the system is perfect, but the problems for Essendon come down to players not taking responsibility for what goes into their body OR some dodgy operators injecting secret substances into players.

1) they could have easily found out whether the drugs they gave consent for were banned or not
2) the supplier of the drugs would be irrelevant
3) who injected them would be irrelevant
4) everything the players take at the club should be recorded, but that doesn't mean much unless you ignore the possibility of players doing stuff outside the club
5) club has been fined and banned, officials have been fined and banned, players are 90% through the process of being judged.

If the players had just not ignored the umpteen warnings they receive - they would not have put anything into their bodies that they didn't know exactly what was in it. If they had were given a banned PED and told it was something else, I think the system has processes in place to handle that ... although in this case I'd be surprised if that is the outcome.

 

[Valleyboy9]

Except the AFL is the ultimate employer and has the resources to educate the clubs doctors (and, you'd hope, an interest in doing so).

I think you are understating the knowledge these club doctors have. That said, the fear of litigation is high and as a consequence doctors do not make rash decisions as the results can/may be catastrophic.
Wasn't it Doctor Reid who claimed he was allegedly sidelined at Essendon ???

 

[Valleyboy9]

In this case it would be a very weak link to the use of TB4 by Essendon players. Although the tribunal may view the evidence as perhaps reaching the standard of the balance of probabilities that Essendon players were administered a banned substance. If so, case dismissed.

In this case it would be a very weak link to the use of TB4 by Essendon players. Although the tribunal may view the evidence as perhaps reaching the standard of the balance of probabilities that Essendon players were administered a banned substance. If so, case dismissed.

Try and be honest with yourself.
Unless you are actually working for ASADA and assigned to this particular case you have no idea what evidence they have.
If they have a weak case as many Essendon supporters hope, (some even suggesting it was going to be over in the first five minutes) they would not have spent so much time on the stand.
They obviously have some evidence, but neither you nor me have any idea how strong it is.

 

[bing181]

In this case it would be a very weak link to the use of TB4 by Essendon players.

You've got to be kidding. Paper trail, consent forms, dosage match ... and the guy who ran it all admitting to a national media organisation that he used TB4 on the Essendon players.

Plus whatever ASADA have that we haven't heard about.

Going to be some tears at bedtime when the verdict is handed down.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Players will get suspended but it will be shorter than many want. Backdated so they return by June.

 

[jenny61_99]

Players will get suspended but it will be shorter than many want. Backdated so they return by June.

And your reasoning for this? Remember the backdating if there is any would normally be to the time of provisional suspension which in this case is November.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What gives you the idea that I am for scores of injections? I even said in my last post that I would be happy with a blood passport and no injections.

How do you then find out if someone has taken a substance outside of this whitelist? What tests exist to prove a player has taken something that is OK as far as WADA is concerned, but not on this AFL Whitelist?

The WADA list is very clear in what it bans, I don't see this as being a problem. Do you think that professional athletes are unsure of the rules in this regard? Is this something that needs to change -why?


Dank and charter didn't supply the PEDs. What does their accreditation have to do with anything? Do you mean that you would want to control the entire supply chain? Not sure what this does to help anyway, if you want to avoid detection you'd just have non-accredited people supplying banned PEDs to be injected into you off the record.


If injections are allowed, and a person is qualified to give injections, then I'm ok with it. Not the source of many of the problems around PEDs as far as I'm concerned.


No need to get so snippy. In your scenario what would the players be responsible for - or would the onus be on the official? What if the player does something outside of the official's knowledge - does this instant automatic ban for the official apply still? Is there no right to appeal?



This no mercy idea is no good. Each case would need to be dealt with on it's merit. You sound like the Thai Government with drugs - it doesn't work anyway. Even the worst people in our society get the right to defend themselves - but under your scheme AFL officials would be shot down without any regard for their rights.

It seems to me you think the system is very much to blame for Essendon's current predicament. I don't think the system is perfect, but the problems for Essendon come down to players not taking responsibility for what goes into their body OR some dodgy operators injecting secret substances into players.

1) they could have easily found out whether the drugs they gave consent for were banned or not
2) the supplier of the drugs would be irrelevant
3) who injected them would be irrelevant
4) everything the players take at the club should be recorded, but that doesn't mean much unless you ignore the possibility of players doing stuff outside the club
5) club has been fined and banned, officials have been fined and banned, players are 90% through the process of being judged.

If the players had just not ignored the umpteen warnings they receive - they would not have put anything into their bodies that they didn't know exactly what was in it. If they had were given a banned PED and told it was something else, I think the system has processes in place to handle that ... although in this case I'd be surprised if that is the outcome.

1) you can't test for most of this stuff, so that is why you need to rely on procedural requirements for enforcement. Random audits of invoicing and inventories is one way to check this. Under your scheme,McLure can literally hold hundreds of supplements. An afl approved list minimizes this.

Also there is a grey area. When ever you have a catch all clause, there will always be debate as to whether or not a supplement actually has the properties that mean it is included in it. Take that debate away, if not afl approved, no use.

As for your blood passport, again you are obsessed with thinking testing answers all questions. What happens when people figure out a way around the blood passport (and they will)? Even asada has moved away from over reliance on testing, maybe it's time you did too?

2) are you kidding? Of course you lock down the entire supply chain. Charter was the importer for starters, and as he said in his interviews, he was in charge of quality. Yet you think he had no role worth considering in the process?

You control the entire chain because every step of it is a chance of contamination, product substitution, and so on. This is also very easy and commonly done. If your factory make product for Mattel, you can only use one of their eight globally approved paint suppliers. Similar happens in the food industry and the nutraceutical industry (ie industries where products can cause harm, but have no regulations on supply). Reason they do this is to reduce the risk of buying indirectly from a dodgy party outside their knowledge.

Under your plan, charter and his ilk can remain as importers for afl clubs. Why do you think this is good?

3) actually it is. Medical staff look at an injection as a medical process. Do you think efc players would have been receiving 40 injections a week if doc Reid had to do them all?

4) yes, player is gone. The instruction is simple, only use materials the club supplies you. If they are dumb enough to break this, automatic two year ban. They can appeal (all afl rules have an appeal mechanism), but it means we would be hearing the appeal 1-2 weeks after the ban, not in 12-18 months like a CAS appeal.

5) discretion in the hands of the AFLs why Melbourne was found not guilty of tanking because the afl didn't want them to lose their gaming license. If you say "never use this", yet you buy it, store it at your home/club, what possible reason for discretion is there? And look where discretion has gotten you with illicit drugs. Multiple players having in excess of 3 strikes, but only one banned because the rest all self reported (and he was only busted because the cops found him zonked).


Nice try on trying to say this is an attempt to push the blame on the afl, as it's not. As I said right at the start, none of this is relevant to the guilt of efc, and none of it has any claim on diluting the blame and responsibility at efc. What this is about is moving away from depending upon testing (which doesn't work), to moving towards procedural arrangements that can actually ensure this kind of farce is much less likely to occur at any afl club. You will never stop everything, but that's no reason to continue relying on a broken systems.

Did the afl concerns trigger the investigation? No

Did the club staff members concerns trigger the investigation? No

Did asada start the investigation when made aware of afl concerns? No

If not for the ACC investigation, this case would never have seen light of day, because the afl and asada did think they had enough to start a public investigation. And you think this process is working? Under a procedural policy, as I mentioned this thing would have been shut down once at the very start, because efc could never have bought product from Dank.

 

[baldandbroke]

1) you can't test for most of this stuff, so that is why you need to rely on procedural requirements for enforcement. Random audits of invoicing and inventories is one way to check this. Under your scheme,McLure can literally hold hundreds of supplements. An afl approved list minimizes this.

Also there is a grey area. When ever you have a catch all clause, there will always be debate as to whether or not a supplement actually has the properties that mean it is included in it. Take that debate away, if not afl approved, no use.

As for your blood passport, again you are obsessed with thinking testing answers all questions. What happens when people figure out a way around the blood passport (and they will)? Even asada has moved away from over reliance on testing, maybe it's time you did too?

2) are you kidding? Of course you lock down the entire supply chain. Charter was the importer for starters, and as he said in his interviews, he was in charge of quality. Yet you think he had no role worth considering in the process?

You control the entire chain because every step of it is a chance of contamination, product substitution, and so on. This is also very easy and commonly done. If your factory make product for Mattel, you can only use one of their eight globally approved paint suppliers. Similar happens in the food industry and the nutraceutical industry (ie industries where products can cause harm, but have no regulations on supply). Reason they do this is to reduce the risk of buying indirectly from a dodgy party outside their knowledge.

Under your plan, charter and his ilk can remain as importers for afl clubs. Why do you think this is good?

3) actually it is. Medical staff look at an injection as a medical process. Do you think efc players would have been receiving 40 injections a week if doc Reid had to do them all?

4) yes, player is gone. The instruction is simple, only use materials the club supplies you. If they are dumb enough to break this, automatic two year ban. They can appeal (all afl rules have an appeal mechanism), but it means we would be hearing the appeal 1-2 weeks after the ban, not in 12-18 months like a CAS appeal.

5) discretion in the hands of the AFLs why Melbourne was found not guilty of tanking because the afl didn't want them to lose their gaming license. If you say "never use this", yet you buy it, store it at your home/club, what possible reason for discretion is there? And look where discretion has gotten you with illicit drugs. Multiple players having in excess of 3 strikes, but only one banned because the rest all self reported (and he was only busted because the cops found him zonked).


Nice try on trying to say this is an attempt to push the blame on the afl, as it's not. As I said right at the start, none of this is relevant to the guilt of efc, and none of it has any claim on diluting the blame and responsibility at efc. What this is about is moving away from depending upon testing (which doesn't work), to moving towards procedural arrangements that can actually ensure this kind of farce is much less likely to occur at any afl club. You will never stop everything, but that's no reason to continue relying on a broken systems.

Did the afl concerns trigger the investigation? No

Did the club staff members concerns trigger the investigation? No

Did asada start the investigation when made aware of afl concerns? No

If not for the ACC investigation, this case would never have seen light of day, because the afl and asada did think they had enough to start a public investigation. And you think this process is working? Under a procedural policy, as I mentioned this thing would have been shut down once at the very start, because efc could never have bought product from Dank.

I don't quite understand why you are getting angry at me? Maybe you struggle with other people having a different opinion than you?

I'm not trying to change your mind, just putting my opinion out there. Carry on by all means, but I don't agree with your positions.

I think the main thing to remember here is that almost everyone does the right thing. Most clubs, officials, players are operating under the current scheme with no problems. We have some who appear to have gone outside the rules, and they are reaping what they have sown. I think the current system of self-responsibility for athletes is the best solution, and I think the legal nightmare you propose of is not only full of holes - I think it would be expensive and un-workable.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't quite understand why you are getting angry at me? Maybe you struggle with other people having a different opinion than you?

I'm not trying to change your mind, just putting my opinion out there. Carry on by all means, but I don't agree with your positions.

I think the main thing to remember here is that almost everyone does the right thing. Most clubs, officials, players are operating under the current scheme with no problems. We have some who appear to have gone outside the rules, and they are reaping what they have sown. I think the current system of self-responsibility for athletes is the best solution, and I think the legal nightmare you propose of is not only full of holes - I think it would be expensive and un-workable.

Not angry, just don't like people making false statements about what I said (as you did in saying I was trying to put the blame on the afl)

Firstly, you are kidding yourself if you think efc are the only ones going down this path. We know the dees consulted with dank, and the ACC had vision of 18 non-efc afl players going into Danks clinic. Add to that the fact this case would never have occurred if not for the ACC, and you still think it's working?

Also what I've suggested is not expensive, in fact it's much cheaper than testing. That's the beauty of procedural measures, they stop the problem before it occurs as companies design their systems to be compliant from day one.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Not angry, just don't like people making false statements about what I said (as you did in saying I was trying to put the blame on the afl)

Firstly, you are kidding yourself if you think efc are the only ones going down this path. We know the dees consulted with dank, and the ACC had vision of 18 non-efc afl players going into Danks clinic. Add to that the fact this case would never have occurred if not for the ACC, and you still think it's working?

Also what I've suggested is not expensive, in fact it's much cheaper than testing. That's the beauty of procedural measures, they stop the problem before it occurs as companies design their systems to be compliant from day one.

It is refreshing to see an opposition supporter who does not have his head stuck in his own ass.

 

[baldandbroke]

Not angry, just don't like people making false statements about what I said (as you did in saying I was trying to put the blame on the afl)

Firstly, you are kidding yourself if you think efc are the only ones going down this path. We know the dees consulted with dank, and the ACC had vision of 18 non-efc afl players going into Danks clinic. Add to that the fact this case would never have occurred if not for the ACC, and you still think it's working?

Also what I've suggested is not expensive, in fact it's much cheaper than testing. That's the beauty of procedural measures, they stop the problem before it occurs as companies design their systems to be compliant from day one.

I don't think I made any false statements about you or where the blame lies.
I never said Essendon were the only ones "doing this".
I disagree with moving the responsibility away from the athletes in any way.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Not angry, just don't like people making false statements about what I said (as you did in saying I was trying to put the blame on the afl)

Firstly, you are kidding yourself if you think efc are the only ones going down this path. We know the dees consulted with dank, and the ACC had vision of 18 non-efc afl players going into Danks clinic. Add to that the fact this case would never have occurred if not for the ACC, and you still think it's working?

Also what I've suggested is not expensive, in fact it's much cheaper than testing. That's the beauty of procedural measures, they stop the problem before it occurs as companies design their systems to be compliant from day one.

The irony is delicious

 

[jenny61_99]

Not angry, just don't like people making false statements about what I said (as you did in saying I was trying to put the blame on the afl)

Firstly, you are kidding yourself if you think efc are the only ones going down this path. We know the dees consulted with dank, and the ACC had vision of 18 non-efc afl players going into Danks clinic. Add to that the fact this case would never have occurred if not for the ACC, and you still think it's working?

Also what I've suggested is not expensive, in fact it's much cheaper than testing. That's the beauty of procedural measures, they stop the problem before it occurs as companies design their systems to be compliant from day one.

You have a source for that RFC?