No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[Summer Nights]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...shanghai-factory/story-fni5ezdm-1227088199608

My thoughts:

> The circumstantial evidence about TB4 could be reasonably strong if all assumptions and facts that ASADA have collected are true
> There seems to be conflicting views about the burden on proof. Some authorities on the matter, such as Richard Ings, claim that it needs to be proven that a substance was in the needle when administered to an athlete, but then the article here references a lower level of confidence is required, according to "former Australian Federal Police chief Mick Palmer and retired judge Garry Downes".

Can anyone explain and reconcile this?

 

[Pweter]

The auto response would be :

"It was Hird's fault"

It couldn't possibly be that, as people might praise her. More likely "If you disagree with my articles, then it's disgraced former Essendon coach James Hird's fault."

 

[Whispering_Jack]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-to-be-presented/story-fni5ezdm-1227088199608

Nice, deliberately selected photos there...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I do like how she's The Age's Chief Football Writer... Who doesn't write about football.

I fell of my chair on the Sunday after the GF when I opened the paper and she'd written a story on the game. Couldn't ****ing believe it

 

[Lance Uppercut]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...shanghai-factory/story-fni5ezdm-1227088199608

My thoughts:

> The circumstantial evidence about TB4 could be reasonably strong if all assumptions and facts that ASADA have collected are true
> There seems to be conflicting views about the burden on proof. Some authorities on the matter, such as Richard Ings, claim that it needs to be proven that a substance was in the needle when administered to an athlete, but then the article here references a lower level of confidence is required, according to "former Australian Federal Police chief Mick Palmer and retired judge Garry Downes".

Can anyone explain and reconcile this?

yeah I can I think. The burden of proof is indeed below beyond reasonable doubt and qualifies as comfortably satisfied. However the Briginshaw (sp?) principle is applied, and that boils down to this: the more serious the consequences the higher the level of proof required for comfortable satisfaction. In this case the consequences are very serious indeed, so a very high level of proof will be required.

Regarding the "substance in the needle" question, in the absence of an AAF (positive sample usually) the case is prosecuted using circumstantial evidence. That's not to say the evidence is weak: it's not. Clearly some of the ASADA evidence is worryingly strong, but it's still circumstantial evidence. In a case involving circumstantial evidence then every single link in the evidence chain needs to be rock solid. It doesn't matter if every link up until a certain point if made of gold - if one link falls apart it all falls apart. It is true to say that ASADA need to prove that a specific player had a specific substance at a specific time. That's why the player interviews are so important to ASADA, because they are the only evidence links that provide the crucial last stage, and it's why EFC went so hard trying to get them knocked out. Does that mean we're screwed? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think they'll struggle to prove their case based on what I understand some of the players said that ASADA have used as a positive response.

Downes et al are a significant factor, and it's not right to say that they are simply fishing; however by the same token nor it is right to say they are gold-stamped and irrefutably going to be proven. For me, if you want to win a case you need to act like you're going to, and having a retired federal court judge sign off on them is a pretty good way to do that. But at the end of the day the evidence is the evidence. It sounds like they have enough to reasonably have a crack. Do they have enough to prove this at a tribunal to Briginshaw standards?

It seems like we're finally going to find out, and thank **** for that.

 

[Dave]

I did find it interesting that we are now being hinted this is about "burden of proof" questions. So it now sounds like originally no one wanted to move forward because they didn't have nearly enough proof for 'beyond doubt'.. but someone (mcdumbshit) has said "we just have to prove it might have happened" to go to SCN stage.. and that is what they have done.

GW asked him a question about that when the SCN's were first issued, something along the lines of "Last August ASADA was of the view there was not sufficient evidence to proceed, what has changed, the evidence or the attitude" However McDevitt wouldn't answer him.

 

[rines]

GW asked him a question about that when the SCN's were first issued, something along the lines of "Last August ASADA was of the view there was not sufficient evidence to proceed, what has changed, the evidence or the attitude" However McDevitt wouldn't answer him.

I firmly felt at the time, and still do, that ASADA have not collected a heap of 'new' evidence.. they are merely pursuing a weak case as it is better than being seen to be doing nothing.

If the reports are correct and ASADA have recorded answers like "yeah maybe, that sounds familiar" as 'positive response' then it is highly likely the case falls over. I am surprised the players weren't more circumspect with their answers, and I think that falls into why we took the legal action we did.

Really the players should have been more prepared to deflect answers and ensure there was no ambiguity. I would also imagine that is why ASADA has not been keen to give them second interviews. I suspect that by the time it makes a tribunal, the players answers will be more like "no, at no time was I give TB4". Going to be very hard for ASADA to prove otherwise.

That is why I would be interested to see if it makes it through an ADRVP.. as I would imagine that most responses to the SCN are going to be very clear cut "I did not receive TB4" and thus ASADA may struggle to prove that last part (as Lance explained) to 'beyond comfortable satisfaction'.

Remembering that the ONLY burden of proof required to issue a SCN (which is all ASADA have done thus far) is "doping may have, potentially, maybe, possibly occurred"

So SCN, in a case without a positive test, does not = automatic ROF.

 

[cymarak]

What is the official standard of proof required for entry onto the Register of Findings ?

I've seen it described as just that a possible doping violation may have occurred, but I haven't been able to find anything solid that confirms this or says otherwise.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What is the official standard of proof required for entry onto the Register of Findings ?

I've seen it described as just that a possible doping violation may have occurred, but I haven't been able to find anything solid that confirms this or says otherwise.

that's correct

 

[cymarak]

that's correct

So, if I understand correctly:

• standard of proof for issuing SCN = doping violation may have occurred
• standard of proof for entry onto RoF = doping violation may have occurred
• standard of proof for guilty verdict at AFL tribunal = doping violation did occur, to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of tribunal

 

[bacon buster]

So, if I understand correctly:

• standard of proof for issuing SCN = doping violation may have occurred
• standard of proof for entry onto RoF = doping violation may have occurred
• standard of proof for guilty verdict at AFL tribunal = doping violation did occur, to the 'comfortable satisfaction' of tribunal

i think the last part is 'beyond reasonable doubt', rather than 'comfortable satisfaction', but not 100% sure.

 

[cymarak]

i think the last part is 'beyond reasonable doubt', rather than 'comfortable satisfaction', but not 100% sure.

It's definitely 'comfortable satisfaction'.

15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof

AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Rule Violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti Doping Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or other Person alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.5 where the Player must satisfy a higher burden of proof.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

 

[scottmclaren]

If SC is issued, is their is time limit that a RoF entry must be made in?

I want to see if McDonut has brass balls like J Hird and pushes for RoF entry before federal court appeal. He may end up with 34 athletes suing for RoF entry made from an unlawful investigation.

 

[Pweter]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...shanghai-factory/story-fnia3gpe-1227088199608

If this has a semblance of truth, the focus is likely going to be on the supply chain from Charters' China procurements through Alavi and on to Dank. Nothing really new there, is there?

Also how does such confidential information repeatedly find it's way into the public sphere? Unless journos are throwing darts and reporting it as quasi-fact I'm sick of it. Let it happen then report the real facts please (yes I know, that ship sailed years ago, and i nthe case of this saga on about Feb 5 2013).

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Don't Asada have to prove that TB4 was in the needle not go "We think you used TB4"

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

If players only miss 3 games then i see no point in getting rid of Hird.

 

[cymarak]

Don't Asada have to prove that TB4 was in the needle not go "We think you used TB4"

What ASADA thinks is only relevant when it comes to the decision to issue SCNs - when it comes to the tribunal, they have to convince the tribunal to the 'comfortable satisfaction' level that a player used TB4.

Given there are no positive drug tests, I don't think there is a lot of precedent for how much 'proof' is enough to be found guilty, and the 'comfortable satisfaction' test is vague at best.

 

[efcboy]

What ASADA thinks is only relevant when it comes to the decision to issue SCNs - when it comes to the tribunal, they have to convince the tribunal to the 'comfortable satisfaction' level that a player used TB4.

Given there are no positive drug tests, I don't think there is a lot of precedent for how much 'proof' is enough to be found guilty, and the 'comfortable satisfaction' test is vague at best.

Talking hypothetical but what happens in the circumstance that there's only 25 vials purchased and accusations against 34 players. No one can no for sure what players received if their main evidence are invoices and supply chain documents so are they going to perform a raffle to decide which players received it? So hypothetically they may potentially have circumstantial evidence that TB4 may have been at EFC (and should be Melbourne as well given their thymomodulin program) but how do they prove with comfortable satisfaction which players received it? This is where they are fishing for admissions/deals.

 

[rumply]

Talking hypothetical but what happens in the circumstance that there's only 25 vials purchased and accusations against 34 players. No one can no for sure what players received if their main evidence are invoices and supply chain documents so are they going to perform a raffle to decide which players received it? So hypothetically they may potentially have circumstantial evidence that TB4 may have been at EFC (and should be Melbourne as well given their thymomodulin program) but how do they prove with comfortable satisfaction which players received it? This is where they are fishing for admissions/deals.

Still haven't heard an explanation of how the TB4 was paid for seeing as the chemist cancelled the invoice he issued to the club. ASADA assuming it was a cash deal?...

 

[bomberz20_72]

Still haven't heard an explanation of how the TB4 was paid for seeing as the chemist cancelled the invoice he issued to the club. ASADA assuming it was a cash deal?...

A series of I.O.U's

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Still haven't heard an explanation of how the TB4 was paid for seeing as the chemist cancelled the invoice he issued to the club. ASADA assuming it was a cash deal?...

we just got it on tick

 

[cymarak]

From everything known to date, the theory that we used TB4 has lots of holes in it AND the theory that we used Thymomodulin instead has lots of holes in it as well.

 

[rumply]

A series of I.O.U's

we just got it on tick

Guess the suppliers were so busy rorting Medicare, chasing payment for a couple dozen vials of peds was hardly worth bothering about....

 

[Lance Uppercut]

looks like the usual procedures around confidentiality are just completely out the window now

The Run Home ‏@TheRunHome 24m24 minutes ago
"It is ASADA’s intention to release a media statement following the issuance of the amended notices."

 

[DapperDon]

McDoughnuts back on the Media Trail?