AFL floats possibility of small penalty if Dons guilty, but ASADA stays silent

[mxett]

Not comparable. ASADA is able to offer a 6 month penalty based on substantial assistance, which is a condition of said deal. They admit guilt and provide further information from which their ban is reduced. The AFL is just suggesting, without reason beyond monetary most likely, that a 6 month ban would be best (based on my reading of the article).

but 6 months is 6 months irrespective of a deal. Is that length of ban enough for cheats? ASADA seem to think so

 

[onemancyclone]

It's not a deal it's a reduction under the code.

There were rumors of someone who may have cooperated and may thus receive the benefits, perhaps the only player to do so. The rumour was they gave ASADA Dank's head on a plate and named players this ticks all the boxes under cooperation.

Hopefully it's Kyle finally living up to his surname.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

12 months down to 6 months, dont think so, starting penalty is 24 months.

To get it down to 6 months the players would have had to have thrown others under a bus.

 

[Muggs]

Not comparable. ASADA is able to offer a 6 month penalty based on substantial assistance, which is a condition of said deal. They admit guilt and provide further information from which their ban is reduced. The AFL is just suggesting, without reason beyond monetary most likely, that a 6 month ban would be best (based on my reading of the article).

The question is who could they provide further assistance on at this stage.. Dank's case was heard the same time...

Only person I can think of is Hird, and I do like the irony.. you can either chose to play for Hird next season and miss this season, or miss a few games and if you blame him and never play for him again. Assuming the players are still at EFC... easier answer for those not at EFC

 

[onemancyclone]

12 months down to 6 months, dont think so, starting penalty is 24 months.

To get it down to 6 months the players would have had to have thrown others under a bus.

And they should have done so before the tribunal started, instead of taking their chances before deciding on a free swing.

 

[Grin]

This happens a week after Jobe and others went to Gil's house to negotiate a deal.

Jobe and the others and Gil know that the verdict is likely guilty.
The beginning of the end has finally arrived.

6 months backdated is the minimum.
The maximum is 2 years.

We're probably looking at 12 to 18 months.

 

[Muggs]

So I guess we are in the belief that Mr Dank lied on RRR the other day when he said the players and officials knew what they were given then if we are going with the we were duped tack?

I naturally assume anything he says is a lie...

 

[mxett]

So I guess we are in the belief that Mr Dank lied on RRR the other day when he said the players and officials knew what they were given then if we are going with the we were duped tack?

is that really so surprising? Danks main aim is protecting himself at all costs, and making everyone believe the players were fully aware of what he did is part of that

 

[Jim chicken]

The point is people are paying out on the AFL for recommending 6 month ban yet ASADA recommended the same earlier this year. Irrespective of deals, is 6 months a reasonable penalty or not? If not, blame ASADA too

I'm sure if you read the article again you will see that ASADA offered 6 months in early 2014 after the first notices were handed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DrEvil_]

to be fair, its a rock and a hard place.

Banning the senior players means the comp is uneven. Anyone who plays us twice gets an extra 4 pts in essence.

good for tigers, pies, blues, hawks and roos.
all of which could have bearings on the 8 and potentially the make up of the top 2 and 4.

No more uneven than playing Saints twice or Melbourne twice.

 

[RandB]

ASADA/WADA appealed Saads ban and it failed

I'm a bit of a plonker on all the processes involved in this saga and haven't really kept on top of it.

Reading another article though, the Saad appeal by ASADA went to the AFL anti-doping appeals tribunal.

If WADA make the appeal (on the other hand) it goes to the Court of arbitration for sport (according to McDevitt).

If both bodies are in unison and serious about this appeal will they make the same mistake again?

 

[Proper Gander]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...y-but-asada-stays-silent-20150304-13v3fu.html

The AFL suggested to the special doping tribunal that present and former Essendon players should receive a small match-based suspension if they were found guilty of taking a banned substance.

But while the AFL's representative did make a suggestion on any potential penalties, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority has reserved its position on whether the players should be entitled to a discount for cooperation, which would cut any sentence from 12 months to six months, with backdating from last year.

Sources familiar with evidence from the recently concluded tribunal hearing said ASADA's advocate Malcolm Holmes QC, did not broach the topic of penalties - the drugs agency reserving its position until after a verdict - but that the AFL's representative suggested that a smaller match-based penalty would be appropriate in the event of a guilty verdict.

The AFL left it open for the tribunal to decide whether the players should be found guilty or acquitted of taking the banned peptide thymosin beta-4.

The AFL's legal representative in the month-long hearings, Jeff Gleeson QC, is understood to have told the hearing that a match-based penalty - rather than the blocks of months that are usually involved in doping cases - would be more appropriate, because it fitted the AFL as a team-based sport, if players were found guilty.

ASADA had previously offered the 34 players a six-month ban, plus backdating, after show-cause notices were issued for the first time in 2014 and before Essendon and coach James Hird tried, unsuccessfully, to have the investigation ruled unlawful in the Federal Court. That offer has not been repeated since the tribunal case started

A smaller penalty is also consistent with the view that players were "duped" and did not knowingly take banned substances

My favourite part is "the AFL left it open for the tribunal to decide whether players should be found guilty..."

Really? Big of them.

I hope this was the journo being silly, and the AFL didn't make any comment like that, because otherwise they really are mad and words fail me.

 

[archibald23]

but 6 months is 6 months irrespective of a deal. Is that length of ban enough for cheats? ASADA seem to think so

You're conflating a number of issues in that response. ASADA believe 6 months is enough for a number of players who a) admit their guilt and b) provide substantial assistance in snaring other bigger fish (note: as per other posts may not necessarily be Dank, and in line with McDevitt's comments regarding people in power needing to be held accountable....)

ASADA has not commented and reserved their right, as per the article, on the length of ban for a bunch of "cheats" (your phrase) who have not admitted guilt, or any substantial assistance to ASADA.

Not comparable.

 

[Muggs]

but 6 months is 6 months irrespective of a deal. Is that length of ban enough for cheats? ASADA seem to think so

Never seen ASADA talk about 6 months in regards to substantial assistance/ no significant fault. No problems with them agreeing to do it with a reduction being for a early guilty plea before the notice was issued (i.e June last year)- bypassing the tribunal. Now I think they be less willing.

 

[Proper Gander]

to be fair, its a rock and a hard place.

Banning the senior players means the comp is uneven. Anyone who plays us twice gets an extra 4 pts in essence.

God, I totally hope so!

 

[Gavstar]

Should first year player receive the same penalty as a member of the leadership team?

 

[Muggs]

I'm sure if you read the article again you will see that ASADA offered 6 months in early 2014 after the first notices were handed.
.

Early 2014 is BEFORE the notices were issued - these were July 2014

 

[Tiger Toffee]

I'm sure if you read the article again you will see that ASADA offered 6 months in early 2014 after the first notices were handed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't think they offered a deal, just suggested what could be offered if the players were to come forward with any additional information, as usual the media took this as fact and ran with it and going by the article still are.

 

[Proper Gander]

you realise it says ASADA offered 6 months earlier this year?

That was before the fed court appeals, right?

 

[yeahmate]

Fix is in. AFL/press setting public's expectations for less than 6 months with backdating. Penalties will be minimal.

 

[Boxhead_31]

So I guess this settles the dates of when the back dating will be applied

The players are provisionally suspended until the case concludes and have chosen not to apply to play in the NAB Challenge. This enables the backdating of any sentence in the event that they are found guilty. ASADA boss Ben McDevitt suggested to a senate hearing last week that backdating could begin from November, when the infractions were issued. In the event of a six-month ban, backdating from November would see players miss games until early May.

No backdating to the last game but to when IN's where issued in Nov

 

[thirsty camel 1]

didn't the afl make this request during the hearing ?
also if the players were given match based suspensions wouldn't they risk missing more games . how could they back date that type of suspension ?

 

[mxett]

That was before the fed court appeals, right?

of the players are eligible for discounts such as substantial assistance and no significant fault it should apply irrespective of action by Hurd and the club, who arent facing INs

 

[archibald23]

Fix is in. AFL/press setting public's expectations for less than 6 months with backdating. Penalties will be minimal.

Very much could be. They have history for conditioning the AFL public prior to their decisions. However, this assumes they have some influence over the independent AFL Tribunal...

Maybe I'm an optimist in fair process, but I'd like to believe the AFL cannot influence the three judges that form said panel.

 

[Muggs]

I'm sure if you read the article again you will see that ASADA offered 6 months in early 2014 after the first notices were handed.

Just reread that article "ASADA had previously offered the 34 players a six-month ban, plus backdating, after show-cause notices were issued for the first time in 2014 and before Essendon and coach James Hird "

SCN issued 12 June, EFC and Hird went to the Federal court 13 June very short window to do a deal....