- Banned
- #101
Prahran under 9s.
Public Opinion: Will EFC players get Infraction Notices? (Poll included)
- Thread starter Crawb
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #102
Just sit back and watch the power brokers twist ASADA / WADA and train them to heel
A bunch of beauracrats being allowed to destroy a club with 100 plus years of history, risk the very foundations of our game? Really? Not even remotely possible.
The war on drugs is like the war on terror
You can't really win a war like that
But it's useful to look like you care and prosecuting the odd loner placated the masses
The way our media report on the afl, any sanctions would be portrayed as unfair as so many are innocent 18 year old who were mislead by dank, Hird the club. Not to mention that their health has been jeopardised. The parents would be all over the papers, media day after pathetic day.
ASADA WADA would not survive the backlash, the afl would relinquish its affiliation
The press excluding Caro and smith, would paint ASADA WADA as incompetent
This is Australia, any authority sanctioning our sports players needs to fully in the right factually and morally. The ASADA aod misunderstanding is enough to enrage the general public as 18 yr olds will be seen as innocent victims
The question is whether ASADA WADA are up for the fight.
Not a good look if afl were to disaffiliate
Kind of thing that can spread
- Moderator
- #103
I'm a lawyer mate. I agree with everything you say above.
The players have strong claims for negligence against the club once infraction notices are issued (and I seriously believe that they will be issued). There is the issue of contributory negligence by the players (i.e. they participated in the program, they signed the waivers, and are subject to strict liability) to reduce damages claims.
Potential damages for a few dozen players out for a few years each will still exceed 10 million IMO (before costs). I would imagine it would be a class action with the AFLPA involved as an interested party.
- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #104
But that is not exactly true is it?
The ACC themselves in their report believed AOD was not prohibited
So I am not sure why you would expect a google would have done the trick
Have you checked WADA' s prohibited list? It does not mention either AOD or tb4 directly
The players aren't chemists
But I think dr Reid had every reason to be expected know and even he was danced
Or was he?
Bubbalicious
Team Captain
Going on these, the Bombers are really really farked..........
http://www.liv.asn.au/Practice-Reso...chived-Issues/LIJ-July-2013/A-sporting-chance
Medicinal cream obtained by a 17-year-old international swimmer’s mother from a chemist in a foreign country for a foot condition unknowingly contained a steroid. It was accepted that the cream did not enhance the athlete’s performance. CAS found that the athlete failed to consult with her doctor or coach or to check the composition of the product before use. Twelve month suspension imposed;
Downhill Olympic skier given an assurance by a supplement manufacturer that the supplement did not contain any banned substance. Positive test. Banned for 18 months;
A VFL footballer who ordered via the internet but never received what he believed was a fat burning supplement, that contained clenbuterol, received an 18 month reduced penalty based on various factors including the inadequate anti- doping education provided;
Two Australian weightlifters aged 17 and 18 tested positive for a stimulant not on the prohibited list but with similar effects to amphetamines. CAS found they had failed to properly enquire (though had not failed to enquire altogether) as to the integrity of the supplement drink with the ASADA hotline or to make any other proper inquiry. Two year bans not reduced;
http://www.liv.asn.au/Practice-Reso...chived-Issues/LIJ-July-2013/A-sporting-chance
Medicinal cream obtained by a 17-year-old international swimmer’s mother from a chemist in a foreign country for a foot condition unknowingly contained a steroid. It was accepted that the cream did not enhance the athlete’s performance. CAS found that the athlete failed to consult with her doctor or coach or to check the composition of the product before use. Twelve month suspension imposed;
Downhill Olympic skier given an assurance by a supplement manufacturer that the supplement did not contain any banned substance. Positive test. Banned for 18 months;
A VFL footballer who ordered via the internet but never received what he believed was a fat burning supplement, that contained clenbuterol, received an 18 month reduced penalty based on various factors including the inadequate anti- doping education provided;
Two Australian weightlifters aged 17 and 18 tested positive for a stimulant not on the prohibited list but with similar effects to amphetamines. CAS found they had failed to properly enquire (though had not failed to enquire altogether) as to the integrity of the supplement drink with the ASADA hotline or to make any other proper inquiry. Two year bans not reduced;
- Feb 11, 2009
- 28,079
- 35,083
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- #rompingwins
Good post Bubbalicious. People need to realise that "mitigating circumstances" don't help you avoid sanction. They help you avoid being banned for line...
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,821
- 27,479
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The AFL will not exit WADA compliance. Not now, not ever, not for any reason.
Which makes the rest of the argument a tad null and void.
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,821
- 27,479
- AFL Club
- Carlton
THe question is not how Essendon field a team if it goes down as severely as it might. The Club will be deregistered/suspended for multiple infractions in that case.
THe real question is what happens to the players who don't get infractions and are contracted to a suspended team?
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
I suspect the contributory negligence will be the key. Players have done education, and as you say they signed waivers. They had the option to opt out. The players themselves are technically in breach of their contracts which contain a no-doping clause so perversely Essendon could counter-sue(?).
The other complication is that my understanding is that they are contracted to the AFL with Essendon acting as the AFL's agent, and the establishing that the AFL was negligent would be tougher in that they prosecuted the case.
It will also be almost impossible to sue for medical conditions. It is very hard to say that someone's cancer in 10 years time was not attributable to other factors.
Also any player who continued playing and training at Essendon after knowing it was an unsafe workplace would have weakened their case. Any player who chooses to stay at Essendon may have no case at all. Not removing yourself from a danger when you are aware of it will count against them.
It is your field but it doesn't sound cut-and-dry to me.
Bubbalicious
Team Captain
As if he will get a Working with Children clearance!
And we should remember the stream of "sports law experts" quoted in the media before Warney was banned for a year.
"Warne will be able to get off through this loophole..."
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
By December there will be 15+ players from the 2012 and 2013 drafts who are not effected. There may be a variety of 0, 6, 12 and 24 month suspensions. Some guys, particularly the younger guys, might get suspended sentences.
I would not be surprised if the AFL gave 6 month bans and then WADA would have to choose to appeal. That would mean a CAS hearing. Depending on timing the Essendon players might be able to get through the whole of 2014 - Contador went 16 months from positive test to his ban being upheld on appeal.
10 guys accept their ban, and 10 guys appeal and delay a year and the Bombers are not down that many players.
There is also some doubt as to whether a ban has to be served wholy or partly "in competition". Does a 6 month ban starting in January and ending in June count? (although that is an admin nightmare for AFL list management).
We have also seen 'backdated' bans in the past that cover a period that has already occurred. It is 'legal' for the AFL to ban players for 1 year backdating the ban to the time of the confession (eg March-April this year). The player would lose all their medals, game tally etc for 2013, but the player could play again almost immediately.
Again the Contador case. He tested positive in Sep 2010, he was 'suspended' but appealed. His final appeal was heard in Jan 2012. His ban was upheld. He had been racing all this time. When his ban was upheld his ban (Sep 2010 - August 2012) had only 8 months left to run (from that Jan final appeal date). He was off his bike for 8 months. Now he lost all his results in the rest of that ban period (a Tdf win and a Giro win) but an Essendon player wouldn't care if his 2013 season was removed from the records.
It is possible that a 'banned' Essendon player be given a 12 month ban (Jan-Dec 2014). He might appeal. His appeal might be heard in October 2014. That player has played the whole season. His ban is upheld and he serves Oct-Dec 2014 away from the club and has his 2014 season expunged.
Even if banned they might not serve 'real' time.
I'm sure the time must be served IN competition, so a 6month suspension would be a season, surely not just a christmas & summer break?
I voted no for a number of reasons.
1) As much as I dislike Essendon and now James Hird (IMO he's a smart operator and knew what he was doing) I think the players are drones who take whatever they are given by the "trusted" medico's onsite
2) I think the AFL somehow wont let this happen as it erodes the image of the competition, can impact them financially, and it can put in jeopardy some existing deals they may have in place with other organisations
3) I think the AFL walk to their own tune and are Judge, Jury and Executioner in every aspect of the game with very little regard for true integrity or the true 'sport' of the competition. They have always acted in their best interests with regards to rules, expansion, fixturing and penalties, and this will be no exception.
I feel really sorry for the true Essendon fans (but not the 'Hird' fans) and the players (who could have been a little less naive) but I think what's done is done. The current era of this club will be forever tainted, as the amount of innuendo and leaks from both sides puts enough doubt into people everywhere to suspect something more sinister took place.
1) As much as I dislike Essendon and now James Hird (IMO he's a smart operator and knew what he was doing) I think the players are drones who take whatever they are given by the "trusted" medico's onsite
2) I think the AFL somehow wont let this happen as it erodes the image of the competition, can impact them financially, and it can put in jeopardy some existing deals they may have in place with other organisations
3) I think the AFL walk to their own tune and are Judge, Jury and Executioner in every aspect of the game with very little regard for true integrity or the true 'sport' of the competition. They have always acted in their best interests with regards to rules, expansion, fixturing and penalties, and this will be no exception.
I feel really sorry for the true Essendon fans (but not the 'Hird' fans) and the players (who could have been a little less naive) but I think what's done is done. The current era of this club will be forever tainted, as the amount of innuendo and leaks from both sides puts enough doubt into people everywhere to suspect something more sinister took place.
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
That is the debate. One thing we 'know' is that a ban is contiguous. So if a 6-month ban had of started in August (in comp), it could run to February. There aren't too many sports with seasons as short as ours - and other sports (eg athletics, swimming etc) are a series of individual events / tournaments.
I voted "unlikley". There seems little doubt prohibited substances were administered.
However, it also seems to be that while ASADA can name the drugs and even probable numbers of players the faulty record keeping (possibly the worst offence in this whole saga) will mean it is impossible to pin a specific substance to an individual player. The players may be saved by the offences committed by others being worse.
If that does prove to be the case, the penalties so far against the club are manifestly inadequate but I would expect further charges to be laid both at the club as an organisation and its administrators as individuals.
The AFL have also been sitting in, and no doubt trying to persuade ASADA that infraction notices on players are unnecessary in this case. Anything to protect the brand above any actual integrity.
However, it also seems to be that while ASADA can name the drugs and even probable numbers of players the faulty record keeping (possibly the worst offence in this whole saga) will mean it is impossible to pin a specific substance to an individual player. The players may be saved by the offences committed by others being worse.
If that does prove to be the case, the penalties so far against the club are manifestly inadequate but I would expect further charges to be laid both at the club as an organisation and its administrators as individuals.
The AFL have also been sitting in, and no doubt trying to persuade ASADA that infraction notices on players are unnecessary in this case. Anything to protect the brand above any actual integrity.
Or boxers, or bodybuilders, or netballers, or rugby league players outside the NRL, or ... you get the picture.
Voted Yes.
1. Are some of the substances they are alledged to have taken banned? Yes, WADA has ruled on a number of them and they are the first and final authority on what is banned. The AFL and the players have agreed to this under the anti doping policy.
2. Strict liability means that ignorance, being misled etc is not a means to getting off, an athlete is responsible for every substance that enters his body.
3. Evidence seems to be fairly strong. Dank ordered the compounds, Essendon paid for them, the players signed consent forms agreeing to take said compunds. Dank has admitted in a number of interviews that he gave these compounds to players (he has since tried to back peddle).
4. This is a global issue with global sporting ramifications. WADA has to try and ban players or risk losing control of the war on PED's (like the war on recreational drugs it seems to be a lost cause but people have to justify their existence and keep on the gravy train).
I don't think the players should be banned but based on the above it appears there is no way out.
1. Are some of the substances they are alledged to have taken banned? Yes, WADA has ruled on a number of them and they are the first and final authority on what is banned. The AFL and the players have agreed to this under the anti doping policy.
2. Strict liability means that ignorance, being misled etc is not a means to getting off, an athlete is responsible for every substance that enters his body.
3. Evidence seems to be fairly strong. Dank ordered the compounds, Essendon paid for them, the players signed consent forms agreeing to take said compunds. Dank has admitted in a number of interviews that he gave these compounds to players (he has since tried to back peddle).
4. This is a global issue with global sporting ramifications. WADA has to try and ban players or risk losing control of the war on PED's (like the war on recreational drugs it seems to be a lost cause but people have to justify their existence and keep on the gravy train).
I don't think the players should be banned but based on the above it appears there is no way out.
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
Interesting view - how about another take? Australia and the AFL, and especially the EFC are so small and insignificant in world sport that nailing them to the wall would be a great way to demonstrate the power of the S0 clause and WADA. If the EFC actually was made no more how powerful a message is that!!
Sends a message to the big football clubs (ManU, Barca etc) and the US pro leagues. Each of those guys could buy the entire AFL. Our power brokers are fleas on an elephant. Great opportunity to show power against the little guy. And yes! the EFC is a the little guy.
I hope this attitude isn't taken. But they could use the fact that it was systematic doping by an entire team to make the penalties 4 years. The AFL is a bit player in world sport. Live with that. Political arguements will not work here. In Australia the AFL is the big silver back gorilla. In world sport it is up against Godzillas. they would not even notice the squelch of the AFL as they squashed it flat whilst walking to get their lunch.
and there it is. The real reason why Malifice is so red hot on this.
neutralguy
Club Legend
- Aug 2, 2013
- 1,306
- 1,764
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You honestly think WADA and ASADA wouldn't survive the backlash from banning drug cheats? You do know the W in WADA stands for WORLD not a few states in Australia? The AFL will not relinquish its affiliation with WADA as that will remove all funding of the game by our government. You say any authority sanctioning our sports players needs to be fully right both factually and morally. Well if they sanction someone they have investigated them and the proof will be there and the person ahs a right to appeal if they are wrong the person will get off. Morally? Really? If they are sanctioned it will be for the use of banned substances in a sport that is cheating what is not morally right about that?
You question if WADA and ASADA are up for the fight? You seem to have a massively over rated opinion of the relevance on the world stage to any of our sporting teams.
Say the AFL left the WADA code and as you allude to in your final comment all our major sporting teams followed suit. You realise that Australia would then not participate in the Olympics right?
Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer will definately not leave WADA as they actually play on an international level and would not be able to compete anymore.
So a few players being banned from EFC in your eyes would lead to Australia not competing in the Olympics the Commonwealth Games, No world Cup for League Union and Soccer, you are deluded beyond belief.
Freo2012
Premiership Player
EFC is a tiny pimple, in a tiny pimple of a sport on the world stage - and fit's WADA's requirements perfectly to make an example out of. Think about where WADA's focus is: trying to protect anAFL club, or trying to bring world soccer and other sports into line - EFC would make the perfect team and sport to press the issues they face. It has been reported that WADA are using the ASADA investigation into EFC and Cronulla as the keynote lead in presentations at the world conference in November before the final discussions and voting on the new 2015 code, which includes rules and penalties on officials and associated persons to athletes. It is another reason behind the release of the ASADA Interim Report so they can discuss it openly at the conference. The main investigation won't be finished by then. Interim investigation reports by national doping bodies are very rarely issued and WADA welcomed this one - ask yourself why.
The AFL are going to be looking a laughing stock on the world stage - they will discuss the Interim report and what was disclosed, the initial charges by the AFl and the negotiated down charges. Then they'll discuss the need for the new code due to the above. AFL didn't fully weight this up when they pushed and got agreement for the Interim Report to be issued - very VERY major image stuff up coming for the AFL.
PS: Fahey ends his term as Pres of WADA at the conference with a new one being voted in, apparently the new pres is going to be some Pom who is a soccer/rugby nut.
