31 Beijing Olympians now have positively tested to drugs

[Satan]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/36314823

Up to 31 athletes from six sports could be banned from competing at the Rio Games, Olympic chiefs have said.

The announcement comes after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) retested 454 selected doping samples from the 2008 Games in Beijing.

The IOC said the retests were conducted using the very latest scientific analysis methods.

This could make a few Essendon 34 nervous

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

This Dank guy sure gets around

 

[compact72]

Why would it make Essendon 34 nervous? They cant be banned again

On the bright side, we are better. We had 34 banned at once

 

[jenny61_99]

Why would they be nervous? They've already been banned.

 

[imperial_oz]

I don't know about making Essendon nervous. Even if they develop a test for TB4 and all of the 34 fail it, they can't get banned again for the same offence. They can't even get banned for other drugs if they were taken at the same time.

Players who haven't been cited by ASADA might be more nervous however. Samples are now being kept for 10 years and subject to retesting as the technology improves.

We have seen all kinds of data posted that shows the authorities are behind the dopers and always having to play catch up to new developments but the 10 year gap between sampling and finality tends to even the playing field out just a little.

Who knows, you might just see 34 players from another club being looked at in a year or two after reliable tests are developed. Chief might wind up owning 2 Mercedes if he keeps this board going.

 

[Satan]

Why would they be nervous? They've already been banned.

Nothing to do with another ban.
Will they take the compensation ? (See heppell thread)
What strings may be attached? can they ask for more if positive tests come out later like the olympics article? A positive test wont be good for their reputation.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

If there was a positive test sample from Essendon you assume they would get the maximum 2 year sentence, lose their compensation etc etc. Hopefully they develop a test and nail these intentional drug cheats.

 

[imperial_oz]

If there was a positive test sample from Essendon you assume they would get the maximum 2 year sentence, lose their compensation etc etc. Hopefully they develop a test and nail these intentional drug cheats.

I don't know if you noticed but they have already copped the full two years. Some of it was backdated because of external circumstances, so matter what test they develop, there is zero chance of additional bans. This has been discussed a great many times.

I'll make it simple, they copped the FULL wack and won't cop any more They can't cop any more

Edit: As for any potential compensation, any test would mean diddly. Having copped the full ban, they have already been listed as breaching the code. A test that adds additional evidence to that really isn't going to add or detract from their reputation, so any compensation claims will likely be completely unaffected. The only change would perhaps be in some people's opinions...maybe.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I don't know if you noticed but they have already copped the full two years. Some of it was backdated because of external circumstances, so matter what test they develop, there is zero chance of additional bans. This has been discussed a great many times.

I'll make it simple, they copped the FULL wack and won't cop any more They can't cop any more

Yeah backdated unscrupulously for some unbeknown reason. The players were playing, hard to see how the cheats were suspended when they were running around on the G.

 

[imperial_oz]

Yeah backdated unscrupulously for some unbeknown reason. The players were playing, hard to see how the cheats were suspended when they were running around on the G.

What was unscrupulous about the backdating? I'd be interested to hear.

You probably should be aware that the same panel that convicted them also worked out the backdating, so unless you're suggesting they were correct in the guilty findings but corrupt in the penalty, then I'm not sure where you are going with that statement. But, I think you're wrong.

As for the 'unknown reason' bit, it is explained in the Arbitral Award issued by the CAS panel. You can read paragraphs 169, 170 and 171. Then the reasons won't be unknown to you

 

[Boxhead_31]

I don't know if you noticed but they have already copped the full two years. Some of it was backdated because of external circumstances, so matter what test they develop, there is zero chance of additional bans. This has been discussed a great many times.

I'll make it simple, they copped the FULL wack and won't cop any more They can't cop any more

Edit: As for any potential compensation, any test would mean diddly. Having copped the full ban, they have already been listed as breaching the code. A test that adds additional evidence to that really isn't going to add or detract from their reputation, so any compensation claims will likely be completely unaffected. The only change would perhaps be in some people's opinions...maybe.

What if the test reveals substances other than TB4 or AOD?

 

[Muggs]

What was unscrupulous about the backdating? I'd be interested to hear.

You probably should be aware that the same panel that convicted them also worked out the backdating, so unless you're suggesting they were correct in the guilty findings but corrupt in the penalty, then I'm not sure where you are going with that statement. But, I think you're wrong.

As for the 'unknown reason' bit, it is explained in the Arbitral Award issued by the CAS panel. You can read paragraphs 169, 170 and 171. Then the reasons won't be unknown to you

These paragraphs sound like the reasons the NRL players who took the deal got back dated.

So sounds like consistency rather than being unscrupulous to me.

 

[Muggs]

I don't know if you noticed but they have already copped the full two years. Some of it was backdated because of external circumstances, so matter what test they develop, there is zero chance of additional bans. This has been discussed a great many times.

I'll make it simple, they copped the FULL wack and won't cop any more They can't cop any more

Edit: As for any potential compensation, any test would mean diddly. Having copped the full ban, they have already been listed as breaching the code. A test that adds additional evidence to that really isn't going to add or detract from their reputation, so any compensation claims will likely be completely unaffected. The only change would perhaps be in some people's opinions...maybe.

I can see new tests having compensation repercussions if they confirm the players were given substances not approved for human use, have potentiality bad side effects. It firms up a few of the actuary calculations when possibly taken one of these substances becomes did take one.

Agree wont affect the reputation lost income side of the equation but could affect the pain and suffering, in particularly future health problem side of the compensation. The article in todays HS highlights players are seeking damages for both reasons.

 

[imperial_oz]

What if the test reveals substances other than TB4 or AOD?

I won't change anything. The players copped the ban for breaching the code. The breach of the code was demonstrated with TB4 but it was for breaching the code that the penalty was applied. If it is later shown that thy breached with substance XXX as well as TB4, the end is result is they breached the code.

Basically same, same.

There is a provision for aggravated circumstances to result in a higher penalty but I just cannot see that being applicable here. The matter has been dealt and basically finalised. You don't get do overs for everything that turns up after the matter has been dealt with. For the Essendon players, this will be done and dusted when they complete their suspension.

 

[Muggs]

There is a provision for aggravated circumstances to result in a higher penalty but I just cannot see that being applicable here. The matter has been dealt and basically finalised. You don't get do overs for everything that turns up after the matter has been dealt with. For the Essendon players, this will be done and dusted when they complete their suspension.

Even if the AFL and ASADA try go after the players for aggravated (which I think is theoretically possible at least) its easy enough to avoid by the players accepting guilt once presented with test results. Which makes it pointless even for the AFL or ASADA to try.

 

[imperial_oz]

Even if the AFL and ASADA try go after the players for aggravated (which I think is theoretically possible at least) its easy enough to avoid by the players accepting guilt once presented with test results. Which makes it pointless even for the AFL or ASADA to try.

I just don't see it happening. To me it would just be an abuse of process unless there were incredibly compelling reasons for it.

Really? Just no.

 

[OzJohnnie]

I won't change anything. The players copped the ban for breaching the code. The breach of the code was demonstrated with TB4 but it was for breaching the code that the penalty was applied. If it is later shown that thy breached with substance XXX as well as TB4, the end is result is they breached the code.

Basically same, same.

There is a provision for aggravated circumstances to result in a higher penalty but I just cannot see that being applicable here. The matter has been dealt and basically finalised. You don't get do overs for everything that turns up after the matter has been dealt with. For the Essendon players, this will be done and dusted when they complete their suspension.

Not necessarily so:

10.7.4.2 if, after the imposition of a sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation, an anti-doping organization discovers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation by the athlete or other Person which occurred prior to noti cation regarding the rst violation, then the anti-doping organization shall impose an additional sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two violations had been adjudicated at the same time.

 

[Tiimmbo]

What if they develop an accurate test for TB4 and some or all of the 34 don't show any abnormally high traces indicating they weren't administered it.

 

[Muggs]

I just don't see it happening. To me it would just be an abuse of process unless there were incredibly compelling reasons for it.

Really? Just no.

Agree think there is a lot of reasons for it not to go ahead, abuse of process, the fact admitting guilt prevents it, aggravating circumstances seems to require intent on behalf of the athlete to take a banned substance not just negligence or agreeing to participate in a program (mind you this up to the athlete to disprove not the charging organisation to prove?).

Do see the EFC34 case possibly ticking a few of the boxes for aggravation as outlined in the footnote on it, Part of a Doping Plan or scheme, Multiple Substances, conspiracy to commit a ADRV, deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid detection, add in the clause that OzJohnnie just posted you have a theoretical possibility.

In saying that do agree it wont happen.

 

[OzJohnnie]

What if they develop an accurate test for TB4 and some or all of the 34 don't show any abnormally high traces indicating they weren't administered it.

2.9 ComplicityAssisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, attempted anti-doping rule violation or violation of Article 10.12.1 by another Person.

Not telling the doc.

Off-site injections.

Consent forms.

No mention on control forms.

 

[Muggs]

What if they develop an accurate test for TB4 and some or all of the 34 don't show any abnormally high traces indicating they weren't administered it.

Than just use the arguments that many EFC34 supporters are using around the dopping control forms.

Not every player got tested, therefore an accurate test wont clear players not tested. (Same argument as to players not filling out DCF)
How long does the substance last in the system - did the players get tested within this time frame? (same argument as players not listing as substance if did not receive it in the 7 days previous)

 

[imperial_oz]

Not necessarily so:

10.7.4.2 if, after the imposition of a sanction for a first anti-doping rule violation, an anti-doping organization discovers facts involving an anti-doping rule violation by the athlete or other Person which occurred prior to noti cation regarding the rst violation, then the anti-doping organization shall impose an additional sanction based on the sanction that could have been imposed if the two violations had been adjudicated at the same time.

For any additional penalty to apply under those circumstances (AFL Code 2015 17.7 (e)), it would have to have a different penalty to what would have applied at CAS at the time the matter was heard. As I said before, the only way that could have been changed would involve circumstances of aggravation. ie trafficking or administration Otherwise the penalty is almost certainly going to be same as they copped the maximum penalty anyway. That section 'might' apply if they had received a reduced penalty for no significant fault or similar.

They didn't so I can't see how their penalty could have been ant different.

 

[Muggs]

For any additional penalty to apply under those circumstances (AFL Code 2015 17.7 (e)), it would have to have a different penalty to what would have applied at CAS at the time the matter was heard. As I said before, the only way that could have been changed would involve circumstances of aggravation. ie trafficking or administration Otherwise the penalty is almost certainly going to be same as they copped the maximum penalty anyway. That section 'might' apply if they had received a reduced penalty for no significant fault or similar.

They didn't so I can't see how their penalty could have been ant different.

Actually trafficking and administration are excluded from aggravation...

"If the AFL establishes in an individual case involving an Anti Doping Rule Violation other than violations under Clause 11.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 11.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction,"
Latest code pretty sure 2010 is the same.

 

[OzJohnnie]

Agree think there is a lot of reasons for it not to go ahead, abuse of process, the fact admitting guilt prevents it, aggravating circumstances seems to require intent on behalf of the athlete to take a banned substance not just negligence or agreeing to participate in a program (mind you this up to the athlete to disprove not the charging organisation to prove?).

Do see the EFC34 case possibly ticking a few of the boxes for aggravation as outlined in the footnote on it, Part of a Doping Plan or scheme, Multiple Substances, conspiracy to commit a ADRV, deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid detection, add in the clause that OzJohnnie just posted you have a theoretical possibility.

In saying that do agree it wont happen.

While I certainly agree that the power that be won't want it to happen, if a theoretical second violation is discovered then they have no choice. The article says 'shall' not 'may'.

This code is airtight and WADAs mission is to zealously enforce it. If the Aussie authorities let it go then WADA will just step in over the top again. Any precedent set here can be used anywhere. WADA could almost care less about what actually happens to the e34 other than the precedent it sets.

As their submission to cas pointed out, this was a new type of case. If a systemic doping program with poor records but overwhelming circumstance could allow athletes to escape sanction then a whole new path to global cheating was opened. That's why WADA wouldn't let this go.

 

[Muggs]

While I certainly agree that the power that be won't want it to happen, if a theoretical second violation is discovered then they have no choice. The article says 'shall' not 'may'.

This code is airtight and WADAs mission is to zealously enforce it. If the Aussie authorities let it go then WADA will just step in over the top again. Any precedent set here can be used anywhere. WADA could almost care less about what actually happens to the e34 other than the precedent it sets.

As their submission to cas pointed out, this was a new type of case. If a systemic doping program with poor records but overwhelming circumstance could allow athletes to escape sanction then a whole new path to global cheating was opened. That's why WADA wouldn't let this go.

This is what will happen.

ASADA notifies players of positive test.

Players talk to lawyers

Lawyers read the aggravating section of the AFL anti-doping code and discover "A Player or other Person can avoid the application of this Clause by admitting the Anti Doping Rule Violation as asserted promptly after being confronted with the Anti Doping Rule Violation by ASADA or the AFL."

Players plead guilty.

Oh wait they already have the two year maximum sentence and no tribunal needed as pleaded guilty.

Nothing else happens apart from maybe updating their previous ban for multiple substances, an administrative change not a real change.