Mega Thread General ASADA - AFL - Essendon Investigation Discussion [Now a troll free zone - be warned]

Remove this Banner Ad

Must be rock and a hard place for the ADA's.
They may want to go softer as to the unique nature of this but it does fly in the face of strict liability and would be more along the lines of reduced penalty as opposed to none
 
Cronos said:
Using the standard defence around here though, a simple mistake in an interview nulls and voids any other content in the interview. Have I got that right?
Click to expand...



Well dont you think it would help the cause if those who are apparently much more knowledgeable about these things & paid handsomely to report on them & explain coherently to the greater unwashed could get the basics right?

Just sayin...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

At the end of the day, the extent of the sanctions players may receive is not as important as an overall finding that the EFC has breached the anti-doping code, which would be the obvious conclusion if players are sanctioned. This would make the positions of Hird, Thompson, maybe even Reid, untenable & they could join the other parties from the EFC who have already, resigned/had their employment terminated. Ultimately this needs to be the outcome to ensure the club has been totally cleansed of all those who were in anyway involved in the doping program.
 
LanceRomance said:
Based on that my guess is that players will be charged.

players will then contest and get charges squashed or significantly reduced.
Click to expand...

Assuming players sanctioned and they appeal, on what grounds can you see the CAS quashing the charges or reducing the penalties if they are in line with the AFL anti doping code?
 
blackshadow said:
Assuming players sanctioned and they appeal, on what grounds can you see the CAS quashing the charges or reducing the penalties if they are in line with the AFL anti doping code?
Click to expand...

The appeal process does not necessarily need to reach CAS.

In fact, it doesn't even have to go through the AFL Tribunal.

At the point that the ADRV Panel accepts ASADA's advice on the existence of an ADRV, and that decision is entered into the Register of Findings, the players can appeal to the AAT.

The AFL Tribunal doesn't have to do anything until that is sorted out.
 
Barkly St End said:
The appeal process does not necessarily need to reach CAS.

In fact, it doesn't even have to go through the AFL Tribunal.

At the point that the ADRV Panel accepts ASADA's advice on the existence of an ADRV, and that decision is entered into the Register of Findings, the players can appeal to the AAT.

The AFL Tribunal doesn't have to do anything until that is sorted out.
Click to expand...
The AAT can only rule on whether the legal process has been properly followed not on any findings or penalties. Part of the reason this is taking so long is more than likely that ASADA is being meticulous to ensure that there are no grounds for any appeal to the AAT.

The CAS will be the court that ultimately decides on any appeals against sanctions.
 
blackshadow said:
The AAT can only rule on whether the legal process has been properly followed not on any findings or penalties. Part of the reason this is taking so long is more than likely that ASADA is being meticulous to ensure that there are no grounds for any appeal to the AAT.

The CAS will be the court that ultimately decides on any appeals against sanctions.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true at all. The appeal is heard by a specially convened appeals body of the AFL tribunal. The likelihood of CAS getting involved is actually vanishingly small. See the case of the Frankston VFL footballer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
Not necessarily true at all. The appeal is heard by a specially convened appeals body of the AFL tribunal. The likelihood of CAS getting involved is actually vanishingly small. See the case of the Frankston VFL footballer.
Click to expand...

Probably. There are a lot of ways that it can play out, and I suspect that which way it goes depends firstly on AFL damage containment (which they are pretty damn good at whether we like it or not). The trick is finding that position that all of the involved parties can live with, even if they don't particularly like it.

Nobody in their right mind should want to go to court if a bearable outcome can be had without it.

Part two of the equation is the players. Lets say infractions are issued and a mitigation offer of 6 or 12 months is on the table, agreed in principle by ASADA and WADA. Only takes one player to say "I did nothing wrong. They did it to me. I'll fight it all the way." Everything falls apart, some lawyers pay for their next holiday in the Bahamas, and most likely all of the players get reamed out with the full two years.

Who knows? A stroll through the history of the CAS finds buckets full of cases which should never have gone that way and were doomed before they started. It depends on the individuals.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Nah been too busy. And a big weekend that rolled on, hence my scattered state. Will see you in Los Santos tomorrow night though if you're about
Click to expand...
I should be, let's wreak some havoc.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
 
Laphroaig said:
Confusing line of information to conclusions there, and hard to assess without knowing what the actual information (or scuttlebutt) he has to draw his conclusions from.

It seems that he's actually talking about strict liability, not the catch all provisions which are about substances not specifically named but nonetheless banned. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I have to agree here:
1. Sly has mixed up the concepts of strict liability and catch-all clauses.
2. It's very hard to believe that WADA would give such an opinion on strict liability. We already know that an individual athlete can't use that excuse when dealing directly with their coach, so it doesn't make much sense that a team could fall back on that excuse.
 
Barkly St End said:
I have to agree here:
1. Sly has mixed up the concepts of strict liability and catch-all clauses.
2. It's very hard to believe that WADA would give such an opinion on strict liability. We already know that an individual athlete can't use that excuse when dealing directly with their coach, so it doesn't make much sense that a team could fall back on that excuse.
Click to expand...
There must be a massive ripple in the space/time continuum - I agree with you on point 2.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
 
Garran Giant said:
I believe opening your mind to all possibilities would be an example of broad thinking
allowing for the possibility of not a whole lot of consequence having happened would be an example of broad thinking
Click to expand...
Yet you don't seem to have opened your mind to any other possibility, or perhaps likelihood.

Garran Giant said:
allowing for the likelihood that whatever happened may not have been too different to what was already happening at other clubs would be an example of broad thinking
Click to expand...
Possibility rather than the likelihood

Garran Giant said:
if you're stuck on wishing for one outcome only, then by definition, that is not an example of broad thinking
Click to expand...
Predicting rather than wishing.

I presume that you were completely unaware of the irony of that comment at the time of penning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
694
Satan
Satan
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
618
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top