RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Correct and from what I have heard in a radio report - on Tuesday we will hear the verdict but we wont get the full judgement for weeks. The secrecy will continue.
Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL
- Thread starter Power Raid
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don't see how WADA could possibly accept lack of evidence as an excuse.
Imagine the precidence that would be set if sportsmen could be injected with whatever 20 times a week for almost a year but because they didn't keep proper medical records and sourced the whatevers through back channels they couldn't be banned. I don't know the WADA code but surely not knowing needs to be assumed to be the same as having taken PEDs.
A six month backdated suspension sounds like a ridiculously good outcome for Essendon and the AFLPA, both of whom have seemly done little but spin lies throughout.
Imagine the precidence that would be set if sportsmen could be injected with whatever 20 times a week for almost a year but because they didn't keep proper medical records and sourced the whatevers through back channels they couldn't be banned. I don't know the WADA code but surely not knowing needs to be assumed to be the same as having taken PEDs.
A six month backdated suspension sounds like a ridiculously good outcome for Essendon and the AFLPA, both of whom have seemly done little but spin lies throughout.
Last edited:
This is because if the players or ASADA want to appeal, the confidentiality stuff has to remain.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/reasons-for-dons-verdict-to-be-inhouse-20150328-1m9xfp.html
Given the stakes, I can't imagine there won't be an appeal regardless of the result. This would explain why the tribunal has taken its own sweet time about delivering a verdict: they know it will be appealed and want to deliver a verdict that can survive scrutiny. Therefore, I would surmise that whatever the verdict, it will stand and any appeal (on questions of fact & law, not possible sentences) will fail.
Like 99.79% of BigFooty, journalists and other experts, I hadn't read the AFL Anti-doping code either. Having a read now. It's the 2013 code - RussellEbertHandball is this the AFL Code that the Essendon 34 are being charged with or are they working under a previous edition?
Janus
Advocatus Diaboli
- Sep 9, 2007
- 23,350
- 57,117
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
It took WADA and USADA years before they got a conviction against Armstrong, and he was systematically blood doping while in the Tour de France with US Postal. The reason? Lack of evidence. Now ask yourself...how could a guy who had an elevated white blood count skip through the cracks - not just any guy, but a seven time winner of a grand tour - without a bit of a nudge and a wink?
Thats what will happen here. Cronulla took the guilty plea because ASADA offered them a deal. Essendon has backed them into a corner now where they have to go for it with little to actually go on - the players believed all injections were WADA compliant. What ASADA asserts is that their testing missed systematic doping and that furthermore, over 20 individual athletes were not only part of said program, but were complicit in it. The evidence doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt, but short of a confession from Dank, I personally don't see how anything but an insufficient evidence verdict can be handed down based on anti-doping cases that have happened in the past.
As much as any judge or tribunal member wants to make their judgments 'appeal proof', such a beast does not exist. There is always the possibility that someone else will take a different view of the law or evidence (where allowed to be scrutinised on appeal) than the original tribunal.
scottjr
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 8, 2012
- 5,717
- 4,352
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
The perfect outcome is for the players to get just enough of a penalty to keep WADA at bay. 4 to 6 weeks of the season lost and we quietly move on. Ends it for the players then move on to James Hird and those responsible.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
The players are being prosecuted under the 2010 code as they have breached that code. The big difference is the 2013 code added the need for better record keeping and the AFL medical officer and AFL approved club doctor has more power and he has to approve everything. Nothing has changed with respect to athletes basic responsibility, what has to happen for a No Fault or No Significant Fault, assistance, trafficking etc. I also think the 2013 code has added a schedule of what is an approved supplement.
Last edited:
Wasn't the substance he admitted to using not on the WADA banned substances list?
jack_black16
Club Legend
- May 11, 2013
- 1,119
- 1,887
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Jobe admitted to using AOD9604. They are being charged over thymosin beta 4 i believe.
b0ydman
Norm Smith Medallist
Not on approved list = banned.
The best efc can hope for is the 6 months and games to keep wada away.
But they dragged this on. Wada will be very interested to ensure they get these guys.
A hundred injections, off site, including some really weird #$&@.
Theyre going down. And if they don't tomorrow from asada, wada will take them down
The best efc can hope for is the 6 months and games to keep wada away.
But they dragged this on. Wada will be very interested to ensure they get these guys.
A hundred injections, off site, including some really weird #$&@.
Theyre going down. And if they don't tomorrow from asada, wada will take them down
PepeSilvia
Norm Smith Medallist
Just to take advantage of your lawyer knowledge, in this case does the evidence need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities?
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
He admitted to believing he was injected with AOD9604 which is caught by the S.0 clause about drugs not approved for human use. This is in there because of the Victor Conte - BALCO labs set up where he invented THG and therefore is not a listed banned drug or fits into one of the wider specific categories. ASADA are going after Thymosin - Beta 4 which falls under the S.2 Peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances category . The Cronulla players were given S.2 banned drugs GHRP-6 and CJC-1295 by Dank.
ASADA stuffed up, Dank spoke to a staff member and said that AOD9604 wasnt banned so Dank used it. So they have ignored the embarrassing situation of going after them for this breach. WADA in April 2013 came out and said it was banned under S.0 from 1st January 2011 when the S.0 clause first came into force.
My personal belief is that if WADA appeal an AFL tribunal ruling and take it straight to CAS then they will include AOD9604 in their prosecution and not give a stuff that it makes ASADA look like fools. Protecting the validity and importance of the S.0 clause is more important to them than not making ASADA look like drop kicks.
Neither. It is a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard. I've not come across it in my practice but apparently it sits somewhere between the two. What it means in effect? I have no idea. Sorry.
Reading a bit more, it seems it is based on the standard in Briginshaw v Briginshaw. That is something I am familiar with. It essentially means that the tribunal does not have to think that there is no other possible explanation but that it cannot merely be just slightly more certain that doping happened than not.
Last edited:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collin...-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html.html
No details as to what they took yet but interesting times ahead....
No details as to what they took yet but interesting times ahead....
geez Collingwood ... Lachlan Keeffe and Josh Thomas, are believed to have tested positive to the presence in samples collected earlier in the year.
Eddie will be having a fit... again
Eddie will be having a fit... again
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
blackcat can you remind us of which collingwood players were warned by Asada officials of which substances showed elevated levels in their samples a few years ago. Harry O? Maxwell? Swaney?
Forzaport
Brownlow Medallist
They're goners. PEDs will see them booted for 12-18 months minimum but most likely 2 years.
did not know this, but i knew of Swanny getting target tested. I did not know the players, but I could see players with heads that might have grown.
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
If thats the case, they will never play again. Clenbuterol is a hardcore anabolic steroid.
Have it on good authority that Harry O's was caused by passive injection by a nearby drug cheat. He has a note from his mum.
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
Ok i must have misinterpreted what you wrote a couple years ago.
