ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[jenny61_99]

Are you concerned about the welfare of his 4 kids under the spell of the evil man?

Or what about those under 9's that he coaches. Do you think he should be stood down from that?

I would hope his logic and reasoning is not impaired when it comes to his children or his kids' footy team. I would damn well hope he wouldn't inject any of the substances he gave to the players at Essendon into his own kids.

Mind you I've seen many dads over the years that are horrendous coaches - impelling their charges to win, no matter the cost. Oh wait... He probably fits right in.

 

[jenny61_99]

That's inaccurate. Many substances readily available have drug like properties, yet are not submitted for drug testing and instead sold as cosmetics. Dr Wittert admitted on twitter that there are probably aftershaves that would fit the s0 category. If s0 is black and white, are we going to weed out all the beardless, silky skinned cheats?

They injected after shave now?

 

[Jade]

Jade?

Already did it mate, go back and check.

 

[tigerwill]

My dear fellow - it's not a deflection.

You and your colleagues are yet to show the process by which we get from the ADRV Panel making an entry in the Register of Findings to the AFL issuing an infraction notice.

In between those two events, the footballer is in his rights to appeal to the AAT (and from there, it effectively enters the court system).

Should that happen - forget about the appeals process under the AFL Code - that would be many, many years away.

My dear old chap. Why do we need to show the process? You're familiar with the AFL Anti Doping Code, the legislated powers of ASADA, Section 40 of the ASADA Act the ADRV panel under the ASADA Act etc etc.or so you have us believe.

I've never said anything to the contrary that it can't go to AAT.

As "from there, it effectively enters the court system", care to show a link that this can occur. The AAT is a tribunal, if it hands down a decision that turns down the applicant it then goes where? To the AFL Tribunal under the AFL Anti Doping Code. If the decision handed down is appealed, that Appeal decision is final. No court system to go to.
Stop deliberately being obtuse.

 

[tigerwill]

Your memory is failing you.

Immediately after all of the policitcal grandstanding, it was made clear that the ACC report was about the NRL and AFL only.

I'm sure you agree that's strange.

The ACC completes an investigation ostensibly involving match fixing as one of its primary considerations, does not mention soccer at all, and at that exact point, Interpol finalises its worldwide investigation of match fixing in soccer, at every level of the game, across the world, a much, much bigger deal than anything we have heard in the so-called blackest day in Australian sport.[/quote

May be my memory is failing, but didn't I refer to all the major sporting codes being represented at that February press conference?
Have you got a link that confirms your statement "the ACC report was only about the AFL and NRL only?"

You may have missed this BSE or maybe I missed your reply to the bolded section above.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I know there are experts in this field on this board, and I don't declare myself to be one of those, but I have read an opinion that the AFL bears the same legal responsibility as Essendon as far as workplace safety goes.

If true, it's worth comtemplating how this affects likely outcomes.

Would think that the AFL's liability resides with providing grounds and facilities are in a safe condition to play the game, what happens during the week to the players is exclusively the responsibility of the individual clubs

 

[QuietB]

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the AFL wielding it's influence to protect players (as in, I'm not sure they've done that), I think the highlighted is often lost on people.

There is very little proof, or even suggestion that Essendon administered illegal substances that would drastically enhance performance.

There is a great deal of suggestion that Essendon may have broken the letter of the law on a piece of paper.

Now before anyone gets excited, that is NOT condoning any of the rumoured issues, but pointing out that in the likeliest of circumstances we don't have a mass doping case on our hands.

Now this is very much from the 'but I'm only a LITTLE bit over (you bloody idiot)' school of thought; but remember, Essendon has copped a bloody big whack from it.

Most angst from people wanting to see infractions issued is largely driven by the fact football is a tribal sport. Be the same if it was Carlton, Collingwood etc etc - you just want to see them bleed.

I am torn. at times I largely agree with your post. Other times I think it is much worse and completely disgraceful. I think a fair outcome is the players are spared and everyone else gone which has largely happened.

 

[Boston tiger]

A low ranked player with nothing to lose. Know they are going to be cut, and have the chance to make a dollar?

These days with social media, things don't stay secret forever, rifts between players though out of public eye are often known from 'insiders' I recall a few WCE fans saying with the Ben Cousins thing, that it was known well within some circles that there were some rifts within the players. Right now thats just not particularly showing. Of course, all that can easily change.

All the sackings and resignations and bannings of officials and coach may have helped the player resentment.
Who knows? We may have heard more from the players if the people in charge of it all hadn't been whacked so hard.
Old man Daniher had a dig at Hird at some stage but you are right things are pretty tight at Essendon at the moment.

 

[TerryWallet]

I am torn. at times I largely agree with your post. Other times I think it is much worse and completely disgraceful. I think a fair outcome is the players are spared and everyone else gone which has largely happened.

Tear up the WADA Code and open the floodgates then.

The only thing that matters in sport is the athlete. The WADA Code is useless without athlete bans.

Strict liabilty means strict liabilty. What will hurt the implementors of this Team Doping Program is if the players are banned. That is how it must be.

Players are not lemmings, and if they act like lemmings they cop their due ban.

John Fahey WADA President - "If it is in your system, you're banned. Full stop"

 

[QuietB]

Tear up the WADA Code and open the floodgates then.

The only thing that matters in sport is the athlete. The WADA Code is useless without athlete bans.

Strict liabilty means strict liabilty. What will hurt the implementors of this Team Doping Program is if the players are banned. That is how it must be.

Players are not lemmings, and if they act like lemmings they cop their due ban.

John Fahey WADA President - "If it is in your system, you're banned. Full stop"

I agree with that as well. It is a crap situation that the players should never been put in and it is shameful no one wants to take personal responsibility for that.

The whole thing is a steaming pile of poo entirely the doing of the EFC.

 

[TerryWallet]

I agree with that as well. It is a crap situation that the players should never been put in and it is shameful no one wants to take personal responsibility for that.

The whole thing is a steaming pile of poo entirely the doing of the EFC.

Frankly, i fail to see where any sympathy for the players comes from.

By their actions DURING the Doping and AFTER the Doping got exposed, they are clearly 1 in all in with Hird and the EFC.

If any of them comes forward and explains that they were duped, they will get a very sympathetic ear if their story passes muster.

Until then, the players were and are complicit in Organised Systemic Team Doping and cheating.

 

[blackshadow]

Frankly, i fail to see where any sympathy for the players comes from.

By their actions DURING the Doping and AFTER the Doping got exposed, they are clearly 1 in all in with Hird and the EFC.

If any of them comes forward and explains that they were duped, they will get a very sympathetic ear if their story passes muster.

Until then, the players were and are complicit in Organised Systemic Team Doping and cheating.

Unfortunately that appears to be the case.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Laphroaig]

I know there are experts in this field on this board, and I don't declare myself to be one of those, but I have read an opinion that the AFL bears the same legal responsibility as Essendon as far as workplace safety goes.

If true, it's worth comtemplating how this affects likely outcomes.

Well, unsurprisingly, you're wrong.

 

[replicant]

...There is very little proof, or even suggestion that Essendon administered illegal substances that would drastically enhance performance.

There is a great deal of suggestion that Essendon may have broken the letter of the law on a piece of paper.

Now before anyone gets excited, that is NOT condoning any of the rumoured issues, but pointing out that in the likeliest of circumstances we don't have a mass doping case on our hands...

I think this is the critical point which divides the "foamers" from the "cultists" (i put myself somewhere in between, but people may judge as they wish).

While i agree there is little definitive proof the substances were administered (thus the prolonged investigation), there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that they were. I think the weight of evidence is there was a coordinated attempt to improve performance through the supplement program, which includes banned (or questionable) substances. You may see this as a "letter of the law on a piece of paper" issue, but i see an irresponsible, unethical and possibly dangerous attempt to dope, but to do so in a manner that isn't quite illegal.

Even if we don't have a mass doping case on our hands, we most definitely have an attempted mass doping case on our hands.

The attempt was to dope. The people in charge (and who that was is still subject to some conjecture) knew very well they were doping to improve performance. They just thought they had found a loophole. I see it like the bodyline, or underarm bowling. Even if it happens to be legal (or at least, not actionable), it's still despicable, and a blight on the game.

 

[DudleyB]

The AFL's two card trick.

You speak so much rot. What two card trick?
If the Bombers didnt do this in the first place - there is no issue.
Forget the AFL and your convoluted theories.
If Essendon didn't take the gear on S0 and S2 - no issue in the first place.
The AFL came in POST event. It is the EVENT that matters here - not the post event wheelings and dealings.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the AFL wielding it's influence to protect players (as in, I'm not sure they've done that), I think the highlighted is often lost on people.

There is very little proof, or even suggestion that Essendon administered illegal substances that would drastically enhance performance.

There is a great deal of suggestion that Essendon may have broken the letter of the law on a piece of paper.

Now before anyone gets excited, that is NOT condoning any of the rumoured issues, but pointing out that in the likeliest of circumstances we don't have a mass doping case on our hands.

Now this is very much from the 'but I'm only a LITTLE bit over (you bloody idiot)' school of thought; but remember, Essendon has copped a bloody big whack from it.

Most angst from people wanting to see infractions issued is largely driven by the fact football is a tribal sport. Be the same if it was Carlton, Collingwood etc etc - you just want to see them bleed.

This is a glass half full approach.

The AOD peptide that they took was still in the trial phase and the published results of the drug's performance are pretty limited (others can elaborate if they want).

Hird and co's presence at the AOD presentation suggests they should know it was in the early stages of approval.

They then had the choice to
A) find away to make it work (compound pharmacist etc)

Or

B) choose a drug that has passed clinical trials, has the relevant approvals and is given a bright green light.

So it could be a rule that is banning something that one day turns out to be harmless, but the people involved decided that there was something about AOD that was worth pursuing despite knowing it was still very early stages.

But let's look at the glass half empty approach: what if the drug is wildly performance enhancing? What if it, when injected, produces drastic PED qualities? What if ASADA, the afl and WADA all decide that the little law written on a piece of paper is far enough into the grey area that they pass over this one?

What does that do to the landscape of experimental supplement use in professional sport?

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

I agree with that as well. It is a crap situation that the players should never been put in and it is shameful no one wants to take personal responsibility for that.

Well i guess the positive out of all this is that players are likely not to be in this situation for quite sometime as things are going to change greatly 2014 onwards, such as;

• The Players Association will get off their arse and support the players in regards to providing independent information and advice on consuming any substances and will also have some teeth in regards to questioning practices implemented by any club.
• The AFL will get off their arse and monitor the intake of all substances and practices of clubs and provide a higher level of information to all incoming players.
• All the football clubs will have to implement a new level of compliance and due diligence processes in place in regards to substances, practices, records and assurance.

 

[QuietB]

And the funny part is that the lunatic fringe at Essendon think its a jolly fine thing.

Someone has to pay for it

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Although it is conjecture, russelleberthandball musings in the thread http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/a-forest-or-a-plantation.1044996/page-4#post-31321203 have a ring of plausibility. There is no way on earth that anyone would be injecting stuff that had no meaningful benefit.

 

[Big Sim]

Although it is conjecture, russelleberthandball musings in the thread http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/a-forest-or-a-plantation.1044996/page-4#post-31321203 have a ring of plausibility. There is no way on earth that anyone would be injecting stuff that had no meaningful benefit.

Nor is there any way they would be sticking it in via needles willy nilly without keeping records to ascertain the results. That the propaganda of poor to no record keeping has been established somehow as fact is one of the crazier (and most sinister) aspects of this farce.

 

[TerryWallet]

Nor is there any way they would be sticking it in via needles willy nilly without keeping records to ascertain the results. That the propaganda of poor to no record keeping has been established somehow as fact is one of the crazier (and most sinister) aspects of this farce.

Nobody, from Vlad or Gillon(AFL), to Little or Hird(EFC), to Finniss(AFLPA) to the Media to the Players themselves are putting ANY heat on Dank to come forward with these records.

The nudge nudge wink wink game that EVERYONE is playing to try to ensure no player infractions is both laughable and disgraceful.

Obvious Cone of Silence is obvious.

Obvious doping cover up is obvious.

 

[Spongebob]

Although it is conjecture, russelleberthandball musings in the thread http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/a-forest-or-a-plantation.1044996/page-4#post-31321203 have a ring of plausibility. There is no way on earth that anyone would be injecting stuff that had no meaningful benefit.

Our friend, The Gazelle Hibbert, said that part of what they were trying to do was not get results from individual drugs, but to get PED-like results by combining drugs that they could argue were not listed as prohibited.

 

[jenny61_99]

Our friend, The Gazelle Hibbert, said that part of what they were trying to do was not get results from individual drugs, but to get PED-like results by combining drugs that they could argue were not listed as prohibited.

but to get PED-like results by combining drugs that they could argue were not listed as prohibited

 

[yaco55]

You surely cannot be serious in that you're now looking to argue that there have been very few S0 prosecutions and hence it's ok to use.

What is wrong with you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have moved on from this. I am getting the idea that if a substance doesn't appear on the SO list, as long as it receives regulatory approval from one country ( could be Nicaragua for example ) its fine to use. I dont think this is right !

 

[yaco55]

They EXTENDED his contract. They didn't have to do that and they did so immediately following the Announcement of the penalties. Belligerence at its best. They didn't HAVE to pay him at all. Steven Trigg and Phil Harper were suspended and neither of them could be paid by the club.

Railroading Hird. Now I've heard everything.

You are being neurotic. The fact is that Hird being paid is because the 'AFL's Deed of Settlement' did not specify that Hird couldn't be paid, unlike the Harper and Trigg cases. EFC have no choice but to pay Hird. I can assure despite the bleatings of Demetriou this was no typographical error - As Corcoran is also being paid. Doubt the AFL could make 2 mistakes.