Dank's D-day looms....April 10th

[jenny61_99]

The ADRVP don't actually determine whether the person is innocent or guilty, that is up to the sports tribunal.The ADRVP decide whether it should proceed to the next step.
YACO compared them to being the equivalent of a judge, that is not correct.

Edit: sorry it was BigJoeD

Well, yes they do. They make a decision as to whether the athlete/person has a case to answer. Therein making a judgement on whether they believe the athlete is innocent or guilty. They don't hand down punishment, but their job is twofold - has ASADA followed all processes correctly? and is their sufficient evidence to believe that the athlete/person has breached the code? It's true the Sports Tribunal makes the final decision, however I would think in more cases than not, if they've been entered on to the register, they are found guilty. Happy to be proven wrong, but it seems logical to me.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Well, yes they do. They make a decision as to whether the athlete/person has a case to answer. Therein making a judgement on whether they believe the athlete is innocent or guilty. They don't hand down punishment, but their job is twofold - has ASADA followed all processes correctly? and is their sufficient evidence to believe that the athlete/person has breached the code? It's true the Sports Tribunal makes the final decision, however I would think in more cases than not, if they've been entered on to the register, they are found guilty. Happy to be proven wrong, but it seems logical to me.

Really , you mean like what the DPP does .

 

[LoungeLizard]

Well, yes they do. They make a decision as to whether the athlete/person has a case to answer. Therein making a judgement on whether they believe the athlete is innocent or guilty. They don't hand down punishment, but their job is twofold - has ASADA followed all processes correctly? and is their sufficient evidence to believe that the athlete/person has breached the code? It's true the Sports Tribunal makes the final decision, however I would think in more cases than not, if they've been entered on to the register, they are found guilty. Happy to be proven wrong, but it seems logical to me.

Don't cops do the same thing?

 

[jenny61_99]

Really , you mean like what the DPP does .

Yes... and? Did I argue that they didn't? Thinking I'm missing a piece of this puzzle somewhere.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Yes... and? Did I argue that they didn't? Thinking I'm missing a piece of this puzzle somewhere.

Yes, I think you are missing the whole puzzle. Read the original quote I replied to , he was saying the ADRVP was the equivalent of a judge when I compared them to the DPP

 

[jenny61_99]

Yes, I think you are missing the whole puzzle. Read the original quote I replied to , he was saying the ADRVP was the equivalent of a judge when I compared them to the DPP

lol

Apologies... I should have quoted him not you? I blame jet-lag.

 

[BigJoeD_]

Yes, I think you are missing the whole puzzle. Read the original quote I replied to , he was saying the ADRVP was the equivalent of a judge when I compared them to the DPP

Yep, fair call - I'll cop that

 

[nineteen eighty]

C'mon guys things seem a little too close and cheerful for the HTB. Both sides need to lift their game.

Based on what I was told over easter whilst down in Melbourne, word doing the rounds is infractions will be issued against the coaching staff and a handful of players. Primary players from the coaching staff will be hit with suspensions. Players that are issued with infractions will not be hit with suspensions. The concern is whether WADA is satisfied with this outcome or whether they want to gazzump the findings.

This is not coming from an EFC person but someone well entrenched in the industry. Just passing on a conversation I had with someone associated with one of the many entities involved in all of this.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[jenny61_99]

C'mon guys things seem a little too close and cheerful for the HTB. Both sides need to lift their game.

Based on what I was told over easter whilst down in Melbourne, word doing the rounds is infractions will be issued against the coaching staff and a handful of players. Primary players from the coaching staff will be hit with suspensions. Players that are issued with infractions will not be hit with suspensions. The concern is whether WADA is satisfied with this outcome or whether they want to gazzump the findings.

This is not coming from an EFC person but someone well entrenched in the industry. Just passing on a conversation I had with someone associated with one of the many entities involved in all of this.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

That outcome wouldn't surprise me at all. Just wondering how they justify the suspended sentences or whatever they do to get the players off?

 

[nineteen eighty]

That outcome wouldn't surprise me at all. Just wondering how they justify the suspended sentences or whatever they do to get the players off?

I can easily see how they can justify suspended sentences for the players. I know all the arguments re the signing of the consent forms and that the players are ultimately responsible for what goes into their system. One only needs to look at Michael Rogers and being found with Clenbuterol in his system. His argument...infected meat. UCI and WADA have just come out and removed any further suspension allowing him back on his bike. EFC players IMO will get issued with infractions and no suspensions with a stern warning (whatever that means).

Coaches on the other hand are gone.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Satan]

C'mon guys things seem a little too close and cheerful for the HTB. Both sides need to lift their game.

Based on what I was told over easter whilst down in Melbourne, word doing the rounds is infractions will be issued against the coaching staff and a handful of players. Primary players from the coaching staff will be hit with suspensions. Players that are issued with infractions will not be hit with suspensions. The concern is whether WADA is satisfied with this outcome or whether they want to gazzump the findings.

This is not coming from an EFC person but someone well entrenched in the industry. Just passing on a conversation I had with someone associated with one of the many entities involved in all of this.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Wada will want players gone, cant set a precedent using following club orders as an excuse

 

[jenny61_99]

I can easily see how they can justify suspended sentences for the players. I know all the arguments re the signing of the consent forms and that the players are ultimately responsible for what goes into their system. One only needs to look at Michael Rogers and being found with Clenbuterol in his system. His argument...infected meat. UCI and WADA have just come out and removed any further suspension allowing him back on his bike. EFC players IMO will get issued with infractions and no suspensions with a stern warning (whatever that means).

Coaches on the other hand are gone.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Difference here is - TB4 is not found in meat. But seriously, if the players are found to have taken a banned substance - whether intentionally or not (think SAAD with his swig of energy drink) - they cannot possibly get a non-suspension penalty.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Wada will want players gone, cant set a precedent using following club orders as an excuse

WADA has just let Rogers off the hook. The writing is on the wall.

Difference here is - TB4 is not found in meat. But seriously, if the players are found to have taken a banned substance - whether intentionally or not (think SAAD with his swig of energy drink) - they cannot possibly get a non-suspension penalty.

Saad is an easy get. I feel sorry for him. And all I'm doing is passing on a conversation I had over easter. This may be complete garbage but it is what is being spoken about amongst those in the industry.

This isn't aimed at you Jenny but throwing this in preemptively...don't shoot the messenger. I know how the HTB board works.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Armchair Critic]

Difference here is - TB4 is not found in meat. But seriously, if the players are found to have taken a banned substance - whether intentionally or not (think SAAD with his swig of energy drink) - they cannot possibly get a non-suspension penalty.

Unless they were lied to

 

[jenny61_99]

WADA has just let Rogers off the hook. The writing is on the wall.



Saad is an easy get. I feel sorry for him. And all I'm doing is passing on a conversation I had over easter. This may be complete garbage but it is what is being spoken about amongst those in the industry.

This isn't aimed at you Jenny but throwing this in preemptively...don't shoot the messenger. I know how the HTB board works.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

As I said I wouldn't be at all surprised re most of your mail. Just cannot see how issued infraction notices wouldn't lead to suspensions of some sort. And really this is what I've said all along - based on the written law of the anti doping code, there is no way infraction notices won't be issued. The $64 million dollar question remains - what penalties will be applied?

 

[jenny61_99]

Unless they were lied to

"Thymosin" was on the consent forms. That they chose not to find out WHICH thymosin is not ASADA's concern. A five minute google search tells you there is more than one. A one minute "check your substance" search on ASADA website tells you one of those is banned. If players were then told it was the "good thymosin" and went ahead with the injections based on that, their efforts to ascertain its status would be taken into consideration. If they had kept their receipt from ASADA when they checked the substance, and their google search history etc, that may help their cause, but it won't remove complete liability. The precedent that would be set if players got off because the Clubs' officials lied to them about what they were getting, is enormous. It goes completely against taking personal responsibility for what goes into your body. If the players take the tack that they'd been lied to, then I could see law-suits aplenty.

 

[Armchair Critic]

"Thymosin" was on the consent forms. That they chose not to find out WHICH thymosin is not ASADA's concern. A five minute google search tells you there is more than one. A one minute "check your substance" search on ASADA website tells you one of those is banned. The precedent that would be set if players got off because the Clubs' officials lied to them about what they were getting, is enormous. It goes completely against taking personal responsibility for what goes into your body. If the players take the tack that they'd been lied to, then I could see law-suits aplenty.

Thymosin was written on the consents, how do you know the players didn't google search it and asked but were told it was Alpha or Thymomodulin.

What your saying is we have to punish the players so as not to set a precedent even though they may not be actually guilty. The no fault clause is their for a reason and if the players were lied to or manipulated by officials and can prove it there is no way they can be punished.

There is only so much personal responsibility people can take, if you ask all the right questions , do the right checks but are given a substance different to what you consented to then you are at no fault.

I am not saying this happened by the way, obviously it is a hypothetical

 

[jenny61_99]

Thymosin was written on the consents, how do you know the players didn't google search it and asked but were told it was Alpha or Thymomodulin.

What your saying is we have to punish the players so as not to set a precedent even though they may not be actually guilty. The no fault clause is their for a reason and if the players were lied to or manipulated by officials and can prove it there is no way they can be punished.

There is only so much personal responsibility people can take, if you ask all the right questions , do the right checks but are given a substance different to what you consented to then you are at no fault.

I am not saying this happened by the way, obviously it is a hypothetical

You answered while I had edited my post. I added:

If they had kept their receipt from ASADA when they checked the substance, and their google search history etc, that may help their cause, but it won't remove complete liability.

No Fault clause is not wishy washy, nor allows for grey areas. The players would have to show proof that they had done everything within their powers to ascertain what was being given to them. Not just for the thymosin either - but AOD (which is clearly an experimental drug on all websites they would have searched at the time) and particularly the mexican drug which is absolutely mind boggling that they allowed a chiropractor to inject them with whatever substance was in that bottle, with no Dr Reid or James Hird present. Even if it was vitamin C - which I doubt - WTF were they thinking?

Anyways: from the AFL Anti-Doping code:

(b) No Significant Fault or Negligence

If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period
of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the minimum period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this section may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Player's Sample in violation of Clause 11.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance), the Player must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.20


(e) Where a Player or Other Person Establishes Entitlements to Reduction in Sanction Under More than One Provision of this Clause
Before applying any reduction or suspension under Clause 14,4(b)(c) or (d), the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with Clauses 14.1, 14.2, 14.3 or 14.5, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one quarter of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.23

23
The appropriate sanction is determined in a sequence of four steps. First, the Tribunal determines which of the basic
sanctions (Clause 14.1, Clause 14.2, Clause 14.3 or Clause 14.5) applies to the particular Anti Doping Rule Violation. In a
second step, the Tribunal establishes whether there is a basis for suspension, elimination or reduction of the sanction. Note,
however, not all grounds for suspension, elimination or reduction may be combined with the provisions on basic sanctions. For
example, Clause 14.4(b) does not apply in cases involving Clause 14.2(c) or 14.3, since the Tribunal will already have
determined the period of Ineligibility based on the Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault. In a third step, the Tribunal
determines under Clause 14.4(e) whether the Player or other Person is entitled to elimination, reduction or suspension under
more than one provision of Clause 14.4. Finally, the Tribunal decides on the commencement of the period of Ineligibility.

 

[Armchair Critic]

You answered while I had edited my post. I added:

If they had kept their receipt from ASADA when they checked the substance, and their google search history etc, that may help their cause, but it won't remove complete liability.

No Fault clause is not wishy washy, nor allows for grey areas. The players would have to show proof that they had done everything within their powers to ascertain what was being given to them. Not just for the thymosin either - but AOD (which is clearly an experimental drug on all websites they would have searched at the time) and particularly the mexican drug which is absolutely mind boggling that they allowed a chiropractor to inject them with whatever substance was in that bottle, with no Dr Reid or James Hird present. Even if it was vitamin C - which I doubt - WTF were they thinking?

Anyways: from the AFL Anti-Doping code:

(b) No Significant Fault or Negligence

If a Player or other Person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence, then the otherwise applicable period
of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the minimum period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the reduced period under this section may be no less than eight (8) years. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Player's Sample in violation of Clause 11.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance), the Player must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility reduced.20


(e) Where a Player or Other Person Establishes Entitlements to Reduction in Sanction Under More than One Provision of this Clause
Before applying any reduction or suspension under Clause 14,4(b)(c) or (d), the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be determined in accordance with Clauses 14.1, 14.2, 14.3 or 14.5, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or suspended, but not below one quarter of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility.23

23
The appropriate sanction is determined in a sequence of four steps. First, the Tribunal determines which of the basic
sanctions (Clause 14.1, Clause 14.2, Clause 14.3 or Clause 14.5) applies to the particular Anti Doping Rule Violation. In a
second step, the Tribunal establishes whether there is a basis for suspension, elimination or reduction of the sanction. Note,
however, not all grounds for suspension, elimination or reduction may be combined with the provisions on basic sanctions. For
example, Clause 14.4(b) does not apply in cases involving Clause 14.2(c) or 14.3, since the Tribunal will already have
determined the period of Ineligibility based on the Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault. In a third step, the Tribunal
determines under Clause 14.4(e) whether the Player or other Person is entitled to elimination, reduction or suspension under
more than one provision of Clause 14.4. Finally, the Tribunal decides on the commencement of the period of Ineligibility.

Or by deeming no fault ASADA can choose not to act at all in this instance. This is not a positive test where an infraction notice must be issued in the first instance.

What was Mick Rogers punishment again, it seems pretty grey to me.

 

[jenny61_99]

Or by deeming no fault ASADA can choose not to act at all in this instance. This is not a positive test where an infraction notice must be issued in the first instance.

What was Mick Rogers punishment again, it seems pretty grey to me.

If Dank is done for supplying PEDS to Essendon, players will be done for taking them.

 

[Armchair Critic]

If Dank is done for supplying PEDS to Essendon, players will be done for taking them.

That very well may be true ,it still does not change anything I just stated

 

[jenny61_99]

That very well may be true ,it still does not change anything I just stated

I think it does. IMO, If infractions notices are issued to players, there will be a penalty. What that penalty is, is the real unknown, but I don't believe it will be nothing.

 

[Laphroaig]

What your saying is we have to punish the players so as not to set a precedent even though they may not be actually guilty. The no fault clause is their for a reason and if the players were lied to or manipulated by officials and can prove it there is no way they can be punished.

Firstly, I suspect the players might have a bit of trouble proving that. And also proving that they took every reasonable step to know. Which doesn't include "Yeah? Righteo."

A chorus of people singing "we didn't know about it, no s**t" ain't enough.

I didn't know is not an adequate defence in this or any other accusatory process. For sound reasons.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Firstly, I suspect the players might have a bit of trouble proving that. And also proving that they took every reasonable step to know. Which doesn't include "Yeah? Righteo."

A chorus of people singing "we didn't know about it, no s**t" ain't enough.

I didn't know is not an adequate defence in this or any other accusatory process. For sound reasons.

Um , where did I use the argument the players state they didn't know.
It was an argument of if they had been lied to or deceived, just a little different

 

[TerryWallet]

If DankyBoy is found to have administered TB-4 to Essendon players , as the show cause notice alleges and DankyBoy failed to argue against, then said players will have to tip an almighty bucket on EFC to avoid a guilty sanction and penalty(usually 2 years).

Either the Club duped them, or they were recklessly or directly complicit in getting systematic PED injections.