Should the AFL allow Essendon to play if charged with doping ?

[Ceanag]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ffences-by-asada/story-fni5f6kv-1226916520392
AFL leaves door open for Essendon Bombers players to continue to play even if charged with doping offences by ASADA

THE AFL has the power to allow Essendon players to continue playing this year, even if they are charged with doping offences.
The Herald Sun has today revealed Essendon players will be issued show-cause notices asking why they should not be charged over the use of the banned peptide thymosin beta 4.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Let them play until Tribunal finding

 

[vjknight]

the only question at this point would be 'how does the public react to essendon players taking the field after IN's issued' ?

 

[Pklz]

the only question at this point would be 'how does the public react to essendon players taking the field after IN's issued' ?

My thoughts exactly, I'd find it very hard to stomach if they were playing with infraction notices. I wouldn't be surprised if it pushed a lot of people away from the game if it eventuated.

 

[mxett]

Interesting that there is no mention of show causes for AOd9604 despite Watsons admission.

How can that be?

 

[mxett]

The other interesting thing in the article is:

"For the ADRVP to decide to enter an athlete on the Register of Findings, it must find only that “an athlete or support person has possibly committed an anti-doping rule violation”.

But the AFL’s anti-doping code specifies a higher burden of proof, which says the “AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred”.

“The standard of proof in all cases is greater than the mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt,” it says.

This could be a major fly in the ointment for the HTB

 

[vjknight]

Interesting that there is no mention of show causes for AOd9604 despite Watsons admission.

How can that be?

thats your reply at present ? seriously ?

EFC about to go down and you want to continue the aod argument ?

 

[mxett]

thats your reply at present ? seriously ?

EFC about to go down and you want to continue the aod argument ?

Just wondering since it's been a 15 month argument

 

[Air_Chester]

So has this boiled down to which Thymosin they took?

 

[Armchair Critic]

The other interesting thing in the article is:

"For the ADRVP to decide to enter an athlete on the Register of Findings, it must find only that “an athlete or support person has possibly committed an anti-doping rule violation”.

But the AFL’s anti-doping code specifies a higher burden of proof, which says the “AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred”.

“The standard of proof in all cases is greater than the mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt,” it says.

This could be a major fly in the ointment for the HTB

It will be interesting if there is more than 12 Show causes for Thymosin as only 12 admitted it

 

[TerryWallet]

I was quite pleased with this article.

Seeing that Grant Baker is a mouthpiece for EFC, if this is the best they've got to polish the turd with, then it is pretty bleak down at Tulla.

 

[mxett]

It will be interesting if there is more than 12 Show causes for Thymosin as only 12 admitted it

Why will that be interesting since the others have signed consents stating they were willing to receive thymosin yet don't know what they were given.

I'd be more interested in the AFLs clause I mentioned if I was a HTB tragic

 

[mxett]

I was quite pleased with this article.

Seeing that Grant Baker is a mouthpiece for EFC, if this is the best they've got to polish the turd with, then it is pretty bleak down at Tulla.

 

[TerryWallet]

Not long to go now mexxxy.

Then you can finally put your chalkless cue back in the rack.

 

[hoianbulldog]

I'd be more interested in the AFLs clause I mentioned if I was a HTB tragic

say that again.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ffences-by-asada/story-fni5f6kv-1226916520392

The Herald Sun has today revealed Essendon players will be issued show-cause notices asking why they should not be charged over the use of the banned peptide thymosin beta 4.

Is there a separate article with this revelation?

 

[Armchair Critic]

Why will that be interesting since the others have signed consents stating they were willing to receive thymosin yet don't know what they were given.


I'd be more interested in the AFLs clause I mentioned if I was a HTB tragic

I completely disagree as it all comes down to the bolded in the long run.

15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof

AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Rule Violation has
occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti
Doping Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing
in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all
cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or
other Person alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation to rebut a
presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I was quite pleased with this article.

Seeing that Grant Baker is a mouthpiece for EFC, if this is the best they've got to polish the turd with, then it is pretty bleak down at Tulla.

Essendon sure do have a lot of mouthpieces. Entire newspapers at their beck and call too. TV presenters as well. Amazing.

Now even the brother of the mighty Richard Baker is a mouthpiece

 

[mxett]

Not long to go now mexxxy.

Then you can finally put your chalkless cue back in the rack.

 

[TerryWallet]

Essendon sure do have a lot of mouthpieces. Entire newspapers at their beck and call too. TV presenters as well. Amazing.

Now even the brother of the mighty Richard Baker is a mouthpiece

Yes

and

Yes

It is what it is.

 

[GreatBradScott]

the only question at this point would be 'how does the public react to essendon players taking the field after IN's issued' ?

Will all be down to this I think.

To the question posed by the OP, it's a difficult question to answer.

Whilst I think they do deserve a right to a hearing and be given the choice to stand down, I also think that there is a chance finals and whatnot could be compromised, the image of the game etc.

No straightforward answer here.

 

[mxett]

I completely disagree as it all comes down to the bolded in the long run.

15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof

AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Rule Violation has
occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti
Doping Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing
in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all
cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or
other Person alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation to rebut a
presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall

I would have thought this underlined section was the more important part given it appears ASADAs show causes may only be based on a mere balance of probability

 

[Engimal]

The AFL shouldn't... but they would.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I would have thought this underlined section was the more important part given it appears ASADAs show causes may only be based on a mere balance of probability

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying ASADA may issue show causes for cases THEY THEMSELVES believe do not have the required proof to stand up at a tribunal or get passed the ADRVP

 

[TerryWallet]

Serious question.

I'm not one for the sympathise with the poor player lines....

...but

when does EFC and AFL take duty of care to the players into its deliberations?

If Caro and Patrick are writing articles, and Timmy is opining now that the players are stressed, how stressed are they going to be with the continuing reactions they will get if they keep playing while infracted?

When is enough enough, and doped players just do their time for everyone's benefit including their own?