Leading Athlete advocate CAS lowered the bar, was two years or nothing

[Muggs]

Have a question on a related issue - Substance is Meladonium - Added to the WADA prohibited list on 01/01/2016 and already 4 positive tests - I am interested in the process in how Sporting Federations and ultimately athletes, are notified of changes to prohibited and non-prohibited substances - Obviously prohibited substances will be added to ASADA/WADA's website by 01/01/2016.

Now this by itself is not nearly enough - I'm assuming that any changes to the classification of substances would follow the following process

- WADA notifies NADO's
- NADO's notify Olympic Committees who then notify Olympic Sporting Federations and finally filter through to athletes.
- NADO's notify all other sports associations who are WADA signatories and finally filter through to athletes.

I am assuming a process like the above is followed by WADA. Can anyone provide clarification on this issue.

From what I can tell happened last few years WADA publicly announced the changes around mid-late sept each year, this includes the WADA website, Twitter feed, newsletters and everyone who has signed up to recieve email updates.
Soon after (matter of days) the NADOs and international sporting Feds start doing the same. Than onto the other sporting bodies
Atheletes as part of their training are taught the list is updated each year and they need to recheck everything when this occurs.
Really no excuse.

 

[Muggs]

Except that one of WADA's key expert witnesses Handelsohn who was brought in to argue that elevated TB4 levels from two players, had his expert evidence disregarded by the CAS adjudicators.

Did the players receive poor legal advice ? Certain that Grace QC would have recommended appropriate legal practitioners for the CAS hearing - And Grace provided behind the scenes legal advice - Maybe the players legal representatives had a bad day in court BUT doesn't mean the players had poor legal advice.

Also had his evidence disregarded by WADA during closing submissions, your point?

Note I said poor legal advice/decision making. To me it's not just a bad day in court but also the process pre hearing.

While I respect the opinion of people like Kaias, I don't take what they said as gospel. I've been critical of the defense from the day the award was released in regards to their in case of guilty submission for a reduction in sentence - we agree with the AFLs submission. In a process where most evidence is debated through documents, in a system where not every case has a hearing (like arbitration in Australia) I still find it outstanding that the players defense put forward no argument (when the onus would shift to them) on why the players should receive a discount, apart from we agree with the AFL.

This is why I believe there was poor legal advice/decision making on behalf of the players defence team, there is plenty of CAS precedent where CAS has awarded discounts in what I believe are tenuous circumstances. I've read a number of awards that site these in the defence submission section, yet the players defence did not include any details of why they entitled to a discount in their prehearing submissions according to the award.

Will also note that Howard Jacobs defended Tim Montgomery in a non positive test case, part of the BALCO cases where he Montgomery pleaded innocent. About as close as you going to get to a precedent (and I know there are still differences).

 

[jenny61_99]

Suspended players being allowed to attend games shows what a farce are WADA's rules - The VERY first ban on suspended players should be NOT attending games - Anyway you've told me for over three years that WADA/ASADA are perfect - I feel let down.

AFL decide the finer details of the punishment, not WADA.

 

[HairyO]

The argument is that Richard Young was employed/advised ASADA to recommend whether ASADA's case was strong enough to press charges againstthe players - So Young was intimately involved in the case before it went to the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal - Question is why Young didn't represent ASADA at the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal.

Because no-one trusts the AFL.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Have a question on a related issue - Substance is Meladonium - Added to the WADA prohibited list on 01/01/2016 and already 4 positive tests - I am interested in the process in how Sporting Federations and ultimately athletes, are notified of changes to prohibited and non-prohibited substances - Obviously prohibited substances will be added to ASADA/WADA's website by 01/01/2016.

Now this by itself is not nearly enough - I'm assuming that any changes to the classification of substances would follow the following process

- WADA notifies NADO's
- NADO's notify Olympic Committees who then notify Olympic Sporting Federations and finally filter through to athletes.
- NADO's notify all other sports associations who are WADA signatories and finally filter through to athletes.

I am assuming a process like the above is followed by WADA. Can anyone provide clarification on this issue.

High level summary here:

http://list.wada-ama.org

Have a question on a related issue - Substance is Meladonium - Added to the WADA prohibited list on 01/01/2016 and already 4 positive tests - I am interested in the process in how Sporting Federations and ultimately athletes, are notified of changes to prohibited and non-prohibited substances - Obviously prohibited substances will be added to ASADA/WADA's website by 01/01/2016.

Now this by itself is not nearly enough - I'm assuming that any changes to the classification of substances would follow the following process

- WADA notifies NADO's
- NADO's notify Olympic Committees who then notify Olympic Sporting Federations and finally filter through to athletes.
- NADO's notify all other sports associations who are WADA signatories and finally filter through to athletes.

I am assuming a process like the above is followed by WADA. Can anyone provide clarification on this issue.

It goes out by October at the latest, each year. Can't find a specific, detailed communication plan for who, how and when, but this is a yearly process and the lists are a core component of the framework.

Overview here:
http://list.wada-ama.org > HOW IS THE LIST UPDATED?

Easy to access if your have an iPhone apparently:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wada-prohibited-list-2012/id408057950?mt=8

Interesting interview that I posted before in another thread:
http://www.lawinsport.com/features/...ubstances-are-included-on-the-prohibited-list
"October

We have a duty under the Code to publish the List at the latest on October 1st every year so that it can be implemented on January 1st of the following year."

 

[pazza]

Advocate is spot on.

All the decision really was about was trying to get a satisfactory result for WADA.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Have a question on a related issue - Substance is Meladonium - Added to the WADA prohibited list on 01/01/2016 and already 4 positive tests - I am interested in the process in how Sporting Federations and ultimately athletes, are notified of changes to prohibited and non-prohibited substances - Obviously prohibited substances will be added to ASADA/WADA's website by 01/01/2016.

Now this by itself is not nearly enough - I'm assuming that any changes to the classification of substances would follow the following process

- WADA notifies NADO's
- NADO's notify Olympic Committees who then notify Olympic Sporting Federations and finally filter through to athletes.
- NADO's notify all other sports associations who are WADA signatories and finally filter through to athletes.

I am assuming a process like the above is followed by WADA. Can anyone provide clarification on this issue.

My answer to this is:
There is no such drug as meladonium. The drug is meldonium.
Secondly, WTF would an athlete want to use this drug? The fact it may help them automatically means it would be a PED. Now if they need it for medical reasons (which is why it was manufactured) they should get a TUE.


Simple.

All this absolute crap is ridiculous. Stay away from drugs unless you are sick. If you think they are going to give you an edge, you are looking for trouble. Big trouble.

When are some of the Essendon posters going to understand this?

 

[yaco55]

From what I can tell happened last few years WADA publicly announced the changes around mid-late sept each year, this includes the WADA website, Twitter feed, newsletters and everyone who has signed up to recieve email updates.
Soon after (matter of days) the NADOs and international sporting Feds start doing the same. Than onto the other sporting bodies
Atheletes as part of their training are taught the list is updated each year and they need to recheck everything when this occurs.
Really no excuse.

Reckon it may be a different story now with Meldonium positives heading towards 200. I suspect the substance may be long acting in the body - Future developments will be interesting.

 

[yaco55]

Also had his evidence disregarded by WADA during closing submissions, your point?

Note I said poor legal advice/decision making. To me it's not just a bad day in court but also the process pre hearing.

While I respect the opinion of people like Kaias, I don't take what they said as gospel. I've been critical of the defense from the day the award was released in regards to their in case of guilty submission for a reduction in sentence - we agree with the AFLs submission. In a process where most evidence is debated through documents, in a system where not every case has a hearing (like arbitration in Australia) I still find it outstanding that the players defense put forward no argument (when the onus would shift to them) on why the players should receive a discount, apart from we agree with the AFL.

This is why I believe there was poor legal advice/decision making on behalf of the players defence team, there is plenty of CAS precedent where CAS has awarded discounts in what I believe are tenuous circumstances. I've read a number of awards that site these in the defence submission section, yet the players defence did not include any details of why they entitled to a discount in their prehearing submissions according to the award.

Will also note that Howard Jacobs defended Tim Montgomery in a non positive test case, part of the BALCO cases where he Montgomery pleaded innocent. About as close as you going to get to a precedent (and I know there are still differences).

Point is that elevated levels of TB4 was the key plank in Young's case - Often when the key plank in your prosecution is discredited, then you lose the case.

I'll end this post by re-iterating that the players legal team used Grace in an unofficial capacity - I reckon Grace knows how to make a guilty submission.

 

[yaco55]

My answer to this is:
There is no such drug as meladonium. The drug is meldonium.
Secondly, WTF would an athlete want to use this drug? The fact it may help them automatically means it would be a PED. Now if they need it for medical reasons (which is why it was manufactured) they should get a TUE.


Simple.

All this absolute crap is ridiculous. Stay away from drugs unless you are sick. If you think they are going to give you an edge, you are looking for trouble. Big trouble.

When are some of the Essendon posters going to understand this?

Is there something wrong with you ? My post is discussing the rash of positive tests for Meldonium - This has nothing to do with the EFC 34 - I suggest that you stick to threads that are solely about the Essendon 34.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Reckon it may be a different story now with Meldonium positives heading towards 200. I suspect the substance may be long acting in the body - Future developments will be interesting.

Admittedly I have only looked at a couple of references, but they state the opposite with a glow time of between 24-48 hrs. Long by peptide standards but not long in the real sense of the word. Do you have a link for your info?

 

[Muggs]

Reckon it may be a different story now with Meldonium positives heading towards 200. I suspect the substance may be long acting in the body - Future developments will be interesting.

Like how you assume WADA is in the wrong,

Not the atheltes who were taking the substance, in many cases for years, just keeping their habit going.

Of the 99 positives reported, last number offically released, do we know if that is 99 atheltes or have some been caught twice or more? How many tests have been conducted? What's the strike rate? What are the raw numbers of the number of positive tests for each other substance world wide? All substances? So is 99 a large number of raw number relatively? E.g Have 150 people (1 athelte for every second country) been done using steroids? How about we find out some perspective about what 99 positive tests mean.

I've seen your arguments on the EFC board. Using your same arguments in my teaching it could be I am at fault every time a student fails my subject, even though it's my students who fail to make use of the information I provided them.

In the past I have coordinated large first year subjects at universities requiring high atar results to get in, so students who were successful at high school. I regularly failed 10-15% semester (a failure rate common across the unis first year subject) this approaches 200 students (which in raw number terms sounds like a lot, when put into perspective of a large first year subject sounds normal) To me this is 200 students who did not realise the difference between high school and university despite all the support and information we provided them.

I suspect the 99 positives to date are like my failed students, they kept doing what they were doing which they found successful and worked for them in them in the past and took no notice of the changes and the information about the changes and learned the hard way.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Went back and found one of the bits I had read on Meldonium.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/771993-PEDs-for-endurance-Meldonium

Bluelight is a harm reduction forum to help educate people on drug use (all drug use not just PED's)

 

[gavaniacono]

Another one bites the dust. Another one gone and another one gone.

Povetkin Wilder boxing heavy weight clash scheduled for this coming weekend called off due to Povetkins positive test for ...

Meldonium.

Suspect it was added to Russian tap water.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Probably did a stopover in NZ and had a steak!

 

[Satan]

Another one bites the dust. Another one gone and another one gone.

Povetkin Wilder boxing heavy weight clash scheduled for this coming weekend called off due to Povetkins positive test for ...

Meldonium.

Suspect it was added to Russian tap water.

Like fluroride?

 

[Garlic muncher]

You guys crack me up. A couple of days ago I left a perfectly civil discussion with Muggs about why I think the appeal process was weighted in WADA's favour so heavily as to be unfair and provided a reason why defence counsel would object to Richard Young being involved in the CAS appeal. I've come back, a day or so later, to lasagna laced with increasingly hysterical shrieks of "AAAND they cheated!!!!". As if we could forget that line of reasoning...My favourites are the ones that say, "don't get too caught up in legal speak cos, you know, CHEATS!!!" I laughed and laughed.

It seems to infuriate many here that lot of people, having read the same materials as you and despite your strident insistence, still don't believe that the players are drug cheats and think that the process that found them guilty was unjust. These are not only Essendon fans - they're journalists, lawyers, supporters of other clubs (eg Mr Football on Roar and the people who bought Ess club memberships after the decision was handed down), anti-doping experts and others who would find it easier to accept a guilty decision if the process was transparent and fair. The 34 men who were put out of work for a year - in careers that last, on average, 10 years - deserve as much. And your response? That we're all clearly deluded, that Chip is a crap journalist, that lawyers who offer opinions that deviate from the narrative of the HTB are no good. As our new media god and guru, Dyson would say, "Yeah, nah."

You should know that most Essendon fans that post here are not so foolish as to think that what we say will change your minds. We do it to remind you that just because you say it, doesn't make it true and that not everyone in the real world agrees with you. And we do it because it's so much fun to read your responses. Keep up your good work!

very rarely check this board now, the same absolute wack jobs saying the same things day after day.

It should be said that there are many people who don't barrack for Essendon agree with you.

And as i have said previously the longer time goes by the worse this CAS ruling will look

 

[Laphroaig]

And as i have said previously the longer time goes by the worse this CAS ruling will look

Repeating something clever sometimes helps to reinforce the message.

But there is a much less impressive flipside to that coin.........

 

[Garlic muncher]

Repeating something clever sometimes helps to reinforce the message.

But there is a much less impressive flipside to that coin.........

You missed the bolded that 100% applies to you and quite a few others, i will be back in a couple in a months to read the same comments from the same bunch of wackjobs.

 

[Slartibartfast]

very rarely check this board now, the same absolute wack jobs saying the same things day after day.

It should be said that there are many people who don't barrack for Essendon agree with you.

And as i have said previously the longer time goes by the worse this CAS ruling will look

I think your hatred is funny, the denial stupidity.

 

[Laphroaig]

You missed the bolded that 100% applies to you and quite a few others, i will be back in a couple in a months to read the same comments from the same bunch of wackjobs.

I can not wait for your in a couple in a months visit. Don't drink and post.

BTW. Bold font does not make your mental vomit any the less nauseating.

Finally, it's utterly pathetic trolling people for posting in a particular place, When you are posting in that place.

 

[Demon in Hell]

You missed the bolded that 100% applies to you and quite a few others, i will be back in a couple in a months to read the same comments from the same bunch of wackjobs.

Good to have you back Phil.