Opinion on Players - can it change?

Will your view on the players' culpability change in the event of a successful appeal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 3.2%

  • No

    Votes: 92 96.8%
  • Total voters
    95

Remove this Banner Ad

LoungeLizard said:
But they could get mad and hand out new SCN's for other drugs
Click to expand...

I doubt that. If it is involving other PEDs taken by the 'same players' at the 'same time', they would share a common penalty so ASADA just isn't going to bother. It would not attract one minutes extra suspension and would probably be seen as an abuse of process. You just cannot be malicious when conducting any kind of disciplinary activity. No court anywhere would allow that to occur (unless its NK. DapperJong can do what he likes....but thats only fair)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

imperial_oz said:
I doubt that. If it is involving other PEDs taken by the 'same players' at the 'same time', they would share a common penalty so ASADA just isn't going to bother. It would not attract one minutes extra suspension and would probably be seen as an abuse of process. You just cannot be malicious when conducting any kind of disciplinary activity. No court anywhere would allow that to occur (unless its NK. DapperJong can do what he likes....but thats only fair)
Click to expand...
Unlikely yes.
AOD is still there for WADA if they choose though.
 
imperial_oz said:
No. those 'offences' have been dealt with. It would require a 'new' program to attract different SCNs
Click to expand...
Disagree. It would require a NEW set of SCN's, but not a new program. If they test 7 year old pee and discover Hexarelin, they can be done for that.
 
LoungeLizard said:
So you are saying, the players get off on a technicality, 2 years from now they retest the samples, they come back positive, and nothing can be done?
Click to expand...

jenny61_99 said:
Wouldn't be a re-trial. Would be a completely new trial after following the SCN/IN AFL Tribunal route.
Click to expand...

jenny61_99 said:
Disagree. It would require a NEW set of SCN's, but not a new program. If they test 7 year old pee and discover Hexarelin, they can be done for that.
Click to expand...

If the players get off (unlikely) that would open the door for a later process if they get results from retested samples.

If the players remain as they are now, sanctioned for 2 years for doping, then retested samples will not result in further sanctions. Those sanctions have already been imposed for doping in 2012.

You don't get multiple bites of the cherry even for different substances.

I'll explain further. Players have been sanctioned for TB4 and received 2 years. had they been sanctioned for TB4, AOD9604, HGH, Hexarelin and Nurse Murgatroyds Pep Pills, they would have received 2 years. Assuming they serve the 2 years they are currently facing then further testing would not result in further sanctions.

Doing that over and over is an abuse of process. Its like getting done by the cops for doing 65 in a 60 zone. You get your penalty for doing the 65, you don't get additional penalties for doing 64, 63, 62 and 61 in that 60 zone.

Disciplinary authorities have to act within guidelines. They cannot act with any degree of malice.....thankfully
 
Harvey Leadpipe said:
What is either the first thing, or right up the top of your list when you hear the following ex-footballers:

Wayne Carey - best footballer I have seen
Ben Cousins - champion
Darren Millane - gun player
Warwick Capper - good player but an idiot
Jason Akermanis - gun player but an idiot
Brendan Fevola - gun player but an idiot
Justin Charles - doper
Stephen Milne - underrated player
Travis Tuck - the three strikes dude
David Rhys Jones - thug
etc....
Click to expand...

I'll play, answers in bold.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

imperial_oz said:
If the players get off (unlikely) that would open the door for a later process if they get results from retested samples.

If the players remain as they are now, sanctioned for 2 years for doping, then retested samples will not result in further sanctions. Those sanctions have already been imposed for doping in 2012.

You don't get multiple bites of the cherry even for different substances.

I'll explain further. Players have been sanctioned for TB4 and received 2 years. had they been sanctioned for TB4, AOD9604, HGH, Hexarelin and Nurse Murgatroyds Pep Pills, they would have received 2 years. Assuming they serve the 2 years they are currently facing then further testing would not result in further sanctions.

Doing that over and over is an abuse of process. Its like getting done by the cops for doing 65 in a 60 zone. You get your penalty for doing the 65, you don't get additional penalties for doing 64, 63, 62 and 61 in that 60 zone.

Disciplinary authorities have to act within guidelines. They cannot act with any degree of malice.....thankfully
Click to expand...

"had they been sanctioned for TB4, AOD9604, HGH, Hexarelin and Nurse Murgatroyds Pep Pills", they likely would have received aggravated charges which would result in a 4 year penalty.
 
jenny61_99 said:
"had they been sanctioned for TB4, AOD9604, HGH, Hexarelin and Nurse Murgatroyds Pep Pills", they likely would have received aggravated charges which would result in a 4 year penalty.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I wouldn't take that as a given.

Either way, its now a moot point as ASADA / WADA did not lead any evidence of aggravating circumstances, so its 2 years sanction as a max. Way too late now to go back for a redo.

People can argue circumstances till the cows come home. Its been run the way it was run and even if further evidence later comes to light, there wont be further SCNs or sanctions if these sanctions stand. You cant get charged in dribs and drabs to drag out additional penalties
 
imperial_oz said:
Possibly. I wouldn't take that as a given.

Either way, its now a moot point as ASADA / WADA did not lead any evidence of aggravating circumstances, so its 2 years sanction as a max. Way too late now to go back for a redo.

People can argue circumstances till the cows come home. Its been run the way it was run and even if further evidence later comes to light, there wont be further SCNs or sanctions if these sanctions stand. You cant get charged in dribs and drabs to drag out additional penalties
Click to expand...
Such a shame really.
 
In the public domain there is more evidence the players either ingested or were injected with banned substances than there is evidence to the contrary, so I can't see anyone really changing their mind at this point without a genuine bombshell revelation.

Essendon's propensity to fight every step of the way on technicalities has done them no favours in public perception either.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
So we all know the Essendon 34 have appealed to the Swiss Federal Court on the basis that they believe CAS erred in allowing the case to be heard de novo. This means that they are unhappy with the situation that allows WADA to bring new evidence (or a different case structure) in an appeal hearing.

The reason, in the absence of an injunction allowing the players to take the field, is stated that the players would like to "clear their names".

So, I guess what I'm interested in is whether posters here will have a different view of the players' guilt or innocence if the appeal is successful, the matter referred back to CAS (which is what would happen), and CAS returns a "not guilty" finding.
Click to expand...
this thread is a bit like a klu klux klan leader asking his klan whether they think black people could end up being worthwhile people to socialise with
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Actually that's not right. If the appeal is successful, the case heads back to CAS where WADA will have to present the evidence presented by Asada at the AFL Tribunal.
Click to expand...

Considering the grounds that the players selected this will be a complete annulment if successful - WADA will actually have to identify a error in law for CAS to rehear it.

It's not like the Canas appeal where he argued based on the right to be heard, and it got sent back to be heard. This is a fundamental error in process. The error is effectively pre CAS, not at the CAS hearing. This brings it inline with the two total annulments there has been on a CAS appeal.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Well they are apparently appealing on procedural grounds.
If they were indeed innocent why would there not be an evidence basis to appeal.
Click to expand...
haha um let me try and answer.

Because it's impossible, and innocent or not CAS doesn't allow an appeal on an evidence grounds.

But yeah, apart from that, why the hell not, gee they must be guilty!!1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
Back
Top