Show Cause Notices v2.0 sent out by ASADA

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belnakor said:
strange bit of process. the AFL could basically tell the ADRVP to get nicked? Same with penalties? Its just a recommendation right? The AFL could simply say they are happy with what has already happened?
Click to expand...

Technically possible and the AFL could provide a reason in support by the saying the General Counsel wasn't satisfied the evidence showed a possible anti-doping violation.

The other side to that is it allows ASADA / WADA to appeal directly to CAS and this will bypass all of the avenues of the appeal available to the players. The anti-doping hearing would take place at CAS and if CAS is comfortably satisfied that an anti-doping violation took place then the players are suspended, probably for the whole 2 years with no avenues of appeal.

The AFL would be very aware that it doesn't operate in a vacuum here and would want to have a measure of control over the outcomes. Trying to kill off the investigation without due consideration would be taking a big step into the unknown and the AFL is nothing if not risk averse.

While some of the shills are braying that AFL could give the whole shebang the flick and do what they want, they clearly haven't though that one through.

If it gets to the AFL after the ADRVP then its a pretty good bet the AFL will issue the Infraction Notices or risk losing all control of the outcomes.
 
Armchair Critic said:
I disagree completely , the key word is "May". An entry onto the register of findings is confirmation there "May" have been a ADRV.

(a) As soon as possible after the AFL General Counsel has received notification from
ASADA of an Adverse Analytical Finding or he believes on other grounds that
there may have been committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or a breach of this
Code (other than as described in Clauses 13(d) and 13(e), he will give to the
Person an infraction notice, together with a copy of this Code, and refer the matter
to the Tribunal for hearing and determination.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would have thought the key words are "or he believes on other grounds", in other words, the AFL General Counsel has the responsibility of reaching a position that there may have been a violation. Within the AFL anti-doping code, he alone has that responsibility, and it would be a dereliction of his duty if he were to rely on an unnamed party in reaching that position on his behalf. It is he who has to be convinced, and he alone.
 
imperial_oz said:
While some of the shills are braying that AFL could give the whole shebang the flick and do what they want, they clearly haven't though that one through.

If it gets to the AFL after the ADRVP then its a pretty good bet the AFL will issue the Infraction Notices or risk losing all control of the outcomes.
Click to expand...

Has anyone been saying that?

The debate from the last few days is how quickly we can get to the tribunal. Getting to the tribunal obviously assumes that the AFL General Counsel will actually decide to issue infraction notices. I haven't seen anyone saying he is not going to do that.

The debate has been about how quickly the evidence can get to the AFL General Counsel for him to decide to issue infraction notices.

A further debate has emerged as to whether a decision by the ADRVP to enter a name in the RoF leads automatically to the AFL General Counsel issuing infraction notices. This is a worthwhile debate because the wording in the AFL anti-doping code does not support the view that it is automatic, rather, the responsibility rests solely with the AFL General Counsel where there is no AAF, and for him to reach this decision, he needs to view the evidence himself and reach his own conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

The GG said:
Has anyone been saying that?

The debate from the last few days is how quickly we can get to the tribunal. Getting to the tribunal obviously assumes that the AFL General Counsel will actually decide to issue infraction notices. I haven't seen anyone saying he is not going to do that.
Click to expand...


oops?
 
Keyser Soze said:
Interesting read

Seems to stress that they gathered enough evidence to suggest that there was a possible doping violation but falls short of saying they are guilty as that is for others (the AFL) to determine.

Reading that you can understand why he was offering deals - there is a gap in the evidence to prove players (or more specifically perhaps which players) received TB4 even though they can most likely prove it was on Essendons premises and in the event that they are found guilty he has doubts as to what penalties the AFL will impose

Won't be surprised if the players escape sanction and I'm comfortable with that. I'm less comfortable that Essendon, and more specifically, Hird will claim that as some sort of vindication they did nothing wrong
Click to expand...

I've stated for some time that I think it's unavoidable that the players will get hit with infractions. However, I do not believe they will be hit with suspensions.

I feel the exact same re Hird and others that will sprout from the roof tops that it will vindicate their actions.
 
Last edited:
Armchair Critic said:
ASADA have actually never said there were deals on the table for Essendon players at any stage either, you believe that 100% though
Click to expand...

fabulousphil said:
McDevitt, however, says ASADA will always consider a deal with the players.
"ASADA has, and will always, remain open to approaches by athletes from any sport and their legal counsel in relation to their particular circumstances," he said.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...-in-the-world-says-asada-20141027-11ch41.html
Click to expand...

Can you really not see the difference between the possibility and the fact?

Or are you just tub thumping?
 
fabulousphil said:
McDevitt, however, says ASADA will always consider a deal with the players.
"ASADA has, and will always, remain open to approaches by athletes from any sport and their legal counsel in relation to their particular circumstances," he said.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...-in-the-world-says-asada-20141027-11ch41.html
Click to expand...

McDevitt: "I have already started implementing a new operating model within ASADA. This model places us in an ecosystem of government agencies and sporting organisation integrity units that operate collaboratively to build and maintain integrity in sport. To make this work we will strengthen existing relationships and form new alliances."

I never would have picked McDevitt as a greenie.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcdevitt has talked in general terms since being ceo. smart tactic as he just deals in knowns and nothing specific to any case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Masters

SADA's case against 34 past and present Essendon players rests heavily on evidence that points to a perfect match between the injection regime at the AFL club in 2012 and the protocol for administering the banned drug, thymosin beta 4.

The players have provided written documentation that they used four drugs, with one being "thymosin", the supplement biochemist Shane "Dr Ageless" Charter says was used at the club.

The players have also signed documentation of the number of injections they received per week throughout the season, which has been described as "an exact recipe for thymosin beta 4".

According to sports science sources, the standard protocol for the banned synthetic peptide is one injection each weekday for 10 weeks, compared with the injection regime for the natural substance, thymomodulin, which is one injection per week for six weeks. That is, 50 injections of the prohibited substance compared with six of the non-banned supplement in just over half the time. ASADA will argue that the batches of the supplement received by the club from the compounding pharmacist, Nima Alavi, is a match with the usage of the banned thymosin beta 4. It will be alleged multiple doses of the prohibited peptide, made to order, were received by the club in a regime that lasted over many months.
While the evidence is circumstantial, ASADA will argue it satisfies the "comfortable satisfaction" criterion the AFL tribunal must have to reach a guilty verdict.

Sports scientist Stephen Dank, the architect of Essendon's supplements program, accepts that there are considerable differences between the protocols associated with the injection regime of the two varieties of "thymosin" but would likely argue the evidence is fabricated.

Alavi has already accused Dank of forging his signature, while lawyers for the players may question the testimony of Charter, who was sentenced to four years' jail for the importation in 2004 of drugs. The hearing may also reveal some players had more knowledge of the drugs regime than others, where some may have seen evidence of thymosin beta 4.

Two players have their own legal representation, breaking from the 32 represented by the AFL Players Association.

Should players come forward within the next few days, volunteer guilt and provide solid evidence, it is expected ASADA will recommend they receive sanctions of less than six months under the substantial assistance provision.

However, the offer of six-month bans made to Essendon and the AFL in June, before the club and coach James Hird took action in the Federal Court, will not be revived by ASADA.

The original six months offer would have meant the suspension beginning after Essendon's last game in 2014 but the later start to the 2015 season, owing to the Cricket World Cup, may have meant they missed no matches.

But now, should the AFL tribunal find the players guilty of taking prohibited substances, it is likely ASADA will appeal any sentence that is not greater than six months.

While some of this sanction can be backdated, as it was in the case of 12 NRL players who represented Cronulla in 2011, it would result in AFL matches missed in 2015. WADA rules require sports' doping tribunals to hand down bans in number of months, not matches.

While the AFL has positioned itself as a disinterested party in the ASADA-Essendon dispute, surely it has everything to gain by having the players' bans minimised.

Similarly, the haste shown by the AFL Players Association in seeking to have the case go directly to the AFL tribunal, bypassing the anti-doping rule violation panel (ADRVP), is seen as a tactic to have a three-month suspension served in the off season.

To be fair, it is rare for the panel to overturn an ASADA action and order a case not to proceed, thus suggesting the body is redundant.

However, the players' association's demand for a quick hearing is perceived to be more about minimising the number of games missed in 2015. The fact it has not contacted ASADA directly is a further source of aggravation.

ASADA did fast-track the Cronulla case but did so via the ADRVP.

Furthermore, ASADA has already demonstrated resolve to have the case concluded. It could have waited until after the outcome of Hird's appeal to the Full Federal Court, before re-issuing show-cause notices, thereby pushing the saga, now known as "asaga", deep into 2015.
Click to expand...
 
The one thing I find odd with Roy is why he feels it necessary to report on Essendon other than his obvious bitterness towards the AFL

I mean say what you like about Caro, Robbo et al but as far as I know they've only mentioned Cronulla in how their troubles might pertain to what is happening with Essendon, they've not written articles purely about Cronulla
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top