Did ASADA use Sandor Earl to fabricate evidence?

[compact72]

Muggs you're making it really hard for me to hate Adelaide lol

 

[White Kings]

According to him atheletes can get a discount if they caught taking or trafficking a PED by admitting to taking a second PED that the anti- doping agency does not know about. (10.5.4 WADA code).

Boy, this has been a bit rough going back and forth about the same thing.

This from the 2012 NRL Anti-Doping Code ( the relevant code when Earl was interviewed ) and this part was included in the document and either never read, or understood.

Example 4.
Facts: An Athlete who has never had an Adverse Analytical Finding or been confronted with
an anti-doping rule violation spontaneously admits that he intentionally used multiple
Prohibited Substances to enhance his performance. The Athlete also provides important
Substantial Assistance (Article 10.5.3).
1. While the intentional Use of multiple Prohibited Substances to enhance performance
would normally warrant consideration of aggravating circumstances (Article 10.6), the
Athlete’s spontaneous admission means that Article 10.6 would not apply. The fact that
the Athlete’s Use of Prohibited Substances was intentional would also eliminate the
application of Article 10.4 regardless of whether the Prohibited Substances Used were
Specified Substances. Thus, Article 10.2 would be applicable and the basic period of
Ineligibility imposed would be two years.
2. Based on the Athlete’s spontaneous admissions (Article 10.5.4) alone, the period of
Ineligibility could be reduced up to one-half of the two years. Based on the Athlete’s
Substantial Assistance (Article 10.5.3) alone, the period of Ineligibility could be reduced up
to three-quarters of the two years.
3. Under Article 10.5.5, in considering the spontaneous admission and Substantial
Assistance together, the most the sanction could be reduced would be up to three-quarters
of the two years. (The minimum period of Ineligibility would be six months.)
4. If Article 10.5.4 was considered by the hearing panel in arriving at the minimum six
month period of Ineligibility at step 3, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date the
hearing panel imposed the sanction. If, however, the hearing panel did not consider the
application of Article 10.5.4 in reducing the period of Ineligibility in step 3, then under
Article 10.9.2, the commencement of the period of Ineligibility could be started as early as
the date the anti-doping rule violation was committed, provided that at least half of that
period (minimum of three months) would have to be served after the date of the hearing
decision.]

So when confronted with CJC claims ( 1 substance ), the witness then spontaneously admits to multiple substances ( CJC and TB4 ), and also provides substantial assistance. The breakdown then matches Earl's descriptions of what he was supposedly told by ASADA reaching a grand total of 75% reduction. I believe these are the "guidelines" Earl speaks of multiple times. What has been so hard to understand?

The document just matches Earl's statements about ASADA, his knowledge of the breakdown of reductions, matching it to the WADA code, and it seems this example listed above would help ASADA to make Earl's unconvincing connection to TB4 through the process appear legitimate. That process was followed through until they dropped the matter, not before making use of all his related TB4 evidence. It worked out perfectly for ASADA.

Edit - The document or myself are not claiming Earl just came up with this revolutionary idea to reduce his sentence during his interview. Alternatively that ASADA initiated the offer of the 75% reduction as a way to get him to cooperate with what they required. I believe that is the argument of the document. Just in case there was confusion

 

[Muggs]

Boy, this has been a bit rough going back and forth about the same thing.

This from the 2012 NRL Anti-Doping Code ( the relevant code when Earl was interviewed ) and this part was included in the document and either never read, or understood.

Example 4.
Facts: An Athlete who has never had an Adverse Analytical Finding or been confronted with
an anti-doping rule violation spontaneously admits that he intentionally used multiple
Prohibited Substances to enhance his performance. The Athlete also provides important
Substantial Assistance (Article 10.5.3).
1. While the intentional Use of multiple Prohibited Substances to enhance performance
would normally warrant consideration of aggravating circumstances (Article 10.6), the
Athlete’s spontaneous admission means that Article 10.6 would not apply. The fact that
the Athlete’s Use of Prohibited Substances was intentional would also eliminate the
application of Article 10.4 regardless of whether the Prohibited Substances Used were
Specified Substances. Thus, Article 10.2 would be applicable and the basic period of
Ineligibility imposed would be two years.
2. Based on the Athlete’s spontaneous admissions (Article 10.5.4) alone, the period of
Ineligibility could be reduced up to one-half of the two years. Based on the Athlete’s
Substantial Assistance (Article 10.5.3) alone, the period of Ineligibility could be reduced up
to three-quarters of the two years.
3. Under Article 10.5.5, in considering the spontaneous admission and Substantial
Assistance together, the most the sanction could be reduced would be up to three-quarters
of the two years. (The minimum period of Ineligibility would be six months.)
4. If Article 10.5.4 was considered by the hearing panel in arriving at the minimum six
month period of Ineligibility at step 3, the period of Ineligibility would start on the date the
hearing panel imposed the sanction. If, however, the hearing panel did not consider the
application of Article 10.5.4 in reducing the period of Ineligibility in step 3, then under
Article 10.9.2, the commencement of the period of Ineligibility could be started as early as
the date the anti-doping rule violation was committed, provided that at least half of that
period (minimum of three months) would have to be served after the date of the hearing
decision.]

So when confronted with CJC claims ( 1 substance ), the witness then spontaneously admits to multiple substances ( CJC and TB4 ), and also provides substantial assistance. The breakdown then matches Earl's descriptions of what he was supposedly told by ASADA reaching a grand total of 75% reduction. I believe these are the "guidelines" Earl speaks of multiple times. What has been so hard to understand?

The document just matches Earl's statements about ASADA, his knowledge of the breakdown of reductions, matching it to the WADA code, and it seems this example listed above would help ASADA to make Earl's unconvincing connection to TB4 through the process appear legitimate. That process was followed through until they dropped the matter, not before making use of all his related TB4 evidence. It worked out perfectly for ASADA.

The point is you cant get a an overall reduced sanction by pleading guilty to more charges than you first accused of.

It makes no sense that someone who pleads guilty to a second charge after being accused of one charge get's a lower penalty than someone who only faces one charge.

You missed highlighting the key word that fact you keep quoting here let me quote it again for you.

Facts: An Athlete who has never had an Adverse Analytical Finding or been confronted with an anti-doping rule violation

You completely ignoring the word NEVER.

Once you accused or confronted once you can no longer get a reduction under 10.5.4 (so dot point 2 of that fact does not apply) In pleading guilty once he was confronted with the CJC-1295 and trafficking charges Earl was avoiding section 10.6 of the wada code - aggravating factors which would have increased his penalty from 4 years to 8 on the trafficking (so dot point 1). This is why they early guilty plea from Earl was critical, it was to stop a 8 year sentence. IF ASADA discovered and proved TB4 later 8 years was on the table.

Edit - also suggest you read the start of the comment to article 10.5.4, i.e the section before the example you quoting.

It is not intended to apply to circumstances where the admission occurs after the Athlete or other Person believes he or she is about to be caught.

Once ASADA confronted Earl over CJC-1296 this comments highlights that 10.5.4 was of the table.

So please stop cherry picking quotes and read entire sections to put your quotes into context.

Suspect the 50% deduction for guilt was a no significant fault deduction which ASADA would support and get past WADA like ASADA did for the Cronulla players on the condition they pleaded guilty and take the deal.

We saw with the EFC 34 WADA plays hard ball they as matter of course does not support no significant fault at CAS (only exception to this rule is when they appealing a no fault discount that should have been no significant fault - seen a case like this). ASADA was threatening the Cronulla players with the full 2 years, i.e not support the no significant fault discount, if they did not plead guilty and tried their luck at the tribunal. So why is it a stretch that Earl got treated differently to the other NRL players who took a deal?

Than the rest of the reduction substantial assistance.

 

[Muggs]

Muggs you're making it really hard for me to hate Adelaide lol

My pleasure

 

[Muggs]

While I am at it let me explain my contention in regards to the SMS messages.

When I said Grace accepted them, he accepted them into evidence, he accepted they existed, he accepted that ASADA could prove how they collected them and that such messages were collected from this phone or made by person X. Basically he did not challenge ASADA's right to introduce it as evidence that they collected. He accepted that the evidence was not fabricated or tampered with - my issue with that opinion piece.

What Grace did quite a bit of late in the hearing is challenge the reliability of those messages, what they meant, and highlighted they should not be given much weight due to not being able to interrogate them via cross examination of either the person sending or receiving the message . Which was pointed out in that opinion piece (something it got right).

There is plenty of debate in the 500k posts or so on the HTB about the quality of this evidence vs that evidence, how much weight it should be given, and these are valid debates, engaged in a few myself at times (mind you most my posts are more legal points and process).

A debate about the quality of evidence is a very different debate to fabricating evidence as you titled this thread.

 

[White Kings]

A debate about the quality of evidence is a very different debate to fabricating evidence as you titled this thread.

No doubt.

There's a lot you've written that I disagree with. Of course the sections of the document we are discussing, with the material available, I believe, are open for interpretation. For mine, there are other sections which contribute more successfully to the title. But substantial assistance, text messages, Dean Robinson etc would be there to help paint the overall picture.

 

[Proper Gander]

My pleasure

I am going to temporarily hate crows this weekend when we get flogged, but overall I like them generally and like them lots this year. I hope you're enjoying it Muggs because they are a seriously fun team in peak form.

Sorry - I forget which thread I'm in. If it's the new White Kings conspiracy one though, seriously it is nutzo stuff

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No doubt.

There's a lot you've written that I disagree with. Of course the sections of the document we are discussing, with the material available, I believe, are open for interpretation. For mine, there are other sections which contribute more successfully to the title. But substantial assistance, text messages, Dean Robinson etc would be there to help paint the overall picture.

So what did Earl get then? Thymomodulin?

 

[White Kings]

If it's the new White Kings conspiracy one though, seriously it is nutzo stuff

That's all fine. But I don't hesitate in stating that there are multiple scenarios that point to Sandor Earl not being injected with Thymosin.

 

[White Kings]

So what did Earl get then? Thymomodulin?

No.

 

[Muggs]

I am going to temporarily hate crows this weekend when we get flogged, but overall I like them generally and like them lots this year. I hope you're enjoying it Muggs because they are a seriously fun team in peak form.

Am enjoying it and going to be at the G on Sunday to watch your flogging enjoying every moment of it

 

[HairyO]

Im convinced.

ASADA owe Hird a massive apology for interfering with his doping programme.

 

[Badesumofu]

Ok I'm going to take you word for it and trust your reading of the code.

Hey everyone pay attention, White Kings here has given me a fantastic idea for a PED business.

According to him atheletes can get a discount if they caught taking or trafficking a PED by admitting to taking a second PED that the anti- doping agency does not know about. (10.5.4 WADA code).

...

I get a prospectus and business plan drawn up, if anyone wants to invest in the business let me know and I send you a copy when ready.

White Kings if you PM me the authors name I cut him in for nothing, after all it was his article that triggered the idea. I promise not to tell anyone.

Just think we can promise a 50% discount on penalties to any of our clients who get caught taking a PED just by admitting to taking more banned substances! We going to make a killing I tell you!

Any suggestions for what we should call the business? blackcat evo you normally good at this kind of thing.

This strikes me as a million dollar idea. Can I get in on it? My contribution is this: we don't actually even need to source the secondary untestable drug, just to identify one that exists. Since it has to be untestable anyway there is no need to actually administer it, just claim to have used it in the event that our athletes get caught for the primary drug. Brilliant! Just need to invent a place we could have sourced it, have them send us an empty package. Much cheaper that way.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

This strikes me as a million dollar idea. Can I get in on it? My contribution is this: we don't actually even need to source the secondary untestable drug, just to identify one that exists. Since it has to be untestable anyway there is no need to actually administer it, just claim to have used it in the event that our athletes get caught for the primary drug. Brilliant! Just need to invent a place we could have sourced it, have them send us an empty package. Much cheaper that way.

Yes, sound great on paper. But you'd need a proven link to a known dealer to establish a strands of the rope case. Any Hawthorne links... Oh. Waite.