"The AGE" doesn't know the WADA Code

Feb 9, 2012
9,142
14,920
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There is that possibility .... or he/she could be desperately trying to defuse the possibility of a stirring away from home win against the best team in the comp who were beaten by the number 3 team!
Problem is, no one will give you any credit if you do win. They'll put it down to the drugs.

That's the unfortunate consequence of what your team has done both during, and after, the doping program.
 
Feb 9, 2012
9,142
14,920
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
There is no step anywhere in the process at which a player is required "to prove they were not administered illegal substances."
You can't be serious. In PRACTICAL terms that is what they need to do in response to the SCNs. If they can demonstrate their innocence the ADRV process stops. If they can't then it continues. Get it?
 
Did you go into any of the threads bagging out the pro essendon media and ask what the point of the thread was?

Certainly the most recent example (other than this) of where I've questioned the need for a thread is the now locked Robbo is the most hated man or whatever it was. But yes, I've certainly either done that in the ridiculous ones or just not gone into them.
 
Certainly the most recent example (other than this) of where I've questioned the need for a thread is the now locked Robbo is the most hated man or whatever it was. But yes, I've certainly either done that in the ridiculous ones or just not gone into them.
But couldn't do that here Jen? :D
 

slashin_velvet

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 5, 2011
8,224
15,812
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
Absolute made-up false journalistic tripe from The Age anti-Essendon rag:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ust-as-hird-set-to-return-20140729-zy52m.html

The burden of proof lies with the AFL, not with the player, according to both the AFL code and the WADA Code.
AFL CODE:

WADA CODE:

The AGE also still doesn't know the massive difference between "illegal substances" and substances which are prohibited in sport. Jon Pierik is either an ignorant person or a malicious one.
Never heard of a defence bobby?

Burden of proof lies with the AFL, but if they have enough evidence for proof at the relevant tolerance level - be it beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities - then the players will need to submit enough evidence to show why this evidence paints a misleading picture.
 

thethinkingcat

Senior List
May 20, 2014
259
159
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Nor, it seems, does your president.
Neither do you.
The fact that essendon had to come out and make another statement about Fairfax media publishing inappropriate commentary in their articles means that the journos from fairfax media who were involved with the articles they wrote about essendon, are in deep strife with the club.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2014-07-29/efc-board-statement

As a result of ongoing inaccurate and mischievous reporting by Fairfax Media the Essendon Football Club Board wishes to re-confirm its position relating to James Hird.

The Board is unanimous in its support of James and the strategy in place relating to his return to the Club. To suggest the Board is split in its support for James is simply not true.

Given the testing time our Club has been through over the past two years, the Board is immensely proud of the resilience of our players, coaches, staff and supporters and have no doubt that the ongoing loyalty of everyone at Essendon will continue to galvanise our Club.

We are united as a Club and the Essendon Board will continue to make decisions in the best interest of our players, staff and members.
 
Last edited:

Bluez Rule

All Australian
Nov 8, 2011
924
1,499
Farnarcklia
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Renegades, DJR Penske, Trent Rckts
ingest/inject.....didn't see a doctor/saw a chemist......mexico/new mexico.....illegal/prohibited......not prohibited s2/check S0.........Charters & Hird met/didn't meet....we know what was given to players was safe/we don't have records of what we gave to players......etc etc etc
just another attem[t to spin spin spin, clutch at straws & deflect
 

Bobby Charlton

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2013
1,050
554
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Leicester City
Nor, it seems, does your president.
Little is not my president. His statements asserting that the players have not been administered illegal drugs may not have relevance but those statements are not false. Jon Pierik's statement in the OP is false.
 

Bobby Charlton

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2013
1,050
554
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Leicester City
You can't be serious. In PRACTICAL terms that is what they need to do in response to the SCNs. If they can demonstrate their innocence the ADRV process stops. If they can't then it continues. Get it?
No. There is no requirement to make a submission in response to a notification from ASADA. Your use of the word "need" is not appropriate and not in accordance with the NAD Scheme.
 
Jul 22, 2013
18,777
27,426
AFL Club
Carlton
I wouldn't expect all casual bigfooty posters and readers to know the difference between illegal substances and substances prohibited to sports persons but I would expect a journalist of a major newspaper to know the difference.

You might even expect the Chairman of an AFL Club to know the differences between illegal, prohibited, harmful, untested, injected and ingested.

And yet Paul Little seems to think they are interchangeable.......
 

hoianbulldog

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 2, 2006
5,550
6,289
Hoi An, Vietnam. I am off the grid.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
ingest/inject.....didn't see a doctor/saw a chemist......mexico/new mexico.....illegal/prohibited......not prohibited s2/check S0.........Charters & Hird met/didn't meet....we know what was given to players was safe/we don't have records of what we gave to players......etc etc etc
just another attem[t to spin spin spin, clutch at straws & deflect
Good summary of the past 16 months.
 
Jul 22, 2013
18,777
27,426
AFL Club
Carlton
Never heard of a defence bobby?

Burden of proof lies with the AFL, but if they have enough evidence for proof at the relevant tolerance level - be it beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities - then the players will need to submit enough evidence to show why this evidence paints a misleading picture.

It's not that simple. The rules for proving circumstantial cases require an unbroken sequence of evidence supporting the narrative from A to Z. If the defence can cast sufficient doubt on M, N, O then it doesn't matter that A to L and P to Z remain ironclad.

It's what takes the Federal Court challenge from being a wild shot in the dark and makes it worth a crack.
 

Albert Ross

Premiership Player
Nov 24, 2012
3,437
6,242
Portland, Victoria
AFL Club
GWS
ingest/inject.....didn't see a doctor/saw a chemist......mexico/new mexico.....illegal/prohibited......not prohibited s2/check S0.........Charters & Hird met/didn't meet....we know what was given to players was safe/we don't have records of what we gave to players......etc etc etc
just another attem[t to spin spin spin, clutch at straws & deflect

intravenous injections v subcutaneous injenctions
 

slashin_velvet

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 5, 2011
8,224
15,812
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
It's not that simple. The rules for proving circumstantial cases require an unbroken sequence of evidence supporting the narrative from A to Z. If the defence can cast sufficient doubt on M, N, O then it doesn't matter that A to L and P to Z remain ironclad.

It's what takes the Federal Court challenge from being a wild shot in the dark and makes it worth a crack.
Does my simplification of the process make it wrong?
 
Apr 6, 2008
18,324
14,518
coburg
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Australian cricket team
You can't be serious. In PRACTICAL terms that is what they need to do in response to the SCNs. If they can demonstrate their innocence the ADRV process stops. If they can't then it continues. Get it?

Absolutely correct. It will go to the ADRV panel if after a players response ASADA thinks that they have a case to answer. Then at the tribunal ASADA will have to prove that that particular player (at each of the 34 trials if they were to go ahead) was administered TB4 (or any other banned substance).

So at this stage I'd agree that there is a case to answer or evidence should be put on the table, depends which way you want to spin that. However, if ASADA doesn't have some killer evidence that they're holding back no player will get done on what we've already seen. In fact they can't say with a high degree of confidence that TB4 was actually at the club.

All we have is a "Thymosin" that Alavi says he wasn't sure what they were and Dank took them away for testing. Charters says it was TB4 that he imported. We don't have enough for 34 players.

Problem is, no one will give you any credit if you do win. They'll put it down to the drugs.

That's the unfortunate consequence of what your team has done both during, and after, the doping program.

What absolute rubbish. 60k+ members will be thrilled and give the boys all the credit as well as the many barrackers out there who don't have a membership. Also those who spend less time in this echo chamber would not be thinking that even if Essendon were to have doped with the substances that some around here seem to think certainly were administered they wouldn't be getting a benefit at all now. The small amount of people who believe what you do are not important and wont get in the way of Essendon enjoying any success.
 
Sep 15, 2009
13,126
11,013
Gippsland
AFL Club
Collingwood
Absolutely correct. It will go to the ADRV panel if after a players response ASADA thinks that they have a case to answer. Then at the tribunal ASADA will have to prove that that particular player (at each of the 34 trials if they were to go ahead) was administered TB4 (or any other banned substance).

So at this stage I'd agree that there is a case to answer or evidence should be put on the table, depends which way you want to spin that. However, if ASADA doesn't have some killer evidence that they're holding back no player will get done on what we've already seen. In fact they can't say with a high degree of confidence that TB4 was actually at the club.

All we have is a "Thymosin" that Alavi says he wasn't sure what they were and Dank took them away for testing. Charters says it was TB4 that he imported. We don't have enough for 34 players.



What absolute rubbish. 60k+ members will be thrilled and give the boys all the credit as well as the many barrackers out there who don't have a membership. Also those who spend less time in this echo chamber would not be thinking that even if Essendon were to have doped with the substances that some around here seem to think certainly were administered they wouldn't be getting a benefit at all now. The small amount of people who believe what you do are not important and wont get in the way of Essendon enjoying any success.
Small amount? define.
not what i take from most people i talk to, some even Essendon supporters
 
Jan 2, 2009
12,963
20,910
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Little is not my president. His statements asserting that the players have not been administered illegal drugs may not have relevance but those statements are not false. Jon Pierik's statement in the OP is false.

Who wears number 14 for Sydney? Oh and please be honest and try to answer without running off to Google.
 
Feb 9, 2012
9,142
14,920
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Little is not my president.
Apologies. Still trying to maintain the façade that you're a swans supporter are you?
His statements asserting that the players have not been administered illegal drugs may not have relevance but those statements are not false. Jon Pierik's statement in the OP is false.
Cur out the cr*p. We both know what he said was misleading.
No. There is no requirement to make a submission in response to a notification from ASADA. Your use of the word "need" is not appropriate and not in accordance with the NAD Scheme.
Are you deliberately trying to be dense, or does is just come naturally? Context man, context. IF they want the process to stop they NEED to produce evidence in response to the SCNs that demonstrates their innocence.
 
Jul 22, 2013
18,777
27,426
AFL Club
Carlton
Does my simplification of the process make it wrong?

I think the unbroken narrative rules for circumstantial cases is a commonly overlooked point when thinking about "comfortable satisfaction". The tribunal must have a comfortable satisfaction that the narrative is unbroken. Not merely a warm feeling that the overall weight of evidence leans strongly towards the violation having taken place, as we tend to think of it .

Therefore it is conceivable that discrediting a single and apparently unspectacular item of evidence might break the narrative, and break the case, despite masses of evidence pointing towards the case being proven.
 
Back