SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
D-Shackle said:
Anyone see this?

@ChrisStubbsFOX 33m
Heard the AFL's '1st offer' for Ess is no finals, Jobe loses Brownlow and no 1st rd draft pick for 3 years! Players escape. Imagine that!

That's an unequivocal embarrassment that a Fox Sports presenter would put that in the public domain. I seriously doubt the veracity of his statement.
Click to expand...

Fox Sports are idiots. These are the clowns who pumped up Delevadova as a legit NBA prospect...
 
ChilbroSwaggins said:
Should we decide to appeal any decision the AFL hands out to the club (as opposed to players) what is the process? Do we go to the CAS or is straight into the civil courts? And then what happens, does a judge decide what the revised punishment might be or do they just tell the AFL to go away and think up something a little less harsh?
Click to expand...
My understanding is they can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and if that fails then the Federal Court. Then to Court of Arbitration for Sport
 
Daytripper said:
My understanding is they can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and if that fails then the Federal Court. Then to Court of Arbitration for Sport
Click to expand...

Cheers
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ChilbroSwaggins said:
Cheers
Click to expand...
Here are the powers of the Administration Affairs Tribunal.

They can't actually overturn any AFL decision but they can disagree with it and send it back to the body for it to be decided again. I would imagine the AFL would not want to be embarrassed by continually having decisions sent back so it is in their interests to get it right.

The AAT may affirm, vary or set aside the decision being reviewed.
  • if the AAT affirms the decision, this means the decision made by the department is not changed
  • if the AAT varies the decision, this means the decision has been changed or altered in some way
  • if the AAT sets aside the decision and substitutes a new decision, this means it agrees or partially agrees that the decision was wrong and has changed all or part of the decision
  • if the AAT sets aside and remits the decision, this means it is sending the matter back to the department to be decided again in accordance with its instructions or recommendations.
Click to expand...
 
ChilbroSwaggins said:
Should we decide to appeal any decision the AFL hands out to the club (as opposed to players) what is the process? Do we go to the CAS or is straight into the civil courts? And then what happens, does a judge decide what the revised punishment might be or do they just tell the AFL to go away and think up something a little less harsh?
Click to expand...
I would have thought - just as a guess - that a civil court would be reluctant to interfere until all of the avenues available within the AFL's framework were exhausted (this is part of why the AFL created the appeals process for tribunal decisions, to reduce the risk of the courts getting involved).

So I would guess that if Essendon and / or WADA don't like the ASADA / AFL outcome, and are prepared to fight, it'd be off to CAS.

It would get complicated if timing became an issue - e. g. if Essendon were stripped points shortly before the finals and CAS were not able to hear the case until after the finals had started, Essendon might decide to go the legal path.
 
If we're found not guilty of PED use and/or cheating there's not a chance we'll lose points. Dees were caught cheating and receive $2.5m (minus $500k "fine").

Think that was Vlad's original thinking as well when in May he said we would not lose points. They say it's a possibility but again it will be on whether we have had an unfair advantage. Even Caro said Friday that she doesn't believe we had an unfair advantage this season.
 
Matthew_Lloyd said:
County Court can hear lawsuits up to $1 million. If Hird is going to sue, the figure he is suing for would be far larger than that, hence Supreme Court
Click to expand...


I thought the maximum claim for defamation is $250,000.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Illustration: Jim Pavlidis
5 THINGS ...THAT MADE US GO HMMMM ...

1 Presumably somebody's telling the truth in this whole Essendon saga, but jeez, it's getting harder and harder to explain to the kids.

2 Speaking of which, if someone had taken the time to ask a child what they think of sticking needles in your stomach when you're not actually sick, we'd have arrived at the "hurtful" and "damaging" stage about a year ago.

3 Come to mention it, how long can it take? I've had years where I've put off doing my tax return until the next decade, and still finished it faster than an ASADA investigation.

Advertisement
4 There seems to be more people talking about cricket than football just now, which can't be good for the brand.

5 Anyone know if Stephen Dank's got some drugs that'll get you through the alps, the last session, the back nine at Muirfield and the next day at work? I'm happy to sign a consent form, and not tell my parents.

ARMCHAIR FOOTY BINGO

Have you had more must-win games this season than Carlton? Do you routinely get five goals up in the game of life only to find your stomach and bowels simultaneously wanting to deposit their contents on the floor? Join in the chorus with a game of Armchair Footy Bingo! Rack up more points than Stevie J's got hanging over his head, and you win!

This weekend's targets:

* Neil Craig sees positives in Jack Watts' performance, when nobody else at the game can recall even seeing Jack Watts - 4 points

* Men get angry at Caro - 15 points

* Having woken to the headline "Steve Smith triggers England collapse", the sporting world continues to be turned on its head as GWS rolls Essendon for its first win of 2013 and the young Giants celebrate by linking arms and singing The Verve's The Drugs Don't Work - 150 points

* Newspapers publish blank sports pages, the Test Pattern becomes the most-watched show on TV and SEN airs the "crickets" noise 24-7 after the football media heeds James Hird's plea to stop speculating or jumping to conclusions without having a full grasp of the facts - 1000 points

SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION

Six steps from Stuart Broad to James Hird:

1 Stuart Broad is an English cricketer whose dad played for them too and had a summer where he was harder to shift than Ian Bell and now he looks after the spirit of the game, which is pretty funny, although they say you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family, which is a famous quote by ...

2 Harper Lee, who wrote one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and if you don't know which one then perhaps your name's David Warner, but let's not get sidetracked poking fun at people who are good at sport but not much else, because not everyone who kicks a ball is a brainbox, too, like ...

3 Mike Fitzpatrick, who's the boss of the commission and one of those "roads" scholars and wasn't GWS a good idea and now he'll have a say in what happens to Essendon, but hang on, we've still got a couple of steps to go before we get to Hirdy so let's not put the cart before the horse, especially one ridden by ...

4 Damien Oliver, the jockey who's back in the saddle after a bit of a spell for backing the wrong nag and didn't the racing industry do a great job last spring letting him ride all those winners before they got around to banning him when the carnival was over, which has been sung at the end of lots of concerts by ...

5 Judith Durham, a Seeker who went on a Morningtown Ride with men named Athol and Keith and Bruce, which probably sound like funny names to kids called Arryn and Jarryn and Jaxon, and they had lots of success singing in England too, which is a long way from her birthplace of Essendon, which brings us to ...

6 James Hird, who some people think should have walked because what's happened just isn't on and maybe it's even cheating, and others have said everyone does it so just get over it, and he's stood his ground and nothing's happened except that his team just keeps on winning, a scenario familiar to Stuart Broad.

FOOTYHEAD SAYS

The weekly something for nothing from the bloke who's a big fan of indiscriminate spending, especially from HQ:

“I reckon if we gave the money commanded by the Western Scullys to Mickey Arthur, we'd probably get an equivalent result for football expansion. Well, maybe that's stretching it, but at least I wasn't suggesting a slow rebuild at Melbourne.”



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tagger-20130719-2qa2h.html#ixzz2Zfvie4qQ
 
Could I mention an issue that I haven't seen discussed until now. One for you lawyers out there....

It looks increasingly likely that ASADA advised Essendon that AOD was not prohibited under the WADA code and that Essendon based any use on that advice. If this is situation is confirmed, can the EFC and/or players pursue a civil claim for damages against ASADA, as distinct from whatever happens at the Tribunal etc? After all, under this scenario:

Essendon/players sought advice from the appropriate statutory body

ASADA would have given unsound advice

Essendon and the players have suffered damage to their reputations, mental suffering, financial loss, etc, as a direct consequence of the flawed advice.

If Jobe were to be stripped of the Brownlow, the extent of his losses would be very significant.

Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction completely, but I would love to get comments from you lawyers (and wannabe lawyers!).

Of course, if there is a prospect of civil damages being pursued, that will have to be factored into the behind the scenes EFC/AFL/ ASADA negotiations which must be taking place. Perhaps ASADA would seek EFC and the players agreeing not to pursue civil action against it as part of any deal.

Sorting this sort of thing out could affect the time taken for the whole mess to be finalised. I'm not locking in August for everything to be sorted.
 
Old Don said:
Could I mention an issue that I haven't seen discussed until now. One for you lawyers out there....

It looks increasingly likely that ASADA advised Essendon that AOD was not prohibited under the WADA code and that Essendon based any use on that advice. If this is situation is confirmed, can the EFC and/or players pursue a civil claim for damages against ASADA, as distinct from whatever happens at the Tribunal etc? After all, under this scenario:

Essendon/players sought advice from the appropriate statutory body

ASADA would have given unsound advice

Essendon and the players have suffered damage to their reputations, mental suffering, financial loss, etc, as a direct consequence of the flawed advice.

If Jobe were to be stripped of the Brownlow, the extent of his losses would be very significant.

Perhaps I am going in the wrong direction completely, but I would love to get comments from you lawyers (and wannabe lawyers!).

Of course, if there is a prospect of civil damages being pursued, that will have to be factored into the behind the scenes EFC/AFL/ ASADA negotiations which must be taking place. Perhaps ASADA would seek EFC and the players agreeing not to pursue civil action against it as part of any deal.

Sorting this sort of thing out could affect the time taken for the whole mess to be finalised. I'm not locking in August for everything to be sorted.
Click to expand...
Most definitely a player could depending on how litigious he was.

My feeling would be that they would just want this thing gotten over with asap. However a delisted player may feel he has nothing to lose.:)
 
Oh and a final thought on this whole saga around the 'Beta 4' angle... imagine you are a footy player, imagine you are not a bio chemist. Meaning that you are likely to trust your club, your coach and your team doctor and sign the form and take the drugs. Righto. Also there is a great chance that you have no idea that there is like 50 different variants of Thomysin some of which are banned and some of which are legal. To be frank, you probably don't care because you have complete confidence in the professionalism of those around you.

Therefore it is perfectly understandable that when you are asked some 18 months later which variant exactly you were given, you may in all good faith respond with "I wouldn't have a clue mate" and hence it may be legitimate to suggest that "even the EFC players can't be sure what they were given". This however is FAR from proof that you were given an illegal substance, in fact ALL the people who DO have knowledge of bio chemistry and such have categorically stated on multiple occassions that only the legal variants of such drugs were given.

This is just one example of how a "I don't know" does NOT equal a "must have taken a banned substance" result.

THE ONLY DRUG that is 'questionable' that was actually administered to the players was AOD. This is why the investigation has focussed on this substance and the matter is FAR from resolved. No other drugs/substances or variants should be still being discussed as it just simply did not happen.

The only issues here are:
  1. If you are given incorrect advice by your governing body does that count as a valid excuse?
  2. If the substance has been classified under the wrong category then should it be banned at all?
  3. Is AOD even a 'drug' at all? There is strong reasons why it could be labelled a 'supplement' and thus not subject to the code at all.
  4. Considering the non PE status of AOD, are player sanctions or team sanctions justified?
  5. The AFL code allows for a 'reprimand' in case involved specified substances, player co-operation and other mitigating factors - which this case has all three.
  6. What punishments (if any are given) will stand up under intense legal scrutiny so as not to bring the AFL/ASADA/WADA into protracted and messy legal battles.
James Hird believes we will be in a 'very strong position' at the end of this:
Top 2 on the ladder, heading for first top 4 finish in over 10 years, healthy list with no long term injuries, great stable of young talent included Carlisle, Hooker, Hurley, Crameri, Gumbleton, Daniher, Ryder, Bellchambers, Myers, Melksham, Heppell, Zaka etc etc etc that are signed up and passionate, strong stars across all lines and positions, good depth in key roles, strong coaching staff and game plan, great defence and attack and balance between both aspects of the game, first class training facilities and two purpose built ovals, strong financial position and stability at board level, record membership and revenue, game attendance and fan participation levels.

Can't help but feel that all adds up to a "very, very strong position" in my book!!
 
rines said:
Oh and a final thought on this whole sage around the 'Beta 4' angle... imagine you are a footy player, imagine you are not a bio chemist. Meaning that you are likely to trust your club, your coach and your team doctor and sign the form and take the drugs. Righto. Also there is a great chance that you have no idea that there is like 50 different variants of Thomysin some of which are banned and some of which are legal. To be frank, you probably don't care because you have complete confidence in the professionalism of those around you.

Therefore it is perfectly understandable that when you are asked some 18 months later which variant exactly you were given, you may in all good faith respond with "I wouldn't have a clue mate" and hence it may be legitimate to suggest that "even the EFC players can't be sure what they were given". This however is FAR from proof that you were given an illegal substance, in fact ALL the people who DO have knowledge of bio chemistry and such have categorically stated on multiple occassions that only the legal variants of such drugs were given.

This is just one example of how a "I don't know" does NOT equal a "must have taken a banned substance" result.

THE ONLY DRUG that is 'questionable' that was actually administered to the players was AOD. This is why the investigation has focussed on this substance and the matter is FAR from resolved. No other drugs/substances or variants should be still being discussed as it just simply did not happen.

The only issues here are:
  1. If you are given incorrect advice by your governing body does that count as a valid excuse?
  2. If the substance has been classified under the wrong category then should it be banned at all?
  3. Is AOD even a 'drug' at all? There is strong reasons why it could be labelled a 'supplement' and thus not subject to the code at all.
  4. Considering the non PE status of AOD, are player sanctions or team sanctions justified?
  5. The AFL code allows for a 'reprimand' in case involved specified substances, player co-operation and other mitigating factors - which this case has all three.
  6. What punishments (if any are given) will stand up under intense legal scrutiny so as not to bring the AFL/ASADA/WADA into protracted and messy legal battles.
James Hird believes we will be in a 'very strong position' at the end of this:

Top 2 on the ladder, heading for first top 4 finish in over 10 years, healthy list with no long term injuries, great stable of young talent included Carlisle, Hooker, Hurley, Crameri, Gumbleton, Daniher, Ryder, Bellchambers, Myers, Melksham, Heppell, Zaka etc etc etc that are signed up and passionate, strong stars across all lines and positions, good depth in key roles, strong coaching staff and game plan, great defence and attack and balance between both aspects of the game, first class training facilities and two purpose built ovals, strong financial position and stability at board level, record membership and revenue, game attendance and fan participation levels.

Can't help but feel that all adds up to a "very, very strong position" in my book!!
Click to expand...

give this guy a medal
 
rines said:
:
  1. If you are given incorrect advice by your governing body does that count as a valid excuse?
  2. If the substance has been classified under the wrong category then should it be banned at all?
  3. Is AOD even a 'drug' at all? There is strong reasons why it could be labelled a 'supplement' and thus not subject to the code at all.
  4. Considering the non PE status of AOD, are player sanctions or team sanctions justified?
  5. The AFL code allows for a 'reprimand' in case involved specified substances, player co-operation and other mitigating factors - which this case has all three.
  6. What punishments (if any are given) will stand up under intense legal scrutiny so as not to bring the AFL/ASADA/WADA into protracted and messy legal battles.
James Hird believes we will be in a 'very strong position' at the end of this:
Can't help but feel that all adds up to a "very, very strong position" in my book!!
Click to expand...
1. They technically didn't give 'wrong' advice - it has been a lie by omission. You have many articles with the WADA boss saying it doesn't matter - although he refuses to comment specifically on EFC. Although ASADA are saying we don't have a case to answer for. Guess which one the media are playing up.
2. A substance can only be classified in one category - all categories are banned substances. IF AOD could be classified as S2 (which by my reasoning it can be), then it cannot fall under S0. Who care? well we do have that lovely quote from ASADA saying it's not banned under S2.
3. The WADA code has all of that tied up. Supplements can contain banned substances and therefore still be banned.
4. If AOD is banned, probably both.
5. Yes a player reprimand is still on the cards. It will depend on the outcome of the investigation though.
6. If EFC feels the punishments are too hard eg what the muppets on the hot topics board are suggesting, EFC has a right of appeal. The punishment should fit the crime (if there indeed was a crime).

I like your optimism, but I think we will be in at least some trouble. One thing that I have been thinking lately is regarding the compounding chemist. This aspect has dropped right out of the media spotlight - I think Dank may have been using a compound chemist and prescriptions to aid in getting past S0.
 
rines said:
I can still get a medal though can't I pepsi?
Click to expand...

I think he is only qualified to give you a refreshing Cola beverage. I'm ok with that though.
 
rines' posts in the past week or two on the whole issue are well worth reading, everyone.
 
Sorry Duckworth.. my questions were meant to essentially summarise what I believe to be the current considerations.

We will all have to wait on the answers.. but I believe yours are maybe a tad simplistic.. in that from a legal standpoint it would be very easy to argue that IF you are an athlete and you have been told 'xyz is NOT banned under S2' then IT IS reasonable for you to assume the status of that drug is 'not banned'. If WADA and ASADA want to claim that you can seek advice but then you should ignore that advice and still assume its banned.. well that opens a can of worms.

And don't assume that WADA is always right.. in fact they bugger up more cases than they get right.. hence why (sadly) drugs are still very rampant in many sports across the globe.

Oh and if WADA want to get their knickers in a knot over a couple of AFL players taking AOD for around a month... well party on cyclists, party on weightlifters and go wild swimmers.. cause we ALL need to get serious here.. it is becoming clear that taking AOD is about as performance enhancing as using deep heat.. perhaps less!

Yes I may be optimistic.. but I don't believe I am delusional nor stupid.

People should be so quick to write off the team and club as a pack of liars and cheats.

Oh and thanks for the nice words all.. it has been great to share some of what I'm hearing in a safe place!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lore
Coaching Staff Kevin Sheedy elevated to Immortal of the Essendon Football Club
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Howard Moon
Howard Moon
eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
405
Views
42K
fishardansin
fishardansin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top