Certified Legendary Thread 34 Essendon* Players suspended for doping violations - No opposition fans. Check OP for thread rules

[BluStreak]

good to see you back posting The_Wookie. Always look forward to reading (or watching) your posts.

 

[Dramoth]

It means they won't be arguing their innocence to the ADRVP (the government-appointed group who assess show-cause notices and any responses to them in order to decide if the players are likely to have doped). Unless something strange occurs, it's pretty much a given that the ADRVP will conclude they have doped and will put an entry onto a 'register of findings'.

Once this occurs, I believe the infraction notices are sent and the players are referred to the AFL tribunal. The players can still argue their case here I think, and ASADA will argue theirs. Then, they are found guilty and punished.

If either side (ASADA or Essendon*) are not happy with the outcome, the next step is for the matter to be taken to the CAS - the sports court (in Switzerland I believe). That will drag the process out a looooong time.

This is pretty much it. The players are, by not responding to the show cause notices, are pleading a no contest to the doping charges. The ADRVP will then enter them into a register of findings as having been found guilty of doping and will be referred to the AFL doping panel.

I think that the AFLPA and the AFL will try and rig it so that the players will be given as light a sentence as posssible (a 3 month ban out of contest) as opposed to the 24 months that ASADA will be recommending that they be banned for. IF they only get the 3 month out of contest suspension, then either WADA or ASADA will be appealing that decision at CAS (Court of Arbitration in Sports) in Geneva, Switzerland and the players will be allowed to continue training and playing during that appeal process. ASADA, and by extension WADA, needs to stamp on this as harshly as possible and ensure that no other sporting organisations anywhere else in the world gets in on the act.

With a bit of luck, when ASADA or WADA appeal Jab Watson's, the CAS board will find him guilty of deliberate doping and strip him of all awards won during that period (i.e. there goes Jab's Brownlow medal).

As soon as between 2 and 6 players are entered on the register of findings, WADA has the right to start applying team based penalties which would see everyone actively involved in the program receiving between 2 year (There goes Bomber's and Corcoran's careers basically) and lifetime bans (Hird, Evans and Doc Reid).

By declaring it before the expiration of the 10 day response period, the players and the AFLPA has allowed ASADA to refer the matter of the show cause notices to ADRVP immediately. All that means is that the ADRVP will spend 5 minutes per player making an entry into the register of findings.

As I said originally with this... Essendon* are ****ed.

 

[ajb72]

Just in regards to Hird's appeal.

During the previous court case BOG for EFC/HIRD was Neil Young with Harrington doing SFA.

Now since EFC are out of the picture it falls onto Harrington to carry the case. If I was on Hird's side, I cant say I would be confident with my legal representation. Heck, if you check out Hird's affidavit it was a hog pog of crap put together without any central theme. Random pieces hoping to maybe hit some targets somewhere.

Anyway I guess its his money to waste.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Expecting a thorough whitewash now it's back in the AFL's hands.

 

[ESKIE]

Bombers fans are claiming they're calling the ASADA bluff and will defeat them at the AFL tribunal. Funny how every new finding is a win for them.

They are star raving mad some of them

 

[happydude]

When players cop bans the bombers posters will claim it was their plan all along and the best way to clear out deadwood

 

[KnobHead]

They could still win at the AFL Tribunal. The standard of proof is much higher at the tribunal stage ('beyond the balance of probabilities') than it is at the RoF stage ('comfortable satisfaction').

Also, Court hearings are naturally a little swingy. Never underestimate the persuasiveness of good Counsel - and these blokes will be walking in there armed with some top silks.

I still think they will go though. The evidence I have seen to date is more than enough to meet the above standard at the hearing IMO. I dare say that the players will seek to have much of it excluded if possible.

"Balance of Probabilities" is higher than comfortable satisfaction, but still lower than "beyond reasonable doubt (which is quite high)."

Question if you know it - if the test for AFL is higher than ASADA, how does ASADA (or even WADA) determine whether or not to question any penalty handed by the AFL, given the tests are different? It seems odd that ASADA has one test for Register of Findings, but can then, in effect, review the AFL's test of balance of probabilities.

Having said that, the problem for the players appears to be that EFC didn't keep records, so it'll be difficult for them to disprove what they took if there is some credible evidence that they may have taken banned substances.

 

[Azul]

When players cop bans the bombers posters will claim it was their plan all along and the best way to clear out deadwood

As long as it's all finalised in mid-December, well after they have a chance to re-stock via the rookie draft.

 

[Aphrodite]

As long as it's all finalised in mid-December, well after they have a chance to re-stock via the EDFL.

*EFA

 

[Azul]

I guess we'll find out if they AFL have a contingency. If the players were banned for a season of competition then they'd barely have 22 players recruited in the past 2 years to field a team.

I hereby announce Azul's loopy loan system:

The other 17 clubs would each be able to nominate a player for Essendon to borrow. In return, the Bombers pay that player's salary (excluded from the originating club's cap). Player is placed on the club's LTI list, so a rookie can be elevated in the meantime.

e.g. Cam Giles isn't expected to debut, or at least play more than a handful of games next season. He could learn heaps from new Essendon coach Michael Voss over a few games in the AFL rather than playing for the Northern Blues.

 

[Malifice]

"Balance of Probabilities" is higher than comfortable satisfaction, but still lower than "beyond reasonable doubt (which is quite high)."

The test at the tribunal stage is actually 'beyond the balance of probabilities'; this is a higher evidenciary standard than the civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities'.

It sits somewhere between the civil (on the balance of probabilities' and criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' level.

In layman's, the civil standard (contract law, negligence etc) requires the decision maker to be around 51 percent or greater sure what happened. The Criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt is around 91 percent sure.

I place this level at about 75 percent sure to get across the line.

Lol. I just put numbers on that s**t.

Question if you know it - if the test for AFL is higher than ASADA, how does ASADA (or even WADA) determine whether or not to question any penalty handed by the AFL, given the tests are different? It seems odd that ASADA has one test for Register of Findings, but can then, in effect, review the AFL's test of balance of probabilities.

The standard only applies to prove the doping offence in question.

One the offence is proved, the question of punishments is generally pretty black and white (and intentionally draconian).

Having said that, the problem for the players appears to be that EFC didn't keep records, so it'll be difficult for them to disprove what they took if there is some credible evidence that they may have taken banned substances.

You dont have to prove you didnt commit an offence, but providing clear evidence you're innocent does help!

That said, my view is that the players legal team will find one weakness in the evidence and hammer it.

Circumstantial cases (even strong circumstantial cases like this one) only need one break in the chain of circumstantial evidence to fall over.

 

[LanceRomance]

Whats your verdict then Mal?
reckon they will go?

 

[Malifice]

Whats your verdict then Mal?
reckon they will go?

I haven't seen all the evidence, but from what I have seen, my money is on a resounding 'Yes the players are royally ****ed'.

 

[LanceRomance]

I haven't seen all the evidence, but from what I have seen, my money is on a resounding 'Yes the players are royally ******'.

Have you had access to evidence that the general public hasn't?

 

[KnobHead]

The test at the tribunal stage is actually 'beyond the balance of probabilities'; this is a higher evidenciary standard than the civil standard of 'on the balance of probabilities'.

It sits somewhere between the civil (on the balance of probabilities' and criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' level.

In layman's, the civil standard (contract law, negligence etc) requires the decision maker to be around 51 percent or greater sure what happened. The Criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt is around 91 percent sure.

I place this level at about 75 percent sure to get across the line.

Lol. I just put numbers on that s**t.



The standard only applies to prove the doping offence in question.

One the offence is proved, the question of punishments is generally pretty black and white (and intentionally draconian).



You dont have to prove you didnt commit an offence, but providing clear evidence you're innocent does help!

That said, my view is that the players legal team will find one weakness in the evidence and hammer it.

Circumstantial cases (even strong circumstantial cases like this one) only need one break in the chain of circumstantial evidence to fall over.

Thanks Mal - perhaps another way of asking my question is if asada or wads are not happy with the afl penalty & decide to come over the top, what test are they applying ? Is it the afl test of beyond balance of probabilities , or comfortable satisfaction?

It would seem odd that asada / wada can question an afl penalty if they're applying a different test (I get that players are put in the register under "comfortable satisfaction" but I'm talking about a later stage where asada/wada dispute any afl penalty which they're allowed to do, & whether they're applying the balance of probabilities test or not at this later stage )

 

[Malifice]

Have you had access to evidence that the general public hasn't?

No. What I have seen is Danks admission (subsequently recanted) that he administered TB4 to the players, a clear paper trail leading back to China souring the TB4, text messages from Dank that clearly refer to the preparation methods of TB4 (and not the 'legal'TA), properties of a drug administered to the players that mirror those of TB4 (TA is used to treat AIDS patients FFS), records of offsite injections in the manner prescribed for the administraion of TB4 (as discussed between Dank and the Chemist).

There is also Alavi's testimony and others as well.

I reckon Dank tried to sneak in a prohibited substance on the players (to speed up the repair of soft tissue injuries and bulk them up) and figured he would get away with it.

Hird and the players had no idea in my view.

Not that that changes anything. I want the players to get the full two years or as close to it as possible, and Hird to lose his job for ever.

And thats not out of any particular dislike for Essendon. Its to scare the s**t out of anyone who is stupid enough to engage in a similar program in the future.

 

[Malifice]

Thanks Mal - perhaps another way of asking my question is if asada or wads are not happy with the afl penalty & decide to come over the top, what test are they applying ? Is it the afl test of beyond balance of probabilities , or comfortable satisfaction?

Its neither (assuming they are only testing the sanctions and not the culpability).

The default mandatory punishment is 2 years. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

This can be reduced if the decision maker is of the opinion that the players can avail themselves of the defense of 'significant assistance' in securing a conviction for a drug related offence for another person, or the defense of the person lacking 'significant fault or negligence'.

The general rule with such defenses (even at criminal law) is they only need to be established on the civil standard of proof ('on the balance of probabilities').

 

[The_Wookie]

I think they'll go, but for a period of at least 6- but no greater than 10 weeks in the season, with allowances made for the time taken to investigate.

 

[Thrawn]

ASADA tell the AFLPA to bugger off:

ASADA Chief Executive Officer, Ben McDevitt, said ASADA will not be dictated to by the AFL Players’ Association, its lawyers, or anybody else.

 

[Azul]

ASADA tell the AFLPA to bugger off:

The Paddy Ryder defense... Haven't the players suffered enough emotional distress to last a lifetime?

 

[Blue Warrior]

ASADA tell the AFLPA to bugger off:

McDevitt is coming Essendope* with his silver bullets to kill your vile club!

 

[Malifice]

ASADA tell the AFLPA to bugger off:

I really like the cut of McDevitts jib.

He is one switched on individual. Got some serious respect for the bloke.

 

[Malifice]

I think they'll go, but for a period of at least 6- but no greater than 10 weeks in the season, with allowances made for the time taken to investigate.

Yeah. The Cronulla thing has me worried.

 

[Sin City]

ASADA tell the AFLPA to bugger off:

ASADA just went BANG and reminded the deluded AFL community about how things really work in the sporting world!

 

[Aphrodite]

I really like the cut of McDevitts jib.

He is one switched on individual. Got some serious respect for the bloke.

#standbyMcDevitt