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

[Dave]

What's people's thoughts on this article , me thinks it's just more conditioning the public than anything , let it be over soon !

Pretty much what Gil said on tv last night, words to the effect of "everyone just wants it over". Actually Gil, I want to know what happened, and if that means it drags on and impacts you then boo ****ing hoo.

 

[Foxx]

Their a rare breed these Port supporters! On a mission to get Ryder, then sook and blame us for him potentially getting suspended.

 

[Bomberboy2013]

Just read an article on the herald posted about 5 hours ago where Ben mcdipshit stated the burden of proof is not high

 

[Duckworth]

Just read an article on the herald posted about 5 hours ago where Ben mcdipshit stated the burden of proof is not high

It's good to see he's acutally read and knows what the burden of proof is now. To issue SC notices it isn't very high.

 

[SizzleChest]

What's people's thoughts on this article , me thinks it's just more conditioning the public than anything , let it be over soon !

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CA4QqQIwAA&url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/essendon-warned-asada-wont-go-easy-on-players-over-supplements-saga/story-fni0fiyv-1227095209763&ei=OVZDVOXOG8Hl8AWVsII4&usg=AFQjCNFsgu2gZxijjIuNMfC1bXm_iNc02w&sig2=0wfzh-X-pt3LfwW6IZ9C0A

Another nothing article except for this bit:

“I’ve spoken with the CEO of the AFL and we have agreed that ASADA will be present at any tribunal hearings and will be directly involved in the presentation of the evidence in relation to these matters should they get that far,” Mr McDevitt said.

Guessing that ASADA are gearing up to table a few deals pretty soon and have Gil's blessing and support.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

“The panel (the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel) don’t have to make any decision about it warranting action, they simply have to agree or disagree with me on a possible violation. So yes, it’s not a significant burden of proof.”

And if they don't agree then what Mcdipshit?

 

[Dave]

Another nothing article except for this bit:

“I’ve spoken with the CEO of the AFL and we have agreed that ASADA will be present at any tribunal hearings and will be directly involved in the presentation of the evidence in relation to these matters should they get that far,” Mr McDevitt said.

Guessing that ASADA are gearing up to table a few deals pretty soon and have Gil's blessing and support.

Gil definitely wants that. Whether the players agree is another matter.

 

[Dave]

And if they don't agree then what Mcdipshit?

WADA.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

WADA.

Haha.

I doubt it will get that far.

 

[Tazmania]

WADA.

Please don't card me...but that is an excellent post lol.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

I still like this one

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

What if players refuse to sit out games Asada cant exactly force them i wouldn't be surprised if they get some sort of suspended sentence.

 

[Matthew_Lloyd]

What if players refuse to sit out games Asada cant exactly force them i wouldn't be surprised if they get some sort of suspended sentence.

wat

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

wat

ie they make the players attend some kind of Asada/Wada course once a week if they fail to attend they cop 6 months some shit like that.

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

geez i hope the club sticks fat! we are not the ones wanting deals as far as i can tell, as we would have taken deals months ago. so ASADA comes at us and says "look we have this really flimsy evidence that gives us grounds to issue these scary show cause notices that will make the public think your guilty. so us and the AFL think you should take these deals so we dont seem incompetent and the issue will be out of the papers by round 3 next season... plz!"

now the club should be saying "NO! show me the evidence that states that we took illegal performance enhancing drugs. if you cant we will appeal until we feel justice has been served. we look forward to preparing through the NAB cup with a full list and kicking off a premiership campaign in round one. goodbye"

is this unreasonable? (genuine question)

 

[CBombers17]

geez i hope the club sticks fat! we are not the ones wanting deals as far as i can tell, as we would have taken deals months ago. so ASADA comes at us and says "look we have this really flimsy evidence that gives us grounds to issue these scary show cause notices that will make the public think your guilty. so us and the AFL think you should take these deals so we dont seem incompetent and the issue will be out of the papers by round 3 next season... plz!"

now the club should be saying "NO! show me the evidence that states that we took illegal performance enhancing drugs. if you cant we will appeal until we feel justice has been served. we look forward to preparing through the NAB cup with a full list and kicking off a premiership campaign in round one. goodbye"

is this unreasonable? (genuine question)

Couldn't agree more bomber_mad. We can't change the past and the club has done it's best but now more than ever we need to stand as 1.

I don't mean just repair the damage/stem the bleeding. I want the club to stamp our brand on this now and show the football and Australian sporting community who we are, what we stand for and where we are going.

Time to make every post a winner and take aim at every cheap shot sniper who bobs up in the process. We have lost (so far) in the court of public opinion and it's time to turn it around - beyond time.

 

[rines]

The burden of proof at ADRVP is not that high.. so McDumbnuts is correct. The panel only have to agree that there is a 'chance' a violation 'may' have occurred.

Then the AFL Anti-Doping GC (Dillon?) reviews evidence and decides to issue infractions or not.
If Yes --> proceed to IN
If No --> ASADA and WADA can choose to appeal to CAS (Appeal point 1)

IN
If AFL believes there is enough evidence to issue IN (almost 100% likely they will if ADRVP records a possible violation) then each player will receive a notice. They are suspended from playing at that time by default, however they can apply to the AFL to overrule this suspension. Then the player face a tribunal where a panel of three experts decides guilty or not guilty. The burden of proof at this stage is HIGH (not 'beyond reasonable doubt, but pretty close to).
If found guilty --> Players can elect to appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 2)
If found not guilty --> ASADA and/or WADA can choose to appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 3)

IFF found not guilty and ASADA/WADA do not appeal. Then players are free to resume training and the whole thing is over.

IFF players found guilty, then penalties are decided based on level of co-operation etc etc.
If player disagrees with length of supsension --> Can appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 4)
If ASADA/WADA disagree with length of suspension ---> Can appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 5)


Put it this way.. Show Cause Notices are the easiest step that ASADA will take in this process.. the ADVRP is not that far behind. However then the fun begins. Once a ROF is entered.. then it is up to a tribunal and the entire burden of proof shifts majorly. It is at this point that it is up to ASADA to demonstrate EXACTLY what substance (with 95% confidence) was in each needle, EXACTLY how much (with 95% confidence) was given to each player and EXACTLY which player received what (with 95% confidence).

So I dare say we have a fair bit of foaming left to do yet before this thing is sorted...

 

[Barry Roundhouse]

The burden of proof at ADRVP is not that high.. so McDumbnuts is correct. The panel only have to agree that there is a 'chance' a violation 'may' have occurred.

Then the AFL Anti-Doping GC (Dillon?) reviews evidence and decides to issue infractions or not.
If Yes --> proceed to IN
If No --> ASADA and WADA can choose to appeal to CAS (Appeal point 1)

IN
If AFL believes there is enough evidence to issue IN (almost 100% likely they will if ADRVP records a possible violation) then each player will receive a notice. They are suspended from playing at that time by default, however they can apply to the AFL to overrule this suspension. Then the player face a tribunal where a panel of three experts decides guilty or not guilty. The burden of proof at this stage is HIGH (not 'beyond reasonable doubt, but pretty close to).
If found guilty --> Players can elect to appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 2)
If found not guilty --> ASADA and/or WADA can choose to appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 3)

IFF found not guilty and ASADA/WADA do not appeal. Then players are free to resume training and the whole thing is over.

IFF players found guilty, then penalties are decided based on level of co-operation etc etc.
If player disagrees with length of supsension --> Can appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 4)
If ASADA/WADA disagree with length of suspension ---> Can appeal to CAS (Appeal Point 5)


Put it this way.. Show Cause Notices are the easiest step that ASADA will take in this process.. the ADVRP is not that far behind. However then the fun begins. Once a ROF is entered.. then it is up to a tribunal and the entire burden of proof shifts majorly. It is at this point that it is up to ASADA to demonstrate EXACTLY what substance (with 95% confidence) was in each needle, EXACTLY how much (with 95% confidence) was given to each player and EXACTLY which player received what (with 95% confidence).

So I dare say we have a fair bit of foaming left to do yet before this thing is sorted...

wow..
there are a lot of forks in this road that are yet to be taken (more than I was aware of).
considering you are unable to know with any confidence considering you havnt read the show cause notices, what is your "gut" feel on when and how this ends?
do you see us taking deals?

 

[Duckworth]

I wonder what would happen if the players responded to the SC notices with the following;

I asked Dank and he said he was injecting me with Thymomodulin, also, that was what was written on the the label on the bottle. I have never tested positive for a banned substance. I am absolutely certain that I was not injected with any banned substance.

 

[yodellinhank]

Just read an article on the herald posted about 5 hours ago where Ben mcdipshit stated the burden of proof is not high

It's good to see he's acutally read and knows what the burden of proof is now. To issue SC notices it isn't very high.

Good to know that he isn't going with "They doped and we can prove it" just "well, we can make it sound suspicious enough".

The ASADA/WADA code is ****ed, outdated, not suited to REAL sports and as this attitude of the ASADA CEO proves: Not in itself sporting or concerned with what is morally correct.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

IFF found not guilty and ASADA/WADA do not appeal. Then players are free to resume training and the whole thing is over.

What are the chances of this happing?

 

[yaco55]

Essendon 34 to see evidence from ASADA, show-cause notice to be reissued
link

link

Err, what?!
Did I miss discussion on this earlier?

geez i hope the club sticks fat! we are not the ones wanting deals as far as i can tell, as we would have taken deals months ago. so ASADA comes at us and says "look we have this really flimsy evidence that gives us grounds to issue these scary show cause notices that will make the public think your guilty. so us and the AFL think you should take these deals so we dont seem incompetent and the issue will be out of the papers by round 3 next season... plz!"

now the club should be saying "NO! show me the evidence that states that we took illegal performance enhancing drugs. if you cant we will appeal until we feel justice has been served. we look forward to preparing through the NAB cup with a full list and kicking off a premiership campaign in round one. goodbye"

is this unreasonable? (genuine question)

Well it appears as though the evidence has been produced - Biggest issue is that under the AFL's Anti-dopinc Code if found guilty by an AFL tribunal, players can then only appeal to an AFL Appeals tribunal. Their is no access to CASA. IMO there is a small chance that the AFL will not issue infrcation notices.

 

[rines]

wow..
there are a lot of forks in this road that are yet to be taken (more than I was aware of).
considering you are unable to know with any confidence considering you havnt read the show cause notices, what is your "gut" feel on when and how this ends?
do you see us taking deals?

My gut feel is that some players will take deals that will see them miss between 1-3 games of football. Some players won't take deals and will fight it out.

The fact that players and AFLPA still talking 'tough' even after seeing SCN.. gives you hope that they will fight and be cleared...

 

[vast]

The fact that players and AFLPA still talking 'tough' even after seeing SCN.. gives you hope that they will fight and be cleared...

Yep coz we havent seen that before

 

[Run and carry]

ie they make the players attend some kind of Asada/Wada course once a week if they fail to attend they cop 6 months some shit like that.

A course!? What sort of course? What would they be learning?

My gut feel is that some players will take deals that will see them miss between 1-3 games of football. Some players won't take deals and will fight it out.

The fact that players and AFLPA still talking 'tough' even after seeing SCN.. gives you hope that they will fight and be cleared...

Lets say some players take deals (lets say half) and are out for a few weeks and the other half fight and win what would happen in that scenario? Would the bans be erased? Could the half of players who took the deal be in strife for admitting to taking PEDS when the other half proves they didn't?