Channel 7 The Decision

[mxett]

Probably because everybody was waiting on those charges, and they made it clear they weren't dealing with that side of it yet.

No they didn't! They could have said, "on the matter of player bans we unfortunately have no news because the interim report did not cover this area"

No, they chose to clear players with a clause that new evidence may yet be discovered, despite knowing essentially everything ASADA know because they were fully informed by ASADA during their investigation, as stated by ad numerous times.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No. The ACC investigated the happenings for a reason which we are yet to find out why. I suspect foul play by sinister individuals attempting to take advantage of the club, as eluded to in the ACC report.

And the AFL are trying to take out every last person in a position of power at Essendon because they were victims of these sinister individuals?

 

[Anoncomment]

As i stated, why would the afl comment on player infractions if the interim report contained no detail in that regard?

Because everyone is waiting with baited breath to hear what's going to happen to the players. The interim report is tight enough to charge officials under AFL rules, so they're going ahead with that. They couldn't just charge the club and officials and hope that everyone will ignore the fact that they've said nothing about the players. The AFL worded its statement very cleverly, clearly saying that the evidence they possess (interim report) does not have the "who took what, where and when" details.

 

[mxett]

And the AFL are trying to take out every last person in a position of power at Essendon because they were victims of these sinister individuals?

No, the club failed in their duty of care to ensure this didnt happen.

 

[mxett]

Because everyone is waiting with baited breath to hear what's going to happen to the players. The interim report is tight enough to charge officials under AFL rules, so they're going ahead with that. They couldn't just charge the club and officials and hope that everyone will ignore the fact that they've said nothing about the players. The AFL worded its statement very cleverly, clearly saying that the evidence they possess (interim report) does not have the "who took what, where and when" details.

So they commented on player bans without any information? Don't think so, especially when their comments backed up what numerous sources have said, ASADA would not peruse charges over AOD

 

[Anoncomment]

No, the club failed in their duty of care to ensure this didnt happen.

The taking of legal, permissible substances by grown adults who gave their formal consent?

 

[melbournemartin]

Yet ASADA consider it not appropriate to enforce bans. I wonder why that is? Maybe essendon have proof after all

No idea,

But as posted before it wouldn't be the first time that a national anti-doping agency had a conflicted opinion with WADA. Here is the link again: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/torino/sliding/2006-02-10-lund-ban_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Basically saying they are unable to conclusively say which players took what substances at the moment and left the door open for future charges to be laid if any further evidence comes to hand once the ASADA report is completed in full or at anytime after that.

They still may obtain greater evidence if they can get Dank in for an interview or unearth some more emails, text messages or taped phone calls etc.

That's how I read it. 'If further information comes to hand' could easily refer to the full ASADA report. They are not saying there is no evidence as to players taking banned substances, they are saying the report they have does not contain that evidence. That is exactly what we were told when the interim report was first given to the AFL and Essendon.

 

[ManWithNoName]

No idea,

But as posted before it wouldn't be the first time that a national anti-doping agency had a conflicted opinion with WADA. Here is the link again: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/torino/sliding/2006-02-10-lund-ban_x.htm?POE=SPOISVA

They appealed the penalty. Not the verdict.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Missed the show. Is it available on the 7 website?

 

[mxett]

The taking of legal, permissible substances by grown adults who gave their formal consent?

Legal, wada compliant, but some experimental and unproven. Dank was given free licence which was a complete mistake which they will pay for.

Anyway, it has been said enough times now, the matter is more complex than we know. I just hope we eventually hear the true story.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Thankfully I'll sleep easier knowing no banned substances were used at essendon and players will not be banned

 

[Anoncomment]

So they commented on player bans without any information? Don't think so, especially when their comments backed up what numerous sources have said, ASADA would not peruse charges over AOD

They commented on the fact that the current report does not allow them to lay charges against the players. Imagine a world in which the interim report says nothing about individual players, and a later, follow-up report says that they did take banned substances and that ASADA recommends 2 year bans. Now imagine that it's a few days since the interim report has been released and you are the AFL. The interim report gives you enough information to lay charges against the club and officials only. You hold a press conference to do so. Do you mention anything about the players? If so, what would you say (I'll be judging you on your PR skills).

 

[Anoncomment]

Legal, wada compliant, but some experimental and unproven. Dank was given free licence which was a complete mistake which they will pay for.

Anyway, it has been said enough times now, the matter is more complex than we know. I just hope we eventually hear the true story.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Thankfully I'll sleep easier knowing no banned substances were used at essendon and players will not be banned

You're a marketer's dream.

 

[ManWithNoName]

So everyone clinging to the fact that it's an interim report, so they speak to Dank....and then? What exactly are they doing after that that they wouldn't have had the chance to do in the last 6 months?

Think carefully too, there's no rush.

 

[melbournemartin]

They appealed the penalty. Not the verdict.

A fair point but it's still a precedent of conflict. And besides, the original penalty of a warning was barely more than a not-guilty verdict.

Even if ASADA comes out and says 100% not guilty, if there is proof of drugs being taken WADA will act.

 

[Southern Urchins]

So they commented on player bans without any information? Don't think so, especially when their comments backed up what numerous sources have said, ASADA would not peruse charges over AOD

Anoncommentis right, the AFL statement was very very clear on how it was framed. The AFL will not be issuing infractions "at this time".
Doesn't mean they never will. Doesn't mean WADA won't come in over the local authority (ASADA) and issue infractions.

Remember, WADA and ASADA are not bound by the AFLs timetable (finals) to issue infractions. WADA has again clearly stated it's position on the status of AOD being a banned substance making it very very clear that athletes will be punished.

If you think this ends on the 26th of August, think again. This latest action is merely designed to cut the head off the snake and ensure you don't play finals. Wait till ASADA uses it's new powers and forces Dank to testify. Then shit will get real. WADA is watching, make no mistake about it.

 

[melbournemartin]

So everyone clinging to the fact that it's an interim report, so they speak to Dank....and then? What exactly are they doing after that that they wouldn't have had the chance to do in the last 6 months?

Think carefully too, there's no rush.

Tell that to the clubs fighting for 9th spot.

 

[ManWithNoName]

A fair point but it's still a precedent of conflict. And besides, the original penalty of a warning was barely more than a not-guilty verdict.

Even if ASADA comes out and says 100% not guilty, if there is proof of drugs being taken WADA will act.

Point is he was still found guilty. I read somewhere (don't ask me where, can't remember now) that WADA are only able to appeal a penalty, not the verdict.

 

[Richter]

Sure is, but it clearly isn't yours. They said nothing would change unless new evidence came to hand...

You mean like... the testimony of the bloke who actually oversaw the administration of the injections?

 

[melbournemartin]

Point is he was still found guilty. I read somewhere (don't ask me where, can't remember now) that WADA are only able to appeal a penalty, not the verdict.

Well I'd need to see that written but if ASADA would be treading a fine line if they found the players not-guilty despite evidence of them taking the substances banned on the WADA list.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Well I'd need to see that written but if ASADA would be treading a fine line if they found the players not-guilty despite evidence of them taking the substances banned on the WADA list.

Hence the term "interim".

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Legal, wada compliant, but some experimental and unproven.

Yes, so AOD is now WADA compliant and invoices for other banned substances were accidents and Thymosin on consent forms, was the legal Thymosin, wait, strike that, it was one of a number of other drugs that do absolutely nothing for the players but happen to start with the letters t-h-y. You then think people are being unreasonable if they are cynical about these contentions. If Dank decides it was actually petrified thylacine excrement, I'm out of here.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

That's how I read it. 'If further information comes to hand' could easily refer to the full ASADA report. They are not saying there is no evidence as to players taking banned substances, they are saying the report they have does not contain that evidence. That is exactly what we were told when the interim report was first given to the AFL and Essendon.

Bit like never closing an unsolved murder case, not that hard to understand I would of thought unless you interpreting through red and black eyes...

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well I'd need to see that written but if ASADA would be treading a fine line if they found the players not-guilty despite evidence of them taking the substances banned on the WADA list.

They might as well say stuff the WADA code, it's a free-for-all. The victors are the ones that cover their tracks the best.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure that very line is in the AFL's constitution.

 

[melbournemartin]

Out of curiosity, are there any major leagues around the world that are not associated with WADA? The AFL could join that club if they let drugged players keep playing.