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

Status
Not open for further replies.

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
How could you be confused now? I've explained the basis of appeal multiple times and given you the link to the players association statement on the basis of appeal. There is only one avenue of appeal and it's as I described it. They are appealing the legality of WADA's appeal. Nothing else. Capisce that is it.

Good grief!
Please berate me some more then.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
You need to read the WADA code since 2010. I don't think you've read it. Google it and read it.
Is there something in here that's supposed to say that the right to a fair hearing no longer applies? Because it doesn't and as such, CAS not giving the players a fair hearing is still considered an error of law and as such, still considered a grounds for appeal. Difficult to prove but a grounds nonetheless.
 

AsIfYouCare

All Australian
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Posts
662
Likes
442
Location
Melton
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Tottenham, Exers
Unprocessed meat, fruit, and vegetables contain tens of thousands of compounds. Everything you can touch is made of (gasp) chemicals.
Apologies if I'm labouring the point, but the human body contains 50,000 different proteins alone (http://www.innovateus.net/health/how-many-proteins-exist-human-body). And that figure is counted conservatively, considering very many chemically different proteins to be the same (see remarks re haemoglobin). On top of that you've got to add non-protein chemicals.

So, if you're whitelisting detectable substances you're looking at well in excess of 50,000 (probably hundreds of thousands) of compounds. If you're looking to whitelist food chemicals, your list will probably be in the millions, having to include a vast array of non-human chemicals as well.

And of course you're not just whitelisting chemicals. you have to whitelist LEVELs of chemicals, e.g. HGH and caffeine.

Whitelisting just isn't going to work.
 

yaco55

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
35,446
Likes
11,870
Location
hong kong
AFL Club
Essendon
The government's position will be to use the anti-doping agency that we already fund, or do it yourself. Can you seriously imagine an incumbent government trying to get a bill through the houses that will effectively double expenditure on ASADA because the biggest league in the country doesn't wish to work with them anymore? Would be an absolute nightmare to try and achieve that with all the talk of government waste going on at the moment. As a taxpayer I'd certainly be opposed to it. This stuff will be behind essendon in a few years and I have no intentions of living with the legacy.

Illicit drug testing is a criminal matter, PEDs are a matter of ethics. One is handled by the legal system, the other is handled by a quasi-legal body. I don't think we should be putting them together. PEDs don't belong in front of magistrates, criminal matters don't belong in front of ASADA.

If you think the AFL can fund this by themselves, where is the money going to come from? Can all clubs equally afford to fund it? Will there be a fight over who has to pay more? Will ticket prices be affected? TV deals? What's your business case? ASADA costs us about $15 million a year, can the AFL even find $5 million a year and can we afford to set it up?
What - There is no extra expense - The AFL already has a list of prohibited substances which go beyond the WADA code -The AFL will still do the the same number of tests which are sent to WADA accredited labaratories - So no extra suspense - The AFL will still have Anti Doping Tribunals etc - All that will change is the AFL will adopt their own list of suspensions for AAF's or similar.
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
What - There is no extra expense - The AFL already has a list of prohibited substances which go beyond the WADA code -The AFL will still do the the same number of tests which are sent to WADA accredited labaratories - So no extra suspense - The AFL will still have Anti Doping Tribunals etc - All that will change is the AFL will adopt their own list of suspensions for AAF's or similar.
Economies of scale. ASADA spreads the expense over many customers and offets expenditure through government funding as it is non-profit, the AFL will not be able to do that.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
The government's position will be to use the anti-doping agency that we already fund, or do it yourself. Can you seriously imagine an incumbent government trying to get a bill through the houses that will effectively double expenditure on ASADA because the biggest league in the country doesn't wish to work with them anymore? Would be an absolute nightmare to try and achieve that with all the talk of government waste going on at the moment. As a taxpayer I'd certainly be opposed to it. This stuff will be behind essendon in a few years and I have no intentions of living with the legacy.

Illicit drug testing is a criminal matter, PEDs are a matter of ethics. One is handled by the legal system, the other is handled by a quasi-legal body. I don't think we should be putting them together. PEDs don't belong in front of magistrates, criminal matters don't belong in front of ASADA.

If you think the AFL can fund this by themselves, where is the money going to come from? Can all clubs equally afford to fund it? Will there be a fight over who has to pay more? Will ticket prices be affected? TV deals? What's your business case? ASADA costs us about $15 million a year, can the AFL even find $5 million a year and can we afford to set it up?
In general population illicit drugs is a criminal matter however the afl has extended this bringing in their own 3 strike policy as illicit drugs are not covered by ASADA/WADA unless a stimulant is detected on match day. Out of competition testing is being done by afl for illicit drugs. So yes the afl are paying more for this on top of ASADA testing. So why not do both at once? Same agency testing for illicit drugs also tests for PEDs. Players get it over in one test - at present a player could be tested by one agency for illicit drugs and then get another tap from ASADA for PEDs testing. Where is the money going to come from? Well they're already paying for illicit drug testing separate to ASADA. It's just extending this process. And there's no reason the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system given AFL is Australia's biggest and most popular sport. So funds would come from a combination of government and afl funds. The afl could start by not paying poorly performed CEOs such as Demetriou 3+ million bonuses upon exit...I'd dare say the AFL would have saved money if they had run their own system since 2011 with all the legal costs surrounding ASADA/WADA since 2012.
 

yaco55

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
35,446
Likes
11,870
Location
hong kong
AFL Club
Essendon
A fifth positive test for Melatonium since added to WADA's Prohibited list on 01/01/2016 . You have to worry about how widely and clearly these changes are communicated to athletes. Or is the case of the substance being long acting in the body - So in effect could have been taken three months ago when legal but lingers in the system. Are WADA getting positive tests by stealth.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Economies of scale. ASADA spreads the expense over many customers and offets expenditure through government funding as it is non-profit, the AFL will not be able to do that.
The AFL is arguably the biggest fish ASADA has. Take AFL out ASADA loses funding and is compromised. ASADA need AFL more than AFL need ASADA.
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
The AFL is arguably the biggest fish ASADA has. Take AFL out ASADA loses funding and is compromised. ASADA need AFL more than AFL need ASADA.
ASADA only bills the AFL for AFL-related expenses so how is this going to work? 75% of ASADA staff are casuals on short term contracts.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Economies of scale. ASADA spreads the expense over many customers and offets expenditure through government funding as it is non-profit, the AFL will not be able to do that.
I don't think that is the issue.

I think the AFL could easily afford their own anti doping code. The issue is if the govt continue to tie funding for stadiums etc to being signed up to ASADA.

But none of that will happen in time to make any difference to our players....and I don't really trust the AFL in managing their own anti doping code either.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Is there something in here that's supposed to say that the right to a fair hearing no longer applies? Because it doesn't and as such, CAS not giving the players a fair hearing is still considered an error of law and as such, still considered a grounds for appeal. Difficult to prove but a grounds nonetheless.
If you went on HTB with this they'd eat you alive. Personally I don't think they did get a fair hearing but it is incorrect to say this is an error of law. I've argued the players have had their human rights violated as per the United Nations constitution. However the appeal needs to be an error of law. If it were grounds for appeal the players lawyers would have considered it - they've chosen their best and only real option - The change of WADA code as I described earlier. There's only one appeal for players and this is it.
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
In general population illicit drugs is a criminal matter however the afl has extended this bringing in their own 3 strike policy as illicit drugs are not covered by ASADA/WADA unless a stimulant is detected on match day. Out of competition testing is being done by afl for illicit drugs. So yes the afl are paying more for this on top of ASADA testing. So why not do both at once? Same agency testing for illicit drugs also tests for PEDs. Players get it over in one test - at present a player could be tested by one agency for illicit drugs and then get another tap from ASADA for PEDs testing. Where is the money going to come from? Well they're already paying for illicit drug testing separate to ASADA. It's just extending this process. And there's no reason the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system given AFL is Australia's biggest and most popular sport. So funds would come from a combination of government and afl funds. The afl could start by not paying poorly performed CEOs such as Demetriou 3+ million bonuses upon exit...I'd dare say the AFL would have saved money if they had run their own system since 2011 with all the legal costs surrounding ASADA/WADA since 2012.
All your saying is that the same samples are going to be tested twice, once for illicit drugs and once for PEDs. This might save on containers and swabs but I can't see it making an enormous difference. Testing processes for different drugs are different, so it can't always be done in one test. In fact rarely can it be done in one test.
There is a huge reason why the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system; they have better things to spend money on like things that boost the economy or improve schooling or health. The simple things in life. Enough said. If the AFL wants to fund it, they will be asked to foot the bill as they should be. The only reason that the government funds ASADA is probably the olympics. AFL, League etc. have to pay their own costs to use ASADA albeit at a discounted rate.
 

_Swoon

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Posts
3,821
Likes
5,745
Location
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
If you went on HTB with this they'd eat you alive. Personally I don't think they did get a fair hearing but it is incorrect to say this is an error of law. I've argued the players have had their human rights violated as per the United Nations constitution. However the appeal needs to be an error of law. If it were grounds for appeal the players lawyers would have considered it - they've chosen their best and only real option - The change of WADA code as I described earlier. There's only one appeal for players and this is it.
It was an error of law in 2007. Nothing that affects this has changed in Swiss Law, nor does the CAS nor the Swiss courts nor WADA specifically state that this will not be considered grounds for an error of law. I concur that this is not their best option as it would be extremely difficult to prove, however it is 100% ground for an appeal as a failure of the court to perform with integrity does indeed constitute a legal error that would be grounds for an appeal, as in any legal system in the world.
This does not mean you are able to say "I disagree with the decision so I believe they have committed an error of law", this means they are identifying a procedural or systematic error in the operation of the court. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that this could not be considered an error of law in any legal system in the world, and definitely not this one as there is no mention of any change relating to this since the Canas case.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
A fifth positive test for Melatonium since added to WADA's Prohibited list on 01/01/2016 . You have to worry about how widely and clearly these changes are communicated to athletes. Or is the case of the substance being long acting in the body - So in effect could have been taken three months ago when legal but lingers in the system. Are WADA getting positive tests by stealth.
Surely there would have to be a period of grace following a rule change?
 

IggypopsTshirt

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Posts
3,305
Likes
8,319
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
NYGiants NYRangers Yankees
And the WADA code isn't something you can pick and choose which parts you like and which parts not so much; it's do or don't.
First let me say I agree with the majority of your post. However, the quoted couldn't be further from the truth. Refer to the AFL illicit drug policy and then take a look at how WADA view use of those substances covered under the policy. Picking and choosing which parts of the code we adhere to is the only way we are able to keep our boys on the park.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
ASADA only bills the AFL for AFL-related expenses so how is this going to work? 75% of ASADA staff are casuals on short term contracts.
Because AFL is a large portion of ASADA's work means they won't get as much work meaning even less resources. You've already pointed out ASADA are poorly resourced so not sure what your point is. If anything your statements here support my notion that ASADA need AFL more than AFL need ASADA.
 
Last edited:

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
All your saying is that the same samples are going to be tested twice, once for illicit drugs and once for PEDs. This might save on containers and swabs but I can't see it making an enormous difference. Testing processes for different drugs are different, so it can't always be done in one test. In fact rarely can it be done in one test.
There is a huge reason why the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system; they have better things to spend money on like things that boost the economy or improve schooling or health. The simple things in life. Enough said. If the AFL wants to fund it, they will be asked to foot the bill as they should be. The only reason that the government funds ASADA is probably the olympics. AFL, League etc. have to pay their own costs to use ASADA albeit at a discounted rate.
You misinterpret my point. My point is one agency does all the testing - both illicit and PED testing. At present these are separate. One agency doing both definitely saves money. I'd argue the government supporting the afl illicit and PED testing does improve health (not only for players but given they are idolised it also flows on to the general population).
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
It was an error of law in 2007. Nothing that affects this has changed in Swiss Law, nor does the CAS nor the Swiss courts nor WADA specifically state that this will not be considered grounds for an error of law. I concur that this is not their best option as it would be extremely difficult to prove, however it is 100% ground for an appeal as a failure of the court to perform with integrity does indeed constitute a legal error that would be grounds for an appeal, as in any legal system in the world.
This does not mean you are able to say "I disagree with the decision so I believe they have committed an error of law", this means they are identifying a procedural or systematic error in the operation of the court. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that this could not be considered an error of law in any legal system in the world, and definitely not this one as there is no mention of any change relating to this since the Canas case.
I'd be interested to hear lance uppercuts opinion on this.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Listening to senates estimates hearing with McDevitt.

Madigan questions McDevitt about encouraging WADA to appeal a decision made by well respected Australian judges.

McDevitt responds saying he has never questioned the integrity of the judges...hang on didn't he bypass the ASADA appeal stage citing he had no faith in the afl anti doping tribunal to get a fair appeal hearing?

Then he goes on to say the 3 judges were experts in criminal matters and not sporting so they got the burden of proof level wrong...Hang on a second McDevitt - you've spent majority of your career as a police prosecutor in criminal matters, have been with ASADA for a short time and are trying to say these guys don't know the sporting code like he does? What a hypocrite! Conveniently overlooks the fact one of the judges in Wayne Henwood has been a member of the AFL tribunal system for the best part of a decade so clearly does have experience in sporting matters...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom