AFL held plea bid without ASADA - Large Fries

[jenny61_99]

Are they cheats though?

Did they break the rules? Cheats... but not with intent. The system cannot differentiate between the two - because how many drug cheats say "I had no idea"? If you get a lesser penalty because you "had no idea", it sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

[jenny61_99]

Thanks for sharing. Exactly, it appears they were guilty of ignorance and possibly they were naive.

Or complicit. I haven't decided which yet. And as I said, it doesn't change the fact they took banned substances.

 

[Boston tiger]

Did they break the rules? Cheats... but not with intent. The system cannot differentiate between the two - because how many drug cheats say "I had no idea"? If you get a lesser penalty because you "had no idea", it sets a very dangerous precedent.

So your going for 2 years fair enough.

Does that mean there's no chance of players suing the club because players had been warned and it's up to them etc.
Would be a shame to see players careers ruined while the club just carries on because it was up to the players to check.

 

[Perry Pie]

Yes it easy to say all of this in hindsight isn't it. I'm not arguing that the players did enough. I'm simply stating that based on those facts they appear to have been duped. Tell me this, before this saga did you know Thymosin was the name of a group of peptides? Did you know there was a banned form and a non-banned form? Did you know you could go on ASADAs website and find out in 5mins if a substance is banned? Did you know there were 2 WADA list classifications S2 and S0?
I'm just saying that it looks like the players have put their trust in the EFC, it's professional administrators and consent form procedures. Should that not be enough?

re the bold bit. The players did know, they are told in routine training about what to do. Given that the players know this, the first 2 questions dont matter - because the players had the knowledge that allowed them to find out.

Even so, I still think it was the administration of the club (Hird, etc) who hold the greatest responsibility because I believe they wanted to cheat the system.

 

[jenny61_99]

re the bold bit. The players did know, they are told in routine training about what to do. Given that the players know this, the first 2 questions dont matter - because the players had the knowledge that allowed them to find out.

Even so, I still think it was the administration of the club (Hird, etc) who hold the greatest responsibility because I believe they wanted to cheat the system.

Oh I agree that it's Hird's fault along with Doc Reid, Bomber Thompson et al. Dank was delivering a program that was supposed to give PED like results "without crossing the line". Players have to cop their whack though no matter their intent or otherwise.

What's that old saying: If it sounds too good to be true?

 

[jenny61_99]

So your going for 2 years fair enough.

Does that mean there's no chance of players suing the club because players had been warned and it's up to them etc.
Would be a shame to see players careers ruined while the club just carries on because it was up to the players to check.

I believe it should be 2 years reduced to 12 months (50% off for no significant fault). Backdated to November (unless they are allowed to play in NAB cup). Yes it would be a shame to see players careers ruined, but that is how the anti doping code works. If you haven't done everything within your means to check for WADA compliance, you haven't done enough. Just signing a form and hoping it's ok doesn't cut it. Also think they'd struggle suing the Club seeing as they signed the consents.

 

[Boston tiger]

I believe it should be 2 years reduced to 12 months (50% off for no significant fault). Backdated to November (unless they are allowed to play in NAB cup). Yes it would be a shame to see players careers ruined, but that is how the anti doping code works. If you haven't done everything within your means to check for WADA compliance, you haven't done enough. Just signing a form and hoping it's ok doesn't cut it. Also think they'd struggle suing the Club seeing as they signed the consents.

So no grounds for suing etc?

 

[jenny61_99]

So no grounds for suing etc?

Don't know... not a legal eagle. Best asking one of them. But an educated guess would see the consent forms as a protection for Dank and Essendon rather than the players.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I believe it should be 2 years reduced to 12 months (50% off for no significant fault). Backdated to November (unless they are allowed to play in NAB cup). Yes it would be a shame to see players careers ruined, but that is how the anti doping code works. If you haven't done everything within your means to check for WADA compliance, you haven't done enough. Just signing a form and hoping it's ok doesn't cut it. Also think they'd struggle suing the Club seeing as they signed the consents.

The consents contained false information and were not correct, I don't think they would mean jack in a civil case

 

[Broken_Chairs]

Are they cheats though?

unwitting/ignorant or not, they knew they were embarking on a cutting edge "substance" program that would be pushing the boundaries of what was allowed as far as possible in order to gain a performance edge... if when pushing those boundaries, through complete negligence, they ended up taking prohibited substances ... then i can't say i'm particularly sympathetic, and yeah, i'd probably call them cheats.

 

[Thrawn]

Don't know... not a legal eagle. Best asking one of them. But an educated guess would see the consent forms as a protection for Dank and Essendon rather than the players.

It will come back to bite them.

 

[jenny61_99]

The consents contained false information and were not correct, I don't think they would mean jack in a civil case

Yeah maybe.

 

[coryne]

The consents contained false information and were not correct, I don't think they would mean jack in a civil case

Yep I can't see the consent forms protecting the efc or Dank as they at best contained incorrect information and at worst were fraudulent (claiming that wada prohibited substance are wada compliant seems fairly fraudulent to me).

I have said before that I think that the players deserve a whack for their role in the program but I see that the majority of the blame lies with Dank/Hird/the efc. I would have no real issue with the players receive a lighter penalty (1 year backdated to when provisional suspension began) but any such penalties should be accompanied by further penalties to those responsible for the program (Dank/Hird/the efc). Someone must take responsibility for what happened and be penalized accordingly.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Thanks for sharing. Exactly, it appears they were guilty of ignorance and possibly they were naive.

This isn't pre-school, a slap on the wrist won't do. No place for ignorance and naivety in sport and illegal substances. As mentioned already it is drilled into them from the beginning.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Everyone knows Caro was spoon fed information from the AFL up until the AFL handed down its penalties using the interim report from ASADA. It has been quite obvious her agenda was to push that of the AFL. This has been shown as every time a piece of information came to light about the goings on at EFC she would write a damning article that would ultimately point the finger at J Hird as if Hirdy had sole responsibility for everything that happened. Funny how she was always the first to know the juicy information, some of which has been proven correct, most of which has been proven wrong or unproven/unsubstantiated thus far in the saga.

Guess work by you at best

 

[telsor]

I believe it should be 2 years reduced to 12 months (50% off for no significant fault). Backdated to November (unless they are allowed to play in NAB cup). Yes it would be a shame to see players careers ruined, but that is how the anti doping code works. If you haven't done everything within your means to check for WADA compliance, you haven't done enough. Just signing a form and hoping it's ok doesn't cut it. Also think they'd struggle suing the Club seeing as they signed the consents.

No significant fault doesn't fit in with the bolded part.

 

[Albert Ross]

Thanks for sharing. Exactly, it appears they were guilty of ignorance and possibly they were naive.

Someone in a pub offers you a brand new iPhone for $20 and you say yes. Are you naive, guilty of ignorance ... or are you guilty of making sure you don't ask a question to which you already suspect the answer?

 

[Albert Ross]

The doc wrote a letter to Hird expressing his concern about the drug regime. There are a number of things that disturb me about this.

1. If the players had asked the good doc directly about the drugs they were taking, what did he say? Did he tell them of his concerns?
   
2. Regardless of whether they asked or not, the doc had an obligation to the players to advise them of his concerns about the potential health affects. Apparently he failed to do this. Why?
3. Alternatively, if he did tell them of his concerns why did the players persist with the drugs?
4. Why didn't the doc record everything the players were being injected with as is his duty under the AFL anti-doping rules?

I can't help feeling a lot more has to be played out here.

5. He had a duty to raise his concerns with the AFL Chief Medical Officer. He had done so earlier (prior to Dank being at the club) and Peter Harcourt cleared that substance that time. Why did Reid not follow the same process the second time he was concerned? Perhaps he suspected he wouldn't like Harcourt's response the second time?

 

[Albert Ross]

Everyone knows Caro was spoon fed information from the AFL up until the AFL handed down its penalties using the interim report from ASADA. It has been quite obvious her agenda was to push that of the AFL. This has been shown as every time a piece of information came to light about the goings on at EFC she would write a damning article that would ultimately point the finger at J Hird as if Hirdy had sole responsibility for everything that happened. Funny how she was always the first to know the juicy information, some of which has been proven correct, most of which has been proven wrong or unproven/unsubstantiated thus far in the saga.

Caro's agenda has been the same for 20 years. She is our moral guardian who protects us from sexism, racism, thatism, thisism, theotherism (but not nepotism - too close to home).

Normally she is calling on every man in a suit who has been near AFL house to resign. She has campaigned against Carey, Ablett snr, Cousins, Swan, Dustin Martin and every other administrator from Grant Thomas to Brayshaw to McGuire to Vlad himself.

This time her agenda (knock over men in suits) happily lined up with the AFL's attempt to protect its brand by knocking off the Essendon staff canteen. A natural marriage of convenience. AFL wanted Hird, Caro wanted Hird, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It would be a mistake to say that she was an AFL lapdog pushing their agenda. Next week she will be back to calling on everyone at AFL House to all be sacked.

 

[Albert Ross]

The players are told about their obligations re drugs from day 1 of their careers and every year. There are no excuses for failing to perform their obligations. They would certainly know about the Asada web site and if they didn't there is no excuse. Every athlete caught doping says they put their trust in their coach/club etc. It doesn't excuse them, nor can we have clubs doping their players and then claiming they placed their trust in them or we'd have every club doping their players and no one taking responsibility.

Even if you didn't know your obligations inside out, a 10 second scan of the headings in the WADA code gives you

S2. Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances

That should be enough to raise alarm bells when someone starts administering you peptide horrmones.

But of course Robinson and Dank decided not to raise alarm bells by talking about 'amino acids'. Bloody courteous of them to worry about their players' stress levels like that

 

[yaco55]

So what. Are you making excuses again?
It was probably mentioned on day 1. Doesn't the AFLPA walk the players through the AFL Drug Codes?

WARNING
By this Code the AFL prohibits the classes of substances and methods which are prohibited under the World Anti-Doping Code Prohibited List
Substances are prohibited if they fall into the prohibited classes identified in this Code. The substances described in each prohibited class are examples only. Substances which are not included as examples are prohibited if they fall within a prohibited class.
It is the responsibility of each Player to ensure that he does not use or administer prohibited substances or prohibited methods, whether or not included as examples.
Amended 1 January 2010
Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.9

(a) It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

A player should contact the club medical officer. He also may check with ASADA. If he fails to do one or the other he could find himself in the s**t.
The club medical officer is supposed to record all players medical records. Now who did that?

Can one have a discussion without you parroting the same regurgitated lines. There is no rule that you have to enter each thread.

We are discussing the latest AFLPA information for rookie players. In particular the training module on players adhering to the WADA code and the AFL's Illicit Drug Policy - And steps they may take to ensure they fall within the guidelines. One would think this would be of interest in that players are being criticised for ALLEGEDLY not contacting ASADA and taking responsibility for their actions.

 

[yaco55]

You would think so, but ASADA seemed unaware of S0 themselves if you lookout the ACC report I've quoted. So it would be impossible for them to inform the players of something they didn't know themselves.

I am unsure that I can believe that ASADA seemed unaware of SO - But if I accept your premise this paints ASADA as incompetent. It is more likely that ASADA were unaware of some substances that were added to the SO category.

 

[yaco55]

The AFL- please. You can't be that blinded by his obvious agenda.

Vlad didn't call Chip by his real name Homer for no reason. Chip obviously got up Vlad's nose and some would go as far to say that Chip was influential in Vlad leaving the AFL. You should be happy with Chip's work.

 

[yaco55]

On day 2 of the rookie induction camp, the new players received a variety of presentations on doping, illicit drugs and alcohol, etc etc.

Among the presenters were representatives from ASADA.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...nd-life-for-afl-draftees-20150117-12s4ko.html

That's the article I read ! It was a good piece by Jessie Hogan giving a snapshot of the 2 day session. The inference from the short piece on ASADA was go to the doctor.

 

[yaco55]

Caro's agenda has been the same for 20 years. She is our moral guardian who protects us from sexism, racism, thatism, thisism, theotherism (but not nepotism - too close to home).

Normally she is calling on every man in a suit who has been near AFL house to resign. She has campaigned against Carey, Ablett snr, Cousins, Swan, Dustin Martin and every other administrator from Grant Thomas to Brayshaw to McGuire to Vlad himself.

This time her agenda (knock over men in suits) happily lined up with the AFL's attempt to protect its brand by knocking off the Essendon staff canteen. A natural marriage of convenience. AFL wanted Hird, Caro wanted Hird, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It would be a mistake to say that she was an AFL lapdog pushing their agenda. Next week she will be back to calling on everyone at AFL House to all be sacked.

Poor Caro - Has never been able to land a glove on Eddie Everywhere - Though Caro and Paddy Smith sack ( in their mind ) a person a week.