I'm not satisfied. Should Essendon be punished for failure to provide Medical Records?

[TigerTime3]

Essendon have got away with an undocumented, intentional injection regime. What they injected - nobody knows. Yet they shot up the ladder until injuries hit.

As a neutral I must say I feel severely disappointed at the AFL's shenanigans in protecting their brand. Essendon haven't been angels over the last few years. IMO they deserve punishment. To say they're "not guilty" is to suspend the feeling of justice in neutral supporters.

Supporters have take the first IN result as a sign of "WE WIN, HAHAHAHAH" whereas the neutrals understand that Essendon have got away with murder.

I genuinely feel like Essendon have doped their players and got away with it. I am so disappointed in the AFL. Eventually, Lance Armstrong was caught, but it took so many years... we can't afford to wait 10 years to finally give Essendon the punishment they deserve.

As a compromise, should Essendon receive a penalty for not providing medical records from 2012?

 

[Hird Is Scum]

should Essendon receive a penalty for not providing medical records from 2012?

Absolutely they should.

 

[PoppedCorn]

in before...well im not sure but im sure it'll prob end up interesting

 

[Upgrayedd]

Did they already get punished for that?

 

[Percel]

That would be governance.

How it plays out from here is anybody's guess. I imagine it will be over and out.

Footy is back and the AFL smiles!

 

[Jimthegreat]

They've been punished for governance. Irrespective of what happens they did essentially get a year in 2013 at least where they lost all their points.

I was most happy to take charity. We got 2 bonus weeks!

 

[Duckworth]

Essendon have got away with an undocumented, intentional injection regime. What they injected - nobody knows. Yet they shot up the ladder until injuries hit.

As a neutral I must say I feel severely disappointed at the AFL's shenanigans in protecting their brand. Essendon haven't been angels over the last few years. IMO they deserve punishment. To say they're "not guilty" is to suspend the feeling of justice in neutral supporters.

Supporters have take the first IN result as a sign of "WE WIN, HAHAHAHAH" whereas the neutrals understand that Essendon have got away with murder.

I genuinely feel like Essendon have doped their players and got away with it. I am so disappointed in the AFL. Eventually, Lance Armstrong was caught, but it took so many years... we can't afford to wait 10 years to finally give Essendon the punishment they deserve.

As a compromise, should Essendon receive a penalty for not providing medical records from 2012?

Essendon the club have been punished for their shortcomings of 2012 - poor governance. What you are seeing from the supporters as 'we won' is as much relief that there is an end to this as anything else.

I'm not sure why you should feel entitled to have the opinion that EFC have given banned drugs to players - when the result of a 2.5 year investigation and 2 judges and a barrister can unanimously say that they are not comfortably satisfied that it happened.

 

[TigerTime3]

Essendon the club have been punished for their shortcomings of 2012 - poor governance. What you are seeing from the supporters as 'we won' is as much relief that there is an end to this as anything else.

I'm not sure why you should feel entitled to have the opinion that EFC have given banned drugs to players - when the result of a 2.5 year investigation and 2 judges and a barrister can unanimously say that they are comfortably satisfied that it didn't happen.

I like hearing from Essendon supporters and it makes me think.

In this case, your post backs up my point... you said "judges are comfortably satisfied it didn't happen" - this is NOT true.

The judges were unable to say they were comfortably satisfied of ASADA's case for TB4 being injected into Essendon players without key witness testimony. That's all.

I'm 100% willing to do a 180 and become an Essendon promotor on this issue if you can convince me you're innocent with reason and logic. I don't give a s**t about tribalism, I care about the facts. I'll even harass the media like Bruce if you convince me you were fair.

 

[Duckworth]

I like hearing from Essendon supporters and it makes me think.

In this case, your post backs up my point... you said "judges are comfortably satisfied it didn't happen" - this is NOT true.

The judges were unable to say they were comfortably satisfied of ASADA's case for TB4 being injected into Essendon players without key witness testimony. That's all.

Without key witness testimony... meaning Charter?

1. ASADA had written (and taped) interviews from Charter. This was all of his evidence.
2. The judges were 'heavily critical' of Charter's credibility - with Charter changing his story and his account not adding up.

I would not be basing too much of anything on Charter. I mean, how much can you trust a convicted drug dealer?

at the end of the day, there will remain a 'possibility' that it happened. There is so much that is not known throughout this saga that enough grey area exists for people to hold onto their viewpoints (whatever they are) and continue to argue them.

edit: most Essendon fans will acknowledge the shortcomings of governance in 2012. That things were allowed to get out of control, with varying degrees of responsibility for those in administration. Even if our club was 99% sure of what was given to players, a 1% of unknown is still an unacceptable risk - and the club was rightly punished for this.

As to whether the players were administered banned drugs, in the same way as our supporters had to accept that the investigation was legal, so must opposition accept that TB4 was not given to the players.

 

[interestedoz1]

I asked on another thread - but perhaps more relevant in this one:

Just wondering, does anyone know if there is anything stopping WADA introducing a law around the absence of
record keeping, and applying it retrospectively?

 

[TigerTime3]

Without key witness testimony... meaning Charter?

1. ASADA had written (and taped) interviews from Charter. This was all of his evidence.
2. The judges were 'heavily critical' of Charter's credibility - with Charter changing his story and his account not adding up.

I would not be basing too much of anything on Charter. I mean, how much can you trust a convicted drug dealer?

at the end of the day, there will remain a 'possibility' that it happened. There is so much that is not known throughout this saga that enough grey area exists for people to hold onto their viewpoints (whatever they are) and continue to argue them.

edit: most Essendon fans will acknowledge the shortcomings of governance in 2012. That things were allowed to get out of control, with varying degrees of responsibility for those in administration. Even if our club was 99% sure of what was given to players, a 1% of unknown is still an unacceptable risk - and the club was rightly punished for this.

As to whether the players were administered banned drugs, in the same way as our supporters had to accept that the investigation was legal, so must opposition accept that TB4 was not given to the players.

Thanks for your response. ASADA were heavily critical of Charter. There's lots of grey areas that still exist.

Is Charter's inconsistent testimonies associated with Essendon's wealthy influence? Neutrals seem to think that he was muffled by the rich Essendon influence. Would this be something I should give the benefit of the doubt or have Essendon influenced the outcome of the decision?

 

[2one2]

I asked on another thread - but perhaps more relevant in this one:

Just wondering, does anyone know if there is anything stopping WADA introducing a law around the absence of
record keeping, and applying it retrospectively?

The Law

 

[Duckworth]

Thanks for your response. ASADA were heavily critical of Charter. There's lots of grey areas that still exist.

Is Charter's inconsistent testimonies associated with Essendon's wealthy influence? Neutrals seem to think that he was muffled by the rich Essendon influence. Would this be something I should stop believing?

There is nothing to suggest that Charter was 'bought out' - it is all speculation. (I mean at the very least, why would the guy that bought him out do a HS interview while there was still an option for ASADA to appeal?) Even so, he is able to talk to EFC if he chooses to - there is nothing stopping him. He had already given his evidence to ASADA as he was required to do. Additionally EFC lawyers are entitled to gain information to support their case - which includes talking to Charter. Charters would be doing whatever suited his own interests - that is the only thing you can be certain of.

Also, don't be fooled into thinking there are 'neutrals' on here (apart from your good self). Most have picked a side and are sticking with it.

 

[interestedoz1]

The Law

Can you explain further? What law?

So are you saying that WADA cannot retrospectively charge athletes at all in any circumstance?

 

[TigerTime3]

There is nothing to suggest that Charter was 'bought out' - it is all speculation. (I mean at the very least, why would the guy that bought him out do a HS interview while there was still an option for ASADA to appeal?) Even so, he is able to talk to EFC if he chooses to - there is nothing stopping him. He had already given his evidence to ASADA as he was required to do. Additionally EFC lawyers are entitled to gain information to support their case - which includes talking to Charter. Charters would be doing whatever suited his own interests - that is the only thing you can be certain of.

Also, don't be fooled into thinking there are 'neutrals' on here (apart from your good self). Most have picked a side and are sticking with it.

Are there any anti-dons who can dispute this?

"1. why would the guy that bought him out do a HS interview while there was still an option for ASADA to appeal?"

1 - he's confident ASADA won't appeal, so he wanted credit for saving Essendon
2 - he wants credit and hasn't thought about the repercussions

TBH, I can't see #2 being true. #1 maybe, but seems premature. If I were him, I can't picture myself doing a HS interview unless I felt we were safe. Can't think of a single reason against this point ATM.

 

[TheEnsign]

They were punished for it. Whether that punishment was severe enough is moot - you cannot punish them for the same failing again.

 

[Percel]

I asked on another thread - but perhaps more relevant in this one:

Just wondering, does anyone know if there is anything stopping WADA introducing a law around the absence of
record keeping, and applying it retrospectively?

Wow...

You're genuinely keen for a whopping here aren't you?

 

[Duckworth]

Are there any anti-dons who can dispute this?

"1. why would the guy that bought him out do a HS interview while there was still an option for ASADA to appeal?"

1 - he's confident ASADA won't appeal, so he wanted credit for saving Essendon
2 - he wants credit and hasn't thought about the repercussions

TBH, I can't see #2 being true. #1 maybe, but seems premature. If I were him, I can't picture myself doing a HS interview unless I felt we were safe. Can't think of a single reason against this point ATM.

Yeah, it doesn't really point to the plan of an evil mastermind. Buy a guy out, then do an interview and photo shoot for the largest Melbourne paper. I really don't see the difference that Charter would have made to ASADAs case. They already had his testimony from the interviews.

 

[interestedoz1]

They were punished for it. Whether that punishment was severe enough is moot - you cannot punish them for the same failing again.

good point.

However I was just hypothesizing what might happen if WADA updated the rules so that lack of records also equated to a doping violation.

How is WADA going to deal with the apparent "lack of records" defence going forward?

I'm just trying to think of a way they could close that loop...

 

[TigerTime3]

Yeah, it doesn't really point to the plan of an evil mastermind. Buy a guy out, then do an interview and photo shoot for the largest Melbourne paper. I really don't see the difference that Charter would have made to ASADAs case. They already had his testimony from the interviews.

I'm hoping you guys get done for doping but at this point in time, with the limited specific knowledge I possess, I can't rebut your argument.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever why he would do an interview and risk exposing the dealings Essendon could have done. **** I hate you guys, don't make me question this. You're guilty.

 

[interestedoz1]

Wow...

You're genuinely keen for a whopping here aren't you?

IMO WADA has a major problem on its hands with the apparent "lack of records" defence.

Don't they have to close that apparent loophole?

If yes, then I am wondering if they have retrospective capability?

(they may not...I genuinely don't know if there is any legal constraint on them potentially acting in this way...)

 

[Percel]

IMO WADA has a major problem on its hands with the apparent "lack of records" defence.

Don't they have to close that apparent loophole?

If yes, then I am wondering if they have retrospective capability?

(they may not...I genuinely don't know if there is any legal constraint on them potentially acting in this way...)

I agree there was an issue on the no records front, but the retrospective taint takes it to a new level.

We'll get the truth in the next 10-15 years or so.

 

[2one2]

Can you explain further? What law?

So are you saying that WADA cannot retrospectively charge athletes at all in any circumstance?

Yes I am saying that. That is complete and utter dereliction of justice. I was going to give an example but I really don't think it's necessary. You don't make a rule and then apply it in retrospect, even further, you don't make a rule based on wishing to sanction someone and then apply it in retrospect. That is completely corrupt.

 

[interestedoz1]

Yes I am saying that. That is complete and utter dereliction of justice. I was going to give an example but I really don't think it's necessary. You don't make a rule and then apply it in retrospect, even further, you don't make a rule based on wishing to sanction someone and then apply it in retrospect. That is completely corrupt.

So, hypothetically, if WADA discovers a new drug is showing up in athletes samples from 5 years ago (when there was no law for it), they can't retrospectively act?

 

[Duckworth]

I'm hoping you guys get done for doping but at this point in time, with the limited specific knowledge I possess, I can't rebut your argument.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever why he would do an interview and risk exposing the dealings Essendon could have done. **** I hate you guys, don't make me question this. You're guilty.

Why would you want the players of another club to have taken banned drugs and be sanctioned for it? Do you also take pleasure when players from opposition clubs get injurred? There is a huge human element to what is happening for the players (banned or injurred) that is being completely ignored. I am fine if you want to think that our players took a banned substance, although this is againt the unanimous opinion of the judges who have heard all of the facts. But do some reading and form your own opinion, don't just respond how you think an opposition supporter is supposed to.