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

[Chameleon75]

did you miss the bit about Cubans churning out doctors?

Sorry must have misread.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Argy said: ↑

Name one doping sanction that has been overturned in any court in the world.​

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000031/0/10265/sports-news-article.html

In this letter from John Coates in January 2006 - president of AOC to then secretary of the Legislative committee responsible for drafting up the the ASADA Bill - ion page 7 you will see that;

http://corporate.olympics.com.au/files/dmFile/Holland_DrIan_AOC_Submission12Jan05.pdf

The AOC took Werner Reiterer to the NSW Supreme Court to take his admissions in his book Positive to take him to the Court for Arbitration in Sport for sanctions - to get him to name names. Reiterer contested the case and said that CAS didn't have the jurisdiction over him and he said he had retired from sport. Following QC advise the matter was settled out of court and on confidential terms. Would have been interesting to see what a judge would have ruled if it made it to court. This case was in 2001 so it would have impacted on how the ASADA act was written and the ADRV Panel steps and procedures as well as the investigation procedures to try to minimise the grey areas that Reiterer case had.

 

[jenny61_99]

Imo I don't think that harper and trigg had this clause as it may be a restraint of trade just as hird didn't have this clause. I do however think it was a verbal agreement of which Adelaide(and the persons concerned) agreed to ad maybe the dons people did too. I don't know wether it was agreed to or not by hird but it seems it was implied and maybe because there is no legal reason not too and the dons used this loop hole.

It most certainly was in their Deed. I was flabbergasted that it wasn't in Hirds.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000003/1000031/0/10265/sports-news-article.html

Ahhhh Spanish courts - can you trust them to be normal???

The Spanish Court that sat on the Fuentes case earlier in 2013 found him guilty but would not allow WADA access to blood bags to find out who took what. The Spanish courts also refused to allow investigation into other sportsmen and women outside cycling which Fuentes worked with - footballers, track and field athletes, tennis players, basketballers, Olympians, etc. This case was too hot to handle dragged on for 7 years and a lot of investigations were either shut down by the politicians or courts. You have to remember that a lot of countries that have civil law court systems the courts act differently to those countries that have common law court systems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22353145

A Spanish doctor accused of running one of the world's largest sports doping rings has received a one-year suspended sentence for endangering public health.
Eufemiano Fuentes was convicted over his role in supplying blood transfusions to professional cyclists.
He was charged under public health laws because doping was not illegal in Spain at the time.
A former cycle team official was sentenced to four months in jail, while three other defendants were cleared.
Police found some 200 bags of frozen blood and plasma when they raided Fuentes' offices in 2006.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) and Spain's domestic authorities had wanted access to the blood, to test whether athletes from other sports were involved in the doping ring.
But Judge Julia Patricia Santamaria on Tuesday declined to grant them access and ordered that the bags be destroyed.
As well as handing Fuentes the one year suspended sentence, the court in Madrid struck him off as a medical doctor for four years and fined 4,650 euros ($6,000: £3,940).
<snip>
During the trial, Fuentes said he had worked with athletes, footballers and boxers, as well as cyclists, though he did not say whether he had helped them dope.
The bags of blood found in Fuentes' offices were labelled with codenames, which were believed to relate to well-known cyclists and possibly other athletes. But the judge's ruling means authorities will not be able to establish this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22353145
I like the comment by the BBC writer

Matt SlaterBBC sports news reporter
"Late, disappointing and not even very conclusive: everything about the verdicts in the Operation Puerto case was in keeping with its seedy seven-year history. All that effort for two suspended prison sentences, a four-year ban from medicine and a bizarre fine - hardly what the doctor ordered to heal the effects of Europe's most talked-about doping scandal. It is a good thing Fuentes was not in court to hear his fate, pictures of him smirking would not have done Spain's tattered reputation on doping matters any good at all."

 

[The Dodger]

I still find that example a bit harsh.
The norm would be to destroy the bags after the case and any party that has a right to them can claim them be it the people who's blood it is or the prosecution for another criminal case.

There would be many issues with storage / transport / contamination not to mention the rights of the individuals who are not on trial for any criminal reason but had their blood taken by a doc who is being charged. Doping aside they could be seen as victims in the criminal case that the blood is being requested from.

A govt body can't go around demanding access to other peoples blood.
They make it sound as though the court system is just as corrupt as their sports. When IMO they are following protocol and its WADA that is requesting something out of the ordinary.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

How is it any different to the IOC or different sporting federations keeping blood and urine samples for years and then going back years later to apply the new tests to the samples? The 2012 London Olympians can still have their samples tested and bans impossed until August 2020.

Don Catlin who ran the UCLA Olympic Lab for the 1984 Olympics still has hundreds of piss samples in his refridgerator at work. Well he did in 2012 when he was interviewed in a doco before London. I reckon he might have retired in the last 6 months..

Those athletes went to Fuentes for one reason. He been involved in dodgey sports medical practices since the late 70's.

 

[Chameleon75]

How is it any different to the IOC or different sporting federations keeping blood and urine samples for years and then going back years later to apply the new tests to the samples? The 2012 London Olympians can still have their samples tested and bans impossed until August 2020.

Don Catlin who ran the UCLA Olympic Lab for the 1984 Olympics still has hundreds of piss samples in his refridgerator at work. Well he did in 2012 when he was interviewed in a doco before London. I reckon he might have retired in the last 6 months..

Those athletes went to Fuentes for one reason. He been involved in dodgey sports medical practices since the late 70's.

I suppose the difference would be that the athletes provided consent for those samples to be stored for testing, while the samples given to dr fuentes were for "medical treatment" and they haven't consented to them being used for any other purpose.

 

[yaco55]

And usually the courts will defer to the agreements made between two parties, especially if the pre-established procedures have been followed unless one party can show why those agreements were not legal.

Honestly, it annoys the hell out of me when people threaten court action when they've been caught out doing the wrong thing.

You must feel bad in this forum - I continually read that EFC/Hird are gutless for not taking the AFL to court.

 

[The Dodger]

If the samples are gathered as part of a test for doping there is no issue.

In the above case you have people seeing a doctor (we know it is for doping but they cant assume) to get help for medical conditions and this doctor is being found to be acting outside of usual medical practice.

The case is completely different. The case is the state v a doctor not doing his job properly, for the evidence collected from 3rd parties (who apparently haven't done anything illegal yet and as far as the court are aware were mislead by a doc) would be unusual.
They would have to argue they have some legal right over that blood.
If it were criminal to dope I could see the court handing over the blood samples to a state prosecution but not to another govt body.

The courts are bound by procedure in an ideal world they would turn over the samples but they need to have a legit reason why. They cant give other peoples blood that was used as evidence against someone else for malpractice away to another party not involved in the case.

 

[The Dodger]

I suppose the difference would be that the athletes provided consent for those samples to be stored for testing, while the samples given to dr fuentes were for "medical treatment" and they haven't consented to them being used for any other purpose.

Once again Chameleon you take the point I was trying to make and make it far better and more succinct than me.

 

[yaco55]

More dribble, S0 is there to first ensure the new drug is "safe" to use hence being passed for therapeutic use anywhere in the world. WADA does not care which country accepts it.

Once it's been deemed as safe, then it's determined if it fits within S0-S9. If it doesn't fit any of those categories then as far as WADA is concerned you can jam as much into your body as you want even though local authorities in different countries may even deem the drug illegal or set out specific dosage levels as a maximum. WADA is not a medical fraternity, it's a doping agency.

S0 is so black and white I have no idea why people are trying to argue differently.

Well if WADA who is supposed to run an anti-doping code to keep illegal drugs out of sport, as well as stopping athletes taking substances that don't have theraupetic approval, are willing to accept a substance as safe because it has approval from a third world country, then I wonder if they are filling their charter.

And this is not considering that if the substance is approved in one country as an example, then an athlete not from that country, can't legally access that substance. So much for an even playing field.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Im on my phone and not my computer so i am restricted what i can search but i reckon the blood bags for cyclists were examined but not the ones for other athletes.

blackcat can you confirm this one way or the other?

 

[The Dodger]

Well if WADA who is supposed to run an anti-doping code to keep illegal drugs out of sport, as well as stopping athletes taking substances that don't have theraupetic approval, are willing to accept a substance as safe because it has approval from a third world country, then I wonder if they are filling their charter.

And this is not considering that if the substance is approved in one country as an example, then an athlete not from that country, can't legally access that substance. So much for an even playing field.

That's not a good argument, and makes the point I do about s0 not being overly restrictive in that its a bare minimum approach. The drugs you take only need to be approved in an obscure foreign land its not exactly a highly set bar.

I think WADA should safely assume people would only use drugs that are available in their own country for therapeutic use.

 

[yaco55]

Well it is in their eyes. If 1 government approves it then it is in all countries.

This I can't accept - Especially if health and welfare is an issue.

 

[The Dodger]

Im on my phone and not my computer so i am restricted what i can search but i reckon the blood bags for cyclists were examined but not the ones for other athletes.

blackcat can you confirm this one way or the other?

You could be right on the above, but if the court took a few samples and published the results to prove the case against the doctor, in that he was doping people then it is still the case against the doctor. WADA are probably allowed to use the findings to issue the punishment but unless as part of the case they examined every bag and name and published the results then...how are WADA going to get that blood?

 

[yaco55]

That's not a good argument, and makes the point I do about s0 not being overly restrictive in that its a bare minimum approach. The drugs you take only need to be approved in an obscure foreign land its not exactly a highly set bar.

I think WADA should safely assume people would only use drugs that are available in their own country for therapeutic use.

But it should be a highly set bar.

 

[yaco55]

It most certainly was in their Deed. I was flabbergasted that it wasn't in Hirds.

Or Corcoran's deed.

Corcoran must be loving this - I suggest that he was the key driver of the substance program.

 

[The Dodger]

But it should be a highly set bar.

No, then the argument that they are over stepping their role and playing doctor as well as anti doping holds water. They are merely making it an offence for people to use drugs, under their code that people shouldn't be using anyway because of laws in their country alone.
They obviously realised how easy it to use these drugs without punishment within countries and it was being taken advantage of so they have found a way to try and eliminate their use while not being anymore over bearing than local laws are anyway.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

You could be right on the above, but if the court took a few samples and published the results to prove the case against the doctor, in that he was doping people then it is still the case against the doctor. WADA are probably allowed to use the findings to issue the punishment but unless as part of the case they examined every bag and name and published the results then...how are WADA going to get that blood?

I guess it depends how important the Spanish believes the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the true is compared to legal technicalties and protecting the system is.

 

[The Dodger]

Im on my phone and not my computer so i am restricted what i can search but i reckon the blood bags for cyclists were examined but not the ones for other athletes.

blackcat can you confirm this one way or the other?

Just to add further in that if you spoke to the judge outside of court off the record she might well say she has no doubt that there was doping from other people who's blood is in the bags. She however cant do unconstitutional / strange measures for no reason. The norm would be what she has gone with and might like a reason to agree to the blood being handed over, we don't know this.
However there is a chance she is protecting people but she is still doing so within her powers and following protocol.

 

[jenny61_99]

This I can't accept - Especially if health and welfare is an issue.

To achieve approval from most regulatory health authorities, you have to jump through some pretty big hoops - mainly because the government itself will be liable if it achieves safety ratings and then goes on to maim/kill a heap of people. From a pharma/inventors perspective, about a billion dollars is spent to bring just ONE commercial product completely to market. You don't spend that type of money on something that a) won't be safe, or b) doesn't do what you claim it does. I think it is a bare minimum, but knowing the hoops required to achieve medicinal/human therapeutic status, I'd be reasonably confident that the drug is safe IF used in the intended manner/dosage/recommended administration.

The problem I have with any of this, is the off-label use of products - which Dank appears to have done. Once you use something off-label, you more or less forfeit the safety guarantees. Once you combine it with something else... just asking for trouble.

 

[The Dodger]

I guess it depends how important the Spanish believes the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the true is compared to legal technicalties and protecting the system is.

Those legal technicalities tend to be an onion in the ointment though. If the judge handed them over and has no authority to or it isn't standard procedure to do so, an appeal form the owners of that blood would be filed in seconds and probably win. She would have to have solid grounds to do so. Its criminal evidence and those who can access that legally are few.

 

[jenny61_99]

Or Corcoran's deed.

Corcoran must be loving this - I suggest that he was the key driver of the substance program.

Look, he may well have been and has been flying very nicely under the radar - perhaps due to the fact that his wife died during this time. Hopefully everybody's role will be completely identified by the end of all this.

 

[theflea]

It most certainly was in their Deed. I was flabbergasted that it wasn't in Hirds.

If it was then I stand corrected. Then the issue is interesting. I assumed that it wasn't in the Hird decision because it may be a restraint of trade however that would also apply to the crow gents. Is it a case that while it may be a ROT it still has to be tabled in court in which the participants didn't do? There must be a reason as to why in wasn't in the Hird deed. It cant be that they(the lawyers) forgot it.

 

[jenny61_99]

If it was then I stand corrected. Then the issue is interesting. I assumed that it wasn't in the Hird decision because it may be a restraint of trade however that would also apply to the crow gents. Is it a case that while it may be a ROT it still has to be tabled in court in which the participants didn't do? There must be a reason as to why in wasn't in the Hird deed. It cant be that they(the lawyers) forgot it.

It wasn't in Connelly's one either with the Melbourne tanking fiasco, but when asked the following day whether he could still be paid, the AFL clarified that no he couldn't be paid by Melbourne (although went on to say a coterie group could still pay him if they wanted to).