2015 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Pt. 1

[FR0GGY]

You can't compare to Saad's because his was a positive game day test. Apples and oranges.

Do they take into account accidental and deliberate?

 

[GROTTO]

So you know the penalty???

No, I was referring to the penalty that a previous poster had proposed for Essendon.

If you read the flow of the thread in order, my post directly proceeded his post.

 

[Mike Smyth]

If as you expect.

IMO, there is buggar all chance Essendon players will get off with no games.

Imo this will be the mist likely outcome.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Do they take into account accidental and deliberate?

Nope. There is this "lovely" document to read - http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf
Which includes this
"The violation occurs whether or not the Player intentionally or unintentionally Used a Prohibited Substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. However, the Player then has the possibility to reduce sanctions if the Player can demonstrate that he was not at fault or significant fault."

It further explains
"The strict liability rule for the finding of a Prohibited Substance in an Player’s Sample, with a possibility that sanctions
may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all “clean” Players and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a Prohibited Substance entered a Player’s system through No Fault or Negligence or No Significant Fault or Negligence on the Player’s part. It is important to emphasise that while the determination of whether the Anti Doping Rule Violation has occurred is based on strict liability, the imposition of a fixed period of Ineligibility is not automatic. The strict liability principle set forth in the WADA Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of CAS."

 

[NikkiNoo]

Yes of course, but there are similarities. Did Saad know there was a banned substance in his drink? If ASADA say they can 'convict' on circumstantial evidence, a conviction surely is a conviction and whether a player tested positive or not should not effect the penalty…should it?

From what I understand is that there are guidelines about what violation and what penalty should occur, but it is always up to the discretion of the Tribunal. Saad's drink contained a substance that was banned in competition days, but not in 'off-competition' days. All evidence is pretty much circumstantial btw His was accidental use, but he copped to it as he should have known better. Although he had a positive test, so a bit hard to argue otherwise. For the Essendon players, this is something very different as it was a 'team' thing occurring, not one person alone. That puts a vastly different slant on what happened I would think.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Are the academies more about making sure the Qld and NSW afl teams remain competitive or about making sure nsw and Qld kids aren't lost to other codes. If its the later, than I don't see a problem with the other 14 clubs also being able to recruit nsw and Qld kids.

Just how many premierships are the administrators of this competition going to gift to Sydney, Brisbane etc

 

[Mike Smyth]

From what I understand is that there are guidelines about what violation and what penalty should occur, but it is always up to the discretion of the Tribunal. Saad's drink contained a substance that was banned in competition days, but not in 'off-competition' days. All evidence is pretty much circumstantial btw His was accidental use, but he copped to it as he should have known better. Although he had a positive test, so a bit hard to argue otherwise. For the Essendon players, this is something very different as it was a 'team' thing occurring, not one person alone. That puts a vastly different slant on what happened I would think.

Take 2: What term do you think the players should be suspended for?

 

[NikkiNoo]

I'm not sure what the penalty would be, as it is at the 'discretion' of the Tribunal. If what we understand to be true, then I would be satisfied with 1 year as the minimum backdated to November.

 

[GROTTO]

I'm not sure what the penalty would be, as it is at the 'discretion' of the Tribunal. If what we understand to be true, then I would be satisfied with 1 year as the minimum backdated to November.

Thats so wrong on so many levels. Not your comment, but if the Tribunal handed down this decision.

Why would it be backdated to November last year, when the players have been attached to Clubs and been training since their end of year break?

Doesnt sit right for me. It should be effective from the next day or two onwards.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Thats so wrong on so many levels. Not your comment, but if the Tribunal handed down this decision.

Why would it be backdated to November last year, when the players have been attached to Clubs and been training since their end of year break?

Doesnt sit right for me. It should be effective from the next day or two onwards.

The AFL granted them permission to train during that period. So the penalty is at the AFL discretion.

Penalties are generally backdated to the time of the Infraction Notice, so I have no issues with the November date.

 

[GROTTO]

The AFL granted them permission to train during that period. So the penalty is at the AFL discretion.

Penalties are generally backdated to the time of the Infraction Notice, so I have no issues with the November date.

So if they are handed 6 month penalty they will be all playing from May onwards taking into account the late start of the season, so in effect its about 6 game penalty at most.

 

[NikkiNoo]

So if they are handed 6 month penalty they will be all playing from May onwards taking into account the late start of the season, so in effect its about 6 game penalty at most.

Be more than that, as they will be banned from training. So they will have at least a couple of weeks of intensive training to get back up to speed, then game fitness required too. I doubt it will be 6 months, as previously under other doping violations 6 months was only granted for "substantial assistance". The NRL players who doped for a couple of weeks got a year. Essendon doped for nearly 2 years.

Certain pro-Essendon media mouth pieces keep pushing the 6 months. I think it is deluded and wishful thinking as their calls that the evidence ASADA has is nothing and will get thrown out when it gets to the Tribunal. Instead there were about 5 days of opening statement from ASADA!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Imo this will be the mist likely outcome.

IMO, there is buckley's chance of the players getting no games... as there is no way ASADA would tolerate a pathetic penalty. Many on this board think it is just up to the AFL - but it is not!

I'm confident enough, to say if the players receive no match penalties, I'll ban myself from Bigfooty for a month.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I have to see it MS's way. It will be typical of the AFL to make sure Essendon players are all conveniently available for round one. They are already training as a club - which is already a bend over by the AFL. I hope you are more than 100% right though.

Refer to my previous post - you forget ASADA also have a role to play in what will be the penalty. If the AFL don't suspend the players for any games, ASADA will appeal, the Commonwealth will pull funding - there will be massive ramifications that will damage the AFL.

The AFL would already know the minimum penalty acceptable by ASADA & would not want to be embarrassed by an appeal.

 

[GROTTO]

I'm confident enough, to say if the players receive no match penalties, I'll ban myself from Bigfooty for a month.

I dont think any poster believes there will be no penalty, but its whether the penalty is a slap on the wrist or a smackdown.

One year, would send a loud and clear message across sports not only in Australia but around the world.

 

[footy4ever]

Refer to my previous post - you forget ASADA also have a role to play in what will be the penalty. If the AFL don't suspend the players for any games, ASADA will appeal, the Commonwealth will pull funding - there will be massive ramifications that will damage the AFL.

The AFL would already know the minimum penalty acceptable by ASADA & would not want to be embarrassed by an appeal.

I like this thought, but the AFL is such an arrogant administration I don't think they know what embarrassment means.

 

[Rusty Crow]

The coolaiders think they are innocent and it will all go away soon.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Coolaiders is the perfect name for Essendon supporters. Jesus Christ their faith in the man who has nearly single handly brought their club to its knees is more than disturbing.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The coolaiders think they are innocent and it will all go away soon.

There has been an interesting change in wording coming from official Essendon sources though. No more do we hear the whole "our players never ingested anything illegal", it's now talking more about what might happen if they are banned. Very significant change going on there.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

There has been an interesting change in wording coming from official Essendon sources though. No more do we hear the whole "our players never ingested anything illegal", it's now talking more about what might happen if they are banned. Very significant change going on there.

Reality finally setting in...

 

[Doctor B]

IMO, there is buckley's chance of the players getting no games... as there is no way ASADA would tolerate a pathetic penalty. Many on this board think it is just up to the AFL - but it is not!

I'm confident enough, to say if the players receive no match penalties, I'll ban myself from Bigfooty for a month.

If the penalty is too light, WADA has the power to enforce a stronger penalty.

 

[GROTTO]

If the penalty is too light, WADA has the power to enforce a stronger penalty.

Hopefully WADA does if its anything less than 6 months. No Wantfrees and Ryder at the Power is a body blow.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

They have never gotten a sporting team with on-site and systematic doping like this before. Lots of strong suspicions, but nothing concrete that was followed through on is my understanding. Cases without positive tests can be difficult without a lot of the circumstantial evidence. The ACC started it all off here and handed over their intel to ASADA, who then had to go out and collect it all again, but the ACC told them where to look to build the case. Most other doping violations there would have been suspicions but no intel from other agencies ala police to 'assist'. The only other one that comes close is the Lance Armstrong/US Postal case.

So how exactly did the ACC get involved?

 

[Geoffa32]

Hopefully WADA does if its anything less than 6 months. No Wantfrees and Ryder at the Power is a body blow.

I personally think Port should be compensated for losing Monfries. They recruited him before this happened and this is an extreme case. But it wont happen, just like we were not compensated for losing Bailey's services due to his ban after coaching Melbourne.

But not Ryder, that was buyer beware.

 

[NikkiNoo]

So how exactly did the ACC get involved?

It was their investigation that started it all, with the AFP looking into illegal drug importers. It's what the ACC does, investigates and then hands off the details to the relevant authorities to pursue and get the same evidence by their own means.