WADA likens EFC case to BALCO case

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

TheGodDelusion said:
But this wasn't like the BALCO cases. A prosecuting authority talking up their case means nothing.
Click to expand...

Nothing like some of the BALCO cases.

Some of the BALCO cases had no confession or AAF, where guilt was determined via establishing a supply chain from BALCO to the athlete via the use of circumstantial evidence such as invoices, text messages and emails. The athletes in question pleaded not guilty on the basis they did not believe what they took contained a banned substance.

Sure the core big name BALCO cases had the confessions and the AAF, but it seems to have been forgotten that BALCO was a combination of 30+ cases and not all had the AAF or confession.
 
WADA confident suggests the "chatter".
 
MaddAdam said:
WADA confident suggests the "chatter".
Click to expand...
You were the guy with the inside "chatter" who was convinced that the players were going to be found guilty by the AFL tribunal.
 
Proper Gander said:
Was hoping someone would start a separate thread for the article. Hasn't been enough of that lately. LU prefers this approach.
Click to expand...
I tried to get it going in my thread but even Jen and Thrawny won't bite. :(
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thrawn said:
Cue Essendon supporters saying "but this wasn't like the BALCO cases" then downplaying it like it means nothing.
Click to expand...
Cue opposition supporters telling us this means Essendon players are screwed and will miss 2 years.

Pretty easy game to play there buddy. :)
 
This is clearly the article in a nutshell (casting rabid, panicked Essendon posts aside for a moment):

"Quite simply, if the BALCO cases had been decided under the principles followed by the AFL tribunal, none of the BALCO people would have been sanctioned," Howman said as the CAS panel continues deliberations ahead of a verdict announcement expected before Christmas.

"For us, the key issue [in appealing the AFL tribunal finding] was: can investigations be done in a way that BALCO and a whole lot of other previous cases were run? Or, is there going to be a significant change due to the way the AFL tribunal decided it? Because that would change the whole way that we put cases before courts.

"The standard of proof that was used in the cases that led to the first non-analytical sanctions [through BALCO] was quite different to the proof used in the AFL tribunal. So we are trying to find out what the correct standard is under the [WADA] Code.

"That puts it into perspective. It's a big principle."


I think that's the comparison he's drawing. He's not saying the cases are the same.

The AFL Tribunal clearly wanted a high level of proof. Very high. And as he says, if that is correct and all anti-doping cases will have a similar standard of proof required going forward - then it's a significant moment for anti-doping in terms of cheats getting caught.
There are many in the past that would have gotten off, and many more in the future would too.

We all know that the drug cheats are ahead of the drug testers. We all know that. It's why cheats get away with it, and why we still raise eyebrows over guys like Usain Bolt.

So if we can only rely on a positive test and absolute conclusive evidence to ping anyone, it really does swing the door wide open for dudes like Dank and others the world over to run riot.


So really, the article is probably just echoing what many on this board have felt all along.
 
Muggs said:
Nothing like some of the BALCO cases.

Some of the BALCO cases had no confession or AAF, where guilt was determined via establishing a supply chain from BALCO to the athlete via the use of circumstantial evidence such as invoices, text messages and emails.
Click to expand...

Which ones?

Sure the core big name BALCO cases had the confessions and the AAF, but it seems to have been forgotten that BALCO was a combination of 30+ cases and not all had the AAF or confession.
Click to expand...

I could find about 20 athletes, almost all of which involved AAF's.
 
tesla1962 said:
You were the guy with the inside "chatter" who was convinced that the players were going to be found guilty by the AFL tribunal.
Click to expand...
The AFL tribunal was never going to come up with a guilty verdict. The make up of the panel made sure of that.
It all goes back to the same thing, if the AFL don't think they have a drug problem within the game why did they bring in the 3 strike rule?
I still maintain it was to protect the brand and not to protect the players.
For me the AFL is all about $$$$$$$$$$ before the players welfare.
 
Aussie in exile said:
The AFL tribunal was never going to come up with a guilty verdict. The make up of the panel made sure of that.
It all goes back to the same thing, if the AFL don't think they have a drug problem within the game why did they bring in the 3 strike rule?
I still maintain it was to protect the brand and not to protect the players.
For me the AFL is all about $$$$$$$$$$ before the players welfare.
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood my post.

I was not commenting on what the AFL tribunal were or were not going to come up with. Although I have noted that you fit neatly into the 'nixon, jones and henwood were corrupt' conspiracy theory club.

I was actually posting that MaddAdam was completely off the mark with his last inside news about the AFL tribunal, news that he was 'cast iron' convinced about back then. Therefore, his latest "chatter" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
TheGodDelusion said:
Which ones?



I could find about 20 athletes, almost all of which involved AAF's.
Click to expand...

No positive test include Michelle Collins, Christine Gaines, Tim Montgomery, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/summer/track/2004-12-13-collins-lawyer_x.htm Michelle Collins never had a AAF, but also had new urine testing after the event detect high levels, but not positive and called into the validity of these tests at CAS. This case was one in particularly I thought had a fair bit in common.

Number of the baseballs ones as well, but this sport is not WADA compliant and real question marks if the substance was banned and was not tested for for a while.
 
tesla1962 said:
You have misunderstood my post.

I was not commenting on what the AFL tribunal were or were not going to come up with. Although I have noted that you fit neatly into the 'nixon, jones and henwood were corrupt' conspiracy theory club.

I was actually posting that MaddAdam was completely off the mark with his last inside news about the AFL tribunal, news that he was 'cast iron' convinced about back then. Therefore, his latest "chatter" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

My source was bang on about the charges being laid weeks before.

They were hardly the only ones surprised by the verdict.

I am making no prediction or in any way saying I have info on the result here.

All I know is WADA are confident with how it went.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top