Nor, it seems, does your president.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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nor, it seems, does your president.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.
Problem is, no one will give you any credit if you do win. They'll put it down to the drugs.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!
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?There is no step anywhere in the process at which a player is required "to prove they were not administered illegal substances."
Did you go into any of the threads bagging out the pro essendon media and ask what the point of the thread was?
But couldn't do that here Jen?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.
Never heard of a defence bobby?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.
No, because it was just too stupid.But couldn't do that here Jen?
Neither do you.Nor, it seems, does your president.
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.
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.Nor, it seems, does your president.
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.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?
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.
Good summary of the past 16 months.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
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.
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
Does my simplification of the process make it wrong?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.
Try to get an injunction.So tell us what the players do after SCN's are delivered, what is the first step?
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?
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.
Small amount? define.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.
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.
How would you know? I'd say they would have a very high degree of confidence, as would your club who are so scared they have to hope the fed court will save them.In fact they can't say with a high degree of confidence that TB4 was actually at the club.
Apologies. Still trying to maintain the façade that you're a swans supporter are you?Little is not my president.
Cur out the cr*p. We both know what he said was misleading.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.
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.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.
Does my simplification of the process make it wrong?