Could a club still use the defence or is it now unambiguously defined as an offence in itself ?
Question. Has the "we lost the paperwork" loophole been closed ?
- Thread starter Pessimistic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The AFL tribunal has now rubberstamped this. And others.
The two Collingwood lads will get off. On the newly minted chain of supply clause:
"if said item has been moved, or sent on to another party, said item changes into irrelevance."
If the Collingwood boys can prove that their samples had ever been moved, in any manner at all, then it's case closed.
My teachers never bought the "My dog ate my homework" defence.
wowlace
Norm Smith Medallist
No lie, my cat actually smeared s**t on one of assignments last year.
- Thread starter
- #5
Not sure why I am commenting, but it probably did the deed and then spread it by trying to bury it
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
you can only close the loophole once we put in place minimum standards:
1) all medications and supplements at the club must be recorded on a single register, with all incoming, use, and wastage recorded
2) all medications and supplements administered by the club must be recorded, with batch/vial details referenced against the specific player
3) the club must have CoA's on hand for EVERY batch of every medication or supplement they purchase for administration
4) any supplement used by the club must have a file outlining an internal approval process for use. minimum checks to include confirmation from the ASADA website and sign off from the club doctor and a third party consultant
5) Failure to comply with the above will be deemed a doping violation by the club, with fines, draft bans, and 5-10 year bans for admin. Repeat offences result in points being stripped
If this is too hard, don't give your players supplements
1) all medications and supplements at the club must be recorded on a single register, with all incoming, use, and wastage recorded
2) all medications and supplements administered by the club must be recorded, with batch/vial details referenced against the specific player
3) the club must have CoA's on hand for EVERY batch of every medication or supplement they purchase for administration
4) any supplement used by the club must have a file outlining an internal approval process for use. minimum checks to include confirmation from the ASADA website and sign off from the club doctor and a third party consultant
5) Failure to comply with the above will be deemed a doping violation by the club, with fines, draft bans, and 5-10 year bans for admin. Repeat offences result in points being stripped
If this is too hard, don't give your players supplements
- Thread starter
- #7
Youd think so. But has that been done ?
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
some has, but not sure how hard wired the sanctions are for failure to comply
You obviously have a very smart cat, it read your assignment and marked it accordingly.
Should be an instant suspension if the club has no paperwork on this sort of thing, bit of a joke really, whether the supplements were legal or not what professional organisation doesn't keep receipts unless they are trying to avoid something.
The tribunal never even got to that.
The case failed at the step where they had to prove the substance was TB4. They couldn't.
Whether it got to Essendon or was used on players? They didn't even get to that stage.
ASADA agreed to these hurdles and couldn't meet them.
The case failed at the step where they had to prove the substance was TB4. They couldn't.
Whether it got to Essendon or was used on players? They didn't even get to that stage.
ASADA agreed to these hurdles and couldn't meet them.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
What happens if someone makes a baseless allegation against a club then claims the club didn't keep records? Not the essendon case but a future case...
When I said instant I really meant after investigation if there is proved to be no paperwork then even if the substance type cant be proven the club should be punished, as it is Essendon was fined and kicked out of the finals so I guess that happened in some form.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
So where there is enough evidence that something used but not recorded? Ok I can accept that.
No paper trail,no positive tests,no ethics Sweet
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
It cant be that brutal
That would mean if one days records were lost (for instance) you have to ban the entire team
Normally what happens with these things is if there is no concern of incorrect substances being used, the admin/club get sanctioned. It would only be of those substances came into play that the player would be dragged into it
Yeah I overstated my post I meant in the sense of after investigation I was referring to the club as a whole not individuals, for example in the Essendon case they should have been punished equally for not having documents on what they used , as they would have it was proved they had used TB4, of course for the players the same conditions as applied should still apply.
An Olympian would likely have received two years for what the Essendon players got off for as it would have been the coaches or there own responsibility to have records to show what was in those brown vials, it's a bit harder in a team sport.
- Thread starter
- #19
Well ironically essendon did make baseless allegaions against hawthorn back in the eighties, got some corrupt coppers to process the case.
Alan Jeans, a policemen was said to be most offended, pity he didnt live long enough for the karma bus to arrive at windy hill
wowlace
Norm Smith Medallist
Na I think he s**t in his box, but still had a dag or 2.
Not that you'd believe me. But I did receive 100% for that one haha. He may be smart, but he obviously doesn't keep up with current trends in parathyroidectomy.
If Essendon doesn't have it's homework, they should get it off Dank. He was paid to do a job.
They won't ask or force it as they know the players were all on the juice.
From what I can tell, the record keeping provisions that were in place in 2012 about the players informing the club medical officer in writing and that officer needing to keep records have been omitted from the 2014 version of the code. So if anything, the loophole has been widened, not shut.
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Anti-Doping Code 2014 FINAL.pdf
I can't find the record-keeping clause in the current version.
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Anti-Doping Code 2014 FINAL.pdf
I can't find the record-keeping clause in the current version.
- Thread starter
- #24
Thats amazing, if true
Well, I've linked the 2014 version of the document. I'll set it as the forum's homework to read through it in detail and see if the written record keeping provisions are in there somewhere else. It used to be in Section 7 - Obligations.
