Athletes legal action

Remove this Banner Ad

Bunk Moreland

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts
Sep 22, 2011
40,692
88,233
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
With the sanctions that Cronulla players have been given despite admitting guilt, that ASADA and WADA have approved...

Is there any scope for legal / class action by athletes who have previously been handed the draconian penalties that our prestigious anti doping bodies apparently insist upon?

Some of these people have had their careers ruined.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ahmed Saad must feel like sh1te, draconian does not spring to mind, but F#$%%^^G ridiculous does.

It is a mockery, the Aussie banned from the Olympics because of drinking to much coffee, the swimmer (s) banned because of flu tablets etc.
 
fabulousphil said:
Ahmed Saad must feel like sh1te, draconian does not spring to mind, but F#$%%^^G ridiculous does.

It is a mockery, the Aussie banned from the Olympics because of drinking to much coffee, the swimmer (s) banned because of flu tablets etc.
Click to expand...

fabulousphil said:
Alex Watson was sent home from the Seoul Olympics for drinking to much coffee !!.

Lost his chance to win a medal in the pentathalon.

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/sena...inquiries/pre1996/pos_drug_aw/04minrepch3.pdf
Click to expand...

Exactly.

How are ASADA / WADA allowed to selectively destroy careers like this?

They're not the law, and they're not above the law.
 
fabulousphil said:
Ahmed Saad must feel like sh1te, draconian does not spring to mind, but F#$%%^^G ridiculous does.

It is a mockery, the Aussie banned from the Olympics because of drinking to much coffee, the swimmer (s) banned because of flu tablets etc.
Click to expand...

If I was Ahmed Saad, I'd pull the race card - if not for anything else but to draw attention to this injustice.
 
I am Jack said:
If I was Ahmed Saad, I'd pull the race card - if not for anything else but to draw attention to this injustice.
Click to expand...
what injustice?!

He got a positive test on matchday of a banned substance. The rules that he signed up to say that if that happens you get a ban from competition.

Where is the injustice?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I am Jack said:
If I was Ahmed Saad, I'd pull the race card - if not for anything else but to draw attention to this injustice.
Click to expand...

Really think he should make a major stand, and the Saints should back him financially to do so.

It's a disgrace. I'd hope our game doesn't want to be one that throws people on the scrapheap, no matter what the corrupt international Olympic/anti doping movement thinks.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
what injustice?!

He got a positive test on matchday of a banned substance. The rules that he signed up to say that if that happens you get a ban from competition.

Where is the injustice?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, maybe he should've ventured off-site and injected the substance.
He'd be back playing by now.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Really think he should make a major stand, and the Saints should back him financially to do so.

It's a disgrace. I'd hope our game doesn't want to be one that throws people on the scrapheap, no matter what the corrupt international Olympic/anti doping movement thinks.
Click to expand...
Agree entirely. We should also get rid of most of the rules and regulations. That is the best way to stop cheating.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
With the sanctions that Cronulla players have been given despite admitting guilt, that ASADA and WADA have approved...

Is there any scope for legal / class action by athletes who have previously been handed the draconian penalties that our prestigious anti doping bodies apparently insist upon?

Some of these people have had their careers ruined.
Click to expand...

I can see where you have a point here. There isn't but I can certainly understand the current outrage from athletes towards Cronulla's penalties given they'd copped the full 2 years or at least most of that. Most athletes have no problem with the long ban but feel it should be applied fairly across the board.
 
I am Jack said:
Yeah, you're right, maybe he should've ventured off-site and injected the substance.
He'd be back playing by now.
Click to expand...
so what you're complaining about is that the rules should apply to Essendon, but not to Saad.

I can guarantee you, that if ASADA can make their case that Essendon took prohibited substances they'll get penalised. Just like Saad.

I find it hilarious that people on this board think that Essendon players signed up to the WADA code and should be bound to it, but for some reason Ahmed Saad shouldn't be
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Justice on paper doesn't necessarily equal natural justice.

It's an incredibly unjust situation.
Click to expand...
Well, let's assume for the time being that Saad mistakenly took an energy drink and that's all he did wrong. Firstly, it's nice that everyone buys that, and there is almost universal belief that he is an innocent victim, but it's still an assumption. But let's run with it.

The fact of the matter is that he broke the rules as they stand. You can make an argument that the rules need to be changed, and I've certainly advocated the fundamental flaws with the WADA code as it applies universally, and particularly to team sports, but that's a different matter to him suffering an injustice.

He knew the rules. Or he should have. He broke the rules.

The rule he broke was he took a performance enhancing stimulant on match day. So you have to ask what is your issue with that? If it's the act, then it's not defensible. If it's the penalty, ok, so what do you propose should be done to athletes who test positive to performance enhancing stimulants on match day?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Well, let's assume for the time being that Saad mistakenly took an energy drink and that's all he did wrong. Firstly, it's nice that everyone buys that, and there is almost universal belief that he is an innocent victim, but it's still an assumption. But let's run with it.

The fact of the matter is that he broke the rules as they stand. You can make an argument that the rules need to be changed, and I've certainly advocated the fundamental flaws with the WADA code as it applies universally, and particularly to team sports, but that's a different matter to him suffering an injustice.

He knew the rules. Or he should have. He broke the rules.

The rule he broke was he took a performance enhancing stimulant on match day. So you have to ask what is your issue with that? If it's the act, then it's not defensible. If it's the penalty, ok, so what do you propose should be done to athletes who test positive to performance enhancing stimulants on match day?
Click to expand...

I've said this multiple times.

It'd be something appropriate for a single mistake, like a 12 match ban. It reflects the seriousness of the situation (more than anything you'd get on a footy field, like say knocking out an opponent in a close final, something that might actually decide the fate of a premiership), yet gives them a very real chance to pick right up once it's served.

Follow that with targeted testing every time he sets foot on a ground, plus any other measure we have at hand. He goes again? That's when you smash him.

Actually far from an assumption, the "single mistake" is the only plausible theory based on the evidence. Before this incident, Ahmed Saad has never once in his sporting career been linked to PEDs in any way whatsoever, nor has he since (and trust me, the AFL media army have shone their torches on every tiny facet of his history to find that).

Based on evidence, and that's the only way you can judge these things, it was absolutely a single mistake, that's the only plausible and reasonable theory. Anything other than that is actually the wild speculation / assumption.

But we turn that basic judicial right on its head when it comes to anti doping - Basically, whenever somebody is caught, because of the completely insufficient testing and intelligence gathering regime, we assume they've been doing it forever and this is just the first time they got caught. So we basically execute them in a footy sense. Because we're tightarsed as an industry and don't want to spend the resources on a proper anti doping regime.

And to think what the *in AFL waste money on, like tens of millions on a club in Sydney that nobody asked for nor wants.

Ruin people's careers, reputations and lives just to save a buck, it's not the way to do things in my book.

Gambling? We have the bloody AFL monitoring books for the slightest shift in prices. That leads them to bets which leads them to, for example, reviewing CCTV from pubs with the permission of police and the courts.

Anti doping? Oh no let's just follow the corrupt ASADA / WADA line, apparently it's the right thing to do.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Well, let's assume for the time being that Saad mistakenly took an energy drink and that's all he did wrong. Firstly, it's nice that everyone buys that, and there is almost universal belief that he is an innocent victim, but it's still an assumption. But let's run with it.

The fact of the matter is that he broke the rules as they stand. You can make an argument that the rules need to be changed, and I've certainly advocated the fundamental flaws with the WADA code as it applies universally, and particularly to team sports, but that's a different matter to him suffering an injustice.

He knew the rules. Or he should have. He broke the rules.

The rule he broke was he took a performance enhancing stimulant on match day. So you have to ask what is your issue with that? If it's the act, then it's not defensible. If it's the penalty, ok, so what do you propose should be done to athletes who test positive to performance enhancing stimulants on match day?
Click to expand...

This is the definition of Draconian though.

1. He didn't mean to break the rules.
2. It is a minor indiscretion.
3. He had never recieved direct warning.
4. He has never put anyone else at risk.

Natural course of justice for me would be a warning, perhaps a fine and enforced course into what is doping and why it is banned. At worst a 3-6 game ban.

There needs to be grades of doping and also the time frame of punishment needs to take into account what sort of sport they're involved in.

I personally would allow athletes to use PEDs because it makes for better performances and shorter injury layoffs. I see banning as stupid as banning coffee in the accounting industry. However, I can understand that if one athlete uses EPO another may use more to compete with them and get to the point of stopping their heart in their sleep. Though personally I don't think that it'd be an issue if it was completely above board. I think that athletes could be open about it which would make it possible to work into a part of a healthy regime.

Similarly with illicit drugs I think that 80% of the problems with PEDs come from the fact they are banned.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
I've said this multiple times.

It'd be something appropriate for a single mistake, like a 12 match ban. It reflects the seriousness of the situation (more than anything you'd get on a footy field, like say knocking out an opponent in a close final, something that might actually decide the fate of a premiership), yet gives them a very real chance to pick right up once it's served.

Follow that with targeted testing every time he sets foot on a ground, plus any other measure we have at hand. He goes again? That's when you smash him.

Actually far from an assumption, the "single mistake" is the only plausible theory based on the evidence. Before this incident, Ahmed Saad has never once in his sporting career been linked to PEDs in any way whatsoever, nor has he since (and trust me, the AFL media army have shone their torches on every tiny facet of his history to find that).

Based on evidence, and that's the only way you can judge these things, it was absolutely a single mistake, that's the only plausible and reasonable theory. Anything other than that is actually the wild speculation / assumption.

But we turn that basic judicial right on its head when it comes to anti doping - Basically, whenever somebody is caught, because of the completely insufficient testing and intelligence gathering regime, we assume they've been doing it forever and this is just the first time they got caught. So we basically execute them in a footy sense. Because we're tightarsed as an industry and don't want to spend the resources on a proper anti doping regime.

And to think what the ****in AFL waste money on, like tens of millions on a club in Sydney that nobody asked for nor wants.

Ruin people's careers, reputations and lives just to save a buck, it's not the way to do things in my book.

Gambling? We have the bloody AFL monitoring books for the slightest shift in prices. That leads them to bets which leads them to, for example, reviewing CCTV from pubs with the permission of police and the courts.

Anti doping? Oh no let's just follow the corrupt ASADA / WADA line, apparently it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree and I think you make some excellent points frankly. The one size fits all model is clearly inadequate.

But at the same time, he broke the rules as they stand. I agree the rules need to be fixed, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for Saad. He knew the potential penalties, as they stood at the time.
 
fishardansin said:
This is the definition of Draconian though.

1. He didn't mean to break the rules.
2. It is a minor indiscretion.
3. He had never recieved direct warning.
4. He has never put anyone else at risk.

Natural course of justice for me would be a warning, perhaps a fine and enforced course into what is doping and why it is banned. At worst a 3-6 game ban.

There needs to be grades of doping and also the time frame of punishment needs to take into account what sort of sport they're involved in.

I personally would allow athletes to use PEDs because it makes for better performances and shorter injury layoffs. I see banning as stupid as banning coffee in the accounting industry. However, I can understand that if one athlete uses EPO another may use more to compete with them and get to the point of stopping their heart in their sleep. Though personally I don't think that it'd be an issue if it was completely above board. I think that athletes could be open about it which would make it possible to work into a part of a healthy regime.

Similarly with illicit drugs I think that 80% of the problems with PEDs come from the fact they are banned.
Click to expand...
I'm getting pretty sick of this attitude.

The anti doping rules are draconian for a reason. Not many get caught, because the dopers are always a step ahead of the testing. If there's an opportunity to blame someone else, it's easy to set up a scapegoat.

It's a very simple idea. These substances are prohibited. If you are found to have taken these substances, there are large penalties. (1) Doping, whether intentional or not, is doping. (2) Minor or major is irrelevant. Prohibited substances are prohibited substances. (3) Every athlete in any sport covered by the WADA code is repeatedly warned of their obligations. (4) He broke one of the fundamental rules of sport, in that nobody should have an unfair advantage for any reason. He put the competition at risk.

Natural Justice is irrelevant here. He was involved in a sport, that includes rules. He broke the rules he agreed to. He must therefore be subject to the punishments stated in the rules.

There are no grades of doping. There is either doping or not doping.

Allowing doping as you've suggested would just mean that the richest teams with the best chemists would always win. Everyone would constantly be looking for that additional edge, and safety would be compromised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top