Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL

[RussellEbertHandball]

From the article where Peter Gordon jumped up and down and then a few days later ex Fitzroy prez Dyson Hore-Lacy SC said Gordon was wrong about what Gordon said about the case.

Based on what MrMeaner said in an earlier response to my questions, the injunction mentioned below, would be to the Supreme court of Victoria

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...don-considers-cas-appeal-20160122-gmbnws.html
Lawyers believe papers for a Swiss appeal would have to be lodged by February 10, but the appeal itself would almost certainly not be heard until after the home-and-away season.

An injunction, though, would likely be lodged after February 10 but before the AFL season begins on Thursday, March 24.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...don-considers-cas-appeal-20160122-gmbnws.html

 

[western royboy]

If I was a past Essendon player - I'd want to know absolutely everything it be paid an obscene amount to forget about it and hope for the best.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Player manager Peter Jess on 5AA just confirmed that his instructions are to file an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal by the 10th February. I missed the start of the interview so I dont know who he is representing, but at some point he was asked about the group of 15 players.

 

[Phhht]

Player manager Peter Jess on 5AA just confirmed that his instructions are to file an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal by the 10th February. I missed the start of the interview so I dont know who he is representing, but at some point he was asked about the group of 15 players.

Plz dont let it be that Paddy is part of this appeal....

Plz dont let it be that Paddy is part of this appeal....

Plz dont let it be that Paddy is part of this appeal....

Plz dont let it be that Paddy is part of this appeal....

 

[Doctor Feel]

Is there any risk regarding the appeal i.e risk a bigger suspension? If not, Paddy & Monfries may as well go for it, who cares.

 

[proman_x]

I have been travelling thru eastern Aus and SA for the last 6 weeks. Have not kept up with what the AFL in its ''wisdom'' have decided about the top up players. What have they decided ?

 

[Phhht]

Is there any risk regarding the appeal i.e risk a bigger suspension? If not, Paddy & Monfries may as well go for it, who cares.

Ordinarily I'd say yep....give it a go. But the way this whole scenario has been 'managed' by the AFL I can just about guarantee we will end up worse off

 

[Grave Danger]

I have been travelling thru eastern Aus and SA for the last 6 weeks. Have not kept up with what the AFL in its ''wisdom'' have decided about the top up players. What have they decided ?

That the NT is now part of Victoria.

 

[Macca19]

Is there any risk regarding the appeal i.e risk a bigger suspension? If not, Paddy & Monfries may as well go for it, who cares.

It depends if the appeal involves an injuction on the ban which allows the players to play. If that happens, the players play, the appeal is heard and fails, then they miss 2 years from their last match.

If the appeal is just an appeal and doesnt involve an injunction on the ban, then theres probably not much risk.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Is there any risk regarding the appeal i.e risk a bigger suspension? If not, Paddy & Monfries may as well go for it, who cares.

The CAS ruling cant be increased ie 2 years is the maximum sentence and I doubt the 9.5 months backdating would be removed, unless WADA has rights to address the court but I dont think that is allowable, and say well if the players a are appealing about procedure we think backdating ruling was wrong.

If this isnt a problem and the players appeal then it probably wont be heard for 12 months. The question is do they apply to the Vic Supreme Court to be allowed to play whilst the appeal is on. But there is no guarantee that would be heard by the court let alone accepted. See MrMeaner's earlier posts.

The problem really is with the injunction to the Vic Supreme Court to be allowed to play whilst the appeal in on. I'm not sure if I am using the right term for the Swiss court but I will use the Australian equivalent. If you want to appeal a Supreme Court decision of Full Federal Court in Oz, you have to make an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court for the High Court to hear the appeal. The High Court either says the application is granted or Special Leave is refused. If its refused that's it - the end. That time between the decision and granting or refusing Special Leave can take anywhere between 3 and 5 months in most cases. Sometimes its less sometimes its longer.

So lets run through an example
10th February file Special Leave to appeal to Swiss Federal Tribunal ( ie Swiss Highest Court)
15th February file Vic Supreme Court injunction to let the players play in 2016
11th March Vic Supreme Court allows injunction - so 2 months between CAS decision and successful injunction passes means 8 more months to serve if Swiss Federal Tribunal Special Leave to Appeal fails or if Special Leave is granted, then when the actual appeal fails. The 2 year suspension was effectively 10 months ie 24 months - 9.5 months back dating - 4.5 months provisional suspension = 10 months suspension still to serve.

Scenario 1
20 July Swiss Federal Tribunal says the players dont have the right to an appeal. That means the players remaining 8 months starts then. So the players are out from 20 July 2016 to 20 March 2017. So players still miss finals and most of the next preseason.

Scenario 2
20 July Swiss Federal Tribunal says the players do have the right having an appeal.
30 April 2017 The Swiss Federal Tribunal reject appeal, so players remaining 8 month suspension means they are out until 30 December 2017.

 

[Janus]

"Lovett-Murray is adamant he twice questioned Essendon doctor Bruce Reid about Essendon’s peptides regimen in 2012.

Reid is the only surviving member of Essendon’s key staff involved in the catastrophic regimen; he argued he was sidelined by its architects Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson.

Jess said his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with.

“He was in front of Doc Reid twice and asked him twice, `Is there an issue?’ and both times Reid replied that it won’t do you much good but it won’t do you any harm.’

“As a consequence he was a part of (the injection regimen). If you asked your doc twice, what part of due inquiry are we missing.”

ASADA and WADA alleged there was a culture of secrecy among Essendon players, but Lovett-Murray denies he didn’t ask enough questions of authorities."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/6822566fb95fdc1e3e6b9d9d03749e5a

Told you this whole thing is shady as *. Reid wrote that letter so he had something to point to that went above any testimony from players.

 

[mic59]

"Lovett-Murray is adamant he twice questioned Essendon doctor Bruce Reid about Essendon’s peptides regimen in 2012.

Reid is the only surviving member of Essendon’s key staff involved in the catastrophic regimen; he argued he was sidelined by its architects Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson.

Jess said his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with.

“He was in front of Doc Reid twice and asked him twice, `Is there an issue?’ and both times Reid replied that it won’t do you much good but it won’t do you any harm.’

“As a consequence he was a part of (the injection regimen). If you asked your doc twice, what part of due inquiry are we missing.”

ASADA and WADA alleged there was a culture of secrecy among Essendon players, but Lovett-Murray denies he didn’t ask enough questions of authorities."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/6822566fb95fdc1e3e6b9d9d03749e5a

Told you this whole thing is shady as ****. Reid wrote that letter so he had something to point to that went above any testimony from players.

Sounds from that conversation that the only question that was answered was whether the injections would have any physical effects. The question "is there an issue" does sound like whether Lovett-Murray was asking if the injections were legal, but if that was what he wanted to know and Reid didn't tell him he cannot say he did everything to find out. Asking a question and getting no answer is the same as not asking the question at all.

 

[Magus]

It's hard to see this whole saga as being anything but a monumental **** up by absolutely everybody involved.

 

[Janus]

Sounds from that conversation that the only question that was answered was whether the injections would have any physical effects. The question "is there an issue" does sound like whether Lovett-Murray was asking if the injections were legal, but if that was what he wanted to know and Reid didn't tell him he cannot say he did everything to find out. Asking a question and getting no answer is the same as not asking the question at all.

You're kidding, right? The guy is the ******* chief medical officer of the club. He asked him twice if there was an issue with the drugs - the first time you can say he got no answer. The second time? Reid should have investigated the drugs himself so he could give a definitive answer to his patient. It's not up to Murray to do Reid's job for him if Reid is giving tacit approval for the program to continue by saying "It won't do you any harm."

It's like people don't want to even contemplate the possibility that there is something more sinister at play here because it will * with their whole paradigm of how the world works.

Reid is a ******* quack.

 

[Moo87]

Hypothetical question:

Let's assume Gus and Paddy are part of the group who lodge an appeal + successfully apply for an injunction, thus allowing them to play.

What would then happen if they're allowed to play the year, end up playing in a winning GF, but afterwards are found guilty and the ban is upheld?

Would there be any repercussions on the premiership? I remember earlier when first discussing the bans it was noted the players are meant to be stripped of all individual and team achievements...

 

[mic59]

You're kidding, right? The guy is the ******* chief medical officer of the club. He asked him twice if there was an issue with the drugs - the first time you can say he got no answer. The second time? Reid should have investigated the drugs himself so he could give a definitive answer to his patient. It's not up to Murray to do Reid's job for him if Reid is giving tacit approval for the program to continue by saying "It won't do you any harm."

It's like people don't want to even contemplate the possibility that there is something more sinister at play here because it will **** with their whole paradigm of how the world works.

Reid is a ******* quack.

No, I'm not kidding. Sounds like he asked a question twice then when the answer wasn't forthcoming felt that absolved himself of all responsibility, an attitude all too prevalent these days. Sure, Reid should have investigated. But Lovett-Murray should have made sure that he got his answer. And saying "It won't do you any harm" is a world different to saying "It's completely legal."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hypothetical question:

Let's assume Gus and Paddy are part of the group who lodge an appeal + successfully apply for an injunction, thus allowing them to play.

What would then happen if they're allowed to play the year, end up playing in a winning GF, but afterwards are found guilty and the ban is upheld?

Would there be any repercussions on the premiership? I remember earlier when first discussing the bans it was noted the players are meant to be stripped of all individual and team achievements...

The AFL make the rules. CAS didnt say what should happens to AFL records etc for the 9.5 months backdating like they do with individual athletes. The AFL have decided to do nothing. If they were consistent..........

 

[proman_x]

That the NT is now part of Victoria.

What did I miss ?

 

[Forzaport]

"Lovett-Murray is adamant he twice questioned Essendon doctor Bruce Reid about Essendon’s peptides regimen in 2012.

Reid is the only surviving member of Essendon’s key staff involved in the catastrophic regimen; he argued he was sidelined by its architects Stephen Dank and Dean Robinson.

Jess said his client could not have done any more to check the validity of the substances he was injected with.

“He was in front of Doc Reid twice and asked him twice, `Is there an issue?’ and both times Reid replied that it won’t do you much good but it won’t do you any harm.’

“As a consequence he was a part of (the injection regimen). If you asked your doc twice, what part of due inquiry are we missing.”

ASADA and WADA alleged there was a culture of secrecy among Essendon players, but Lovett-Murray denies he didn’t ask enough questions of authorities."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/6822566fb95fdc1e3e6b9d9d03749e5a

Told you this whole thing is shady as ****. Reid wrote that letter so he had something to point to that went above any testimony from players.

Clearly CAS chose to ignore Lovett-Murray's testimony as I can't imagine that wasn't presented by the players. As has been posted here before, Reid has been like teflon for much of this saga.

If only CAS ruled that a 'no significant fault' was applicable, it would've been done, WADA would have their guilty plea and the players wouldn't be missing the entire season and going for the jugular.

 

[Janus]

Clearly CAS chose to ignore Lovett-Murray's testimony as I can't imagine that wasn't presented by the players. As has been posted here before, Reid has been like teflon for much of this saga.

If only CAS ruled that a 'no significant fault' was applicable, it would've been done, WADA would have their guilty plea and the players wouldn't be missing the entire season and going for the jugular.

Reid set them all up with that letter. Like I said before, as soon as he wrote that letter he could point to it if things went sour as his way of saying that he tried to stop it, because who is going to believe the 'lies' of players who are accused of doping over the written testimony of a doctor?

Something stinks with this whole saga. Let's get Mr. Teflon on the stand so he can explain his actions.

 

[Andre]

Clearly CAS chose to ignore Lovett-Murray's testimony as I can't imagine that wasn't presented by the players. As has been posted here before, Reid has been like teflon for much of this saga.

If only CAS ruled that a 'no significant fault' was applicable, it would've been done, WADA would have their guilty plea and the players wouldn't be missing the entire season and going for the jugular.

It's looks more and more like CAS worked backwards from the verdict they wanted, then accepted or rejected evidence that helped or hindered that accordingly.

 

[Andre]

The CAS ruling cant be increased ie 2 years is the maximum sentence and I doubt the 9.5 months backdating would be removed, unless WADA has rights to address the court but I dont think that is allowable, and say well if the players a are appealing about procedure we think backdating ruling was wrong.

If this isnt a problem and the players appeal then it probably wont be heard for 12 months. The question is do they apply to the Vic Supreme Court to be allowed to play whilst the appeal is on. But there is no guarantee that would be heard by the court let alone accepted. See MrMeaner's earlier posts.

The problem really is with the injunction to the Vic Supreme Court to be allowed to play whilst the appeal in on. I'm not sure if I am using the right term for the Swiss court but I will use the Australian equivalent. If you want to appeal a Supreme Court decision of Full Federal Court in Oz, you have to make an Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court for the High Court to hear the appeal. The High Court either says the application is granted or Special Leave is refused. If its refused that's it - the end. That time between the decision and granting or refusing Special Leave can take anywhere between 3 and 5 months in most cases. Sometimes its less sometimes its longer.

So lets run through an example
10th February file Special Leave to appeal to Swiss Federal Tribunal ( ie Swiss Highest Court)
15th February file Vic Supreme Court injunction to let the players play in 2016
11th March Vic Supreme Court allows injunction - so 2 months between CAS decision and successful injunction passes means 8 more months to serve if Swiss Federal Tribunal Special Leave to Appeal fails or if Special Leave is granted, then when the actual appeal fails. The 2 year suspension was effectively 10 months ie 24 months - 9.5 months back dating - 4.5 months provisional suspension = 10 months suspension still to serve.

Scenario 1
20 July Swiss Federal Tribunal says the players dont have the right to an appeal. That means the players remaining 8 months starts then. So the players are out from 20 July 2016 to 20 March 2017. So players still miss finals and most of the next preseason.

Scenario 2
20 July Swiss Federal Tribunal says the players do have the right having an appeal.
30 April 2017 The Swiss Federal Tribunal reject appeal, so players remaining 8 month suspension means they are out until 30 December 2017.

Better off in this case letting Ryder and Monfries stay as suspended until whether appeal is held. So if it fails still back for next year. If it succeeds they've been training and get August to get up to playing with the team again if needed in September. If appeal eventually fails there's only July - November = 4 months more to go. * CAS and WADA if it can't remove time served or backdating.

 

[Grave Danger]

What did I miss ?

 

[Rankor]

Better off in this case letting Ryder and Monfries stay as suspended until whether appeal is held. So if it fails still back for next year. If it succeeds they've been training and get August to get up to playing with the team again if needed in September. If appeal eventually fails there's only July - November = 4 months more to go. **** CAS and WADA if it can't remove time served or backdating.

I'd let Gus play due to being on his last year of contract and at the end of the year. But I'd prefer Ryder to stay out this year so we don't lose him for next year.

Next year I think Gus could easily be covered with another year into our young players.

 

[Steve Dore]

Hypothetical question:

Let's assume Gus and Paddy are part of the group who lodge an appeal + successfully apply for an injunction, thus allowing them to play.

What would then happen if they're allowed to play the year, end up playing in a winning GF, but afterwards are found guilty and the ban is upheld?

Would there be any repercussions on the premiership? I remember earlier when first discussing the bans it was noted the players are meant to be stripped of all individual and team achievements...

There shouldn't be any repercussions. The timing of serving the bans is pretty arbitrary. It is not as if Gus and Paddy would be actively doping when they played in the GF.

Keep in mind that the AFL is going to let Jobe Watson keep the Brownlow he won in a season in which he was actively doping.