RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
A couple of good articles in The Age.
Jon Pierik and Matt Murnane
Essendon supplements saga: ASADA hits back over 'player welfare'
The AFL Players Association confirmed on Thursday the 34 Essendon players re-issued with show-cause notices last week would not contest them and wanted the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel to assess the evidence within seven days. And ASADA chief Ben McDevitt then fired back.
He suggested the AFLPA had failed the players in terms of their welfare in 2012 when the Bombers' supplements program was in full swing.
"In the six months I have been at ASADA I have had the club, the coach, the AFL Players' Association, various other legal entities, plus other interested parties all voice their views as to the management of these matters," McDevitt said.
"While all claim to represent the interests of the players and/or Australian sport, the advice as to remedial actions varies dramatically.
"In my role as protector of clean athletes in Australia, my advice to them is that if they want to act in the best interests of the players they should review the 12,000 pages of evidence and follow due process.
"I only wish that such interest in player welfare had been present in 2012."
An ASADA statement said: "ASADA chief executive officer Ben McDevitt said ASADA will not be dictated to by the AFL Players' Association, its lawyers, or anybody else."
Essendon supplements saga: ASADA hits back over 'player welfare'
Greg Baum's
Bombers leap from frying pan, beware fire
The fact that the reissued "show cause" notices have been painstakingly tailored to the circumstances of each player suggests that the charges also would have to be heard one-by-one. This matters more than might be supposed. Under the WADA code, if two more more players from one team are found guilty of a doping violation, the ruling body "shall" impose sanctions on the team.
It would not be enough for the AFL to say that it already had punished the Bombers by expelling them from last year's finals. That was not because of proven doping violations, but for sloppy governance.
Do not forget that whatever the AFL does, and the tribunal, WADA is watching, and can appeal. The AFL says only that it is not thinking that far ahead. This long, cumbersome and gruelling process has been embarrassing for Essendon and the AFL, but also for ASADA and WADA and the code that they aim to uphold.
Generally, the WADA code is hopelessly inarticulate and inadequate when contemplating team sport. It defines it as "a sport in which is the substitution of players is permitted during competition". Individual sport is "any sport that is not a team sport"
But nothing about this case is uncomplicated. When the tribunal convenes, the AFL's standard of proof will be "comfortable satisfaction", which pretty much is applied only to sport. It sits somewhere between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probability", but what does that mean?
Bombers leap from frying pan, beware fire
Jon Pierik and Matt Murnane
Essendon supplements saga: ASADA hits back over 'player welfare'
The AFL Players Association confirmed on Thursday the 34 Essendon players re-issued with show-cause notices last week would not contest them and wanted the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel to assess the evidence within seven days. And ASADA chief Ben McDevitt then fired back.
He suggested the AFLPA had failed the players in terms of their welfare in 2012 when the Bombers' supplements program was in full swing.
"In the six months I have been at ASADA I have had the club, the coach, the AFL Players' Association, various other legal entities, plus other interested parties all voice their views as to the management of these matters," McDevitt said.
"While all claim to represent the interests of the players and/or Australian sport, the advice as to remedial actions varies dramatically.
"In my role as protector of clean athletes in Australia, my advice to them is that if they want to act in the best interests of the players they should review the 12,000 pages of evidence and follow due process.
"I only wish that such interest in player welfare had been present in 2012."
An ASADA statement said: "ASADA chief executive officer Ben McDevitt said ASADA will not be dictated to by the AFL Players' Association, its lawyers, or anybody else."
Essendon supplements saga: ASADA hits back over 'player welfare'
Greg Baum's
Bombers leap from frying pan, beware fire
The fact that the reissued "show cause" notices have been painstakingly tailored to the circumstances of each player suggests that the charges also would have to be heard one-by-one. This matters more than might be supposed. Under the WADA code, if two more more players from one team are found guilty of a doping violation, the ruling body "shall" impose sanctions on the team.
It would not be enough for the AFL to say that it already had punished the Bombers by expelling them from last year's finals. That was not because of proven doping violations, but for sloppy governance.
Do not forget that whatever the AFL does, and the tribunal, WADA is watching, and can appeal. The AFL says only that it is not thinking that far ahead. This long, cumbersome and gruelling process has been embarrassing for Essendon and the AFL, but also for ASADA and WADA and the code that they aim to uphold.
Generally, the WADA code is hopelessly inarticulate and inadequate when contemplating team sport. It defines it as "a sport in which is the substitution of players is permitted during competition". Individual sport is "any sport that is not a team sport"
But nothing about this case is uncomplicated. When the tribunal convenes, the AFL's standard of proof will be "comfortable satisfaction", which pretty much is applied only to sport. It sits somewhere between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probability", but what does that mean?
Bombers leap from frying pan, beware fire
