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

[Dan Cooper]

Fishbowl Friday to be exact

There's a certain irony it's an Easybeats song and we are talking about ASADA here.

 

[Harlequin]

Tonight I spend my bread
Tonight I lose my head ....

 

[Dave]

Tonight I just got to get tonight oh tonight
Well Monday I have Friday on my mind .....

 

[efcboy]

Coke is only a WADA issue if testing pos on game day, so if that is what has happened they could argue there was no intention to cheat.

edit - what scottmclaren said

This is rubbish - taking an illegal drug is not a reasonable action to use as an excuse. The burden of responsibility is on the athlete to ensure they do not consume banned substances. By taking illegal drugs such as cocaine where the manufacturer and quality/components of drug is unknown the player has exposed him or herself to a matter of potentially banned substances and suffers the consequences of this action without discount. The intent here is meaningless as the athlete chose a course of action which a normal person should not choose which put them at risk of receiving banned substances.

If the athlete did encounter a banned substance through normal everyday living (ie contaminated meat if evidence proved this) then this would be relevant. However cocaine abuse is not considered a normal everyday activity given it is illegal for the general community.

 

[efcboy]

From below article:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-year-drugs-bans/story-fni5f6hd-1227305369940



It also mentions Friday as being a possible date the B sample is returned. (lol)
Maybe that is what the mysterious Friday a few posts up is about.

The B sample was due back on Tuesday April 14.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The B sample was due back on Tuesday April 14.

it says know the results on Friday. It was always going to take a few days from the sample being tested.

 

[efcboy]

it says know the results on Friday. It was always going to take a few days from the sample being tested.

The B sample results would be known - ASADA and AFL still working out how to copy and paste as it was not provided in Word format...there's your delay!

 

[Pweter]

The B sample results would be known - ASADA and AFL still working out how to copy and paste as it was not provided in Word format...there's your delay!

****ing PDFs strike again!

 

[rumply]

This is rubbish - taking an illegal drug is not a reasonable action to use as an excuse. The burden of responsibility is on the athlete to ensure they do not consume banned substances. By taking illegal drugs such as cocaine where the manufacturer and quality/components of drug is unknown the player has exposed him or herself to a matter of potentially banned substances and suffers the consequences of this action without discount. The intent here is meaningless as the athlete chose a course of action which a normal person should not choose which put them at risk of receiving banned substances.

If the athlete did encounter a banned substance through normal everyday living (ie contaminated meat if evidence proved this) then this would be relevant. However cocaine abuse is not considered a normal everyday activity given it is illegal for the general community.

Maybe, but wtf do WADA care about cocaine use out of competition? It's an illegal practice but IF that is what has happened, they clearly have a position to argue they did not deliberately set-out to break anti doping code(s). It would be their own dumb fault but 2 years for that? Just No.

 

[lysp]

2 years is plenty 4 years is just bloody ridiculous.

If the doping is unintentional it's 2 years as it is now.

I believe the 4 year ban is there for people who intentionally tried to cheat.

 

[cymarak]

If the doping is unintentional it's 2 years as it is now.

Is this under the 2015 rules - which apparently don't apply to the Collingwood case - or the previous set of rules ?

 

[George Washington]

******* PDFs strike again!

Get Bruce Francis and his one functioning finger on the case.

 

[yaco55]

Abbott is his own man. A huge worry normally, but may pay off this time.

Libs are in public perception is no.1 mode. It may well peter out, but here's hoping Jones maintains the rage.

Senate Enquiries are set up when one party can pummel the other party - Lib's won't agree to a Senate enquiry, unless they are squeaky clean.

 

[yaco55]

Dank had no representation, charges were brought and not defended. AFL made a submission on what should occur to this person so the tribunal know what punishment is sought.
Its a bit messy that ASADA are left hanging in their appeal window without having all the information they require. Im not defending ASADA or saying that they should appeal just that if the system were to work properly this should have been done, so they had all info in front of them.

Its not a great look and lends credence to conspiracy theories on the validity of the process.
I can understand where the angst is coming from is all im trying to say.

Dank Case and the Essendon case are separate events - Dank case also included substances provided to a Carlton coach, substances provided to a GC player, substances provided to essendon support staff and substances provided to baseball players. Dank could be convicted of any of these charges which have nothing to do with Essendon players.

There is no valid conspiracy theory.

 

[Old man fletch]

#whateveritsteaks

genuine lol on this

 

[Gigantor]

2 years is plenty 4 years is just bloody ridiculous.

I'm not sure on what planet anyone would believe that a 4 year ban is appropriate regardless of the circumstances of the violation.

 

[Mercurial89]

Dank Case and the Essendon case are separate events - Dank case also included substances provided to a Carlton coach, substances provided to a GC player, substances provided to essendon support staff and substances provided to baseball players. Dank could be convicted of any of these charges which have nothing to do with Essendon players.

There is no valid conspiracy theory.

Im not arguing what he can be convicted on, Im not saying he shouldnt be.

I am commenting that for all their talk of an absolute slam dunk case with various and numerous charges brought against him, we still havnt received any indication on when a judgement will be found.
ASADA's appeal time is fast running out and from the outside looking in the idea that a judgement isnt being handed down deliberately until after this expires is not the most far out idea that people have had.

 

[Mercurial89]

I'm not sure on what planet anyone would believe that a 4 year ban is appropriate regardless of the circumstances of the violation.

Im assuming its to take into account Olympics? Ensure that someone that has deliberately cheated cannot compete in one? If it was two years they could cheat in one games, and be back in time for the next?

 

[rumply]

I'm not sure on what planet anyone would believe that a 4 year ban is appropriate regardless of the circumstances of the violation.

Other than repeat offenders/Lance Armstrong types, yes 4 years is just sounds nuts. But didn't athletes themselves push for that? At least that was the line I recall being sold.

 

[JayDon]

They'll find Dank guilty of having other banned substances at Essendon (Hex and another wasn't it?) - (won't be surprised if they completely ignore his involvement with other AFL clubs).

A not guilty verdict would be disastrous for the AFL - would open them to significant litigation, though either way, Dank is going to sue. He is posturing himself for a fat, fat payout from the AFL bigwigs. All you have to do is subpoena the people that matter - Lukin, Clothier, Harcourt.

I wish we called the AFL's bluff in 2013 and actually taken them to the Supreme Court just as Hird wanted to and Dr Reid threatened to do.

That's right on the mark.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Dank had no representation, charges were brought and not defended. AFL made a submission on what should occur to this person so the tribunal know what punishment is sought.
Its a bit messy that ASADA are left hanging in their appeal window without having all the information they require. Im not defending ASADA or saying that they should appeal just that if the system were to work properly this should have been done, so they had all info in front of them.

Its not a great look and lends credence to conspiracy theories on the validity of the process.
I can understand where the angst is coming from is all im trying to say.

We don't know what was presented regarding Dank other than a few bits and pieces about GCS, Carlton and baseball. There could quite likely be more. There is also the possibility that Dank's lack of representation has muddied the waters rather than made them clearer. Additionally we don't know if it was requested of the Tribunal to consider the case against the players first due to the upcoming season and Dank later. McDefamation's comments suggest otherwise but I can't say I trust much out of his mouth. My point is that there is far too much we don't know to easily draw the conclusion about intention to deliberately wait until appeal period is over.

It's a red herring anyway as ASADA should be appealing based on the player case.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

It's all the same evidence. All the same arguments.

The cases would have been considered concurrently.

It is very strange.

Plenty of other evidence including CJC at GCS, PEDs to Carlton coach plus things we may not have even heard.

 

[Harlequin]

Just saw the ad for tonight's Footy Show. I wonder if Clarkson will offer his opinion on the whole ASADA issue including James Hird?

 

[efcboy]

Maybe, but wtf do WADA care about cocaine use out of competition? It's an illegal practice but IF that is what has happened, they clearly have a position to argue they did not deliberately set-out to break anti doping code(s). It would be their own dumb fault but 2 years for that? Just No.

2 years for stupidly taking illegal drugs. Hell yes. Other footballers have copped the same penalty for consuming legal energy drinks...

 

[efcboy]

Dank Case and the Essendon case are separate events - Dank case also included substances provided to a Carlton coach, substances provided to a GC player, substances provided to essendon support staff and substances provided to baseball players. Dank could be convicted of any of these charges which have nothing to do with Essendon players.

There is no valid conspiracy theory.

Not sure how relevant the baseball players are to the afl tribunal! Agree with the rest and you forgot to include Melbourne FC - remember Dr Dan Bates stepped down...