Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL

[RussellEbertHandball]

well it has made it impossible to predict what is going to happen on tuesday

Correct and from what I have heard in a radio report - on Tuesday we will hear the verdict but we wont get the full judgement for weeks. The secrecy will continue.

 

[It Just Is]

I don't see how WADA could possibly accept lack of evidence as an excuse.

Imagine the precidence that would be set if sportsmen could be injected with whatever 20 times a week for almost a year but because they didn't keep proper medical records and sourced the whatevers through back channels they couldn't be banned. I don't know the WADA code but surely not knowing needs to be assumed to be the same as having taken PEDs.

A six month backdated suspension sounds like a ridiculously good outcome for Essendon and the AFLPA, both of whom have seemly done little but spin lies throughout.

 

[Jim Dixon]

Correct and from what I have heard in a radio report - on Tuesday we will hear the verdict but we wont get the full judgement for weeks. The secrecy will continue.

This is because if the players or ASADA want to appeal, the confidentiality stuff has to remain.

The players and ASADA have 21 days in which to appeal and, under the doping rules that which the tribunal must follow, the reasons for a judgment cannot be released while there is the possibility of an appeal – unless the players themselves agree to make Jones' judgement public. The World Anti–Doping Agency can also appeal.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/reasons-for-dons-verdict-to-be-inhouse-20150328-1m9xfp.html

Given the stakes, I can't imagine there won't be an appeal regardless of the result. This would explain why the tribunal has taken its own sweet time about delivering a verdict: they know it will be appealed and want to deliver a verdict that can survive scrutiny. Therefore, I would surmise that whatever the verdict, it will stand and any appeal (on questions of fact & law, not possible sentences) will fail.

Like 99.79% of BigFooty, journalists and other experts, I hadn't read the AFL Anti-doping code either. Having a read now. It's the 2013 code - RussellEbertHandball is this the AFL Code that the Essendon 34 are being charged with or are they working under a previous edition?

 

[Janus]

I don't see how WADA could possibly accept lack of evidence as an excuse.

Imagine the precidence that would be set if sportsmen could be injected with whatever 20 times a week for almost a year but because they didn't keep proper medical records and sourced the whatevers through back channels they couldn't be banned. I don't know the WADA code but surely not knowing needs to be assumed to be the same as having taken PEDs.

A six month backdated suspension sounds like a ridiculously good outcome for Essendon and the AFLPA, both of whom have seemly done little but spin lies throughout. I'm still expecting

It took WADA and USADA years before they got a conviction against Armstrong, and he was systematically blood doping while in the Tour de France with US Postal. The reason? Lack of evidence. Now ask yourself...how could a guy who had an elevated white blood count skip through the cracks - not just any guy, but a seven time winner of a grand tour - without a bit of a nudge and a wink?

Thats what will happen here. Cronulla took the guilty plea because ASADA offered them a deal. Essendon has backed them into a corner now where they have to go for it with little to actually go on - the players believed all injections were WADA compliant. What ASADA asserts is that their testing missed systematic doping and that furthermore, over 20 individual athletes were not only part of said program, but were complicit in it. The evidence doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt, but short of a confession from Dank, I personally don't see how anything but an insufficient evidence verdict can be handed down based on anti-doping cases that have happened in the past.

 

[MrMeaner]

Given the stakes, I can't imagine there won't be an appeal regardless of the result. This would explain why the tribunal has taken its own sweet time about delivering a verdict: they know it will be appealed and want to deliver a verdict that can survive scrutiny. Therefore, I would surmise that whatever the verdict, it will stand and any appeal (on questions of fact & law, not possible sentences) will fail.

As much as any judge or tribunal member wants to make their judgments 'appeal proof', such a beast does not exist. There is always the possibility that someone else will take a different view of the law or evidence (where allowed to be scrutinised on appeal) than the original tribunal.

 

[scottjr]

The perfect outcome is for the players to get just enough of a penalty to keep WADA at bay. 4 to 6 weeks of the season lost and we quietly move on. Ends it for the players then move on to James Hird and those responsible.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This is because if the players or ASADA want to appeal, the confidentiality

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/reasons-for-dons-verdict-to-be-inhouse-20150328-1m9xfp.html

Given the stakes, I can't imagine there won't be an appeal regardless of the result. This would explain why the tribunal has taken its own sweet time about delivering a verdict: they know it will be appealed and want to deliver a verdict that can survive scrutiny. Therefore, I would surmise that whatever the verdict, it will stand and any appeal (on questions of fact & law, not possible sentences) will fail.

Like 99.79% of BigFooty, journalists and other experts, I hadn't read the AFL Anti-doping code either. Having a read now. It's the 2013 code - RussellEbertHandball is this the AFL Code that the Essendon 34 are being charged with or are they working under a previous edition?

The players are being prosecuted under the 2010 code as they have breached that code. The big difference is the 2013 code added the need for better record keeping and the AFL medical officer and AFL approved club doctor has more power and he has to approve everything. Nothing has changed with respect to athletes basic responsibility, what has to happen for a No Fault or No Significant Fault, assistance, trafficking etc. I also think the 2013 code has added a schedule of what is an approved supplement.

 

[Jonts]

If insufficient evidence is the reason behind the verdict what about in jobes case who admitted to it on on the couch

 

[finbarr]

If insufficient evidence is the reason behind the verdict what about in jobes case who admitted to it on on the couch

Wasn't the substance he admitted to using not on the WADA banned substances list?

 

[jack_black16]

Jobe admitted to using AOD9604. They are being charged over thymosin beta 4 i believe.

 

[b0ydman]

Not on approved list = banned.

The best efc can hope for is the 6 months and games to keep wada away.

But they dragged this on. Wada will be very interested to ensure they get these guys.

A hundred injections, off site, including some really weird #$&@.

Theyre going down. And if they don't tomorrow from asada, wada will take them down

 

[PepeSilvia]

As much as any judge or tribunal member wants to make their judgments 'appeal proof', such a beast does not exist. There is always the possibility that someone else will take a different view of the law or evidence (where allowed to be scrutinised on appeal) than the original tribunal.

Just to take advantage of your lawyer knowledge, in this case does the evidence need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If insufficient evidence is the reason behind the verdict what about in jobes case who admitted to it on on the couch

He admitted to believing he was injected with AOD9604 which is caught by the S.0 clause about drugs not approved for human use. This is in there because of the Victor Conte - BALCO labs set up where he invented THG and therefore is not a listed banned drug or fits into one of the wider specific categories. ASADA are going after Thymosin - Beta 4 which falls under the S.2 Peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances category . The Cronulla players were given S.2 banned drugs GHRP-6 and CJC-1295 by Dank.

ASADA stuffed up, Dank spoke to a staff member and said that AOD9604 wasnt banned so Dank used it. So they have ignored the embarrassing situation of going after them for this breach. WADA in April 2013 came out and said it was banned under S.0 from 1st January 2011 when the S.0 clause first came into force.

My personal belief is that if WADA appeal an AFL tribunal ruling and take it straight to CAS then they will include AOD9604 in their prosecution and not give a stuff that it makes ASADA look like fools. Protecting the validity and importance of the S.0 clause is more important to them than not making ASADA look like drop kicks.

 

[MrMeaner]

Just to take advantage of your lawyer knowledge, in this case does the evidence need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or on the balance of probabilities?

Neither. It is a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard. I've not come across it in my practice but apparently it sits somewhere between the two. What it means in effect? I have no idea. Sorry.

Reading a bit more, it seems it is based on the standard in Briginshaw v Briginshaw. That is something I am familiar with. It essentially means that the tribunal does not have to think that there is no other possible explanation but that it cannot merely be just slightly more certain that doping happened than not.

 

[Jim Dixon]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collin...-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html.html

No details as to what they took yet but interesting times ahead....

 

[Smithy7]

geez Collingwood ... Lachlan Keeffe and Josh Thomas, are believed to have tested positive to the presence in samples collected earlier in the year.
Eddie will be having a fit... again

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collin...-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html.html

No details as to what they took yet but interesting times ahead....

blackcat can you remind us of which collingwood players were warned by Asada officials of which substances showed elevated levels in their samples a few years ago. Harry O? Maxwell? Swaney?

 

[MrMeaner]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collin...-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html.html

No details as to what they took yet but interesting times ahead....

Clenbuterol.

 

[Forzaport]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/collin...-positive-drug-test-20150330-1maznj.html.html

No details as to what they took yet but interesting times ahead....

They're goners. PEDs will see them booted for 12-18 months minimum but most likely 2 years.

 

[blackcat]

blackcat can you remind us of which collingwood players were warned by Asada officials of which substances showed elevated levels in their samples a few years ago. Harry O? Maxwell? Swaney?

did not know this, but i knew of Swanny getting target tested. I did not know the players, but I could see players with heads that might have grown.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Clenbuterol.

If thats the case, they will never play again. Clenbuterol is a hardcore anabolic steroid.

 

[Killer Power]

blackcat can you remind us of which collingwood players were warned by Asada officials of which substances showed elevated levels in their samples a few years ago. Harry O? Maxwell? Swaney?

Have it on good authority that Harry O's was caused by passive injection by a nearby drug cheat. He has a note from his mum.

 

[Jim Dixon]

 

[Killer Power]

did not know this, but i knew of Swanny getting target tested. I did not know the players, but I could see players with heads that might have grown.

So Eddie is at the centre of it all?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

did not know this, but i knew of Swanny getting target tested. I did not know the players, but I could see players with heads that might have grown.

Ok i must have misinterpreted what you wrote a couple years ago.