- Jun 28, 2013
- 32,111
- 48,856
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Just to add to what I was saying before here is a clause from the Anti Doping Rules of the AFL:
15. PROOF OF DOPING
15.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions
Facts related to Anti-Doping Rule Violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.31 The following rules of proof shall be applicable in Doping cases:
(c) The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Player or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Player or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.
My question is has there been a decision against Dank which fits into the definition above? If so, I think that the established facts can then be used against the players.
15. PROOF OF DOPING
15.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions
Facts related to Anti-Doping Rule Violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.31 The following rules of proof shall be applicable in Doping cases:
(c) The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Player or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Player or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.
My question is has there been a decision against Dank which fits into the definition above? If so, I think that the established facts can then be used against the players.