ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[telsor]

Even amongst the most enthusiastic subscribers to the lynch mob, you will not get too many who believe the players will cop two year suspensions.

In fact compared to two years ago, the percentage who believe this has dropped from 99% to 28%.

And like most holes in the case that get thrown up, these stats are completely made up.

 

[bing181]

2. The ADRVP do not need to be convinced of a likelihood of a conviction. This is the wording from the NAD Scheme:

(d) to consider whether to make a finding that it is possible that an athlete or support person has committed a non‑presence anti‑doping rule violation and to make a finding of that kind;​

We can see you can cut and paste, but not that you understand. (Though it's clear that you don't want to either ...)

Possible is there because in the absence of the certainty of an AAF, it's all it can ever be. Possible. After all, it's possible that I've committed a doping infringement. But I haven't been entered on the ROF, because it's unlikely that any charges brought against me would succeed. It's equally possible that every player in the AFL has committed a doping infringement - but then, the only ones entered on the ROF are the 34 from Essendon. So somewhere along the line, the ADRVP has decided to differentiate between the 700-odd AFL players and the Essendon 34. But on what criteria? It's not just about the possibility of an offence, because that's the case for all players. What differentiates the Essendon 34 from the rest is that that possibility of an offence has increased to become, shall we say "something more".

The answer to what that "something more" actually is, is revealed in the AFL's doping code.

After the ADRVP decides there's a possible ADRV, there's an entry into the ROF. Which then leads to the issuing of infraction notices by the AFL. Their doping code refers to an infraction notice as needing to "set out the nature and particulars of the alleged Anti Doping Rule Violation".

In reality, your possible isn't just "yeah, could be something in it". It is an allegation that there has been an ADRV.

 

[84859300]

Yet it was the EFC who used these guys to provide supplements to their players.

It would be safe to say that whatever you say about non EFC supporters applies equally to EFC supporters who have alternately said they cannot be trusted and are now saying they should be believed that ASADA have altered their testimony.

OK - are you stupid??

I made an observation that the swings and roundabouts of these identities swayed with whatever news report you read. No pro EFC. No anti EFC.

You turn this into "non EFC" supporters vs. "EFC supporters" because you have no other opinion other than "they must be guilty and I must tell everyone so". You need your head read, because you're obviously not reading posts to the fullest - and assuming points and attacking them with no recourse.

It's people like you (EFC or non-EFC supporter) that stir s**t in threads like these to push your own agenda.

Please. Please take a minute to read a post before you reply to it.... because if you've cocked this one up so badly - there must be other replies in this thread alone that you have mis-calculated when constructing a reply after not reading the post thoroughly. If this is the case, you're not doing your your thread mates any benefits in offering an off the cuff opinion - rather than a calculated one.

Please don't embarrass yourself again with knee jerk reactions, rather than constructive posts. No one in this saga needs them.

 

[84859300]

is there a court where the prosecution don't have to prove guilt?

Tell us again, you know this is a tribunal and not a court, right??

 

[milpod]

Tell us again, you know this is a tribunal and not a court, right??

You understand French law right?

 

[84859300]

The players don't have to do anything, however you would think theit lawyers would try to put as much doubt into the arguments as possible.

If it was a court case, you're on the money. But here, it's a tribunal case. Here, big, bad ASADA have to come up with proof over hearsay, to have any of the three days of evidence put forward somewhat being accepted and forcing EFC to defend themselves against allegations. Here 'old mate' WADA don't have any dedicated requirements to get involved at all.

Poor Essendon lawyers, they were picking at every little problem they could find (according to Little), then they get told they are not allowed to be at the tribunal.

Good or bad - the play will run its course.

One thing strikes me, why does Essendon have evidence? Isn't it the players evidence, not Essendon?They are breaking the confidentiality themselfs

I'll take you back to the court case that had Justice Middleton combined the action of the 34 players and Hird, under the one banner when questioning the legality of ASADA and the AFL merging the investigation. Now this is an action that all and sundry on the EFC side lost an were required to be be tried, with this information being found as legal. It's quite naive to now think it's just the players evidence. In signing an agreement of any description, after being internally discussed by the players and asking for a document of confirmation - no one has broken confidentiality from the club. Look at Robinson and the HUN, who published names to see where confidentiality was broken - and you can decide on who leaked he names.

My guess was it wasn't JH.

 

[84859300]

You understand French law right?

French law has nothing to do with it.

You know this is a tribunal - for convenience - being held in a court.

No testimony, evidence or diary notes is considered as fact here. Nothing.

The overseers will pass judgement on proceedings.... and then we might get into the real legal aspect of the case.

No matter what "team" you barrack for here - it's all piss and wind. No WADA will come over the to here...

 

[telsor]

Tell us again, you know this is a tribunal and not a court, right??

You know the difference isn't very significant, right?

The level of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', but in all other ways, it's very court like. Hell, if either party is unhappy with the outcome, it can be appealed to a designated court (CAS).

 

[84859300]

You know the difference isn't very significant, right?

The level of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt', but in all other ways, it's very court like. Hell, if either party is unhappy with the outcome, it can be appealed to a designated court (CAS).

OK mete - but in a tribunal "Despite media reports to the contrary, while it is my preference for potential witnesses to front the tribunal in person, I do not believe it is essential. It's now time to test this evidence in a tribunal and we are ready,"

In a legal case - no evidence would be taken on board, unless it was substantiated.

Do you see the difference now??

 

[telsor]

OK mete - but in a tribunal "Despite media reports to the contrary, while it is my preference for potential witnesses to front the tribunal in person, I do not believe it is essential. It's now time to test this evidence in a tribunal and we are ready,"

In a legal case - no evidence would be taken on board, unless it was substantiated.

Do you see the difference now??

All evidence would be taken on board, regardless.

The weight it is given would vary with the support it has, but it can still be submitted and considered.

That there is a different level of proof required would affect this, as I said, but it doesn't change the basic structures.

 

[BlueWorld]

Please. Please take a minute to read a post before you reply to it.... because if you've cocked this one up so badly

Please don't embarrass yourself again with knee jerk reactions, rather than constructive posts. No one in this saga needs them.

Says it perfectly. Well done.

 

[84859300]

Says it perfectly. Well done.

- Am I doing it right, chump??

 

[84859300]

The weight it is given would vary with the support it has, but it can still be submitted and considered.

Totally, totally different in a tribunal setting, versus a legal setting.

In a tribunal setting, you are arguing a specific title for a specific result - no more, no less. When this is reached - on you go, with bans or dismissal and the like. No problem - away you go.

A court is based on a totally different set of rules, not just slightly ajar to the left. Here, everyone is culpable. From ASADA, the EFC, the AFL, Dank, Charters and Alavi. Evidence produced is viable and liable. No pissy half measures.

Now, you tell me on who was shitting their britches on not pursuing a legal argument here, to get a result??

For all the foamers and EFC supporters, I hate to tell you, but it doesn't end after the finding is handed down in 2015. Appeals and re-directions will go on and on... bringing this Kangaroo Tribunal to the fore as a farce and a waste of money. No result from this action, will be the final result.

 

[telsor]

Totally, totally different in a tribunal setting, versus a legal setting.

In a tribunal setting, you are arguing a specific title for a specific result - no more, no less. When this is reached - on you go, with bans or dismissal and the like. No problem - away you go.

A court is based on a totally different set of rules, not just slightly ajar to the left. Here, everyone is culpable. From ASADA, the EFC, the AFL, Dank, Charters and Alavi. Evidence produced is viable and liable. No pissy half measures.

Now, you tell me on who was shitting their britches on not pursuing a legal argument here, to get a result??

For all the foamers and EFC supporters, I hate to tell you, but it doesn't end after the finding is handed down in 2015. Appeals and re-directions will go on and on... bringing this Kangaroo Tribunal to the fore as a farce and a waste of money. No result from this action, will be the final result.

You do realise that the tribunal decision will stand until an appeal succeeds (if one does), and that the appeal will be at the CAS, which uses the same rules of evidence.

 

[H2F]

How ridiculous is it that more than two years on we are still here when everyone knows that almost certainly the players were of the belief they were doing nothing wrong.

Say what you want but for this reason ASADA and the AFL have so much to answer for ...

 

[84859300]

You do realise that the tribunal decision will stand until an appeal succeeds (if one does), and that the appeal will be at the CAS, which uses the same rules of evidence.

It will mean jack s**t - a total waste of time and another 18 months down the drain.

I totally understand the scenario.

In an international forum, ASADA were meant to be able to oversee and finalise an outcome that was above recompense... with WADA in the wings to assist.

After 24 months of "we have enough evidence to prosecute" do you see why there is backlash that the "CAS option" has to resolve this farce??

No matter of the need to follow the process - no decision was going to come from the 'little government agency that couldn't'.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

How ridiculous is it that more than two years on we are still here when everyone knows that almost certainly the players were of the belief they were doing nothing wrong.

Say what you want but for this reason ASADA and the AFL have so much to answer for ...

Nah, you've got the wrong end of the stick mate. They knew something was up, hence they kept asking Hird/Reid/Dank and whoever else that "it's all safe, isn't it?".

They knew they were being threaded through loopholes. They put their trust in the wrong people and ignored what they have had stuffed down their throats since before draft day, "You are responsible for everything that enters your body".

 

[bing181]

How ridiculous is it that more than two years on we are still here when everyone knows that almost certainly the players were of the belief they were doing nothing wrong.

Irrelevant.

All of it.

 

[Lizardempire]

Nah, you've got the wrong end of the stick mate. They knew something was up, hence they kept asking Hird/Reid/Dank and whoever else that "it's all safe, isn't it?".

They knew they were being threaded through loopholes. They put their trust in the wrong people and ignored what they have had stuffed down their throats since before draft day, "You are responsible for everything that enters your body".

The players signed forms that clearly state the injections they were to receive are WADA compliant. No reason to question that. Can you clarify the 'loophole' you mentioned above?

'Wrong people'? have the players been found guilty of taking non WADA compliant substances? Only then would the accusation of 'wrong people' be justified.

 

[bing181]

Ah, a change of shift from the EFC.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The players signed forms that clearly state the injections they were to receive are WADA compliant. No reason to question that. Can you clarify the 'loophole' you mentioned above?

'Wrong people'? have the players been found guilty of taking non WADA compliant substances? Only then would the accusation of 'wrong people' be justified.

Why did they ask for those forms do you think?

The loophole was the one pointed out by B&M.
"Hey guys, we can compound anything we like, and as soon as we do that, the code can't touch us! Brilliant or what?!"

Oops, wrong.

Clearly the players trusted the wrong people or they wouldn't even be in the mess.

If they had of asked ASADA straight up, perhaps more of them would've been 'afraid of needles'.

 

[Rich]

The players signed forms that clearly state the injections they were to receive are WADA compliant. No reason to question that. Can you clarify the 'loophole' you mentioned above?

'Wrong people'? have the players been found guilty of taking non WADA compliant substances? Only then would the accusation of 'wrong people' be justified.

Why have the ambiguous "Thymosin" on it then?

We've heard Bombers players knew about multiple forms of it, so they must have twigged that something stunk.

 

[threesixpio]

We can see you can cut and paste, but not that you understand. (Though it's clear that you don't want to either ...)

Possible is there because in the absence of the certainty of an AAF, it's all it can ever be. Possible. After all, it's possible that I've committed a doping infringement. But I haven't been entered on the ROF, because it's unlikely that any charges brought against me would succeed. It's equally possible that every player in the AFL has committed a doping infringement - but then, the only ones entered on the ROF are the 34 from Essendon. So somewhere along the line, the ADRVP has decided to differentiate between the 700-odd AFL players and the Essendon 34. But on what criteria? It's not just about the possibility of an offence, because that's the case for all players. What differentiates the Essendon 34 from the rest is that that possibility of an offence has increased to become, shall we say "something more".

The answer to what that "something more" actually is, is revealed in the AFL's doping code.

After the ADRVP decides there's a possible ADRV, there's an entry into the ROF. Which then leads to the issuing of infraction notices by the AFL. Their doping code refers to an infraction notice as needing to "set out the nature and particulars of the alleged Anti Doping Rule Violation".

In reality, your possible isn't just "yeah, could be something in it". It is an allegation that there has been an ADRV.

FFS (not aimed at you) - this topic is also boring. Sure there is a lower burden for ROF but ASADA would unlikely pursue this if they didn't think it would stand up with the higher burden when challenged.

If however, there is ANY truth to the allegation that the case is weak and they hoped players would take deals due to political pressure which is just a THEORY I will be the first to say ASADA is f&cked but without seeing the evidence this is just a THEORY and nothing else.

(This has been trotted out by AndrewB and Dan constantly!!)

 

[telsor]

It will mean jack s**t - a total waste of time and another 18 months down the drain.

What requires another 18 months?

If you're thinking it would take that long for the tribunal decision to be appealed to CAS, you're wrong, but even on the off chance you were right, having the players out of action for the lesser of 18 months or their sentence hardly qualifies as meaning "jack s**t".

I totally understand the scenario.

I'm not sure you do.

In an international forum, ASADA were meant to be able to oversee and finalise an outcome that was above recompense... with WADA in the wings to assist.

After 24 months of "we have enough evidence to prosecute" do you see why there is backlash that the "CAS option" has to resolve this farce??

No matter of the need to follow the process - no decision was going to come from the 'little government agency that couldn't'.

Couldn't do what? They've done everything that's been required of them so far and at every step have passed the required standards.

 

[Go_Blues!]

Especially given the Ministerial interference we have witnessed during the course of the year.

Who are you? Ministers are not only empowered to direct their departments, they are required to. If you are suggesting that a government suggested that a department go after a particular club then that is not only unsupportable but also unethical. However, what seems to have happened here is that another government department (ACC) found evidence that was linked, perhaps loosely, to Essendon. Is a minister not obliged to direct her sports doping department to investigate?

Perhaps some of the messaging around this was politically motivated but not the actions.