SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

[Dave]

The risk with the idea behind if you saw it and ignored it you must go is that it eventually leads to people wanting to not know about stuff that might be 'inconvenient': "don't show me that, I'm better off not knowing, that way I can deny I knew about it". It makes managers in particular less interested in seeking out potential bad news - they're better off with deniability.

True, I should have added "or should have been reasonably expected to know". Reasonably meaning passes the reasonable man test.

Putting that to one side, I'm not sure there's much of a smoking gun in that document anyway. IMO the provocative article title and the clear implication that Essendon were told AOD-9604 was WADA-prohibited are not backed up by the quotes in the article.

Agreed, the headline was completely misleading, but that's par for the course from FM these days.

 

[rines]

What I don't get is that apparently the 'abnormal' test was early this month.. and AFL investigators have apparently already finished their investigation and accepted that the player took it in 'error'.

So again WTF??? We wait for month after month over nothing.. oh but an actual failed drug test.. well that can be sorted QUICKLY and CONFIDENTIALLY within a month.

Just atrocious.

 

[Old Campaigner]

What I don't get is that apparently the 'abnormal' test was early this month.. and AFL investigators have apparently already finished their investigation and accepted that the player took it in 'error'.

So again WTF??? We wait for month after month over nothing.. oh but an actual failed drug test.. well that can be sorted QUICKLY and CONFIDENTIALLY within a month.

Just atrocious.

Wait, you get a free ride if you take something in error now? Anyway it had to be dealt with confidentially because we wouldn't want the player to have his reputation ruined by spurious reporting now would we?

 

[cymarak]

What I don't get is that apparently the 'abnormal' test was early this month.. and AFL investigators have apparently already finished their investigation and accepted that the player took it in 'error'.

So ASADA believed there may have been a violation, the ADRVP agreed with them, and the AFL decided not to issue an infraction notice ?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

and AFL investigators have apparently already finished their investigation and accepted that the player took it in 'error'.

sorry where is this reported?

 

[rumply]

You have to be pretty dumb to be caught out with a blood test these days with all those peptides that vanish within hours.

Guess the knock on the door came just at the wrong (or right) time.

ASADA getting of their arse?

 

[Nifft]

AFL investigators have apparently already finished their investigation and accepted that the player took it in 'error'

So ASADA believed there may have been a violation, the ADRVP agreed with them, and the AFL decided not to issue an infraction notice ?

Good news then. A precedent has been set by the AFL/ASADA for what happens when a banned drug is taken accidentally. Considering the bad advice we got from ASADA, and that AOD isn't even a PED, it should be a cut and dried case you you think. Surprising it's all taking so long to sort out though....

 

[rines]

Guys:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-faces-twoyear-drugs-ban-20130730-2qxha.html

Saad named.

And please remember I used the words 'apparently finished' (with regards to investigation) so that means I can have NFI but still go to print!

Lance: Caro's first article (I believe incorrectly) states that the AFL investigated and are "satisfied that the player took it in error".

I notice that Caro has now retracted that statement in the next 'version' to go to live. That is the power of the rines people!

 

[rines]

Also the first step will be to confirm the result via testing of the 2nd sample (B sample) and things will go from there.

Caro apparently believes this is 'different' from EFC as it was player error NOT systematic doping. She therefore believes the player should be supported and no sanctions to the club involved.

AD would comment.. oh but that's right HE IS NOT HERE.. too busy finding out how the US do things.. cause he is so old he doesn't know how to email or skype anyone.

 

[Doss]

It is so disingenuous to compare the reaction of St Kilda and Essendon supporters, in light of the latest stuff.

I'd wager that if the positions were reversed- we had one player in the gun and them, potentially an entire team- we'd find it easy to be all magnanimous and say, "one player isn't bigger than the game, ban whoever it is. We don't want cheats."

I haven't worked out whether people are deliberately overlooking this, or if they genuinely don't understand how different the two scenarios are.

 

[Shane Mead]

Is a St Kilda player was on PED's then that means PED's were possibly on the St Kilda site and possibly used by other players. Open St Kilda up for investigation!

 

[iWasSayinBoorent]

What I don't get is that apparently the 'abnormal' test was early this month.. and AFL investigators have apparently already finished their investigation and accepted that the player took it in 'error'.

So again WTF??? We wait for month after month over nothing.. oh but an actual failed drug test.. well that can be sorted QUICKLY and CONFIDENTIALLY within a month.

Just atrocious.

But but but... strict liability, John Fahey, Richard Ings, there is no way around it, athletes responsibility, yada yada yada.

 

[Shane Mead]

It is so disingenuous to compare the reaction of St Kilda and Essendon supporters, in light of the latest stuff.

I'd wager that if the positions were reversed- we had one player in the gun and them, potentially an entire team- we'd be all magnanimous and "one player isn't bigger than the game, ban whoever it is. We don't want cheats."

I haven't worked out whether people are deliberately overlooking this, or if they genuinely don't understand how different the two scenarios are.

Just playing by the rules set by the masses. If you fire a bullet at me, don't cry when your house gets shot up.

 

[rines]

I think the bigger difference, if I may Doss, is that this involves a TESTED result for a banned substance... not just rumours, innuendo, statements from Canadian Gyms and fancy words...

However see your point. TBH if he has been found with a banned substance in his system, irrespective of how it got there.. very hard to get off.

The difference being the EXISTENCE OF A FAILED TEST..

 

[Doss]

Just playing by the rules set by the masses. If you fire a bullet at me, don't cry when your house gets shot up.

That comment wasn't targeted at you, it was in reference to some of the stuff I've been reading elsewhere.

 

[Pweter]

Also the first step will be to confirm the result via testing of the 2nd sample (B sample) and things will go from there.

Caro apparently believes this is 'different' from EFC as it was player error NOT systematic doping. She therefore believes the player should be supported and no sanctions to the club involved.

AD would comment.. oh but that's right HE IS NOT HERE.. too busy finding out how the US do things.. cause he is so old he doesn't know how to email or skype anyone.

I'd love to know the circumstances that led to him taking it in error, maybe Warnie's mum gave it to Saad.

Here we have someone taking something illegal but in error (according to reports) vs a club that has got the nod from ASADA for everything taken as being above board but can be accused of systematic doping.

And they wonder why Essendon supporters are completely disillusioned with the media and the club gearing up for a fight.

 

[Nifft]

It is so disingenuous to compare the reaction of St Kilda and Essendon supporters, in light of the latest stuff.

I'd wager that if the positions were reversed- we had one player in the gun and them, potentially an entire team- we'd find it easy to be all magnanimous and say, "one player isn't bigger than the game, ban whoever it is. We don't want cheats."

I haven't worked out whether people are deliberately overlooking this, or if they genuinely don't understand how different the two scenarios are.

Fair point. I wasn't comparing the two scenarios, more the processes going on behind them both. Best to wait for all details to be released before commenting though.

 

[Jade]

I haven't worked out whether people are deliberately overlooking this, or if they genuinely don't understand how different the two scenarios are.

I think everyone knows; but I think it's also an opportunity to give people a bit of their own medicine.

 

[cymarak]

Doping authorities have the power to overrule any decision handed down if it is deemed to be inappropriate.

Not as far as I understand it - they can appeal, but they can't 'overrule'.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

what was the point of naming him already?

 

[Nifft]

I think it's also an opportunity to give people a bit of their own medicine.

I think it's an opportunity to show people we're better than that.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Not as far as I understand it - they can appeal, but they can't 'overrule'.

This is correct. The case goes to the CAS and I guess a judge decides what happens to the player.

 

[Old Campaigner]

what was the point of naming him already?

Keep the vultures in the media happy I suppose.

 

[Doss]

I think my comment has been misunderstood.

St Kilda supporters are being widely applauded for taking the "if true, ban him" stance. With the added pretext of "in contrast to those deluded Essendon types."

My point is, it's much easier as a supporter to put aside your loyalties if it's just one player affected. When it's potentially an entire team, on the other hand, it is several orders of magnitude tougher.

That distinction is being seemingly overlooked by quite a few people, deliberately or otherwise.

 

[cymarak]

This is correct. The case goes to the CAS and I guess a judge decides what happens to the player.

You'd hope Caro would understand how it works by now, given the dozens of articles she's written about the drugs saga.