What should Stew Crameri do?

[HiReception]

I might have missed one of the 318,209 "key moments" (and counting) in this saga, so this could be an irrelevant question, but nonetheless:

Did we ever find out if the two "renegades" who were planning on taking a deal (assuming Crameri is even one of them) ended up doing so? And if they did (and if he is), doesn't that mean Crameri still misses Rounds 1&2?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I might have missed one of the 318,209 "key moments" (and counting) in this saga, so this could be an irrelevant question, but nonetheless:

Did we ever find out if the two "renegades" who were planning on taking a deal (assuming Crameri is even one of them) ended up doing so? And if they did (and if he is), doesn't that mean Crameri still misses Rounds 1&2?

Robbo suggested on 360 last night that Peter Gordon was pushing all three Essendon emigrants (Crameri, Ryder and Monfries) to take deals but they all refused. That said, though, it's Robbo so it's entirely possible he got the entire story backwards.

 

[BrisDog]

While I understand your point, you'd be happy if Club X went and injected their players with untraceable steroids - shredded the evidence and won every flag for the next 20 years ???

Because this is the scenario we are now facing - if you cannot prove what was taken - you get off without penalty. East German 'female' athletes and Chinese swimmers are now taking notes.... The onus is on the players to know what they take.

Essendon were found to have sourced TB4 from China, delivered it to Dank, sent it to the Chemist (Alavi) and had it formulated for injections. Dank admitted giving it to the players in an interview - but they were found not guilty - because they couldn't prove it was injected ??? It ******* boggles the mind...

I agree with your comments re: Essendon should be taking the blame, but that's not how the system is designed to work, due to the precedents set by the Chinese and East Germans all those years ago... Unfortunately, the players bear the ultimate responsibility.

I expect WADA to still play a role here - if nothing else the drugs code will be changed to put the burden of proof onto the players - not ASADA.

Great Post. WADA to still play a role I suspect.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Robbo suggested on 360 last night that Peter Gordon was pushing all three Essendon emigrants (Crameri, Ryder and Monfries) to take deals but they all refused. That said, though, it's Robbo so it's entirely possible he got the entire story backwards.

Robbo is still comfortably perched on Seat 1A in the Essendon cheersquad. I mean what would Gordon know? He's only a lawyer.

 

[Ghenghis]

Just getting back to the actual thread "what should Crameri do?" for a minute

I think he should play, kick 4 goals and sing the song with gusto on Saturday night with the rest of his team mates.

 

[Mutt]

Robbo suggested on 360 last night that Peter Gordon was pushing all three Essendon emigrants (Crameri, Ryder and Monfries) to take deals but they all refused. That said, though, it's Robbo so it's entirely possible he got the entire story backwards.

I think that Robbo assumes it was Gordon pushing some players to take a deal. We don't know for sure that anyone from any of the clubs involved was suggesting players consider a deal.

Gordon was at one time stating publicly that he felt that the ASADA case was very weak and he pushed Crameri and Prismal to seek counsel other than the AFLPA/Essendon firm.

 

[dogwatch]

While Essendon may, or may not, still be as guilty as hell, despite what some would have had us believe, that it was up to the players
to prove their innocence, common sense and justice has prevailed here. I don't give a fig who ASADA are, or what powers they assume
to themselves, justice can only exist if nobody can be convicted without evidence, either factual, or at least convincing circumstantial.

We as a society would be in a hell of a state if anyone could be convicted on suspicion alone. An unsubstantiated accusation is
never grounds for a conviction, even by ASADA.
I have never believed 34 players knowingly chose to cheat. They took advice and direction for elements within the structure of their employer [Ess].
If there is a guilty party here [ provided evidence did/does exist], it is the Essendon club, not the players.

While I understand your point, you'd be happy if Club X went and injected their players with untraceable steroids - shredded the evidence and won every flag for the next 20 years ???

Because this is the scenario we are now facing - if you cannot prove what was taken - you get off without penalty. East German 'female' athletes and Chinese swimmers are now taking notes.... The onus is on the players to know what they take.

Essendon were found to have sourced TB4 from China, delivered it to Dank, sent it to the Chemist (Alavi) and had it formulated for injections. Dank admitted giving it to the players in an interview - but they were found not guilty - because they couldn't prove it was injected ??? It ******* boggles the mind...

I agree with your comments re: Essendon should be taking the blame, but that's not how the system is designed to work, due to the precedents set by the Chinese and East Germans all those years ago... Unfortunately, the players bear the ultimate responsibility.

I expect WADA to still play a role here - if nothing else the drugs code will be changed to put the burden of proof onto the players - not ASADA.

Both excellent posts and these are only two angles on an extraordinarily complex case which has angered, excited, frustrated and perplexed the footy community (not to mention the legal and political world).

Let's just assume for a moment that things stay the same in this case: players exonerated, no-one charged or found guilty of anything. What happens next? I won't discuss these points because it would end up being a post of Dannnnnnnumental proportions. I will just pose the questions and you can figure out the implications for yourselves...

• What is the future of drugs-in-team-sport prosecutions in this country, given that hardly any team has been found guilty, or at least given any serious penalty, despite reasonably strong evidence on several occasions that "something" happened?
• Will anyone have the courage to initiate another drugs-in-team-sport investigation/prosecution when they know that lawyers can be brought in to hold things up for a year or two? And will anyone ever try again to prosecute a case if there is no positive drug test from any individual?
• Will this encourage those at the fringes of "legal" operations to become bolder? Will this case mean that the preferred modus operandi is to make sure that players don't know what's going on? Or just that records of what each player received must be destroyed or hidden?
• What will happen to ASADA which, to be fair, has been ill-equipped, inexperienced and placed in an impossible position in this case? Can it ever be taken seriously again? Will it be scrapped or restructured, and what if anything will take its place? Will it be given powers to subpoena key witnesses and persons of interest, since it was apparently frustrated by at least one key player refusing to testify?
• Is the AFL able (or will it be able) to prosecute clubs for their collective actions and failures of process, even if individual players can't be found guilty?
• Will the "angry" EFC footballers still consider pursuing legal action against their own club for exposing them to unknown future health problems?
• Will the apparently "innocent" parties - players, coach, support staff, club - now launch lawsuits against those who initiated and prosecuted this case? And even against certain commentators who might have overstepped the mark?
• What will WADA do in this case, especially if ASADA decides not to appeal, or looks too much like a dead man walking? Will it decide to come in over the top and appeal?
• What are the practical implications for Australia's international reputation regarding drugs in sport? What are the implications for drugs in team sports overseas (especially if WADA fails to act)? If player ignorance or the inability to work out which players received which injections is enough to get a case dismissed, will WADA be forced to change its central plank - that individuals are responsible for knowing what substances enter their bodies?
• What did the AFL panel actually find (since its full report has not been published) - was there no hard evidence of any illicit activity at all? Or did it find a body and a smoking gun but insufficient evidence to convict anyone beyond reasonable doubt? If the former, how does this stack up against the circumstantial evidence? If the latter, what is being done to bring those responsible for the regime (i.e. not the footballers) to account and also to make sure it can't happen again?

I'm sure you can add quite a few more questions to the list. It's going to be interesting times for a little while yet.

 

[Toastman]

Both excellent posts and these are only two angles on an extraordinarily complex case which has angered, excited, frustrated and perplexed the footy community (not to mention the legal and political world).

Let's just assume for a moment that things stay the same in this case: players exonerated, no-one charged or found guilty of anything. What happens next? I won't discuss these points because it would end up being a post of Dannnnnnnumental proportions. I will just pose the questions and you can figure out the implications for yourselves...

• What is the future of drugs-in-team-sport prosecutions in this country, given that hardly any team has been found guilty, or at least given any serious penalty, despite reasonably strong evidence on several occasions that "something" happened?
• Will anyone have the courage to initiate another drugs-in-team-sport investigation/prosecution when they know that lawyers can be brought in to hold things up for a year or two? And will anyone ever try again to prosecute a case if there is no positive drug test from any individual?
• Will this encourage those at the fringes of "legal" operations to become bolder? Will this case mean that the preferred modus operandi is to make sure that players don't know what's going on? Or just that records of what each player received must be destroyed or hidden?
• What will happen to ASADA which, to be fair, has been ill-equipped, inexperienced and placed in an impossible position in this case? Can it ever be taken seriously again? Will it be scrapped or restructured, and what if anything will take its place? Will it be given powers to subpoena key witnesses and persons of interest, since it was apparently frustrated by at least one key player refusing to testify?
• Is the AFL able (or will it be able) to prosecute clubs for their collective actions and failures of process, even if individual players can't be found guilty?
• Will the "angry" EFC footballers still consider pursuing legal action against their own club for exposing them to unknown future health problems?
• Will the apparently "innocent" parties - players, coach, support staff, club - now launch lawsuits against those who initiated and prosecuted this case? And even against certain commentators who might have overstepped the mark?
• What will WADA do in this case, especially if ASADA decides not to appeal, or looks too much like a dead man walking? Will it decide to come in over the top and appeal?
• What are the practical implications for Australia's international reputation regarding drugs in sport? What are the implications for drugs in team sports overseas (especially if WADA fails to act)? If player ignorance or the inability to work out which players received which injections is enough to get a case dismissed, will WADA be forced to change its central plank - that individuals are responsible for knowing what substances enter their bodies?
• What did the AFL panel actually find (since its full report has not been published) - was there no hard evidence of any illicit activity at all? Or did it find a body and a smoking gun but insufficient evidence to convict anyone beyond reasonable doubt? If the former, how does this stack up against the circumstantial evidence? If the latter, what is being done to bring those responsible for the regime (i.e. not the footballers) to account and also to make sure it can't happen again?

I'm sure you can add quite a few more questions to the list. It's going to be interesting times for a little while yet.

Pretty sad to think about but with a proven drug cheat as king of Moomba this year it shows how concerned most Australians are about the issue when it is one of our own.

 

[immortalmike]

Pretty sad to think about but with a proven drug cheat as king of Moomba this year it shows how concerned most Australians are about the issue when it is one of our own.

Three questions...
There's still a Moomba?
Moomba has a king? Really! ?
Who the * is the king of Moomba?

 

[More Bulldog]

Three questions...
There's still a Moomba?
Moomba has a king? Really! ?
Who the **** is the king of Moomba?

 

[paulveed]

To Dftw, and TDC. Do you believe the Ess. players were told that ... "hey guys, we're going to inject you all with illegal performance enhancing drugs".
Pretty clearly not.
They were told surely that it was just a legal peptide cocktail. It was coming via their employer.

Dank has always insisted there was nothing illegal involved. Now whether or not I believe him or not is irrelevant.
I heard an interview with the chemist who appears to have supplied the 'supplements', and he still insists he did not supply anything illegal.

Sorry but ASADA should never have gone public until they had evidence to support their accusations.

As for those Chinese swimmer girls. God almighty, they were out of the blue suddenly six pick handles across the shoulders. I don't recall any of the Ess.
players suddenly turning green and shredding their clothes with muscle mass.

No I disagree vehemently, no one should ever be hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion.

If doping is going on, and ASADA is to incompetent to prove a case, then perhaps it is them who should be looking over their shoulder.

If you guys thought you were just going along minding your own business, and someone came up and accused you of being a drug cheat,
with absolutely no verifiable evidence, would you think ..'hey that's their right, so I should just cop it on the chin, they are ASADA after all'?
I seriously doubt it.

Our system of justice is based on the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
No way ASADA, or any other body should be exempt from meeting this basic standard when dealing with anyone. It surely is their duty to enforce
the standards demanded by the rules, but they cannot do that while expecting to be exempt from the rule of law them selves.

If this means some drug cheats do get away with duping the system [ for a while at least], sadly so be it. But our society is going to hell on a stick, if unsubstantiated accusation is sufficient for conviction.

I am not for a moment saying Ess. is innocent, but the bottom line is...we just don't know.

All we know for certain is that ASADA is totally incompetent.

 

[Gmod23]

Workcover should be all over EFC.
Injecting players with unknown substances and not keeping records. At least a $1M fine there.

 

[paulveed]

Both excellent posts and these are only two angles on an extraordinarily complex case which has angered, excited, frustrated and perplexed the footy community (not to mention the legal and political world).

Let's just assume for a moment that things stay the same in this case: players exonerated, no-one charged or found guilty of anything. What happens next? I won't discuss these points because it would end up being a post of Dannnnnnnumental proportions. I will just pose the questions and you can figure out the implications for yourselves...

• What is the future of drugs-in-team-sport prosecutions in this country, given that hardly any team has been found guilty, or at least given any serious penalty, despite reasonably strong evidence on several occasions that "something" happened?
• Will anyone have the courage to initiate another drugs-in-team-sport investigation/prosecution when they know that lawyers can be brought in to hold things up for a year or two? And will anyone ever try again to prosecute a case if there is no positive drug test from any individual?
• Will this encourage those at the fringes of "legal" operations to become bolder? Will this case mean that the preferred modus operandi is to make sure that players don't know what's going on? Or just that records of what each player received must be destroyed or hidden?
• What will happen to ASADA which, to be fair, has been ill-equipped, inexperienced and placed in an impossible position in this case? Can it ever be taken seriously again? Will it be scrapped or restructured, and what if anything will take its place? Will it be given powers to subpoena key witnesses and persons of interest, since it was apparently frustrated by at least one key player refusing to testify?
• Is the AFL able (or will it be able) to prosecute clubs for their collective actions and failures of process, even if individual players can't be found guilty?
• Will the "angry" EFC footballers still consider pursuing legal action against their own club for exposing them to unknown future health problems?
• Will the apparently "innocent" parties - players, coach, support staff, club - now launch lawsuits against those who initiated and prosecuted this case? And even against certain commentators who might have overstepped the mark?
• What will WADA do in this case, especially if ASADA decides not to appeal, or looks too much like a dead man walking? Will it decide to come in over the top and appeal?
• What are the practical implications for Australia's international reputation regarding drugs in sport? What are the implications for drugs in team sports overseas (especially if WADA fails to act)? If player ignorance or the inability to work out which players received which injections is enough to get a case dismissed, will WADA be forced to change its central plank - that individuals are responsible for knowing what substances enter their bodies?
• What did the AFL panel actually find (since its full report has not been published) - was there no hard evidence of any illicit activity at all? Or did it find a body and a smoking gun but insufficient evidence to convict anyone beyond reasonable doubt? If the former, how does this stack up against the circumstantial evidence? If the latter, what is being done to bring those responsible for the regime (i.e. not the footballers) to account and also to make sure it can't happen again?

I'm sure you can add quite a few more questions to the list. It's going to be interesting times for a little while yet.

Dwatch, I would answer all of your questions in one metaphoric line.

What can justify the hanging of even one innocent man ?
If they cannot substantiate their accusations, then it is ASADA that needs repair, not our system of justice.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Workcover should be all over EFC.
Injecting players with unknown substances and not keeping records. At least a $1M fine there.

The players to a point were culpable and neglectful of their own health in not questioning and writing down what they were being injected with. They KNOW they are responsible for what goes into their bodies and they KNOW that the club medicos have to administer it. What, were they hypnotised or something?

 

[Zgope1]

To Dftw, and TDC. Do you believe the Ess. players were told that ... "hey guys, we're going to inject you all with illegal performance enhancing drugs".
Pretty clearly not.
They were told surely that it was just a legal peptide cocktail. It was coming via their employer.

Dank has always insisted there was nothing illegal involved. Now whether or not I believe him or not is irrelevant.
I heard an interview with the chemist who appears to have supplied the 'supplements', and he still insists he did not supply anything illegal.

Sorry but ASADA should never have gone public until they had evidence to support their accusations.

As for those Chinese swimmer girls. God almighty, they were out of the blue suddenly six pick handles across the shoulders. I don't recall any of the Ess.
players suddenly turning green and shredding their clothes with muscle mass.

No I disagree vehemently, no one should ever be hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion.

If doping is going on, and ASADA is to incompetent to prove a case, then perhaps it is them who should be looking over their shoulder.

If you guys thought you were just going along minding your own business, and someone came up and accused you of being a drug cheat,
with absolutely no verifiable evidence, would you think ..'hey that's their right, so I should just cop it on the chin, they are ASADA after all'?
I seriously doubt it.

Our system of justice is based on the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
No way ASADA, or any other body should be exempt from meeting this basic standard when dealing with anyone. It surely is their duty to enforce
the standards demanded by the rules, but they cannot do that while expecting to be exempt from the rule of law them selves.

If this means some drug cheats do get away with duping the system [ for a while at least], sadly so be it. But our society is going to hell on a stick, if unsubstantiated accusation is sufficient for conviction.

I am not for a moment saying Ess. is innocent, but the bottom line is...we just don't know.

All we know for certain is that ASADA is totally incompetent.

although i do agree PV, that ASADA is most likely incompetent, the "hung, drawn and quartered" isn't something really done by them. The ACC put the pressure on from the beginning by basically stating that the bombers had cheated, the AFL believed from the outset they'd cheated and it was simply ASADA's job to gather the evidence to verify it. ASADA was fully professional (although slow) throughout their investigation as verified in court and they legally provided information to the AFL as an INTERIM REPORT.

The consensus, all along, was that it looked really bad and it was highly probable (and still is) that TB4 was taken at that footy club. Sadly it's been too difficult to prosecute the case that 34 players took TB4 to the sufficient burden of proof.

These have been ASADA's big failings:

- they should've listened to their investigators that it wasn't enough to prosecute

- they were incompetent in giving players the correct information on AOD-9604


The only time ASADA threw up accusations was when they handed down the notices- a process they were legally entitled too.

The "hanging, drawing and quartering" comes down to the media and public opinion based on the factual information, found legally ,that has come to the public eye. This information suggests that it's highly probable that essendon players took TB4. This is a fact. There is no way you can look at the accepted facts and not draw that conclusion. Sadly "highly probable" was not prosecutable. But in NO WAY is that truth being out a negative in the fight against doping in sport.

Most of us, now, will look at the individual Essendon players favourably as it's unfair to assume they willingly consumed the substance and that they were one of the 6 that confirmed they'd been injected with thymosin. It's our responsibility now to give each of the 34 the benefit of the doubt.

Essendon, however, deserve their loss of premiership points, draft picks, millions of dollars and 1 year of mastermind coaching from Hird without doubt. They cocked up royally and deserve all they got.

 

[paulveed]

although i do agree PV, that ASADA is most likely incompetent, the "hung, drawn and quartered" isn't something really done by them. The ACC put the pressure on from the beginning by basically stating that the bombers had cheated, the AFL believed from the outset they'd cheated and it was simply ASADA's job to gather the evidence to verify it. ASADA was fully professional (although slow) throughout their investigation as verified in court and they legally provided information to the AFL as an INTERIM REPORT.

The consensus, all along, was that it looked really bad and it was highly probable (and still is) that TB4 was taken at that footy club. Sadly it's been too difficult to prosecute the case that 34 players took TB4 to the sufficient burden of proof.

These have been ASADA's big failings:

- they should've listened to their investigators that it wasn't enough to prosecute

- they were incompetent in giving players the correct information on AOD-9604


The only time ASADA threw up accusations was when they handed down the notices- a process they were legally entitled too.

The "hanging, drawing and quartering" comes down to the media and public opinion based on the factual information, found legally ,that has come to the public eye. This information suggests that it's highly probable that essendon players took TB4. This is a fact. There is no way you can look at the accepted facts and not draw that conclusion. Sadly "highly probable" was not prosecutable. But in NO WAY is that truth being out a negative in the fight against doping in sport.

Most of us, now, will look at the individual Essendon players favourably as it's unfair to assume they willingly consumed the substance and that they were one of the 6 that confirmed they'd been injected with thymosin. It's our responsibility now to give each of the 34 the benefit of the doubt.

Essendon, however, deserve their loss of premiership points, draft picks, millions of dollars and 1 year of mastermind coaching from Hird without doubt. They cocked up royally and deserve all they got.

I'm not arguing one way or the other if the players are innocent or guilty. And you may be right that 'someone may have been injected with an illegal substance'. But surely there still remains a burden of proof. If it does not exist, then neither do grounds for conviction.

On your other point. A judge, is never the hangman. Someone else always get to pull the lever. But it is the judge, not the hangman who is ultimately responsible for the action.

 

[dogwatch]

Dwatch, I would answer all of your questions in one metaphoric line.

What can justify the hanging of even one innocent man ?
If they cannot substantiate their accusations, then it is ASADA that needs repair, not our system of justice.

Well no, it's obviously not that simple. (And I don't think you are suggesting it is.)

I quite agree that justice must err on the conservative side (i.e. unless clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt there should be no conviction) so that justifies the "insufficient evidence" conclusion regarding the 34. However it leaves unanswered all the questions about how AFL - and team sports more generally - should be managed with respect to PEDs. If the existing rules and procedures don't work, how DO we want to ensure PEDs don't take hold?

And don't forget Essendon have already owned up to poor practices and governance in this matter (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Hird was reported today to have apologised, even though he said he had "no intention" of harming players, the club or the sport. So he is conceding that things should have been done better.

These are processes that can and need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I'm pretty sure Essendon has changed (some of) its ways already, but the AFL has a lot of self-examination to do yet.

Yes, I agree that ASADA is "broken". If you read my post you will see that I was implying that in the questions.

 

[TedDougChris]

To Dftw, and TDC. Do you believe the Ess. players were told that ... "hey guys, we're going to inject you all with illegal performance enhancing drugs".
Pretty clearly not.
They were told surely that it was just a legal peptide cocktail. It was coming via their employer.

Dank has always insisted there was nothing illegal involved. Now whether or not I believe him or not is irrelevant.
I heard an interview with the chemist who appears to have supplied the 'supplements', and he still insists he did not supply anything illegal.

Sorry but ASADA should never have gone public until they had evidence to support their accusations.

As for those Chinese swimmer girls. God almighty, they were out of the blue suddenly six pick handles across the shoulders. I don't recall any of the Ess.
players suddenly turning green and shredding their clothes with muscle mass.

No I disagree vehemently, no one should ever be hung, drawn and quartered on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion.

If doping is going on, and ASADA is to incompetent to prove a case, then perhaps it is them who should be looking over their shoulder.

If you guys thought you were just going along minding your own business, and someone came up and accused you of being a drug cheat,
with absolutely no verifiable evidence, would you think ..'hey that's their right, so I should just cop it on the chin, they are ASADA after all'?
I seriously doubt it.

Our system of justice is based on the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven.
No way ASADA, or any other body should be exempt from meeting this basic standard when dealing with anyone. It surely is their duty to enforce
the standards demanded by the rules, but they cannot do that while expecting to be exempt from the rule of law them selves.

If this means some drug cheats do get away with duping the system [ for a while at least], sadly so be it. But our society is going to hell on a stick, if unsubstantiated accusation is sufficient for conviction.

I am not for a moment saying Ess. is innocent, but the bottom line is...we just don't know.

All we know for certain is that ASADA is totally incompetent.

The players sign a contract that says: "I am responsible for everything that goes into my body and I am responsible for any positive or failed test etc". This extends to the current situation. It is the players and clubs responsibility to ensure that records are kept - which is part of the problem - the shredder eliminated all records of what actually occurred.

Therefore - it doesn't matter if the players willingly wanted to cheat - they are still responsible for what happened. You can argue that it's harsh/unfair and I agree - but otherwise you will have clubs injecting players with all sorts of stuff and the players saying 'It's not my fault' - and getting away with it. This is why the anti-doping code is written this way.

Do you think Saad deliberately set out to dope - or did he foolishly drink an energy/recovery drink not allowed under the code ? Did the two Collingwood guys deliberately cheat ? Did Crowley ? Or were they just stupid (with recreational drugs) or thoughtless and just popped a painkiller ?? Strict liability means that THEY are responsible - something which still hasn't dawned on some supporters of Essendon.

At what point did the players wonder about the program ? Was it the first injection, the 100th, the 1000th ?? When the injections stopped happening on-site and in the presence of the club doctor and moved to a dingy backroom in a doctors surgery ? When the club doctor stopped knowing what they were being treated with ? When they went from one injection every 2 or 3 weeks, to 20 - 30 per month ??

One of the central questions to this whole situation is: What was the supplements saga actually designed to do ? Why was it implemented ? From the information to hand it appears that the program was designed to improve recovery and allow the players to do more work, more frequently - so they could run out games more than their opponents, become bigger and stronger and play more regularly. Tell me that is just performance enhancing under another name.... It certainly wasn't just to whiten the players teeth....

So you've got Jobe winning the Brownlow, by playing games he otherwise wouldn't have. You have clubs missing the finals, but losing to Essendon due to the supplements program and the edge it gave their players. Clubs missing revenue, experience, free agents and all the trappings - because one club decided to cheat.

I agree that ASADA have not performed well. I'm staggered that they'd go forward with a case that failed to satisfy the 'comfortable satisfaction clause'. I believe that the anti-doping code will be re-written to state 'In the event of a charge, the players will have to prove that they did not take the substances', not the other way around.

If not for an administrative cockup, AOD9604 would have seen the whole lot of them done for doping. So don't sit their and believe the players have done nothing wrong - they're just extremely lucky the document shredder and people refusing to assist have saved them - at this point in time. I think WADA will be investing a bit of research money into tests for TB4 in the coming years, as ASADA can still test the players for another 5 - 7 years.

For me - it's the old - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck - it's probably a duck. When you import TB4, compound TB4, develop an injection regime that matches TB4 - then mysteriously lose all the evidence when you learn it's illegal - it probably was TB4. And in the interest of a fair sporting competition - I can live with that.

Sorry for derailing the thread everyone else..

 

[TempletonTheRat]

Did anyone commenting about ASADA actually see the interview this morning with Devitt ?

I think some are making accusations about ASADA's failings without enough information to be making those accusations.

 

[paulveed]

The players sign a contract that says: "I am responsible for everything that goes into my body and I am responsible for any positive or failed test etc". This extends to the current situation. It is the players and clubs responsibility to ensure that records are kept - which is part of the problem - the shredder eliminated all records of what actually occurred.

Therefore - it doesn't matter if the players willingly wanted to cheat - they are still responsible for what happened. You can argue that it's harsh/unfair and I agree - but otherwise you will have clubs injecting players with all sorts of stuff and the players saying 'It's not my fault' - and getting away with it. This is why the anti-doping code is written this way.

Do you think Saad deliberately set out to dope - or did he foolishly drink an energy/recovery drink not allowed under the code ? Did the two Collingwood guys deliberately cheat ? Did Crowley ? Or were they just stupid (with recreational drugs) or thoughtless and just popped a painkiller ?? Strict liability means that THEY are responsible - something which still hasn't dawned on some supporters of Essendon.

At what point did the players wonder about the program ? Was it the first injection, the 100th, the 1000th ?? When the injections stopped happening on-site and in the presence of the club doctor and moved to a dingy backroom in a doctors surgery ? When the club doctor stopped knowing what they were being treated with ? When they went from one injection every 2 or 3 weeks, to 20 - 30 per month ??

One of the central questions to this whole situation is: What was the supplements saga actually designed to do ? Why was it implemented ? From the information to hand it appears that the program was designed to improve recovery and allow the players to do more work, more frequently - so they could run out games more than their opponents, become bigger and stronger and play more regularly. Tell me that is just performance enhancing under another name.... It certainly wasn't just to whiten the players teeth....

So you've got Jobe winning the Brownlow, by playing games he otherwise wouldn't have. You have clubs missing the finals, but losing to Essendon due to the supplements program and the edge it gave their players. Clubs missing revenue, experience, free agents and all the trappings - because one club decided to cheat.

I agree that ASADA have not performed well. I'm staggered that they'd go forward with a case that failed to satisfy the 'comfortable satisfaction clause'. I believe that the anti-doping code will be re-written to state 'In the event of a charge, the players will have to prove that they did not take the substances', not the other way around.

If not for an administrative cockup, AOD9604 would have seen the whole lot of them done for doping. So don't sit their and believe the players have done nothing wrong - they're just extremely lucky the document shredder and people refusing to assist have saved them - at this point in time. I think WADA will be investing a bit of research money into tests for TB4 in the coming years, as ASADA can still test the players for another 5 - 7 years.

For me - it's the old - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck - it's probably a duck. When you import TB4, compound TB4, develop an injection regime that matches TB4 - then mysteriously lose all the evidence when you learn it's illegal - it probably was TB4. And in the interest of a fair sporting competition - I can live with that.

Sorry for derailing the thread everyone else..

Sorry too Ted. But you yourself rendered most of your post irrelevant in your own second line : " responsible for any positive or failed test". There have been none.
Look, I am not justifying anything that was, or may have been done with drugs, and there is still the possibility that drug cheating did take place at Ess.

But, and it is a big BUT, you cannot convict someone on suspicion alone... full stop !
With no evidence to unconditionally back up their suspicions, ASADA should have shut their 'flapping traps', and kept digging till they had irrefutable evidence, instead of grandstanding, and chest beating.
In all likelihood they have now ensured that there is precious little chance of their ever finding the evidence they needed to make charges stick.

They have also shat in their own nests, by demonstrating to all and sundry their own complete incompetence.

Personally I suspect doping may well have taken place. But like ASADA's position, that is completely irrelevant without the evidence for proof.

Sure their failure opens up a mighty can of worms for both themselves, and the anti-doping bodies everywhere.
But we cannot dig them out of this hole by denying people natural justice, and moving any burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

 

[TedDougChris]

Sorry too Ted. But you yourself rendered most of your post irrelevant in your own second line : " responsible for any positive or failed test". There have been none.
Look, I am not justifying anything that was, or may have been done with drugs, and there is still the possibility that drug cheating did take place at Ess.

But, and it is a big BUT, you cannot convict someone on suspicion alone... full stop !
With no evidence to unconditionally back up their suspicions, ASADA should have shut their 'flapping traps', and kept digging till they had irrefutable evidence, instead of grandstanding, and chest beating.
In all likelihood they have now ensured that there is precious little chance of their ever finding the evidence they needed to make charges stick.

They have also shat in their own nests, by demonstrating to all and sundry their own complete incompetence.

Personally I suspect doping may well have taken place. But like ASADA's position, that is completely irrelevant without the evidence for proof.

Sure their failure opens up a mighty can of worms for both themselves, and the anti-doping bodies everywhere.
But we cannot dig them out of this hole by denying people natural justice, and moving any burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

Er, no I haven't. The anti-doping code also includes an 'intent to dope provision', which I think has been comfortably satisfied. They actively sourced and received PED's, prohibited under the code. There are a few cases of athlete's in recent years (in more individual sports), getting bans for importing products - that weren't even delivered to them - as they were intercepted before arrival.

Lance Armstrong never failed a test either (or only one, which was explainable at the time by other circumstances - memory is slightly dodgy here).

I agree that ASADA have made mistakes and that they shouldn't have proceeded until they were ready.

 

[TedDougChris]

Thanks for having a sensible discussion on this too paulveed - without resorting to abuse or insults. Most appreciated kind sir !!

 

[paulveed]

Thanks for having a sensible discussion on this too paulveed - without resorting to abuse or insults. Most appreciated kind sir !!

No dramas at all my friend. Differing perspectives on a few points perhaps, but all I was putting is a personal perspective. I certainly have no problems with you or others seeing things differently Ted.
I'm sure most of us agree whatever went on at Essendon was probably not all above board, and most likely not in either the game's nor the player's best interest.
I'm just not of the school that says the ends justifies the means. But this must apply equally to the Bombers and ASADA that's all.

 

[Dry Rot]

IIRC ASADA rightfully thought they had them, until Charters and the chemist suddenly refused to co-operate further.

 

[Dogsman16]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...es-son-from-deal/story-fnca0u4y-1227288429194

Very close to losing Stew for a good chunk of the season.