No Oppo Supporters The ASADA Thread... from a Tiger perspective

[Ned_Flanders]

Fight the charges on a technicallity.

Correct me if im wrong, but if they had evidence to prove they didn't take TB4, this would be the time at which they could put forward that evidence and end the whole thing...

and thats why its unnecessary - no chance of ASADA being convinced their own argument is insufficient, after all they chose to issue the SCN

also how do you prove a negative? can you prove you have never had TB4?

by going to the AFL ASADA has to make their case.

 

[WATiger86]

and thats why its unnecessary - no chance of ASADA being convinced their own argument is insufficient, after all they chose to issue the SCN.

It's only unnecessary as Essendons record keeping was garbage. If they had all their ducks in a row, they could pull out reciepts for the "good" thymosin and it's case dismissed.

also how do you prove a negative? can you prove you have never had TB4?

by going to the AFL ASADA has to make their case.

The circumstantial evidence is damning. They have traced the TB4 being sourced from china by charter, delivered to Alvi at the clinic essendon were using. The only thing that is in doubt (thanks to essendons poor record keeping) is exactly who received what, but based on the number and frequency of injections the players were receiving, and the absence of any other peptides that were being compounded for essendon, there is only one logical inference.

Essendons case is what? "Prove we took it"? "the consent forms said Thymosin, and Danky, after saying TB4 in an interview and later going back on that, recons it was the AIDS immune booster, not the bad one?!" Please...

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It's only unnecessary as Essendons record keeping was garbage. If they had all their ducks in a row, they could pull out reciepts for the "good" thymosin and it's case dismissed.



The circumstantial evidence is damning. They have traced the TB4 being sourced from china by charter, delivered to Alvi at the clinic essendon were using. The only thing that is in doubt (thanks to essendons poor record keeping) is exactly who received what, but based on the number and frequency of injections the players were receiving, and the absence of any other peptides that were being compounded for essendon, there is only one logical inference.

Essendons case is what? "Prove we took it"? "the consent forms said Thymosin, and Danky, after saying TB4 in an interview and later going back on that, recons it was the AIDS immune booster, not the bad one?!" Please...

You're confusing two different issues

First a SCN has been issued because ASADA is convinced there is a case to answer, so its only a chance to present more evidence. As has been discussed elsewhere, the need to respond to a SCN is a relic of PED use in years gone by. Its no longer relevant, and could be easily removed from this process.

Secondly, you haven't seen the evidence (none of us have), so how do you know its damning? What ASADA have is a circumstantial case they believe meets the standard of proof required. contesting the SCN wont change this, because EFC has already given ASADA all its info. What has to happen is the evidence and the case need to be tested, and this will only be done when the AFL hear the case.

responding to the SCN just delays the inevitable, something the players don't want (delays).

 

[Tiger Toffee]

You're confusing two different issues

First a SCN has been issued because ASADA is convinced there is a case to answer, so its only a chance to present more evidence. As has been discussed elsewhere, the need to respond to a SCN is a relic of PED use in years gone by. Its no longer relevant, and could be easily removed from this process.

Secondly, you haven't seen the evidence (none of us have), so how do you know its damning? What ASADA have is a circumstantial case they believe meets the standard of proof required. contesting the SCN wont change this, because EFC has already given ASADA all its info. What has to happen is the evidence and the case need to be tested, and this will only be done when the AFL hear the case.

responding to the SCN just delays the inevitable, something the players don't want (delays).

Isn't Australia the only country that has a SCN stage, don't every other country go straight to the tribunal stage, so in effect all they are doing is what the rest of the world does anyway.

 

[WATiger86]

First a SCN has been issued because ASADA is convinced there is a case to answer, so its only a chance to present more evidence. As has been discussed elsewhere, the need to respond to a SCN is a relic of PED use in years gone by. Its no longer relevant, and could be easily removed from this process.

My understanding of the SCN stage is this - correct me if im wrong. ASADA are not compelled to produce evidence with the SCN's, rather it's letting the athlete know that they wish to proceed with a case against them. The only reason they did add a shed load of evidence in this case was at the request of the players lawyers.

The stage was originally developed to allow the athlete to quash the case if they had the supporting evidence at a stage before an infraction notice was issued and they had to sit out from competition. If essendon players could prove they didn't take TB4 (e.g. here is the paper trail that shows the club ordering a safe, legal pepitde that we were injected with) this stage would be FAR from redundant... But I agree that in this day and age an anti doping authority won't issue a SCN without a reasonable investigation and review so the step is somewhat redundant.

Secondly, you haven't seen the evidence (none of us have), so how do you know its damning? What ASADA have is a circumstantial case they believe meets the standard of proof required. contesting the SCN wont change this, because EFC has already given ASADA all its info. What has to happen is the evidence and the case need to be tested, and this will only be done when the AFL hear the case.

responding to the SCN just delays the inevitable, something the players don't want (delays).

By the same token, why are you convinced it's not? And why do you choose to side with Essendon? I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but there is a greater leap of faith and logic to come to the conclusion that the players weren't injected with TB4 than visa versa IMO.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

At the end of the dsy....ASADA will have the last word in all this mess...
Not the Lawyers...AFL...or the Bumbers Reps...

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Isn't Australia the only country that has a SCN stage, don't every other country go straight to the tribunal stage, so in effect all they are doing is what the rest of the world does anyway.

I think so. I forget the reason for it, but apparently it was brought in before a lot of the current processes we now have were introduced

 

[Ned_Flanders]

My understanding of the SCN stage is this - correct me if im wrong. ASADA are not compelled to produce evidence with the SCN's, rather it's letting the athlete know that they wish to proceed with a case against them. The only reason they did add a shed load of evidence in this case was at the request of the players lawyers.

The stage was originally developed to allow the athlete to quash the case if they had the supporting evidence at a stage before an infraction notice was issued and they had to sit out from competition. If essendon players could prove they didn't take TB4 (e.g. here is the paper trail that shows the club ordering a safe, legal pepitde that we were injected with) this stage would be FAR from redundant... But I agree that in this day and age an anti doping authority won't issue a SCN without a reasonable investigation and review so the step is somewhat redundant.




By the same token, why are you convinced it's not? And why do you choose to side with Essendon? I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but there is a greater leap of faith and logic to come to the conclusion that the players weren't injected with TB4 than visa versa IMO.

Firstly its a charge. Yes they don't have to show the evidence, and that has nothing to do with my point. I believe the reason this stage was introduced was back when cases were primarily testing based. It allowed athletes (I believe) a chance to show alternate test results or data that can repudiate the positive doping test result.

On this case, its completely pointless. ASADA believe they have a worthwhile circumstantial case based upon all the info EFC has provided then. Contesting the SCN would effectively be arguing with them to change their mind based upon the same info. Its a pointless exercise.


Secondly, you are making massive assumptions on what I believe. Find one post where I have said EFC is innocent, and this is a worthless exercise by ASADA. I'll save you the time though, you won't. I have been banging my drum about the club/players having the right to a fair, independent, and transparent investigation and trial. I felt the joint investigation was a farce (given the AFL history of contrived investigations), and the lack of transparency has been laughable. What I have also been against is sanctioning players and the club prior to a guilty verdict. I thought the interim report was a joke, because it was always to be used to sanction EFC prior to finals, but the investigation was still ongoing.

None of this is believing EFC is innocent. In fact I was one of the few who considered the Ziggy report damning, and believed any senior management responsible for the supplement program needed to be moved on, plus the entire board. The only qualifier I had was that I was understanding of them staying in their roles until after the ASADA investigation was concluded because while at the club they must cooperate with the investigation, and the ASADA investigation would (you hope) put absolute clarity on those who are responsible.

I've been called an EFC troll account who should be banned from this board, a shithouse RFC supporter who should have his membership revoked by the club, and an evil and immoral human being. If you wish to join that conga line, feel free.

Also, as someone who has a history with the supply chain side of selling these products, IMO there should be a lot more to back up use at the club than "Dank bought a lot of it". Until I see more details on these records (and there will be some, its impossible to have none) I'm not making any prejudgement. People forget Dank was running his own business, and had a minor case of medicare fraud while at EFC. We need to make sure the items in question were actually used at the club - not just by Dank.

 

[WATiger86]

Secondly, you are making massive assumptions on what I believe. Find one post where I have said EFC is innocent, and this is a worthless exercise by ASADA. I'll save you the time though, you won't. I have been banging my drum about the club/players having the right to a fair, independent, and transparent investigation and trial. I felt the joint investigation was a farce (given the AFL history of contrived investigations), and the lack of transparency has been laughable. What I have also been against is sanctioning players and the club prior to a guilty verdict. I thought the interim report was a joke, because it was always to be used to sanction EFC prior to finals, but the investigation was still ongoing.

None of this is believing EFC is innocent. In fact I was one of the few who considered the Ziggy report damning, and believed any senior management responsible for the supplement program needed to be moved on, plus the entire board. The only qualifier I had was that I was understanding of them staying in their roles until after the ASADA investigation was concluded because while at the club they must cooperate with the investigation, and the ASADA investigation would (you hope) put absolute clarity on those who are responsible.

I've been called an EFC troll account who should be banned from this board, a shithouse RFC supporter who should have his membership revoked by the club, and an evil and immoral human being. If you wish to join that conga line, feel free.

Also, as someone who has a history with the supply chain side of selling these products, IMO there should be a lot more to back up use at the club than "Dank bought a lot of it". Until I see more details on these records (and there will be some, its impossible to have none) I'm not making any prejudgement. People forget Dank was running his own business, and had a minor case of medicare fraud while at EFC. We need to make sure the items in question were actually used at the club - not just by Dank.

You seem to have taken this discussion personally and have got all defensive. That was not my intent.

The whole point of my original post was to make the point (somewhat facetiously) that if essendon could prove their innocence, the SCN stage wouldn’t be a waste of time like some would have us believe. They can't due to their piss poor record keeping, so on we go to the next step.

On the subject of the AFL, their conduct and the joint investigation/interim report, I side with Justice Middleton’s verdict. The AFL run their own competition and as such should be able to make their decisions preserving the interests of the game, without fear of legal recourse. Anything else would be nonsense on stilts!

Oh and i dont plan on rushing out to buy a fruit hat to join the conga line anytime soon....

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You seem to have taken this discussion personally and have got all defensive. That was not my intent.

The whole point of my original post was to make the point (somewhat facetiously) that if essendon could prove their innocence, the SCN stage wouldn’t be a waste of time like some would have us believe. They can't due to their piss poor record keeping, so on we go to the next step.

On the subject of the AFL, their conduct and the joint investigation/interim report, I side with Justice Middleton’s verdict. The AFL run their own competition and as such should be able to make their decisions preserving the interests of the game, without fear of legal recourse. Anything else would be nonsense on stilts!

Oh and i dont plan on rushing out to buy a fruit hat to join the conga line anytime soon....

I tend to take things personally when people make statements about my personal views and beliefs which are false. You said I am siding with EFC, which is false.

You have a couple of things wrong in this reply

even if EFC had a world of records, contesting the SCN is still pointless. ASADA would have had access to these, and if they had decided to proceed with a SCN they obviously think the info is insufficient to stop the case.

As I mentioned, I now believe the whole notion of SCN's being contested is if you have a case to question a lab test result. As there is no test result here, so contesting is pointless. You are asking ASADA to disagree with ASADA.

Secondly you have misunderstood some key elements of the verdict. One of the key problems for the claim EFC/Hird made was the fact that they accepted the investigation, allowed it to proceed, and disputed the legality of it only after the SCN's were announced. The idea being by not co-operating they were accepting the scope and legality of the joint investigation. This is one of the problems is having two people administering this process at EFC.

 

[WATiger86]

As I mentioned, I now believe the whole notion of SCN's being contested is if you have a case to question a lab test result. As there is no test result here, so contesting is pointless. You are asking ASADA to disagree with ASADA.

I believe they also function as a last chance for an athlete to provide information that was not provided or available at the time of the investigation... but i'll leave it there to avoid taking up more real estate in this thread

 

[THE THIN MAN]

Hird 'will coach', while Thompson in limbo

Essendon senior official Neil Craig is adamant James Hird will be senior coach next season while casting further doubt on the future of 2014 interim coach Mark Thompson.

In welcoming triple Essendon premiership player and former Fremantle coach Mark Harvey back as an assistant, he said: "Clearly James Hird is, and will be, the senior coach of Essendon for 2015." He added: "I think we've got enough people there to cater for James' needs."

Thompson, recently returned from an overseas holiday, was senior coach in 2014 while Hird served a 12-month suspension for his role in the supplements scandal.

Craig, head of coaching development and strategy, denied it had been imperative to have an assistant with previous senior coaching experience to support Hird, but said Harvey's capacity to "handle the intensity and pressure around the senior job would be valuable". "No doubt at all in 2015 to have that experience around James and a calming effect, just to realign people ... is going to be important," he said on SEN on Wednesday.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...-while-thompson-in-limbo-20141022-11a67h.html

 

[Straya]

Firstly its a charge. Yes they don't have to show the evidence, and that has nothing to do with my point. I believe the reason this stage was introduced was back when cases were primarily testing based. It allowed athletes (I believe) a chance to show alternate test results or data that can repudiate the positive doping test result.

On this case, its completely pointless. ASADA believe they have a worthwhile circumstantial case based upon all the info EFC has provided then. Contesting the SCN would effectively be arguing with them to change their mind based upon the same info. Its a pointless exercise.


Secondly, you are making massive assumptions on what I believe. Find one post where I have said EFC is innocent, and this is a worthless exercise by ASADA. I'll save you the time though, you won't. I have been banging my drum about the club/players having the right to a fair, independent, and transparent investigation and trial. I felt the joint investigation was a farce (given the AFL history of contrived investigations), and the lack of transparency has been laughable. What I have also been against is sanctioning players and the club prior to a guilty verdict. I thought the interim report was a joke, because it was always to be used to sanction EFC prior to finals, but the investigation was still ongoing.

None of this is believing EFC is innocent. In fact I was one of the few who considered the Ziggy report damning, and believed any senior management responsible for the supplement program needed to be moved on, plus the entire board. The only qualifier I had was that I was understanding of them staying in their roles until after the ASADA investigation was concluded because while at the club they must cooperate with the investigation, and the ASADA investigation would (you hope) put absolute clarity on those who are responsible.

I've been called an EFC troll account who should be banned from this board, a shithouse RFC supporter who should have his membership revoked by the club, and an evil and immoral human being. If you wish to join that conga line, feel free.

Also, as someone who has a history with the supply chain side of selling these products, IMO there should be a lot more to back up use at the club than "Dank bought a lot of it". Until I see more details on these records (and there will be some, its impossible to have none) I'm not making any prejudgement. People forget Dank was running his own business, and had a minor case of medicare fraud while at EFC. We need to make sure the items in question were actually used at the club - not just by Dank.

'account' lol.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

'account' lol.

??? Do you have an issue with me?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Their is no Royal 'WE' concerning the investigation of the Bumbers cheating...
Their is only ASADA...
And they will deal with the Cheats no matter how ha rd they try to weasle their way out..

 

[TheProwler]

Listening on the radio coming home last night and they were talking about the round 1 fixture with Ess vs swans and that ess likely to be fielding a reserve team for first few rounds. Surely any penalty should be served during the season proper not over the off season. How this can affect the draw is also an issue as sides playing the ess 2nds will have a distinct advantage over their best 22.

To be fair any penalty should be served for all home & away games and either end or extend to the end of finals.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Listening on the radio coming home last night and they were talking about the round 1 fixture with Ess vs swans and that ess likely to be fielding a reserve team for first few rounds. Surely any penalty should be served during the season proper not over the off season. How this can affect the draw is also an issue as sides playing the ess 2nds will have a distinct advantage over their best 22.

To be fair any penalty should be served for all home & away games and either end or extend to the end of finals.

As I mentioned previously, I was stunned when ASADA granted Cronulla the backdated penalty which included a backdated element when the players were actually playing. Strong mail seems to be a similar deal is being offered to the Dons, with 3-5 the likely number they will miss.

This is pure guess work and speculation, but the only rationale I can have for this is if asada don't see the players as their key targets, and they are wanting to get the guilty pleas to get later convictions against the staff/admin (ie dank and relevant club staff)

Have zero to back this up, but it's the only thing I can think of which makes justifying such weak compromised penalties.

 

[Tiges1229]

I have a feeling think Drug cheats will get off.

 

[_Wang_]

I have a feeling think Drug cheats will get off.

^^ buzzkill alert

 

[Tiges1229]

^^ buzzkill alert

I hope they don't get off though.

 

[_Wang_]

I hope they don't get off though.

I feel you dawg.. Keep the rage man

 

[Tiges1229]

I feel you dawg.. Keep the rage man

Some seem to be thinking that because the Druggo's aren't answering to the SCN's that the ASADA evidence isn't strong enough to get a doping violation on them. Thats why i was thinking that they get off .

 

[_Wang_]

Some seem to be thinking that because the Druggo's aren't answering to the SCN's that the ASADA evidence isn't strong enough to get a doping violation on them. Thats why i was thinking that they get off .

I thought it meant that by not responding the process will be resolved more quickly re any punishment/bans would be presented so the whole affair could be brought to a conclusion.. Thats what I got out of the herald sun article anyway.. I am probably wrong though :/

 

[Nuffers]

I thought it meant that by not responding the process will be resolved more quickly re any punishment/bans would be presented so the whole affair could be brought to a conclusion.. Thats what I got out of the herald sun article anyway.. I am probably wrong though :/

AFLPA is spruking the evidence isn't strong enough line too.......

 

[CotchIsKing]

Was reading a report from this morning with the below excerpt

"The 34 current and past Essendon players facing ASADA show-cause notices want to go before an AFL anti-doping tribunal as soon as possible.

AFL Players Association chief executive Paul Marsh says the 34 current and past Bombers do not intend to respond to their show-cause notices.

He said the players will not contest the next stage of the process, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel.

But they want their cases fast-tracked so they can go before the AFL anti-doping tribunal.

Marsh’s statement means that, for now, the players will not seek any deals with ASADA over their anti-doping cases."

If the players push ahead and are found guilty, surely they can't then say "I will take a deal please". If they roll the dice they are going all in and would need to accept the full penalty.