News Dons ASADA scandal (Latest: Pg 101 - CAS verdict. Guilty, 12 months.)

[Apex36]

They have to issue notices if there is a "possibility of doping offence" NOT that they are confident of getting the desired result.

To secure a prosecution they need to prove it according to the standard of proof. Assumptions wont be enough

Prosecution? This is not a standard court of law buddy, nobody is being arrested or even accused of doing something 'illegal', as your flognuts president likes to say.
This is about sanctions due to the use of banned substances under the WADA code. I think you'll find the burden of proof is significantly different to what's required in a court of law.

 

[letstayunited]

Prosecution? This is not a standard court of law buddy, nobody is being arrested or even accused of doing something 'illegal', as your flognuts president likes to say.
This is about sanctions due to the use of banned substances under the WADA code. I think you'll find the burden of proof is significantly different to what's required in a court of law.

Very eloquent use of the English language. Can't say i've heard the word "flognuts" before, and I can't say I plan to add it to my vocabulary in the near future.

Seeing as you don't appear what the standard or proof is with regard to the Essendon situation, please allow me to enlighten you.

The exact wording in the WADA code is "somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt"

Those are the same standards of proof that are used in what you refer to as a "court of law".

i.e.

Civil Courts - balance of probabilities.

Criminal Courts - beyond reasonable doubt.

Excuse the pun, but i rest my case.

 

[letstayunited]

Prosecution? This is not a standard court of law buddy, nobody is being arrested or even accused of doing something 'illegal', as your flognuts president likes to say.
This is about sanctions due to the use of banned substances under the WADA code. I think you'll find the burden of proof is significantly different to what's required in a court of law.

Very eloquent use of the English language. Can't say i've heard the word "flognuts" before, and I can't say I plan to add it to my vocabulary in the near future.

Seeing as you don't appear to have any knowledge of the standard or proof with regard to alleged anti doping offences, please allow me to enlighten you.

The exact wording in the WADA code is "somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt"

Those are the same standards of proof that are used in what you refer to as a "court of law".

i.e.

Civil Courts - balance of probabilities.

Criminal Courts - beyond reasonable doubt.

Excuse the pun, but i rest my case.

 

[Apex36]

Very eloquent use of the English language. Can't say i've heard the word "flognuts" before, and I can't say I plan to add it to my vocabulary in the near future.

Seeing as you don't appear to have any knowledge of the standard or proof with regard to alleged anti doping offences, please allow me to enlighten you.

The exact wording in the WADA code is "somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt"

Those are the same standards of proof that are used in what you refer to as a "court of law".

i.e.

Civil Courts - balance of probabilities.

Criminal Courts - beyond reasonable doubt.

Excuse the pun, but i rest my case.

Oh dear. Have I offended your delicate sensibilities by using slang?

In answer to your statement, since you used the term prosecution, it would be reasonable to assume that we were talking about the standards held by criminal courts, rather than civil courts in which the accuser is referred to as the plaintiff.

Now we have that out of the way, we can agree, that WADA, do indeed, not require the same burden of proof as the criminal courts, and you can stop acting as if you're somehow intellectually superior to others on this board.

 

[vjknight]

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2014-09/wada-statement-on-nrl-sanctions#.VCpmCBbm6Gx

The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives).
It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.

If that ain't a message to the essendon players............

WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way.
​

Not in the way the next case will.

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

Assuming they are guilty you mean?

I can't see the AFL handing out suspensions if there is not a finding of guilt.

I find it very interesting that your club chose to take the AFL/ASADA to court in order to appeal the legality of the investigation. If Essendon truly felt that no wrong had been done the logical thing would be to fight the infraction notices when they are issued. The court attempt was a desperate attempt to stop the infraction notices, and we all know how that ended up. Taking this to court said a lot about where Essendon think they stand in regards to giving their players banned substances.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

An infraction notice is only a charge, not a finding of guilt.

Its like if the police charge you with something, then you have a chance to defend yourself. Then you either found guilty or not guilty.

If an infraction notice is issued and a hearing takes place and the evidence is presented (finally) and tested (finally) and then players are found guilty and miss games then the club/afl will look at removing support staff, coaches etc....

I didn't say it was.
However if one is issued Hird will no option but to resign

 

[Baltimore Jack]

They have to issue notices if there is a "possibility of doping offence" NOT that they are confident of getting the desired result.

To secure a prosecution they need to prove it according to the standard of proof. Assumptions wont be enough

You are confusing Show Cause Letters and Infraction Notices

The Standard of proof is similar to Briganshaw (i.e to the satisfaction of a tribunal)

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

With the prospects of GCS sacking McKenna and the murmurings that they are likely to appoint Mark Thompson as coach, is this a risk?

Not sure what powers ASADA actually have, but do they have the power to terminate a coach's accreditation? Because if they do and they think that Thompson was involved in the drugs saga and terminate his coaching accreditation, Gold Coast could all of a sudden find they are coachless.

 

[letstayunited]

I can't see the AFL handing out suspensions if there is not a finding of guilt.

I find it very interesting that your club chose to take the AFL/ASADA to court in order to appeal the legality of the investigation. If Essendon truly felt that no wrong had been done the logical thing would be to fight the infraction notices when they are issued. The court attempt was a desperate attempt to stop the infraction notices, and we all know how that ended up. Taking this to court said a lot about where Essendon think they stand in regards to giving their players banned substances.

Or that it had been going on for 2 years and the club were sick of it and wanted it over.

Also that we had already been punished.

Etc etc

 

[letstayunited]

I can't see the AFL handing out suspensions if there is not a finding of guilt.

I find it very interesting that your club chose to take the AFL/ASADA to court in order to appeal the legality of the investigation. If Essendon truly felt that no wrong had been done the logical thing would be to fight the infraction notices when they are issued. The court attempt was a desperate attempt to stop the infraction notices, and we all know how that ended up. Taking this to court said a lot about where Essendon think they stand in regards to giving their players banned substances.

Or that it had been going on for 2 years and the club were sick of it and wanted it over.

Also that we had already been punished.

Etc etc

 

[letstayunited]

You are confusing Show Cause Letters and Infraction Notices

The Standard of proof is similar to Briganshaw (i.e to the satisfaction of a tribunal)

No I think you are confused.

That is not the standard of proof

 

[letstayunited]

Oh dear. Have I offended your delicate sensibilities by using slang?

In answer to your statement, since you used the term prosecution, it would be reasonable to assume that we were talking about the standards held by criminal courts, rather than civil courts in which the accuser is referred to as the plaintiff.

Now we have that out of the way, we can agree, that WADA, do indeed, not require the same burden of proof as the criminal courts, and you can stop acting as if you're somehow intellectually superior to others on this board.

You didn't offend me at all, just gave me an insight into what type of person I was dealing with.

From memory you questioned my use of the word prosecution.

Just to assist with your education I have gone to the trouble of cut and pasting the EXACT wording from the ASADA website.

"ASADA enforces any breach of a policy by ensuring those violating anti-doping rules are prosecuted and sanctioned".

Just in case you have trust issues, please feel free to verify my source at:

http://www.asada.gov.au/about/index.html

Now that we have THAT out of the way...........

 

[Obese Arachnid]

No I think you are confused.

That is not the standard of proof

You barrack for a disgusting club with the morals of Carlton, harsh but fair.
Now please kindly P O & go back to the Hirdashians board & talk about how the AFL is picking on you & it's all their fault.

 

[Apex36]

You didn't offend me at all, just gave me an insight into what type of person I was dealing with.

From memory you questioned my use of the word prosecution.

Just to assist with your education I have gone to the trouble of cut and pasting the EXACT wording from the ASADA website.

"ASADA enforces any breach of a policy by ensuring those violating anti-doping rules are prosecuted and sanctioned".

Just in case you have trust issues, please feel free to verify my source at:

http://www.asada.gov.au/about/index.html

Now that we have THAT out of the way...........

Someone who doesn't blindly support an administration whom not only cheats, but puts their players health at risk at the same time just to try and get some stupid silverware.

The rest of your post was a nice bit of deflection from the end issue which was regarding the burden of proof, which we had already established was based on the evidence required in the criminal courts, but hey, I guess deflecting from the real issue is what people associated with your filthy club have become adept at over the past couple of years.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Or that it had been going on for 2 years and the club were sick of it and wanted it over.

Also that we had already been punished.

Etc etc

Oh dear, we have a Hirdashian among us.
"Its not fair, its not our fault, we didn't drug our kids, the AFL have already punished us, it was Dank he went rogue, no, no, it was all the Weapons fault"

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

Or that it had been going on for 2 years and the club were sick of it and wanted it over.

Also that we had already been punished.

Etc etc

ah no, you have not so far been punished for using banned substances.
IF and I say if it is found that players were given banned substances, then suspensions will be handed out. It is apparent that ASADA and the AFL are fairly confident that banned substances were given, hence the issuing of the SCN, and the Infraction notices which will be given shortly.
Player suspension = punishment

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

IN Breaking new:
Essendon will no longer be known as the Bombers
From 2015, they will be known as the Essendon Ostrich's

 

[MooreTreloar]

Oh dear, we have a Hirdashian among us.
"Its not fair, its not our fault, we didn't drug our kids, the AFL have already punished us, it was Dank he went rogue, no, no, it was all the Weapons fault"

"James Hird? No, he's done nothing wrong, the AFL just hate him."

 

[Snoop Dog]

Can you believe this guy.......he just keeps making bad decision after bad decision.

I guess in some ways his career hangs by a thread but he should realise so to do many many players whose parents entrusted him with theirs sons care. There is no question he failed them.......if only bc he doesnt know what happened with the injections, where, what they were given etc. Its time to let the players see the evidence and move on. Be surprised if ASADA show the players their brief of evidence given this.

He should cop his whack, standout of footy, wait some time and repair his image on the premise 'i was the scapegoat'......he may just have enough support left to return but from what I hear amongst his peers he is 'persona non grata' pretty much already.

 

[mattys123]

Hird told not to attend the B and F tonight, and they are having a board meeting tomorrow.

They may actually be going to do it finally, sack the bastard.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The Age breaking it here ...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...t-thursday-board-meeting-20141001-10ot99.html

 

[rand corp]

Gaaaawn

 

[MooreTreloar]

I just hope Bomber doesn't coach them next year. I'd rather he coach Gold Coast.

 

[MooreTreloar]

#bringbackknights