Remove this Banner Ad

Channel 7 The Decision

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jenny61_99 said:
Strict liability says otherwise. Unless of course, all records of who got what have been destroyed.
Click to expand...


Destruction of records won't matter at all in this case - been under surveillance investigation for a long time - I'm sure there is substantial documented proof (including computer records, texts, phone tappings, paper trails of drugs etc etc) and with the new ASADA powers they will be able to use most of that ACC evidence "documents" (acquired under criminal investigation rules) which previously they were not able to.

Many athletes around the world have been banned for very low levels of evidence - and also only for intent. Just on Intent - the players signed waivers, told not to divulge or discuss with anyone, and together with much other evidence there is already more than enough to prove intent given the whole nature of the program and methods used. As to the actual evidence of actual substances used - the investigation is ongoing and all of that will come out in due course, none of which was included in the Interim report.
 
DapperDon said:
Dank isn't talking, Cronulla has nothing to do with Essendon.

The investigation into Essendon is complete, no infraction notices have been issued. I know you have wasted 6 months of your life waiting for this day only for it to be a disappointment but it's time to move on.

Players are safe.

inb4 but but but.......
Click to expand...
Dillon did not say the investigation is complete. If it was, the final ASADA report would have been handed down instead of an interim report.
 
mediumsizered said:
Dillon did not say the investigation is complete. If it was, the final ASADA report would have been handed down instead of an interim report.
Click to expand...
The interim report allows for new evidence not already gathered. The evidence they have will not result in player infractions.

Good times
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

mxett said:
How is that going to change Jenny? The afl know what ASADA know
Click to expand...

Except the AFL can't issue any infraction notices with out that report. Otherwise Essendon will lawyer their way out of it.
 
mxett said:
So the new evidence the afl and ASADA are waiting for are names of individual players, despite the fact ASADA told the players they wouldn't charge them over AOD.....

Riiiight....
Click to expand...


If ASADA told the players that they wouldn't charge them despite proof of AOD taking them there is an obvious conflict with WADA. What the resolution of that would be, I'm not sure.

The players could get lucky but it'd only be if they can't specifically prove that certain players took the drugs, even if they knew Essendon gave out some.

If, however, the players are proven to have taken AOD then as it stands WADA will seek to ban them. If there is a conflict with the AFL and ASADA then that's an additional issue, but the point Essendon supporters seem to be missing is that AOD is banned according to WADA and they have zero tolerance.
 
mxett said:
That's not what the afl said. They didnt say no player will be charged because we can't. They said no player will be charged on evidence available. How that evidence will change, given everyone bar Dank has been interviewed I have no idea.

Oh and Tim Watson said the players were told by the head of ASADA that they would not be charged over AOD.

Bang!
Click to expand...

The report apparently says 11 players took TB4 as well as many taking AOD.Being an interim report players can't be named for privacy reasons, plus, as Anderson said, you have to work out what players got what substances. without records no-one can tell yet. That's why a carefully said statement "on information before the AFL, there is no SPECIFIC anti-doping rule violation attributed to any INDIVIDUAL player for use of AOD-9604 or any other prohibited substance". In other words specific substances can't be pinned on specific players as yet becuase of poor record keeping. Hence the on-going investigation. If they simply said the players were cleared the whole ASADA investigation would be finished as they would be nothing left to do. Good luck with your players surviving that.

If you can't be factual we may as well simply ignore your posts because they would be meaningless.

If they can't pin the players ASADA/WADA may do this.....

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ada-code-changes/story-e6frexnr-1226594351993
 
My god, all those who say essendon footy club have turned into a cult are right...I have read so many posts arguing forcibly and coherently that the charges laid today actually amount to the club being cleared that I believe it...praise the hird and pass the ammunition...
 
RegHickeyStand said:
So you would be ok with a charge of murder and a finding of guilty with no evidence or documentation shown?

But that's not what you said exactly, is it? Nor was it what I said. I never said anything about the seriousness. I was talking about the Kafkaesque element of withholding the report from the public, yet publicly charging the people.
Click to expand...

This is it isn't it. We are being told what actions are to be taken as a result of the report without it being released or even a summary of it. Further we have the media making comment on it without them having seen the report either

We know now that the players aren't going to be issued with infractions (yet) without being told the reasons why even though the AFL concedes that WADA consider AOD a banned substance. There is no mention of any other substance

Essendon and four key personnel have been charged with BTGID and conduct unbecoming without any explanation of what it is they have done to justify such a serious charge

In the end we are left to continue to speculate on what happened at Essendon and whether the decisions made are reasonable. Even the most basic of questions, did any essendon player take a banned substance remains unanswered

Not very satisfactory or transparent
 
mxett said:
They said they weren't going to under current evidence
Click to expand...

Yes. The only evidence the AFL currently has is Ziggy's report and the interim report.

Since the interim report doesn't mention any players the AFL can't charge any individual players. Otherwise Little will take them court and the AFL will not have any paperwork that they can use to defend the charges.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

mxett said:
How is that going to change Jenny? The afl know what ASADA know
Click to expand...


Yes, but they MUST wait for ASADA to advise them of ADRV before they can act. The final report is likely to be that time.
 
melbournemartin said:
If ASADA told the players that they wouldn't charge them despite proof of AOD taking them there is an obvious conflict with WADA. What the resolution of that would be, I'm not sure.

The players could get lucky but it'd only be if they can't specifically prove that certain players took the drugs, even if they knew Essendon gave out some.

If, however, the players are proven to have taken AOD then as it stands WADA will seek to ban them. If there is a conflict with the AFL and ASADA then that's an additional issue, but the point Essendon supporters seem to be missing is that AOD is banned according to WADA and they have zero tolerance.
Click to expand...
Yet ASADA consider it not appropriate to enforce bans. I wonder why that is? Maybe essendon have proof after all
 
DudleyB said:
Sounds like ASADA did stuff up in relation to aod.

ASADA or the ACC need more evidence than just EFC taking aod if ASADA gave them crap information.

At this stage - EFC haven't done a lot wrong except push it a bit far on the jeccies.

ASADA must have some more info in their knapsack
Click to expand...

ASADA investigation told Essendon that they wouldn't pursue AOD as they believe it wasn't performance enhancing. No guarantee WADA will go with that and come over the top with an appeal. They've done that before leaving previously athlete's shocked.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/torino/sliding/2006-02-10-lund-ban_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA
 
mxett said:
Lol, the interim report contains their current evidence, yet allows for future evidence if found. Why would the afl even comment on player infractions if it wasn't addressed at all?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they comment? It's a relevant point to mention that the investigation into peds and the players is ongoing with ASADA .

Penalties mentioned today were only about governance and disrepute under section 1.6 of the afls rules

It's not that hard to work out

For people to be thinking its all over and the players are in the clear defies all the basic principles of common sense and basic comprehension.
 
Jimthegreat said:
The report apparently says 11 players took TB4 as well as many taking AOD.Being an interim report players can't be named for privacy reasons, plus, as Anderson said, you have to work out what players got what substances. without records no-one can tell yet. That's why a carefully said statement "on information before the AFL, there is no SPECIFIC anti-doping rule violation attributed to any INDIVIDUAL player for use of AOD-9604 or any other prohibited substance". In other words specific substances can't be pinned on specific players as yet becuase of poor record keeping. Hence the on-going investigation. If they simply said the players were cleared the whole ASADA investigation would be finished as they would be nothing left to do. Good luck with your players surviving that.

If you can't be factual we may as well simply ignore your posts because they would be meaningless.

If they can't pin the players ASADA/WADA may do this.....

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ada-code-changes/story-e6frexnr-1226594351993
Click to expand...
So, if the report says players took Tb4 why would the afl say under current evidence ie the report, no player will be charged?

Fing lol
 
Jimthegreat said:
If they can't pin the players ASADA/WADA may do this.....

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ada-code-changes/story-e6frexnr-1226594351993
Click to expand...


Interesting. I was wondering what they'd do in this case.

But okay, so let's say Essendon drugged 10 players. There is no proof against any specific players so they just ban the whole club? Would the 10 players then come forward (or be put forward by the club)?

Or perhaps even if the 10 players were known the team would still be banned as a whole for 2 years?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The Reaper said:
Yes. The only evidence the AFL currently has is Ziggy's report and the interim report.

Since the interim report doesn't mention any players the AFL can't charge any individual players. Otherwise Little will take them court and the AFL will not have any paperwork that they can use to defend the charges.
Click to expand...
Seems everyone in the media, fox footy, ch7, radio, knows the meaning. No evidence, not no individual names
 
mxett said:
So, if the report says players took Tb4 why would the afl say under current evidence ie the report, no player will be charged?

Fing lol
Click to expand...

Because the names of the 11 players are not in the report.

The AFL would know who they are but that's not going to stand in court.
 
mxett said:
Seems everyone in the media, fox footy, ch7, radio, knows the meaning. No evidence, not no individual names
Click to expand...

You are confusing AFL and ASADA.

The AFL do not have any evidence because officially they don't know which players were involved.

ASADA may or may not have evidence but have not passed the identities of the players to the AFL in an official document.
 
mxett said:
Yet ASADA consider it not appropriate to enforce bans. I wonder why that is? Maybe essendon have proof after all
Click to expand...

It's an interim report based on governance. The report is on-going. It says heavy circumstantial evidence is there that players were given banned substances. Player infractions were not for this report though. The investigation is still going. It's not hard to work out even for an 8yo.

There comes a time to surely move out of the "Delusion" and "denial" stage.
 
grrofunger said:
Why wouldn't they comment? It's a relevant point to mention that the investigation into peds and the players is ongoing with ASADA .

Penalties mentioned today were only about governance and disrepute under section 1.6 of the afls rules

It's not that hard to work out

For people to be thinking its all over and the players are in the clear defies all the basic principles of common sense and basic comprehension.
Click to expand...
And no penalties were also mentioned for players. Why say it if the report didnt address it, especially when they said on current evidence! According to you there wouldn't be any because they didnt address it
 
The Reaper said:
You are confusing AFL and ASADA.

The AFL do not have any evidence because officially they don't know which players were involved.

ASADA may or may not have evidence but have not passed the identities of the players to the AFL in an official document.
Click to expand...
You're assuming the ASADA report ignores substances. What are you basing this on?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom