News EFC asks AFL and ASADA for probe into own training regime

[Malifice]

If the players took every reasonable step to ensure their supplements where legal (borderline means nothing, it's either legal or it's not) which in actual terms means asking for the club to check with WADA, state clearly what the drugs are and have both parties sign that those drugs are all that will be taken and then have the drugs switched on them (which is the hypothetical we're discussing) and cop a ban for it, it will e a total miscarriage of justice, and the AFL, AFLPA and other organisations will come after WADA/ASADA.

I dont think it is a miscarriage of justice at all. Strict liability exists for a reason.

The laws are intentionally draconian to stop exactly what we are seeing now from happening.

As the barrister said on SEN, ignorance is not an excuse, but taking every reasonable measure to ensure the drugs were legal is.

Happy to disagree with my learned friend on this one. All this does is lessen the penalty, not remove it. And it certainly doesn't take away strict liability for the offence in the first place.

 

[Malifice]

I'd prefer vitamins.

Make sure you sign a waiver first.

Too soon?

 

[Doss]

^ Why can't all opposition supporters be like this guy?

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but I've been impressed with more or less every opposition poster who has come into this thread so far- the one real idiot I saw got given the short shrift anyway.

Obviously, no matter how much one might try and beat their chest, every Essendon supporter is nervous about this whole thing to some extent. Some more than others, sure, but I digress. Especially when viewed against the troll fest and misinformation and cringeworthy puns that have completely dominated the main board thread, the objective manner in which people have come in to discuss (and commiserate in some cases, yes) the issue has been appreciated, by me and I suspect a lot of my fellow Essendon posters.

Perhaps that's just because rational discussion on the main board threads died out and became impossible about five minutes after the thread was created. But nonetheless, it's been good to see.

 

[Tiger Claw]

Don't kid yourselves, every club has the potential to be dragged into this.

Absolutely every club could be dragged into this. I mentioned much the same on this thread a day or 2 ago.

Edit: Essendon hasn't been charged with anything, though questions swirl around Danks. At this point until proven otherwise Essendon (just as any club) should look to tighten up their processes. That's where they've let things down.

 

[Bosk]

My take on the situation is that it's a bit unreasonable to suggest the players themselves were at fault. Sure, they may have known or at least suspected that the substances they were taking were "slightly iffy" but they were given the assurance of their employer that everything was above board. Unfortunately this may not save them from being punished given the way ASADA's rules work which strikes me as being particularly cruel, but such is life.

Whoever's decision it was to inject them with said substances in the first place is obviously the real bad guy here, and from all the evidence thus far it looks like that person was Dank. That said, I have a very hard time believing that in a modern day, professional football club someone like Dank would be given the opportunity to do as he pleased without any oversight from those further up the chain in the football department. More the point if many of the players were grumbling about being uncomfortable with what they were taking you'd have to think that such news would reach the ears of others higher up before long.

Or, it could be that the club knew it was pushing the envelope with these supplements but Dank carefully concealed just how 'cutting edge' some of them were. From an Essendon supporter's perspective I'd imagine that would be best case scenario right now.

Football's become such a cutthroat business with such massive amounts of money involved that I guess a scandal of this nature was inevitable sooner or later.

 

[Burzum]

Has this been posted?

 

[monty1104]

Has this been posted?

Lol. On the news report on ch9 last night they cut to that poster (it looks to be the exact one) and it was fading and peeling. The club will just say they took it down due to looking old and shabby. Whether that's the truth, no one will ever know.

 

[Zach Package]

would have thought there's not a lot in that.
That door is a player's entrance if i'm not mistaken, so having ambulance chasers following them in and having that as a backdrop just adds to the idiot fire.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I dont think it is a miscarriage of justice at all. Strict liability exists for a reason.

The laws are intentionally draconian to stop exactly what we are seeing now from happening.





Happy to disagree with my learned friend on this one. All this does is lessen the penalty, not remove it. And it certainly doesn't take away strict liability for the offence in the first place.

To stop what is essentially a spiked drink/date rape scenario?

If the players had any sort of knowledge, that's different.

 

[Doss]

That's at Windy Hill, yeah?

Might be as simple as us removing our 'official' stuff (i.e. logos) in preparation for us formally moving to Tullamarine.

 

[Old Campaigner]

To stop what is essentially a spiked drink/date rape scenario?

If the players had any sort of knowledge, that's different.

I agree that banning players who made every effort to ensure that what they took was legal, but this differs from a date rape/drink spiking because the supplements can have an on going positive effect that would be unfair in competition. Now it would be safe to say that whatever is was would be out of their systems by now but if you start going easy on athletes simply because they got away with it for a year or more then what kind of message does that send to potential users?

I'm just happy that the club has so far been upfront about it, and hopefully if we are found to be in the wrong we'll go about setting things right without the whiney threats about supreme court action and the protect the old boys club shit that seems to be happening at MFC. Best way forward if guilty is a scorched earth policy for people connected to this, no matter who they are, and just erase this period from the club's history so any future success is untainted by all this.

 

[loopy_cam]

Is there any actual evidence (apart from Reimo) that the players knew that this was 'pushing the boundaries'? From what I'm taking from what Malifice is saying, this is the main argument for the players being at fault. Could it not just have been as simple as: Dank tells the playing group we're changing the system, players ask for new forms to sign to make sure everything is legal, players sign forms, Dank gives them something else? That scenario means the players didn't know they were 'pushing the boundaries' at all and therefore couldn't be responsible?

Also, assuming the players knew they were 'pushing the boundaries' and Dank gave them something illegal but didn't tell them about it, with us assisting the the investigation they would surely get the 75% leniency. From what I'm hearing, the penalty is usually two years if the players knew about it or one if they didn't, so would that mean they're only missing five or six games?

 

[BrunoV]

As the barrister said on SEN, ignorance is not an excuse, but taking every reasonable measure to ensure the drugs were legal is.

The code says that it will balance the aim of keeping athletes clean with fairness. It wasn't the highlighted part of the code that Malfice quoted.He is correct in saying that there is no defence to any finding of guilt (because there is not fault element required) and on the face of it this is where Ehrlich was probably incorrect this morning. Ehrlich said reasonableness was a defence rather than it being grounds to mitigate the penalty. It may be the in being required to balance fairness in an outcome that a defence is inherent if the circumstances permit it, this may have been what Ehrlich was saying.

Another important factor is below:

It is important to emphasize 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 Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of CAS.

When you combine this with the concession to ensure that there are fair outcomes which have account of mitigating factors (which seem to really stack up in our players' favours) with suspension seemingly being discretionary as opposed to automatic you'd think that this would be as good a case as any for no suspension (assuming accuracy of McVeigh).

The final line confuses me. I wouldn't have though that strict liability needs upholding. I would assume that it is really referring to the penalties but it does suggest that circumstances could exist in which liability could be avoided.

It may be that there are fundamental principles of fairness that could be thrown at this with enough weight to over come the strict liability principle. You could even try to run some sort of argument that WADA does not have the jurisdiction to make a finding of guilt that does not assist it with its primary objective, being to keep sports clean. It is pretty simple, the excessive punishment of knowledge-less individuals is hardly going to deter knowledge-less individuals from (not) taking performance enhancing drugs in the future.

In any event, I've never heard of a situation like this. On the facts alone it is probably quite easily distinguishable from other cases where users claiming innocence were punished.

 

[Phone]

whatever happens from here, I really just don't see how any player could have faith playing under this code

 

[TD_B52]

Wow, tough day today. What do you think Dank would gain from using banned or borderline substances on players behind the clubs back? Appart from the obvious, being ongoing employment; from the sounds of it he was making enough on the side anyway?

 

[brendan84]

Anyone see this:
Essendon legend Tim Watson says his son Jobe is 100% comfortable with the vitamins that he was taking and knew exactly what he is taking.

"He [Jobe] said that when this all blows over at some point, and it will, he'd be happy to talk about it in greater detail so that he can allay any fears that anyone may have about what they did being untoward in any way," Watson senior said.

"They all wanted to be completely at ease that everything that they were taking was WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] checked-off ... and that the club doctors had checked it off as well."

 

[abers47]

I am a bit concerned about how the players feel about playing for us and how much faith they will now have in the coaching staff. I loved McVeigh's speech - still passionate and honest. I hope the others feel the same.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Wow, tough day today. What do you think Dank would gain from using banned or borderline substances on players behind the clubs back? Appart from the obvious, being ongoing employment; from the sounds of it he was making enough on the side anyway?

It would put him in a position where he could legitimately ask for a pay rise if the team responded well to the training regime and led success on field.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I am a bit concerned about how the players feel about playing for us and how much faith they will now have in the coaching staff. I loved McVeigh's speech - still passionate and honest. I hope the others feel the same.

It wouldn't be too hard to put in place some protocol to ensure this can't happen again. WADA warns against taking any supplements because they can't necessarily guarantee their legality so maybe those will be dropped from the program.

 

[Phone]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
AFL Commission Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick called an immediate meeting of the Commission today after this morning's ACC press conference.

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
Commission Chairman Mr Fitzpatrick will address the media at the 6pm press conference with Andrew Demetriou, on that meeting this afternoon.

may as well stick this on the record

 

[Doss]

And so now we wait..

 

[dnbassador]

Anyone looked at bright side what ever happens we still have Goddard! Haha

 

[OzBomber]

Channel 9 brilliance again.

"But it was James Hird who took on the role of defender."
"there's been a lot about this Shane Carter, Hirdy, have you worked with him?

*Hirdy closes the door and drives off*

okey mete...

 

[Doss]

Channel 9 brilliance again.

"But it was James Hird who took on the role of defender."
"there's been a lot about this Shane Carter, Hirdy, have you worked with him?

*Hirdy closes the door and drives off*

okey mete...

Who was the reporter? Sounds almost like Current Affair-esque.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

Anyone looked at bright side what ever happens we still have Goddard! Haha

What if the Saints were doping?