One year on Feb 7 - Anybody still think infractions are coming?

[interestedoz1]

It's not compliant. And it's been discussed a reasonable amount since February last year.

So if not compliant, was there a consensus reached here that there was a doping violation committed (of the AFL code)? I remember reading through some of the discussion here but didn't see a conclusion reached...

 

[I Rock]

So if not compliant, was there a consensus reached here that there was a doping violation committed (of the AFL code)? I remember reading through some of the discussion here but didn't see a conclusion reached...

The AFL have released a statement that to this point no doping violation has been registered (or words to those effect)under the AFL Drug Code. However Essendon were punished under S1.6 of the AFL Code of Conduct because of their "supplement" program.

I am of the opinion (quite vocally) that although Essendon to this point not been found/charged under any Drug Code violation they are in fact guilty (based on what we already know) of several Drug Code "Breaches" (changed from using the word violation on request from LU).

I do however understand that this may still not be reflected in the AFL's actions after the ASADA investigation.

 

[mango]

well isnt this all very exciting, another 'deadline' come & gone without a peep, no declaration from the expert() journos that once again they got it all horribly wrong, that would be asking too much now wouldnt it seeing as apparently they answer to nobody...


but keep whacking away peoples, keep fighting that good fight...

 

[I Rock]

well isnt this all very exciting, another 'deadline' come & gone without a peep, no declaration from the expert() journos that once again they got it all horribly wrong, that would be asking too much now wouldnt it seeing as apparently they answer to nobody...


but keep whacking away peoples, keep fighting that good fight...

Can you explain the contradictions in your post?

I am reading this as you claiming the Journo's have no credibility; then use what they have stated as some sort of credibility towards your argument that Essendon will not face punishment.

So are the Journo's credible or not credible always, or only when it suits you?

 

[mango]

Can you explain the contradictions in your post?

I am reading this as you claiming the Journo's have no credibility; then use what they have stated as some sort of credibility towards your argument that Essendon will not face punishment.

So are the Journo's credible or not credible always, or only when it suits you?

no claim of the sort big fella, just stating the facts as they are.

but you put whatever faith in these experts that you like & keep battling away...

 

[I Rock]

no claim of the sort big fella, just stating the facts as they are.

but you put whatever faith in these experts that you like & keep battling away...

I'm not putting any faith in anyone in the media. I read the AFL Drug Code, AFL charge sheet etc and formed my own impression.

I would suggest you are using what the media write much much more than I have.

 

[Armchair Critic]

well isnt this all very exciting, another 'deadline' come & gone without a peep, no declaration from the expert() journos that once again they got it all horribly wrong, that would be asking too much now wouldnt it seeing as apparently they answer to nobody...


but keep whacking away peoples, keep fighting that good fight...

Sounds like you are describing the Bombers High Performance Unit

 

[blackshadow]

no claim of the sort big fella, just stating the facts as they are.

but you put whatever faith in these experts that you like & keep battling away...

You're just making up rubbish about a deadline. Unless ASADA states they have a deadline there is no deadline.

Journalists may speculate on times when findings will be handed down but don't confuse that with an actual deadline.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[GOAT LOVER]

As a side note, Bombers are 15-1 on Sportsbet to win the least amount of games this year. Only GWS, Saints and Melbourne are shorter, could be that someone has had a decent bet, Sportsbet are playing very safe or people know stuff they shouldn't.

 

[I Rock]

As a side note, Bombers are 15-1 on Sportsbet to win the least amount of games this year. Only GWS, Saints and Melbourne are shorter, could be that someone has had a decent bet, Sportsbet are playing very safe or people know stuff they shouldn't.

Maybe just some backside covering, especially if it is written as games won rather than ladder position.

 

[mango]

I'm not putting any faith in anyone in the media. I read the AFL Drug Code, AFL charge sheet etc and formed my own impression.

I would suggest you are using what the media write much much more than I have.

You're just making up rubbish about a deadline. Unless ASADA states they have a deadline there is no deadline.

Journalists may speculate on times when findings will be handed down but don't confuse that with an actual deadline.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Bwahhhaaa!

yes it was EFC supports posting & promoting the garbage these people wrote....why am I not surprised you lot are now washing you hands of them

 

[I Rock]

Bwahhhaaa!

yes it was EFC supports posting & promoting the garbage these people wrote....why am I not surprised you lot are now washing you hands of them

What are you talking about. I never said it was an Essendon supporter and I am not part of a lot. Firstly I suggest you read what I wrote and secondly "you lot". Are you another close minded soul who still sees this as an Us VS Them situation?

All the typed laughter and Emicons in the world are not going to change the fact, you are way off track on this reply to my post.

 

[Saint4Life]

EFC will get off scott free, well the players anyway, there's no doubt about it in my mind.

The AFL cannot afford to loose an entire team / FC worth of players and won't let it happen. This will be hushed and pushed aside in the too hard basket, with the never ending "ongoing investigation". Imagine the loss of memberships, revenue from games, tv viewing, the outcry from the supporters if the players were to be banned, along with law suits from the players etc.

ASADA are a bunch of time wasters imo, as they don't have the guts or balls to do it. They scream and shout, then do nothing about it.
The only thing that should be done is let EFC play, just don't give them match points for the entire year. That's my opinion as I cannot realistically see an entire team being banned.

What really shits me though is its simply far easier to give Saad a 2 year ban for being honest, and taking a drink that you can buy OTC, and only banned on match day. There's a difference between that and going on a dodgy mix of borderline needles at offsite locations of unknown substances.

No matter if EFC ends up getting proven guilt or not, that view won't change peoples views, they basically went too far and should be punished (much harder than what they were). I really have lost patience though with the length of the investigation, I bet their still waiting on a Dank interview, pfft.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

The AFL cannot afford to loose an entire team / FC worth of players and won't let it happen. This will be hushed and pushed aside in the too hard basket, with the never ending "ongoing investigation". Imagine the loss of memberships, revenue from games, tv viewing, the outcry from the supporters if the players were to be banned, along with law suits from the players etc.

True, but the AFL don't have a say in whether ASADA issues infraction notices. They're a government body, so the AFL's agenda shouldn't play into it at all.

ASADA are a bunch of time wasters imo, as they don't have the guts or balls to do it. They scream and shout, then do nothing about it.

Haven't heard ASADA say much at all, let alone scream and shout.

What really shits me though is its simply far easier to give Saad a 2 year ban for being honest, and taking a drink that you can buy OTC, and only banned on match day. There's a difference between that and going on a dodgy mix of borderline needles at offsite locations of unknown substances.

of course Saad's case is easier to resolve. he's one guy who tested positive to a banned substance. open-shut case. this case is far larger and far more complex, involving numerous players and staff from several football codes, thousands of documents, and the use drugs that are unable to be detected. just because you've lost patience and it's taking too long for you, doesn't mean it's taking longer than it should for an appropriate decision to be made.

 

[Boston tiger]

If the whole St Kilda team had been given the drink by the conditioning department then Saad would probably be not be missing any matches.
Unless the AFL didnt want StKilda around.

 

[Laphroaig]

If the whole St Kilda team had been given the drink by the conditioning department then Saad would probably be not be missing any matches.
Unless the AFL didnt want StKilda around.

Seriously dude. Think it through.

 

[Boston tiger]

Seriously dude. Think it through.

What do you mean? Wouldn't it be Essendon all over again.
As in if they are all going down the gurgler .. no one is.

 

[yaco55]

If the whole St Kilda team had been given the drink by the conditioning department then Saad would probably be not be missing any matches.
Unless the AFL didnt want StKilda around.

I agree.

Though its impossible because ASADA usually only test 6 to 8 players at a time.

 

[Barkly St End]

What do you mean? Wouldn't it be Essendon all over again.
As in if they are all going down the gurgler .. no one is.

That is a reasonable proposition.

There is a difference between happily sending a no-name player to the gallows, and sentencing a whole team, especially where it concerns something not overly serious.

In fact, one could take this a step further.

If it had involved a big name player rather than a no-name player, how different would it have been?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

That is a reasonable proposition.

There is a difference between happily sending a no-name player to the gallows, and sentencing a whole team, especially where it concerns something not overly serious.

In fact, one could take this a step further.

If it had involved a big name player rather than a no-name player, how different would it have been?

Probably would just sidelined him with a 'troublesome foot injury' for a while or something similar

 

[Baldur]

If the whole St Kilda team had been given the drink by the conditioning department then Saad would probably be not be missing any matches.
Unless the AFL didnt want StKilda around.

I agree.

Though its impossible because ASADA usually only test 6 to 8 players at a time.

This has occured. I understand that an entire rugby team was given a drink somewhat like the one Saad took. A couple of players where tested and they were suspended. The others nada.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

There is a difference between happily sending a no-name player to the gallows, and sentencing a whole team, especially where it concerns something not overly serious.

interesting.

 

[yaco55]

This has occured. I understand that an entire rugby team was given a drink somewhat like the one Saad took. A couple of players where tested and they were suspended. The others nada.

But that's my point - The way the testing regime is structured it could only target 6 to 8 players at a time.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

So here we are - infractions month.

Lets see what happens.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

The thread title reads "one year on" but Asada say they got ACC involved 18 months before feb 2013 so the ASADA investigation has been going on for at least 2 and a half years.
The ACC report stated that they had referred matters to the Federal and State police forces. Thus ASADA will be restricted from revealing any information which may be prejudicial to any possible criminal prosecutions. If criminal prosecutions really are being prepared then I expect ASADA to be unable to release any information which has a link to criminal activity. In order to suggest or impose infractions ASADA will be required to provide supporting evidence. If Dank (or whoever) is facing criminal charges it will not be possible for ASADA to reveal that Dank (or whoever) was involved in the process forming the basis of the infractions.
ASADA may find it impossible to support infractions or suggest infractions due to the extensive nature of what is considered to be legal prejudice.
For example, the Patel manslaughter case was overturned on appeal due to revelations during his court case of his surgical skills. Information regarding his past surgery practices was considered prejudicial to his guilt or otherwise of manslaughter.

If criminal charges really are being considered against anyone related to the Essendon affair then I doubt that there can be any final report from ASADA until after the criminal proceedings have been completed. Which will be a number of years in the future.
Of course, ASADA will continue to investigate until such completion of the criminal stuff.