Mega Thread General ASADA - AFL - Essendon Investigation Discussion [Now a troll free zone - be warned]

[Barkly St End]

You're usually all for the "black text" of the rules, show me, EXACTLY, what part of S2 specifically addresses AOD9604.

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question.

S2 has a catch-all provision and arguably, AOD is caught by it.

In the interests of natural justice and due process, ASADA must issue an ADRV pursuant to the correct section to allow a player to mount a defence against the charge.

If ASADA choose S0, and if it remains open that S2 might be applicable, then that player will easily defend a charge against S0 because S0 can only be applicable if no other section is applicable.

If ASADA choose S2, then the player will mount a completely different defence.

So it is very, very important which section ASADA chooses, because the player's defence will be mounted accordingly, and they will be different defences depending on which section is used.

Let us not forget, the appeal against the ADRV will go to the AAT (and higher courts if necessary), and the AAT will take an interest in whether a public body is doing the right thing and using the correct provisions.

 

[Cronos]

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question.

S2 has a catch-all provision and arguably, AOD is caught by it.

In the interests of natural justice and due process, ASADA must issue an ADRV pursuant to the correct section to allow a player to mount a defence against the charge.

If ASADA choose S0, and if it remains open that S2 might be applicable, then that player will easily defend a charge against S0 because S0 can only be applicable if no other section is applicable.

If ASADA choose S2, then the player will mount a completely different defence.

So it is very, very important which section ASADA chooses, because the player's defence will be mounted accordingly, and they will be different defences depending on which section is used.

Let us not forget, the appeal against the ADRV will go to the AAT (and higher courts if necessary), and the AAT will take an interest in whether a public body is doing the right thing and using the correct provisions.

And you keep completely ignoring the fact that the first line of S2 states:
The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:

The only way to successfully defend an S0 charge is to successfully prove that the substance is prohibited.

 

[DanWA]

Have you still not realised that BSE has his own little story playing in his head?

 

[mxett]

Surely the poolside margaritas on the Gold Coast mean that Charter was involved with Hird as well as Dank.

Dank invited Charter because Charter was Danks supply of substances. Dank was the one that dealt with Charter, Hird just happened to be at a meeting when he was present

 

[Barkly St End]

And you keep completely ignoring the fact that the first line of S2 states:
The following substances and their releasing factors are prohibited:

The only way to successfully defend an S0 charge is to successfully prove that the substance is prohibited.

No - that is incorrect.

In terms of an appeal to the AAT, the defence is entitled to question whether the correct section has been used to back up the ADRV.

It's incumbent on the investigative body to bring the charge under the correct section and be able to back it up.

If the ASADA officials are incapable of proving to the AAT that S2 is inapplicable, then a charge under S0 wil be easily defended.

 

[pjhad1]

I'm not sure why you keep asking this question.

S2 has a catch-all provision and arguably, AOD is caught by it.

In the interests of natural justice and due process, ASADA must issue an ADRV pursuant to the correct section to allow a player to mount a defence against the charge.

If ASADA choose S0, and if it remains open that S2 might be applicable, then that player will easily defend a charge against S0 because S0 can only be applicable if no other section is applicable.

If ASADA choose S2, then the player will mount a completely different defence.

So it is very, very important which section ASADA chooses, because the player's defence will be mounted accordingly, and they will be different defences depending on which section is used.

Let us not forget, the appeal against the ADRV will go to the AAT (and higher courts if necessary), and the AAT will take an interest in whether a public body is doing the right thing and using the correct provisions.

I don't know if you have had much experience with appeals, but any court of appeal would slam a player if they appealed on the basis that they were charged under the wrong provision of the code, especially in this situation, where they would be arguing a breach of s.2 rather than s.0.

Notwithstanding the fact your whole s.0/s.2 argument is flawed, an appeal court's function is to get to the correct decision. As such, your best case scenario would be that the court determines that s.0 doesn't apply because s.2 does. They would then apply s.2.

If the court makes a finding that s.0 doesn't apply (becuase s.2 does) and doesn't apply s.2, it would not stop ASADA from subsequently charging the player under s.2. Problem then becomes defending s.2, considering the significant admissions by the player in respect of the many facts that support of ASADA's new claim that the substances taken were s.2 substances. Good luck trying to Defend the next charge.

And before you say you couldn't bring a second charge, why couldn't you? New charge, new evidence. Nothing in the code to say it wouldn't apply.

And regarding your point on natural justice, EFC would have to fully prepare their case in respect of s.2 to argue that it is s.2 in place of s.0, thus there is no prejudice on them wrt that point (strictly in respect to the classification of the substance, of course).

 

[Laphroaig]

Dank invited Charter because Charter was Danks supply of substances. Dank was the one that dealt with Charter, Hird just happened to be at a meeting when he was present

Wanna buy a bridge in Sydney? I've got one going cheap to the right buyer.

 

[Tiger_man322]

Dank invited Charter because Charter was Danks supply of substances. Dank was the one that dealt with Charter, Hird just happened to be at a meeting when he was present

Yeah.... Hird just happened to be there at the same time....This is all just a big coincidence.

 

[Barkly St End]

I don't know if you have had much experience with appeals, but any court of appeal would slam a player if they appealed on the basis that they were charged under the wrong provision of the code, especially in this situation, where they would be arguing a breach of s.2 rather than s.0.

It's not about arguing that you have breached a different section.

It's about being charged under the correct section so that you can mount an appropriate defence.

If SO is inapplicable because another section is applicable, then that is a defence against being charged under S0. SO can only apply if no other section applies. That is an entirely appropriate defence. The elements specific to S0 must be proven.

If the charge is under S2, then the player is entitled to defend that specific charge.

The two sections are different, contain different elements which need to be proven.

In the interests of natural justice and due process, the player is entitled to know precisely which section he is being charged under, and to then mount a defence specific to the elements contained within that section.

If it happens that the charge should have been under a different section, he then is entitled to mount a defence against the elements specific to that other section.

 

[Cronos]

It's not about arguing that you have breached a different section.

It's about being charged under the correct section so that you can mount an appropriate defence.

If SO is inapplicable because another section is applicable, then that is a defence against being charged under S0. SO can only apply if no other section applies. That is an entirely appropriate defence. The elements specific to S0 must be proven.

If the charge is under S2, then the player is entitled to defend that specific charge.

The two sections are different, contain different elements which need to be proven.

In the interests of natural justice and due process, the player is entitled to know precisely which section he is being charged under, and to then mount a defence specific to the elements contained within that section.

If it happens that the charge should have been under a different section, he then is entitled to mount a defence against the elements specific to that other section.

Stop talking natural justice when all you want is the guilty to walk free. Your arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Barkly St End]

Stop talking natural justice when all you want is the guilty to walk free. Your arguments are ridiculous.

But your alternative argument is: it's either banned or it's banned (to quote one of your earlier arguments).

And I am saying, it's banned when it's proven that it's banned.

To that end, the player has the right to be informed of th exact details of his alleged breach and to appeal that to the AAT.

In the case of S0, one of its elements is that it is only applicable if sections 1 to 5 are NOT applicable, so the player has every right to test that, because if that proves false, then a charge against S0 cannot be sustained.

 

[Cronos]

But your alternative argument is: it's either banned or it's banned (to quote one of your earlier arguments).

And I am saying, it's banned when it's proven that it's banned.

To that end, the player has the right to be infrormed of th exact details of his alleged breach and to appeal that to the AAT.

In the case of S0, one of its elements is that it is only applicable if sections 1 to 5 are NOT applicable, so the player has every right to test that, because if that proves false, then a charge against S0 cannot be sustained.

Serious question here - and I want you to actually answer it without another question instead.

If they charge with S0, how do you expect anyone to prove that it should be S2 and not Prohibited? If it is S2, and it's not the two specifically listed substances that are Prohibited for males only, how can it be not Prohibited? S2 does not give any possibility of a substance falling in there and not being prohibited (in males).

If you cannot answer this, then your argument is straight out crap.

 

[Argy]

It's not about arguing that you have breached a different section.

It's about being charged under the correct section so that you can mount an appropriate defence.

If SO is inapplicable because another section is applicable, then that is a defence against being charged under S0. SO can only apply if no other section applies. That is an entirely appropriate defence. The elements specific to S0 must be proven.

If the charge is under S2, then the player is entitled to defend that specific charge.

The two sections are different, contain different elements which need to be proven.

In the interests of natural justice and due process, the player is entitled to know precisely which section he is being charged under, and to then mount a defence specific to the elements contained within that section.

If it happens that the charge should have been under a different section, he then is entitled to mount a defence against the elements specific to that other section.

You've never heard of "in the alternative"?

 

[Barkly St End]

You've never heard of "in the alternative"?

Cannot apply in this case - legally impossible because the wording of S0 explicity excludes it as a possibility.

 

[Barkly St End]

Serious question here - and I want you to actually answer it without another question instead.

If they charge with S0, how do you expect anyone to prove that it should be S2 and not Prohibited?

Good question.

When public authorities bring charges against someone, they will generally split up the relevant charge into elements and they will prepare their evidence in a way that it proves that each element of the charge is satisfied, thereby increasing their chances of proving the charge before the courts.

Now we don't have the exact scenario in this case, I understand that, on the other hand, the Essendon player will appeal this to the AAT, as is their right, and then a very similar set of circumstances will apply - the defence will pick holes in each element of the charge.

And the very, very first element is that S0 can only apply if sections 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

Now it's pointless arguing that a very difficult thing for ASADA to prove that element- the fact is that SO can only apply if section 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

That's one of the elements which must be proven.

The defence will go for it precisely because it is a difficult element to prove. Yes - they will try and make the ASADA officials look silly in trying to prove that element.

And thus, we now understand the meaning of: vexed legal issues.

We understand why ASADA is reluctant to go after AOD under S0.

 

[Cronos]

Good question.

When public authorities bring charges against someone, they will generally split up the relevant charge into elements and they will prepare their evidence in a way that it proves that each element of the charge is satisfied, thereby increasing their chances of proving the charge before the courts.

Now we don't have the exact scenario in this case, I understand that, on the other hand, the Essendon player will appeal this to the AAT, as is their right, and then a very similar set of circumstances will apply - the defence will pick holes in each element of the charge.

And the very, very first element is that S0 can only apply if sections 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

Now it's pointless arguing that a very difficult thing for ASADA to prove that element- the fact is that SO can only apply if section 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

That's one of the elements which must be proven.

The defence will go for it precisely because it is a difficult element to prove. Yes - they will try and make the ASADA officials look silly in trying to prove that element.

And thus, we now understand the meaning of: vexed legal issues.

We understand why ASADA is reluctant to go after AOD under S0.

Sorry to everyone having to listen to your bullshit arguments, but I'm making one more statement on it.

The only way that Section 2 can apply is if the substance is Prohibited - you can say it's as vexed as you want, but very basic level reading comprehension will prove what I'm saying. The only substances where section 2 can apply and not be prohibited is for Chorionic Gonadotrophin and Luteinizing Hormones in females. The only people looking silly with that argument would be Essendon, and you can guarantee that any leniency applied for cooperation would be gone.

There is no understanding that ASADA is reluctant to go after AOD under S0, just statements from the guilty to that effect. ASADA have remained very quiet on their proposed strategy.

 

[jenny61_99]

Do we have to go through all this BS again? He doesn't get it, he'll never get it. Let's move on.

 

[rumply]

^ oh the ironing.

 

[Barkly St End]

Sorry to everyone having to listen to your bullshit arguments, but I'm making one more statement on it.

The only way that Section 2 can apply is if the substance is Prohibited - you can say it's as vexed as you want, but very basic level reading comprehension will prove what I'm saying. The only substances where section 2 can apply and not be prohibited is for Chorionic Gonadotrophin and Luteinizing Hormones in females. The only people looking silly with that argument would be Essendon, and you can guarantee that any leniency applied for cooperation would be gone.

There is no understanding that ASADA is reluctant to go after AOD under S0, just statements from the guilty to that effect. ASADA have remained very quiet on their proposed strategy.

The fact remains, for ASADA to prove a breach of S0, one of the elements is that they must prove that sections 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

Are people arguing that that is incorrect?

Who does really get it?

 

[Cronos]

The fact remains, for ASADA to prove a breach of S0, one of the elements is that they must prove that sections 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

Are people arguing that that is incorrect?

Who does really get it?

Hi Mr Judge.

I'm not guilty of Manslaughter (S0 - not approved for therapeutic use). I should be charged with Murder (S2 - Prohibited Growth Hormones) instead.

Yep, you clearly get it.

 

[Barkly St End]

Hi Mr Judge.

I'm not guilty of Manslaughter (S0 - not approved for therapeutic use). I should be charged with Murder (S2 - Prohibited Growth Hormones) instead.

Yep, you clearly get it.

You've got it wrong.

The Essendon player does not need to argue that he has breached S2.

The defence merely needs to put ASADA in the box and ask them how they satisfied themselves that none of sections 1 to 5 applied.

Why? Because the very first element to be proven in S0 is that sections 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

It can't be assumed - it must be proven.

 

[Cronos]

You've got it wrong.

The Essendon player does not need to argue that he has breached S2.

The defence merely needs to put ASADA in the box and ask them how they satisfied themselves that none of sections 1 to 5 applied.

Why? Because the very first element to be proven in S0 is that sections 1 to 5 do NOT apply.

It can't be assumed - it must be proven.

Ok, not going round this circle again. I'll leave it with this. If section 2 applies to AOD9604, then it is a prohibited substance. There are no ifs, buts or maybes on this one. Your refusal to accept this fact, nor show even the smallest justification despite being pushed for it several times shows that you know this, and just like circling the drain.

And you claim to be able to understand complex situations - not showing any proof of that ability either.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Until infractions are issued for AOD then BSE has to be considered more right than Cronos, because if they aren't then BSE must be right

 

[Barkly St End]

Ok, not going round this circle again. I'll leave it with this. If section 2 applies to AOD9604, then it is a prohibited substance.

If S2 applies to AOD, ASADA must bring charges referencing S2, and Essendon can then formulate a defence based on the elements contained therein.

Don't forget, if S2 applies to AOD, it will not be because AOD is specifically listed, it will be because of the catch-all clause, and once again, ASADA would have to prove the elements contained in that catch-all clause.

 

[Argy]

Cannot apply in this case - legally impossible because the wording of S0 explicity excludes it as a possibility.

Oh puleeeaase.

S2 bans a number of specific drugs. Plus "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological affect(s)". There may be an area on uncertainty in relation to the interpretation of "similar". In that event the prosecution is able to argue in the alternative. In other words if a drug is not deemed to be "similar" then, in the alternative, it is banned under S0.