Drugs/doping in AFL

[sauce_head]

Just as a word of caution, whilst I'm really happy to see this referred to TAS-CAS, there's positives and negatives.
The good, is that they are not like a court of law. They can, and regularly do, make decisions based purely upon the balance of probabilities. So a Dr ordering illegal stuff from China that has more or less the same name as what athletes were told was injected to them, and with all records of injections destroyed, might be enough to make the average man in the street think them guilty.

The bad however is that they have an erratic history of handing out punishments; they don't appear to strictly follow precedent, and they love a backdated punishment, as their remit is just to judge guilt and then apply a suitable punishment of period of ineligibility, usually to a historic point. This is because they are effectively fixing someone else's mess; they deem someone should have gotten 2 years, that will be the ruling, but it will usually apply from when the first hearing should have applied the ban, not from the date of the CAS case itself.
Also they cannot punish the club - they deal wih the registered individual, i.e. the athlete, coach etc who fall under their jurisdiction. I am not sure if Dank is covered under this.
And they do not have legal ability to force people to testify - their greatest achievements have been where local laws have allowed for real interrogation and threat of jail time to get people to testify - for example in Italy all doping is illegal and carries a fairly harsh jail term, so people talk.
(This is even where the first steps in the Lance Armstrong investigations happened, as his Dr treated other people who got arrested in Italy, and it all spread from there).

So be prepared for them to be found guilty, have mitigating circumstances be considered, and be banned 12 or 18 months as of some time in 2012. Jobe probably has to give up the Brownlow, that's perhaps likely to be about the only significant outcome.


As mentioned above, it won't quite necessarily work like that. TAS-CAS love the back-dated suspension, its used by them a LOT. This means vacating past results. I could list a load of examples, but basically it can often mean someone sits out for 3-4 months awaiting intial ban, wins and goes back to competing for 6-7 months, then get a TAS-CAS ban as of the original date of interest.
The reasoning is that, having won their case, the athlete should be considered elgible and its unfair to then further penalise them for making a decision to compete based on them being eligible at that time.




I presume there is a time period restriction on them, however whilst I don't know Aus regulations at all well I would think it would be 6 years at the shortest, more likely to be closer to 10.

I think the burden of proof will be as the AFL's procedure still. That is, comfortable satisfaction. The question is whether or not they apply this to individual pieces of information, or cumulatively.

 

[felsty]

I think the burden of proof will be as the AFL's procedure still. That is, comfortable satisfaction. The question is whether or not they apply this to individual pieces of information, or cumulatively.

Or what constitutes "comfortable satisfaction"...

 

[Sir Skid]

Or what constitutes "comfortable satisfaction"...

I'm satisfied already.............

 

[Kildonan]

WADA requests that the CAS issue a new decision based on an appropriate burden of proof and evidentiary standards. It goes on to request that each of the players be found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, and that an “appropriate sanction” be imposed.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

WADA requests that the CAS issue a new decision based on an appropriate burden of proof and evidentiary standards. It goes on to request that each of the players be found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, and that an “appropriate sanction” be imposed.

Appropriate burden of proof is the crux of the matter. The AFL tribunal found that all the major players BELIEVED they imported, compounded and administered TB4 into Essendon players. The only issue they had was there was no testing results of the substance (likely deleted/shredded). Essentially, there was four out of five boxes ticked that gave evidence that the substance was in fact TB4....however the tribunal was still not comfortably satisfied. Please.

The AFL did not apply 'comfortable satisfaction' but instead applied 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Further, CAS only need to apply a lower level of burden, being 'balance of probabilities'. The bar has been lowered, and no back room deals between those with vested interests will be negotiated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Punter]

I'll be angry if players are suspended and those matches don't include games against us.

 

[ike2112]

I'll be angry if players are suspended and those matches don't include games against us.

Well that's the thing, it goes back to the situation we had before where Essendon might need top-up players.

But I honestly don't think they will - if I was going to place a bet on the outcome, I'd wager on it being they are found guilty but don't miss any games. TAS-CAS come out with decisions and outcomes all the time which meet neither the WADA guidelines nor local authority regulations - they can decide on guilt based on reason, and they can give reasoned punishment.

 

[The Punter]

It is the club that really should be punished, and the question is then whether the punishment which the club received in 2013 was sufficient.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Well that's the thing, it goes back to the situation we had before where Essendon might need top-up players.

.

Even though it probably wont be resolved till late 2015 or early 16.
Hypothetically if this was all sorted out before the end of the season and Essendon players cop a suspension do they just grab the top up players that they used last time??
So for examples sake take somebody like Clint Jones.
He left StKilda to play at Sandy.
Ended up being picked up by Essendon to play against StKilda (NAB)
Then got let go by Essendon .
Then played for Sandy rnd 1 against Essendon. (VFL)
And he could now quite possibly end up playing back at Essendon???
Thats one hell of a freaky 6months for Jonesy

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

It is the club that really should be punished, and the question is then whether the punishment which the club received in 2013 was sufficient.

No IMO it absolutely wasnt because James Turd is still there.
Everybody else got the arse except him which is 100% WRONG!!!!
He got a million dollar 1 yr holiday. BOOO HOOO

 

[Nutsngum]

No IMO it absolutely wasnt because James Turd is still there.
Everybody else got the arse except him which is 100% WRONG!!!!
He got a million dollar 1 yr holiday. BOOO HOOO

I dont even think everyone else involved got the ass either.

Had Essendon board been completely restocked with people and new coaches unaffiliated with this disaster then I would have a lot more sympathy with the club in regards to this. Instead we get token replacements whilst the major game players keep on keeping on whilst shouting their innocence to anyone who will listen. Disgraceful.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

Didnt the CEO David Evans quit? And least he went, whether he was pushed or not hes still gone.
I agree about if they had a totally new board / coaching staff then a lot of people would be a little happier.

 

[RobbieMuir]

In ten years from now Essendon's greatest ever hero will be remembered as ... not Albert Thurgood, not John Coleman, not Jack Clarke or even Simon Madern (and certainly not James Hird). No, it will be the bloke that shredded all those incriminating files and potentially saved the club from going under.

In life, some heroes remain anonymous...

 

[Ice-Wolf]

The AFL did not apply 'comfortable satisfaction' but instead applied 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Sounds more like the applied "beyond any doubt".

 

[Simple Jack]

Sounds more like the applied "beyond any doubt".

I reckon so. I'm no legal eagle but surely assuming a substance ordered from a respected biochemical manufacturing company is actually the substance they say is beyond reasonable doubt. The tribunal couldn't even be 'comfortably satisfied' of it.

Seriously, you can go on their website today and order TB4.
http://www.glbiochem.com/en/product/content.aspx?id=4918

If you can't be comfortably satisfied that a product you order isn't that product then you're trying to orchestrate an outcome. Reminds me of the Barry Hall 2005 fiasco. I wonder who the AFL puppet was that led that tribunal...

 

[sauce_head]

Appropriate burden of proof is the crux of the matter. The AFL tribunal found that all the major players BELIEVED they imported, compounded and administered TB4 into Essendon players. The only issue they had was there was no testing results of the substance (likely deleted/shredded). Essentially, there was four out of five boxes ticked that gave evidence that the substance was in fact TB4....however the tribunal was still not comfortably satisfied. Please.

The AFL did not apply 'comfortable satisfaction' but instead applied 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Further, CAS only need to apply a lower level of burden, being 'balance of probabilities'. The bar has been lowered, and no back room deals between those with vested interests will be negotiated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sore the evidentiary requirement changes. I think they are still bound by the bar set under the AFL agreement that they are contracted to.

I hope I am wrong but I don't think I am.

 

[StFly]

It is the club that really should be punished, and the question is then whether the punishment which the club received in 2013 was sufficient.

It's both, as both entities signed contracts and signed up to agreements, whereby knowledge or lack thereof is not a precursor to a moral high ground.

I'm also hard line on this, so also do not think Essendon has been punished nearly enough, should CAS be of the opinion that there was systemic doping occurring at the Bombers, as I would want them and any club doing such de-registered from the sport for a length of time. I care not for the money involved in such a thing, but invariably you then also screw over the legitimate players in the process as well.

 

[VDS66]

FFS all they have to do is watch the first 6 rounds of the 2012 season to prove their guilt. It was like Lance Armstrong riding faster than a moto GP bike.

 

[Axcellence]

2012 was so unexpected that it should have raised alarm bells.

There was even a thread showing 2011 and 2012 photos just using the afl photos on the player profiles and how they all had consistently become bigger off one pre season (that thread no longer has the photos).

But yeah, we can all thank the just world theory for assuming that dons will get appropriately punished.

In all likelihood, they'll escape punishment and gloat for rest of their lives .

Who said life was fair?

 

[ike2112]

It is the club that really should be punished, and the question is then whether the punishment which the club received in 2013 was sufficient.

That's not what's been sent to TAS-CAS. They are looking at the athletes having taken a banned substance. Usually it's then down to the governing body of the sport to decide whether a team that has a serious doping/cheating problem should be punished.
Up to now, there's been no definitive guilt for the players and staff of doping & cheating; to be honest all they've proven is possible malpractice and terrible governance, and they've been punished quite harshly for that.

But if they are confirmed by an independent court of outright cheating, then that's a new outcome. They are then no longer cleared of being cheats and only guilty of poor governance and admin, instead they would then be cheats guilty of deliberately poor governance and admin in order to cover dodgy tracks.
Then in theory AFL has to take that as a fresh stance on how serious matters were, and a fresh punishment, increased in severity in line with the increase in how serious the cheating was.

 

[ike2112]

I reckon so. I'm no legal eagle but surely assuming a substance ordered from a respected biochemical manufacturing company is actually the substance they say is beyond reasonable doubt. The tribunal couldn't even be 'comfortably satisfied' of it.

Seriously, you can go on their website today and order TB4.
http://www.glbiochem.com/en/product/content.aspx?id=4918

If you can't be comfortably satisfied that a product you order isn't that product then you're trying to orchestrate an outcome. Reminds me of the Barry Hall 2005 fiasco. I wonder who the AFL puppet was that led that tribunal...

The 'doubt' part came from not being able to prove that what one guy ordered, was what Essendon players were injected with. It is plausible that he ordered that stuff for another purpose, and injected something else into the players.
Do I believe that? No.
But in a court it is difficult to get a definitive guilty decision if this is the only evidence you have, the official records have been destroyed, and none of the key witnesses who could help piece the bits together will testify.

In TAS-CAS they can take a more reasoned judgement. In fact I have seen the actual formal outcome of some judgements state that they are making a judgement based on all the information available, based on what the average 'man on the street' would believe based on the series of circumstancial evidence against them.
As I say though, I think there will be no more games missed, just that history will officially categorise them as cheats and not 'heroes' as Hird suggests. Any punishment from that point, given the position will have changed, depends on AFL and Essendon themselves.

 

[ike2112]

As an aside... I watched the film Argo at the weekend. Chuckled to myself at the point when the Iranian mob were heading to the doors of the US embassy, and they started madly shredding documents.
If I had any techy ability I'd create a parody of that scene, with everyone in Bombers jerseys...

 

[TheLastEmperor]

The 'doubt' part came from not being able to prove that what one guy ordered, was what Essendon players were injected with. It is plausible that he ordered that stuff for another purpose, and injected something else into the players.
Do I believe that? No.

There was no doubt that what Charters ordered was believed by him to be the ingredients to make TB4 and no doubt what Alavi received and subsequently compounded he believed to be TB4 and no doubt what Dank believed received and subsequently injected into Essendon players was TB4.

The supply chain was proven. What was not proven was that the supplement believed by all parties to be TB4 was not TB4 because there was no testing results that it was TB4. What was also ruled out was the substance was 100% not Thymodulen.

Essentially, the tribunal would only have ruled in favour of ASADA if there was a positive test in a player showing traces of TB4 or left over viles that could be tested and show traces of TB4. Now to me that burden is called 'beyond a reasonable doubt' hence WADA appealing based on the incorrect burden of proof being applied. Essendon = gone!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SaintsSeptember]

When ASADA chose not to appeal, they stated that they saw little point in going back to the AFL tribunal
Their position is that they preferred to move to the next step and allow WADA to appeal.

I therefore consider that the WADA appeal was quite expected by ASADA.
But poor Mr Little was shocked. Is he stupid or naive?
But according to Timmy Watson and his mates its clearly ASADA and WADA who are stupid.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

When ASADA chose not to appeal, they stated that they saw little point in going back to the AFL tribunal
Their position is that they preferred to move to the next step and allow WADA to appeal.

I therefore consider that the WADA appeal was quite expected by ASADA.
But poor Mr Little was shocked. Is he stupid or naive?
But according to Timmy Watson and his mates its clearly ASADA and WADA who are stupid.

Poor Mr Little thought he'd paid off or intimidated all the right people.