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
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
