What should Stew Crameri do?

[Bont2Bruce]

Surely if there is no evidence forthcoming on individuals [positive tests etc], then how can individuals be punished ?

This is a common misconception. The answer is the same way that Lance Armstrong got done.

In the prosecution of the performance enhancing drug code, there doesn't need to be evidence to the point of beyond reasonable doubt (as per criminal and civil court system). ASADA and the AFL tribunal merely need to be 'reasonably satisfied' that an infringement occurred. This is why ASADA served show cause notices, which ask for the alleged players to provide evidence that they DIDN'T perform an act which is prohibited under the drug code. I don't believe that any players responded to the show cause notices.

You have to assume that ASADA and the tribunal are 'reasonably confident', or else they wouldn't have proceeded this far with the case to date. Either that or they are completely incompetent. That could still eventuate I guess, but seems unlikely.

 

[paulveed]

This is a common misconception. The answer is the same way that Lance Armstrong got done.

In the prosecution of the performance enhancing drug code, there doesn't need to be evidence to the point of beyond reasonable doubt (as per criminal and civil court system). ASADA and the AFL tribunal merely need to be 'reasonably satisfied' that an infringement occurred. This is why ASADA served show cause notices, which ask for the alleged players to provide evidence that they DIDN'T perform an act which is prohibited under the drug code. I don't believe that any players responded to the show cause notices.

You have to assume that ASADA and the tribunal are 'reasonably confident', or else they wouldn't have proceeded this far with the case to date. Either that or they are completely incompetent. That could still eventuate I guess, but seems unlikely.

Sorry B2B, I don't buy this at all. In the case of Armstrong, unless I am sadly mistaken, a number of witnesses came out in support of the prosecution of Armstrong's guilt. The reason it took so long to 'get' him, was that there had initially been nothing conclusive.
Should ASADA proceed without individual evidence, one thing that would surely be certain, is that they would spend decades being sued from pillar to post by players who were punished, without actual evidence, through courts of law, where "reasonably satisfied", without verifiable evidence, would almost certainly be deemed insufficient, and in all likelihood, negligent.
ASADA can be as 'reasonably confident' as they like, but if players force them into the legal system, that "confidence" is not worth Jack Sh1te !

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

'Comfortable satisfaction' is the burden of proof, whether the players like it or not.

If ASADA & WADA are comfortably satisfied that the Essendon 34 participated in a systematic doping regime and punish them as a result, there really aren't many legal avenues they can take. It might not be a perfect system, but they are the governing bodies.

 

[paulveed]

'Comfortable satisfaction' is the burden of proof, whether the players like it or not.

If ASADA & WADA are comfortably satisfied that the Essendon 34 participated in a systematic doping regime and punish them as a result, there really aren't many legal avenues they can take. It might not be a perfect system, but they are the governing bodies.

When did Governing Bodies receive exemption from the laws of the land ?

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

I'm not saying they're exempt from the laws of the land.

They're the adjudicators on the matter, the process differs from criminal/civil proceedings.

If the players want to appeal within the system itself (ie. appeals through the various anti-doping governing bodies) that's their prerogative, but outside of that, they've got little legal recourse - if comfortable satisfaction as a standard of proof wasn't within the law, they wouldn't operate by it.

 

[Toastman]

When did Governing Bodies receive exemption from the laws of the land ?

It's not an exemption from the laws of the land, its a separate part of the laws of the land called the "Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Act 2013" and its contents describe the laws for doping in sport and that means than any cases the players want to file would have to be contested against the act rather than the common law principles you describe which it overrides.

 

[paulveed]

It's not an exemption from the laws of the land, its a separate part of the laws of the land called the "Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Act 2013" and its contents describe the laws for doping in sport and that means than any cases the players want to file would have to be contested against the act rather than the common law principles you describe which it overrides.

Individual suits by players, for loss of income, and damages to reputation, and possible future employment ? Such personal damages law suits, surely would bypass the act establishing ASADA.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Sorry B2B, I don't buy this at all.

I think you might need to do some more research on the subject. Whether you like it or not, that is how it works.

Loss of trade etc. has no place because the players all agreed to the WADA code as part of their contracts.

Similarly, the issue isn't about the legal system because common law isn't in question. The question is about whether the players have abided by the rules of their sporting code, which they agreed to abide by when the signed up to the general player agreement terms.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

In the case of Armstrong, unless I am sadly mistaken, a number of witnesses came out in support of the prosecution of Armstrong's guilt. The reason it took so long to 'get' him, was that there had initially been nothing conclusive.

Lance Armstrong actually did submit a positive drug test result, and it was quite a while before the end of his racing days. But that was not what they stripped him of everything over. It was circumstantial evidence (and quite a lot of it) of systematic doping for years on end that the finding was based on, most of which was gathered after he had stopped racing.

 

[Toastman]

Individual suits by players, for loss of income, and damages to reputation, and possible future employment ? Such personal damages law suits, surely would bypass the act establishing ASADA.

No, they wouldn't. Acts and laws as you are using the terms are the same thing so if there is an act covering something then that is the law for that thing even if there are other laws which could cover it.

 

[Wizard17]

I thought that this thread was dead... talk about zombies

 

[Maddog1980]

Turns out the consent forms signed by the players that were put into place by Essendon/Dank to cover their asses, are the same things that will do the players in. These documents are critical in ASADA establishing their comfortable satisfaction at an individual player level.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

I thought that this thread was dead... talk about zombies

Stupid post. This article about Crameri and what we will do was up last night:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/preseason-break-for-stewart-crameri-looms-20150206-1386u5.html

 

[TempleKelvington]

I think you might need to do some more research on the subject. Whether you like it or not, that is how it works.

Loss of trade etc. has no place because the players all agreed to the WADA code as part of their contracts.

Similarly, the issue isn't about the legal system because common law isn't in question. The question is about whether the players have abided by the rules of their sporting code, which they agreed to abide by when the signed up to the general player agreement terms.

I'm no legal expert and you are across this really well. But I still can't see how without proof that individuals players took something that they can be penalised. If it was as simple as you suggest then they wouldn't need a tribunal, because it seems clear that they know something happened already. I can't see how you can have a one in all scenario, which seems very unfair to me.

If that is the system, I'm surprised it's not been tested in common law.

 

[TempleKelvington]

Lance Armstrong actually did submit a positive drug test result, and it was quite a while before the end of his racing days. But that was not what they stripped him of everything over. It was circumstantial evidence (and quite a lot of it) of systematic doping for years on end that the finding was based on, most of which was gathered after he had stopped racing.

This is why it should have been open to the public. will we ever know just how much evidence they have circumstantial or otherwise. It's a mess and Essendon and Hird have muddied this so much to the detriment of their players. It's a disgrace and the penalties should have been harsher.

 

[Yojimbo]

The AFL should not have signed the WADA code in the first
place. The AFL should have stepped in when first made
aware of the Essendon intention to run a peptide program.
We should have avoided Essendon players in the interim
period. Lance Armstrong was only done because of a change
in government as he was protected. Drug cheats are ten
years ahead of the testers and have been using things that
naturally occur in the human body for over a decade.People
will always cheat it's human nature.

 

[Gmod23]

Turns out the consent forms signed by the players that were put into place by Essendon/Dank to cover their asses, are the same things that will do the players in. These documents are critical in ASADA establishing their comfortable satisfaction at an individual player level.

You are right with how key this point is.
Easy to establish everything else. If they establish 1 Thyomosin being present is TB4 and then players having consent forms showing thyomosin , pretty clear circumstantial evidence.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

I'm no legal expert and you are across this really well. But I still can't see how without proof that individuals players took something that they can be penalised. If it was as simple as you suggest then they wouldn't need a tribunal, because it seems clear that they know something happened already. I can't see how you can have a one in all scenario, which seems very unfair to me.

If that is the system, I'm surprised it's not been tested in common law.

There is proof that there were injections. There is circumstantial evidence that TB4 (banned) was supplied by chemists to Essendon. Alleged players have been asked to show why thy shouldn't be infracted for using TB4, which they have declined to do.

If Essendon had better record keeping and if the players were innocent of using TB4, they would already have supplied evidence in response to the show cause notices to prove their innocence. But because this hasn't happened, the writing is on the wall that infractions are imminent, once the appeal (over whether the whole investigation has been conducted lawfully) nonsense clears up.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

This is why it should have been open to the public. will we ever know just how much evidence they have circumstantial or otherwise. It's a mess and Essendon and Hird have muddied this so much to the detriment of their players. It's a disgrace and the penalties should have been harsher.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Yojimbo]

Yeah, well thanks for sharing your insight, it's really interesting. For the life of me I can't understand why a footy club would think a supplements program like this, intravenously providing players with supplements was a good idea and then to not know what they gave their players. Either they knew exactly what they were doing and they are fudging it or they didn't and were therefore incompetent and showed a lack of duty of care. It's one or the other surely. Yet the doctor and the head coach (whose txt messages indicated he was well into details of the program) should have known what was happening are still in charge of this group. Amazing.

The txt messages clearly showed they were working around the doctor
and conducting the injections off site. The players gave James Hird a
birthday cake only days ago and seem very happy to work with him
which raises my eyebrow a little.James did not pay Dank's wage or
pay the inflated sports science bills the club did. I say flush that
toilet (WHAT EVER IT TAKES).

 

[TedDougChris]

I agree here, but unless ASADA has proof that players took the banned substance then surely they can't punish the players or indeed the club further just based on that they might of. Be like saying we know you robbed the bank, we can't actually prove it but we'll throw you in jail anyway and all your scanky mates. Just how I see it.

If they it can be proved then like you say I always thought that at the end of the day if you take the banned drugs then there is no defense for circumstances on how you took them. As we see all the time, no one ever admits that they took a banned drug. They blame drinks being spiked, or they didn't know it was in an energy drink or whatever. In the end it doesn't matter and it can't.

I'm affraid fair or not, if it can be proved then the players have to cop whatever it is they have to cop. But if that is the case then Hird also has to go.....surely? The Essendon president also.

Sorry for the delayed reply TK. I'm working on the assumption that ASADA have enough evidence, on the basis they've had external legal reviews etc to ensure that the case can be prosecuted. But I agree with your comments, if they don't actually have enough - the players cannot be punished.

 

[ErnieSigley]

If Asada didn't have the evidence then why would they produce show cause letters?

 

[TheLastEmperor]

If Asada didn't have the evidence then why would they produce show cause letters?

Because they are mandated. It gives those receiving doping allegations an opportunity to clear it up if there is a legit excuse eg Dr's exemption.

I read a few are confused how the players will be found guilty. First of all, the burden of proof is only to a comfortable satisfaction and not a reasonable doubt like the criminal system. Essentially reasonable doubt is about 80% chance of guilt whereas comfortably satisfaction about 60%. There's a significant difference.

Second of all, asada's case is largely circumstantial which is most common in doping related charges and shouldn't be looked at as a reason their case will fail. Look at it this way:
1. There is evidence TB4 was ordered by Essendon staff from invoices
2. There is evidence players were administered Thymosin (assuming it's TB4 considering the invoices) from consent forms signed by players
3. There is evidence players were intravenously administered Thymosin by player testimony
4. There is evidence the Thymosin being administered was TB4 based on injection schedule also obtained by player testimony
5. There is emails and text messages between Essendon staff discussing Thymosin which talks about injection schedules in line with TB4 administration
6. There is a Dank interview where he admits to administering TB4 to players only to be surprised when he learns its a banned substance and the following day retracts his statement

Based on the above which is public knowledge (there is likely further evidence we are unaware of) ASADA has built a tight circumstantial evidence that comfortably satisfies me players used TB4.

ASADA gave the players the opportunity to respond to the above circumstantial evidence via SCN's and the players refused or had no comeback from the allegations believing no hard evidence sees them in a strong legal position. Poor legal advice IMO. Sporting persons have been banned for simply not showing up to drug tests or taking a substance and not knowing what it was. ASADA would have said "if it wasn't TB4 being inject what was it" via SCN's and the players would have responded with "I don't know". That response has got other sporting persons banned,

Anyway, I don't know how I ended up here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[paulveed]

If Asada didn't have the evidence then why would they produce show cause letters?

Fishing for self incrimination ?

 

[TempleKelvington]

Because they are mandated. It gives those receiving doping allegations an opportunity to clear it up if there is a legit excuse eg Dr's exemption.

I read a few are confused how the players will be found guilty. First of all, the burden of proof is only to a comfortable satisfaction and not a reasonable doubt like the criminal system. Essentially reasonable doubt is about 80% chance of guilt whereas comfortably satisfaction about 60%. There's a significant difference.

Second of all, asada's case is largely circumstantial which is most common in doping related charges and shouldn't be looked at as a reason their case will fail. Look at it this way:
1. There is evidence TB4 was ordered by Essendon staff from invoices
2. There is evidence players were administered Thymosin (assuming it's TB4 considering the invoices) from consent forms signed by players
3. There is evidence players were intravenously administered Thymosin by player testimony
4. There is evidence the Thymosin being administered was TB4 based on injection schedule also obtained by player testimony
5. There is emails and text messages between Essendon staff discussing Thymosin which talks about injection schedules in line with TB4 administration
6. There is a Dank interview where he admits to administering TB4 to players only to be surprised when he learns its a banned substance and the following day retracts his statement

Based on the above which is public knowledge (there is likely further evidence we are unaware of) ASADA has built a tight circumstantial evidence that comfortably satisfies me players used TB4.

ASADA gave the players the opportunity to respond to the above circumstantial evidence via SCN's and the players refused or had no comeback from the allegations believing no hard evidence sees them in a strong legal position. Poor legal advice IMO. Sporting persons have been banned for simply not showing up to drug tests or taking a substance and not knowing what it was. ASADA would have said "if it wasn't TB4 being inject what was it" via SCN's and the players would have responded with "I don't know". That response has got other sporting persons banned,

Anyway, I don't know how I ended up here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Mate.