Fletcher not allowed to watch his son play

[dave123]

I think it's fantastic they got a decent penalty ...why because it will make other clubs think twice or three times about cheating

It sets a clear defined stance that drug cheats will get punished

Isn't that the right outcome for everyone

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

I think it's fantastic they got a decent penalty ...why because it will make other clubs think twice or three times about cheating

It sets a clear defined stance that drug cheats will get punished

Isn't that the right outcome for everyone

Yeah, maybe. Or, don't get players to sign documents, and ensure your sports scientists stick with the undetectable stuff.

 

[threesixpio]

That might be the way it is supposed to work under the WADA code but the onus of proof is reversed at the time that the Show Cause Notices are issued:

"An order to show cause, in most Anglo-Saxon law systems, is a type of court order that requires one or more of the parties to a case to justify, explain, or prove something to the court". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_to_show_cause).

As to the CAS hearing, here's how one legal commentator characterised those proceedings:

"While it is tempting to simply put the pieces of the puzzle together and conclude that illicit substances were taken, that is not how judicial proceedings are meant to work. That is because the prosecution is required to prove their case, and defendants are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. (It would have been a very different situation if the players had tested positive to the illicit substances)." https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/01/18/did-essendon-players-get-a-fair-shake/

But we are now going over old grounds over which we do not agree and this is straying away from my original comment that both cheats (with intent) and others who test positive for banned substances end up serving the same amount of time away from the sport.

To me a show cause notice is similar to the infringements system. It's really more about efficiency of process rather than extinguishing someone's rights. I can pay the fine and avoid needing to go to court or elect for the matter to go to court. Similarly I can be served a charge and summons and the matter can be resolved ex parte if I don't turn up (usually only happens for minor/summary offences).

You can Wikipedia whatever you want but the reality is that once an athlete responds to a show cause notice, not accepting the allegations , the onus is on the prosecutor

To suggest otherwise is ignoring the code. I'd prefer looking at the code rather than your wiki link......

 

[dave123]

ASADA has a phone number...you can ring them if you're concerned about a drug that your coach wants you to take

Previous to being a drug counsellor I worked for the Australian sports commission


They are approachable

Players are put through stringent doping seminars so are coaches

If you screw up ...most of the time it's your fault

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Yeah, maybe. Or, don't get players to sign documents, and ensure your sports scientists stick with the undetectable stuff.

.... and then gamble that the testing doesn't catch up before the retesting period lapses.

Some losers recently on that gamble!

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

.... and then gamble that the testing doesn't catch up before the retesting period lapses.

Some losers recently on that gamble!

And let's hope that this inspires the testers to even better detection methods so the risk blows out to certainty.

 

[wa don]

I think it's fantastic they got a decent penalty ...why because it will make other clubs think twice or three times about cheating

It sets a clear defined stance that drug cheats will get punished

Isn't that the right outcome for everyone

Yeah, because an Ex player dying and numerous other ones loosing the plot has stopped a lot of others taking recreational drugs, right

 

[dave123]

Yeah, because an Ex player dying and numerous other ones loosing the plot has stopped a lot of others taking recreational drugs, right

What's your point

 

[sameolds33]

To me a show cause notice is similar to the infringements system. It's really more about efficiency of process rather than extinguishing someone's rights. I can pay the fine and avoid needing to go to court or elect for the matter to go to court. Similarly I can be served a charge and summons and the matter can be resolved ex parte if I don't turn up (usually only happens for minor/summary offences).

You can Wikipedia whatever you want but the reality is that once an athlete responds to a show cause notice, not accepting the allegations , the onus is on the prosecutor

To suggest otherwise is ignoring the code. I'd prefer looking at the code rather than your wiki link......

Sorry, only just saw this. Yes, agree that SCN is part of the process but my point was that professional sportspeople are the only Australian employees who, once the SCN issues, embark on a process that ultimately requires them to prove their innocence under foreign law. And the obligation for the EFC 34 stems from the players' employment contracts. I cannot imagine any other Australian employee agreeing to - or employment lawyer advising acceptance of - such a condition. It would be interesting to know how player managers are now addressing this contractual condition in the light of the Essendon case.

As to your other comment, even a "moron in a hurry" can see that I was not using Wikipedia as legal reference but merely quoting the explanation given there to save me having to type out how the SCN reverses the presumption of innocence. To suggest otherwise is "nonsense on stilts."

 

[threesixpio]

Sorry, only just saw this. Yes, agree that SCN is part of the process but my point was that professional sportspeople are the only Australian employees who, once the SCN issues, embark on a process that ultimately requires them to prove their innocence under foreign law. And the obligation for the EFC 34 stems from the players' employment contracts. I cannot imagine any other Australian employee agreeing to - or employment lawyer advising acceptance of - such a condition. It would be interesting to know how player managers are now addressing this contractual condition in the light of the Essendon case.

As to your other comment, even a "moron in a hurry" can see that I was not using Wikipedia as legal reference but merely quoting the explanation given there to save me having to type out how the SCN reverses the presumption of innocence. To suggest otherwise is "nonsense on stilts."

To be a lawyer I have to renew my practising certificate every year. Having a practising certificate is a condition of my employment. "Breaking rules" can result in me not having my practising certificate renewed.

Same applies here - without a 'practising certificate' but essentially it's the same principle - there is a mutually understood deference to a third party who regulates my profession and I must obey those rules

 

[sameolds33]

To be a lawyer I have to renew my practising certificate every year. Having a practising certificate is a condition of my employment. "Breaking rules" can result in me not having my practising certificate renewed.

Same applies here - without a 'practising certificate' but essentially it's the same principle - there is a mutually understood deference to a third party who regulates my profession and I must obey those rules

At all times, the decision as to whether or not you've "broken rules" is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are admitted. At no point are your terms of employment determined by the Law Society rules of another Australian jurisdiction or those of a foreign country.

 

[threesixpio]

At all times, the decision as to whether or not you've "broken rules" is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are admitted. At no point are your terms of employment determined by the Law Society rules of another Australian jurisdiction or those of a foreign country.

Look - this NSW Act is a schedule to a Victorian act:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lpul333/

So that's kind of not too correct atm....your argument failed INSTANTLY

 

[Muggs]

At all times, the decision as to whether or not you've "broken rules" is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are admitted. At no point are your terms of employment determined by the Law Society rules of another Australian jurisdiction or those of a foreign country.

The players were found guilty under the AFL anti-doping code. Pretty sure the A stands for Australian.

It's also not that unusual in professional circles to members of international professional bodies and bound by rules of that body. Take my own area area accounting, CPA Australia has many members based overseas and bound by CPA Australia's professional and ethical standards. Quite a number of countries recognise CPA Australia within their professional framework and accept it as a ruling body. The is also accountants practicing in Australia bound by the rules of their body.

In one of my areas, tertiary teaching, i teach into internationally accredited programs. As a result of this international accreditation I am now bound by the conditions of the accreditation and need to maintain certain standards and qualifications in addition to the universities standard conditions of employment. That's a international body determining my conditions, the international accreditation bodies do audits to ensure staff maintain these standards, this is in addition to checks done by my employer.

Also not unusual for professional standards to be harmonized across counties to allow people to move around easily, thus rules are often determined by international committee.

 

[sameolds33]

Look - this NSW Act is a schedule to a Victorian act:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lpul333/

So that's kind of not too correct atm....your argument failed INSTANTLY

"Editorial note : The Legal Profession Uniform Law is applied as a law of NSW by the NSW Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 . This version is the Law as it applies in NSW ""
"7 Interpretation generally
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 of Victoria applies to the interpretation of this Law, the Uniform Regulations and the Uniform Rules in the same way as it applies to the interpretation of legislation and statutory instruments of Victoria."

As I understand it, s7 means that you rely on Victorian law to interpret the NWS statute.

 

[sameolds33]

The players were found guilty under the AFL anti-doping code. Pretty sure the A stands for Australian.

It's also not that unusual in professional circles to members of international professional bodies and bound by rules of that body. Take my own area area accounting, CPA Australia has many members based overseas and bound by CPA Australia's professional and ethical standards.

The players were found guilty by a private arbitration panel convened and operating under the laws of Switzerland.

 

[threesixpio]

The players were found guilty under the AFL anti-doping code. Pretty sure the A stands for Australian.

It's also not that unusual in professional circles to members of international professional bodies and bound by rules of that body. Take my own area area accounting, CPA Australia has many members based overseas and bound by CPA Australia's professional and ethical standards.

a

"Editorial note : The Legal Profession Uniform Law is applied as a law of NSW by the NSW Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 . This version is the Law as it applies in NSW ""
"7 Interpretation generally
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 of Victoria applies to the interpretation of this Law, the Uniform Regulations and the Uniform Rules in the same way as it applies to the interpretation of legislation and statutory instruments of Victoria."

As I understand it, s7 means that you rely on Victorian law to interpret the NWS statute.

But of course.

You also apply Commonwealth Legislation for applications of the ASADA Act and common law for contracts in Vic. What's ya point?

 

[Muggs]

The players were found guilty by a private arbitration panel convened and operating under the laws of Switzerland.

Yes and allowed in Australia by The international arbitration act, nothing unusual about international arbitration in Australia many bodies undertake it, which is why we have specific Australian law regarding international arbitration.

Furthermore CAS applied Australian law to the case anyway.

CAS statues rule 58

R58 Law Applicable to the merits

The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision.

Australian law applied.

The first time non Australian law is being applied in this case is at the appeal level.

 

[sameolds33]

a

But of course.

You also apply Commonwealth Legislation for applications of the ASADA Act and common law for contracts in Vic. What's ya point?

My point is that you and other Australian employees enjoy the certainty that your employment conditions and any alleged breach of those conditions will be determined by local laws. If you can't see the advantage that this gives you in a case where you are called upon to show cause you, frankly, can't be a very good lawyer.

 

[threesixpio]

My point is that you and other Australian employees enjoy the certainty that your employment conditions and any alleged breach of those conditions will be determined by local laws. If you can't see the advantage that this gives you in a case where you are called upon to show cause you, frankly, can't be a very good lawyer.

You're right. I'm going to try a new job... cos some sad Bomber supporter said I'm not a good lawyer

 

[sameolds33]

You're right. I'm going to try a new job... cos some sad Bomber supporter said I'm not a good lawyer

I'm not sad, just bemused that you and Muggs can't even accept that the employment condition that requires professional sportspeople to take the only action available to the EFC 34 for an employment issue differs from those available to other Australian employees.

What new job will you seek? A barrister friend of mine in HK has started sports arbitration work with CAS - says it's great fun!

 

[Muggs]

I'm not sad, just bemused that you and Muggs can't even accept that the employment condition that requires professional sportspeople to take the only action available to the EFC 34 for an employment issue differs from those available to other Australian employees.

What new job will you seek? A barrister friend of mine in HK has started sports arbitration work with CAS - says it's great fun!

I can accept its different to most employees. I'm just bemused you think the EFC34 situation is unique.... It's not.

 

[sameolds33]

I can accept its different to most employees. I'm just bemused you think the EFC34 situation is unique.... It's not.

Here's where our discussion about employment conditions started:

Muggs said: ↑

Still does not change the fact to get 4 years you need intent to take a phrobited substance deliberately.

If anything all you did was highlight the range of discounts available to atheltes if found to have taken something banned , further showing how incorrect AndrewB's comment is.

I said:
My point is that an athlete who intentionally takes a banned substance, more often than not, serves the same time out of the sport as one who returns a positive test without intention to cheat. Although the process might differ from case to case (eg a discount or plea bargain after an admission of guilt) the net effect on an athlete's career is the same and cheats tend to earn as much as those who test positive inadvertently because they spend the same time out of the sport as the non-cheats.

As a result, the current system favours intentional drug cheats. It's the opposite of the legal saying, "better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" - let alone 34 innocent ones! All of us would be up in arms if our own employment conditions produced these unfair results in pursuit of the greater good of integrity in that field. The anti-doping code and process is more likely to succeed if the incentive to cheat is removed. That's not happening now.

No claim there about the EFC 34 case being "unique", just unfair.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Here's where our discussion about employment conditions started:

Muggs said: ↑

Still does not change the fact to get 4 years you need intent to take a phrobited substance deliberately.

If anything all you did was highlight the range of discounts available to atheltes if found to have taken something banned , further showing how incorrect AndrewB's comment is.

I said:
My point is that an athlete who intentionally takes a banned substance, more often than not, serves the same time out of the sport as one who returns a positive test without intention to cheat. Although the process might differ from case to case (eg a discount or plea bargain after an admission of guilt) the net effect on an athlete's career is the same and cheats tend to earn as much as those who test positive inadvertently because they spend the same time out of the sport as the non-cheats.

As a result, the current system favours intentional drug cheats. It's the opposite of the legal saying, "better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is convicted" - let alone 34 innocent ones! All of us would be up in arms if our own employment conditions produced these unfair results in pursuit of the greater good of integrity in that field. The anti-doping code and process is more likely to succeed if the incentive to cheat is removed. That's not happening now.

No claim there about the EFC 34 case being "unique", just unfair.

Unfair they only got 1 year out of sport instead of 2?

 

[Slartibartfast]

My point is that you and other Australian employees enjoy the certainty that your employment conditions and any alleged breach of those conditions will be determined by local laws. If you can't see the advantage that this gives you in a case where you are called upon to show cause you, frankly, can't be a very good lawyer.

My fellow employees don't take illegal, untested drugs to improve their work output.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

My fellow employees don't take illegal, untested drugs to improve their work output.

Why did you have to bring that into this argument? FFS, this ain't about what they did, its about how unfairly them foreigners are treating Aussie good blokes.