Mega Thread Questions about the ASADA/ EFC/ players and the legal process/ defences/ liability

[Muggs]

If the EFC 34 wanted to do a Claudia Pechstien and get the award annulled by the local courts, would they first have to show they exhausted normal appeal avenues?

Considering the grounds they are using and the fact that CAS is de novo automatically wondering if the grounds they are using is actually more preparing for a home ground challenge.

Malifice and ChrisKaias any idea?

 

[DonsRule]

If the EFC 34 wanted to do a Claudia Pechstien and get the award annulled by the local courts, would they first have to show they exhausted normal appeal avenues?

Considering the grounds they are using and the fact that CAS is de novo automatically wondering if the grounds they are using is actually more preparing for a home ground challenge.

Malifice and ChrisKaias any idea?

I had seen that angled from one lawyer,. As to how accurate it is, I'm not sure.

 

[Muggs]

I had seen that angled from one lawyer,. As to how accurate it is, I'm not sure.

Same here, hence asking the question.

From a CAS perspective these grounds do not make sense to me, take CAS out the equation and if went de novo to the AFL appeals tribunal based on the change than can certainly see it being grounds for a challenge.

 

[ChrisKaias]

If the EFC 34 wanted to do a Claudia Pechstien and get the award annulled by the local courts, would they first have to show they exhausted normal appeal avenues?

Considering the grounds they are using and the fact that CAS is de novo automatically wondering if the grounds they are using is actually more preparing for a home ground challenge.

Malifice and ChrisKaias any idea?

Pechstein had the advantage of very favourable local laws which don't exist here in the same way. To answer your question though, I don't know whether this is a precursor to a local challenge. I don't like their chances though but they're no worse than the chances at the Swiss court.

 

[Muggs]

Pechstein had the advantage of very favourable local laws which don't exist here in the same way. To answer your question though, I don't know whether this is a precursor to a local challenge. I don't like their chances though but they're no worse than the chances at the Swiss court.

Would locally require that all normal avenues be exhausted first? That's more my question.realise chances be slim.

 

[DonsRule]

Same here, hence asking the question.

From a CAS perspective these grounds do not make sense to me, take CAS out the equation and if went de novo to the AFL appeals tribunal based on the change than can certainly see it being grounds for a challenge.

yeah. i don't like the chances on the angle released from anyone i've talked to.


Unless that is a red herring of sorts, In some regard like when WADA commissioned the Tb4 test and the news of elevated results in the end that had very very little to do with the decision. lawyers may still be very guarded on the full reasons.

 

[Bananabender]

I'm having trouble finding the list of substances on the consent forms.

Where do I find it?

Thanks.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

I'm having trouble finding the list of substances on the consent forms.

Where do I find it?

Thanks.

Doc Reid is that you?

 

[Bananabender]

Doc Reid is that you?

Actually, no.

If I was Doc Reid I would have a copy of the bloody thing.

 

[Randomizor]

I'm having trouble finding the list of substances on the consent forms.

Where do I find it?

Thanks.

http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/04/12/4187826/1304consentform.pdf

Not substances but a reconstruction of form.

I like the part how it states to ask questions. No player did. Peculiar.

 

[ChrisKaias]

I'm having trouble finding the list of substances on the consent forms.

Where do I find it?

Thanks.

If you're asking what the substances were, there were 4 forms. Tribulus, Colostrum, AOD-9604 and Thymosin. First two oral consumption, latter two injections.

 

[TheEnsign]

Prosecution result summary for the Worksafe breaches here.

Convicted on both counts. EFC now have a criminal record.

Its my understanding that convictions against a body corporate can never be spent either.

An interesting side-effect of the conviction is that it could potentially prevent EFC from recruiting overseas talent in the future. Any organisation wanting approval to sponsor under the Sport visa stream (or an analog like a working visa) must satisfy an 'adverse information' provision, which in a nutshell covers contravention of law by the sponsor itself and (if a body corp) its' directors and can serve to have the sponsorship application refused.

Breaches of workplace law (including workplace safety) would be considered particularly serious in that context. From memory, the adverse information has to be in the last five years before the application for approval.

It would be kind of funny if EFC traded in for someone like Mike Pyke or Zach Tuohy and then found out they couldn't get a visa due to corporate misdeeds. And please, no jokes about Pyke or Tuohy, they're just examples.

 

[DonsRule]

If you're asking what the substances were, there were 4 forms. Tribulus, Colostrum, AOD-9604 and Thymosin. First two oral consumption, latter two injections.

Not completely true. AOD was used as a cream too in some cases

There were 13 Essendon players who recalled being treated with an AOD-9604 cream.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/59d3204c9ac15177780dad4ba92decee

Essendon administered AOD-9604 in form of a medical cream as well as injections

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ll-as-injections/story-fni5f6kv-1226687808608

 

[ChrisKaias]

Not completely true. AOD was used as a cream too in some cases

I'm just saying what was on the consent forms.

From the AFL Tribunal judgment:

Each of the 34 Players charged signed forms with a total of 38 signing. A separate form was signed for the administration of Tribulus, Colostrum, AOD-9604 and Thymosin. The latter two substances were to be administered by injection.

 

[DonsRule]

I'm just saying what was on the consent forms.

From the AFL Tribunal judgment:

Ah. OKay. Guess it does raisea few Q's about the full accuracy of the forms, there were numerous players that admitted to AOD cream use iirc./

 

[ChrisKaias]

Ah. OKay. Guess it does raisea few Q's about the full accuracy of the forms, there were numerous players that admitted to AOD cream use iirc./

Plenty of stuff that wasn't on the forms too.

 

[DonsRule]

Plenty of stuff that wasn't on the forms too.

That and, it's possible other players forms consented to the AOD cream perhaps.

 

[2DMB]

I'm sure this has been asked previously but I couldn't find a reference to it.

Given the players are currently suspended from the AFL are they still a party to the ASADA drug testing regime?

Will the 34 be subject to any random or scheduled drug testing prior to November? It seems odd if they wouldn't be considering they have been convicted but I'd imagine they wont be subject to notifying people of their whereabouts etc either.

Thanks in advance

 

[imperial_oz]

I'm sure this has been asked previously but I couldn't find a reference to it.

Given the players are currently suspended from the AFL are they still a party to the ASADA drug testing regime?

Will the 34 be subject to any random or scheduled drug testing prior to November? It seems odd if they wouldn't be considering they have been convicted but I'd imagine they wont be subject to notifying people of their whereabouts etc either.

Thanks in advance

Yes.

Section 21.1 (c)

A Player or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remain subject to Testing.

As for random or targeted testing, that will be up to ASADA I would think. But as far as I remember, all players coming back from suspension get tested (disclaimer: thats from memory - might be wrong)

 

[Spongebob]

Yes, the players are still subject to ASADA testing.

Comes under section 10.12.1 of the WADA Code.

Basically means that banned players can't go off and dope to the eyeballs with impunity.

 

[Bananabender]

http://images.theage.com.au/file/2013/04/12/4187826/1304consentform.pdf

Not substances but a reconstruction of form.

I like the part how it states to ask questions. No player did. Peculiar.

Thanks - much appreciated

 

[avignon]

Actually, no.

If I was Doc Reid I would have a copy of the bloody thing.

Yeah just like the Melbourne Doctor who was removed lol

 

[avignon]

If the case was de novo, then why didn't CAS interview all players? As I understand it most players got sentenced without being called upon to give evidence.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

If the case was de novo, then why didn't CAS interview all players? As I understand it most players got sentenced without being called upon to give evidence.

Neither the defence or prosecution had the players giving evidence... The court were surprised by this & had to ask for them to present.

They had all provided written statements however

 

[Muggs]

If the case was de novo, then why didn't CAS interview all players? As I understand it most players got sentenced without being called upon to give evidence.

Neither the defence or prosecution had the players giving evidence... The court were surprised by this & had to ask for them to present.

They had all provided written statements however

Begs the question why didn't the players defence team call upon the players to give evidence about their actions?

My thoughts, based on those who CAS called themselves, might have just further exposed the players lack of actions.