The new campaign against Dank

[Better Loosen Up]

a) because they are separate charges

b) because it is conceivable they could be comfortably satisfied that he used TB4, but not against specific players.

Best thing to do is just understand them to be separate and not contingent on each other

Fair enough Lance

Let's say "b)" was to eventuate, I imagine the findings would have to be very carefully worded in order to deter ASADA/ WADA appealing such a verdict?

I think will would be difficult for the two to be entirely mutually exclusive depending on the evidence presented?

 

[GarnerSmash]

Fair enough Lance

Let's say "b)" was to eventuate, I imagine the findings would have to be very carefully worded in order to deter ASADA/ WADA appealing such a verdict?

I think will would be difficult for the two to be entirely mutually exclusive depending on the evidence presented?

I guess it could come down to testimony from player interviews. If the tribunal are satisfied that Dank brought TB4 into the club with the intention of injecting it into the players they may not be as confident that they then injected 'thymosin' into those players unless the individuals themselves stated in interviews that they were told that the injection they were receiving was thymosin.

Everything hinges on the weight that the tribunal place on the consent forms. If they were able to obtain other records that support TB4 usage in players, such as a regime schedule for example, then this would strengthen the case against the players. If not, then there may be issues.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Fair enough Lance

Let's say "b)" was to eventuate, I imagine the findings would have to be very carefully worded in order to deter ASADA/ WADA appealing such a verdict?

I think will would be difficult for the two to be entirely mutually exclusive depending on the evidence presented?

not really. The evidence is the evidence. Unless you are claiming that the AFL Tribunal are essentially corrupt and/or inept and not assessing the evidence correctly. WADA are not an investigative body - they would merely review the body of evidence and take it to CAS either if ASADA don't choose to appeal to the AFL appeals tribunal, or if they do and are again unable to prove their case.

So, they take the same evidence to CAS, why do you think they will then be able to pin specific players when ASADA couldn't?

I'm not putting this on you, but there is a weird prevailing idea on this board that a WADA appeal is some kind of magical and wonderous tool. Well, it's not. It's just a chance to have the same body of evidence heard in a different setting. That's it.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Totally agree with you on the last paragraph.

As for the tribunal, i'm not claiming anything. At the end of the day, regardless of the decision, i'm sure I am like everyone else in wanting transparency in this whole case.

 

[Art Corvelay]

b) because it is conceivable they could be comfortably satisfied that he used TB4, but not against specific players.

Best thing to do is just understand them to be separate and not contingent on each other

If that were to eventuate, the really does open the doors for team doping

i.e. blame the medical staff, but ensure you can't prove anything against individual athletes.

That to me would be the worst possible outcome for ASADA, but not for Essendon or AFL. Allows them to boogey man Dank without Essendon being punished.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If that were to eventuate, the really does open the doors for team doping

i.e. blame the medical staff, but ensure you can't prove anything against individual athletes.

That to me would be the worst possible outcome for ASADA, but not for Essendon or AFL. Allows them to boogey man Dank without Essendon being punished.

well, it just means the WADA need to change their code. Can't be too hard to come up with a similar concept to strict liability where it says if we find banned drugs on premises/in possession etc, if you then can't prove you didn't take it you're done.

Just another example of why the WADA code fails team sports in particular. There are certain people who remarkably won't agree with this, but there you go

 

[jenny61_99]

well, it just means the WADA need to change their code. Can't be too hard to come up with a similar concept to strict liability where it says if we find banned drugs on premises/in possession etc, if you then can't prove you didn't take it you're done.

Just another example of why the WADA code fails team sports in particular. There are certain people who remarkably won't agree with this, but there you go

How do you respond to the head of WADA saying that the code doesn't fail team sports?

 

[LoungeLizard]

well, it just means the WADA need to change their code. Can't be too hard to come up with a similar concept to strict liability where it says if we find banned drugs on premises/in possession etc, if you then can't prove you didn't take it you're done.

Just another example of why the WADA code fails team sports in particular. There are certain people who remarkably won't agree with this, but there you go

The ALF issuing the penalties for team bans is what's wrong with the code imo.

 

[Art Corvelay]

well, it just means the WADA need to change their code. Can't be too hard to come up with a similar concept to strict liability where it says if we find banned drugs on premises/in possession etc, if you then can't prove you didn't take it you're done.

Just another example of why the WADA code fails team sports in particular. There are certain people who remarkably won't agree with this, but there you go

My understanding was WADA handles team bans perfectly well, e.g. cycling, but when the AFL signed up to the WADA code they were given the power to look after team sanctions. Presumably to extract themselves from sticky situations like this.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

How do you respond to the head of WADA saying that the code doesn't fail team sports?

I would say what the heck else would you expect him to say?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

My understanding was WADA handles team bans perfectly well, e.g. cycling, but when the AFL signed up to the WADA code they were given the power to look after team sanctions. Presumably to extract themselves from sticky situations like this.

no not true. Go to the source. WADA code itself cedes authority for team based sanctions to governing bodies.

Clause 11.2

 

[Akka76]

It's pretty simple.

People here detest Dank. He is what he is, though. His fables, his theories, his grand plan all clearly observable for its idiocy and negligence.

Hird is the real meat and veg of the story though, the guy pretending to know nothing about any of it, while taking the investigating bodies to court to have thier evidence thwarted.

I guess you could liken him to your classic movie villain. Hiding behind a facade. While Dank's the moral-less henchman who was given an opportunity to take advantage of good people with his shitty ways.

No, David Evans is.

 

[QuietB]

well, it just means the WADA need to change their code. Can't be too hard to come up with a similar concept to strict liability where it says if we find banned drugs on premises/in possession etc, if you then can't prove you didn't take it you're done.

Just another example of why the WADA code fails team sports in particular. There are certain people who remarkably won't agree with this, but there you go

It also becomes an AFL issue though. For example, if any drugs were found in possession of a Tour de France cycling team that team would be kicked out on the spot (maybe not 10 years ago but now they would).

I don't think the AFL are going to be able to hide behind this technicality. We might end up with Essendon playing for no points for a year or something similar to what the Storm copped for salary cap breaches. WADA will want Essendon kicked out all together.

In a way finding individual players guilty is a much cleaner solution for the AFL, especially if they can limit the penalties to 6 months (effectively a couple of weeks).

 

[Proper Gander]

How do you respond to the head of WADA saying that the code doesn't fail team sports?

As WADA head he has to say that - public confidence blah blah. Doesn't mean that aspects of the code won't be, or aren't being, reviewed.

 

[LoungeLizard]

well, it just means the WADA need to change their code. Can't be too hard to come up with a similar concept to strict liability where it says if we find banned drugs on premises/in possession etc, if you then can't prove you didn't take it you're done.

Just another example of why the WADA code fails team sports in particular. There are certain people who remarkably won't agree with this, but there you go

So a minor at the club will be charged and banned, then what happens?
I don't think so

 

[Art Corvelay]

no not true. Go to the source. WADA code itself cedes authority for team based sanctions to governing bodies.

Clause 11.2

Gotcha, cheers for clarification

 

[RegHickeyStand]

No, David Evans is.

More likely Little.

Evans took on Hird. Guys with something to hide don't do that to the one who knows where the skeleton are hid.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It also becomes an AFL issue though. For example, if any drugs were found in possession of a Tour de France cycling team that team would be kicked out on the spot (maybe not 10 years ago but now they would).

I don't think the AFL are going to be able to hide behind this technicality. We might end up with Essendon playing for no points for a year or something similar to what the Storm copped for salary cap breaches. WADA will want Essendon kicked out all together.

In a way finding individual players guilty is a much cleaner solution for the AFL, especially if they can limit the penalties to 6 months (effectively a couple of weeks).

there was a case in racing where they found syringes in the hotel room a rider stayed at and still couldn't get a guilty verdict.

And sorry, but the statement WADA will want them kicked out all together is utterly nonsensical. You have no basis for saying it other than your opinion. Why would WADA care when they specifically don't give themselves the power to expel teams?

 

[QuietB]

there was a case in racing where they found syringes in the hotel room a rider stayed at and still couldn't get a guilty verdict.

And sorry, but the statement WADA will want them kicked out all together is utterly nonsensical. You have no basis for saying it other than your opinion. Why would WADA care when they specifically don't give themselves the power to expel teams?

Yes it is my opinion.

Do you seriously think WADA would simply concede and walk away?

If this was a national sporting team they would be banned from competing. If it was a cycling team they would be banned from competing. Why would WADA treat this any different? Sure the responsibility for implementing the penalty is with the AFL, but WADA would still want a hard penalty and would have zero interest in the commercial priorities of the AFL.

 

[jenny61_99]

I would say what the heck else would you expect him to say?

I would expect him to say "Yes, we think there are issues that need to be revisited when it comes to team sports". The fact that he was unequivocal that this is NOT the case, was fairly telling I thought.

In a position that will put him at odds with critics of the WADA code – specifically the nuances of how it works in a team setting – David Howman has told Fairfax Media there is no problem with the application of the rules in team sports.

One week before 34 former and current Essendon players are judged innocent or guilty of banned drug use by an AFL anti-doping panel, WADA's director general since 2003 said: "There has been no suggestion from any team sports that they were not catered for appropriately within the rules."

Asked whether he believes the WADA code is better suited to navigating anti-doping issues for individual athletes than it is for team sports, Howman responded with an unequivocal: "No".

"Team sports have always been part of the code and have all partaken in the review processes that led to the introduction of the code," Howman continued.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ssendonafl-investigation-20150323-1m5vf1.html

 

[Laphroaig]

it was actually a joke. However why would Robinson show himself as a liar in court after categorically claiming on national TV that the program he supervised didn't involve banned drugs?

You sure you don't want to rethink that statement? Because it's really daft.

 

[Duckworth]

The WADA boss backs in it's policy and how it is applied to team sports. What a surprise! What does it mean... nothing.

edit: Actually, it does mean something. That people can be sucked into irrelevant clickbait articles and find meaning in them.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yes it is my opinion.

Do you seriously think WADA would simply concede and walk away?

If this was a national sporting team they would be banned from competing. If it was a cycling team they would be banned from competing. Why would WADA treat this any different? Sure the responsibility for implementing the penalty is with the AFL, but WADA would still want a hard penalty and would have zero interest in the commercial priorities of the AFL.

sorry to say it, but you're falling into the usual trap of projecting your own desires onto the canvass of WADA. They don't care - if they did, they would have retained the power to do something about it. The idea that an organisation would care about something that's not even in their remit is really quite silly I'm sorry

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I would expect him to say "Yes, we think there are issues that need to be revisited when it comes to team sports". The fact that he was unequivocal that this is NOT the case, was fairly telling I thought.

In a position that will put him at odds with critics of the WADA code – specifically the nuances of how it works in a team setting – David Howman has told Fairfax Media there is no problem with the application of the rules in team sports.

One week before 34 former and current Essendon players are judged innocent or guilty of banned drug use by an AFL anti-doping panel, WADA's director general since 2003 said: "There has been no suggestion from any team sports that they were not catered for appropriately within the rules."

Asked whether he believes the WADA code is better suited to navigating anti-doping issues for individual athletes than it is for team sports, Howman responded with an unequivocal: "No".

"Team sports have always been part of the code and have all partaken in the review processes that led to the introduction of the code," Howman continued.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ssendonafl-investigation-20150323-1m5vf1.html

he's the keeper of the code. He's not going to say anything else Jen. Not only that, but hypothetically if the AFL were to try to renegotiate then what he's stated there would be his starting point. Why would he give that up publicly for no reason? That's not how the world works

 

[jenny61_99]

The WADA boss backs in it's policy and how it is applied to team sports. What a surprise! What does it mean... nothing.

edit: Actually, it does mean something. That people can be sucked into irrelevant clickbait articles and find meaning in them.

OR, he actually says it how it is?

OR, if you don't agree with what he says you'll claim it as "click bait" and "what else would you expect him to say"?