Show Cause Notices v2.0 sent out by ASADA
- Thread starter little hawk gmf
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Old but not ancient!
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,484
- AFL Club
- Carlton
As you mention my name.
The double jeopardy as you call it is largely a result of Paul Little's absolute insistence that there would be no deal made unless an explicit statement was attached to the penalty that it was not for PED use.
Massive strategic blunder.
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,822
- 27,484
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The program may or may not have involved ten or so prohibited substances which have been directtly connected to the Club. To surmise that the absence of sufficient evidence to prosecute all of them against the individuals means that there was only one is simplistic and naive.
And the plea for privacy by an organisation whose first response to trouble was to hire Australia's biggest liar to spread misinformation - kinda like celebrities who sell the first pictures of their baby to New Idea and then emotionally plead to be left alone.
Live by the sword......
I wouldn't consider it double jeopardy anyway. The previous sanctions were against the club for governance issues. That's done and dusted as far as penalties are concerned.
Any future penalties will be for involvement in a doping scheme and will be aimed at individuals and not the club. Admittedly, some of the same individuals but definitely for a different reason.
Art Corvelay
Super Chief_
- Oct 4, 2004
- 13,686
- 26,805
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Victory, Pats, Celtics, Ricciardo
Got to about page 54 and saw GG relentlessly quoting some random website as the truth, the only truth and the gospel truth. Because random websites that support his position are definitely more reliable than anyone elses position on the matter
Did I miss anything noteworthy the intervening pages?
Did I miss anything noteworthy the intervening pages?
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 36,824
- 51,303
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
So you're saying having the club involved pay a lawyer to brief the Chief Football writer for one of the biggest papers in Melbourne as to what is going on might not be the best course of action?
Essendon players told not to rush into any deals over ASADA letters
CHIP LE GRAND THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 21, 2014 12:00AM
FOOTBALLERS accused of taking a banned peptide during Essendon’s 2012 supplement regime will be advised to hold their nerve and defend their case rather than bargain with anti-doping authorities.
Lawyers representing current and former Essendon players yesterday met the AFL Players Association to discuss the strength of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s case, re-initiated last Friday.
A summary of evidence provided by ASADA, although expansive, contains no material previously unseen by the players’ legal team. “It is a just a rehash of old stuff,’’ a source said.
A telephone hook-up will be arranged over the next few days for lawyers to brief the players directly, all of whom are on end-of-season leave.
With some of the 34 players accused of doping — particularly Port Adelaide’s Angus Monfries and new recruit Paddy Ryder — under pressure to plead guilty to secure their availability for next season’s premiership campaign, the AFLPA and its legal team believe ASADA’s evidence falls short of establishing that any footballer was administered with the banned peptide Thymosin Beta 4.
The players will be told that some NRL players who in August opted to plead guilty to using a banned peptide in exchange for an effective, token suspension of just a few weeks now regret their decision. With the AFL, Essendon, other clubs and ASADA all pushing for a resolution to the case, the players will be cautioned against rushing into settlement.
They will be also be briefed on the cumbersome anti-doping process that will result, almost certainly, in their cases being scheduled for hearing before an AFL-appointed tribunal.
By the time it reaches a formal hearing, the case against the players will be independently assessed by three separate bodies; ASADA, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and the AFL. In each instance, the burden of proof required to proceed to the next step is low.
To issue a show cause notice and refer the case to the ADRVP, ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt needs only be satisfied of the possibility of a doping offence. The ADRVP applies the same burden of proof when deciding whether to add a player to its register of findings.
Once that happens, the evidence will be reviewed by AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon. Under the AFL anti-doping code, if he believes a doping offence “may have been committed’’ he must refer the case to hearing. It is only at hearing the higher burden of proof of “comfortable satisfaction’’ applies.
The 350-page “show cause pack’’ provided to the players’ legal team last Friday contains a summary of evidence substantially unchanged from that discovered by Essendon and coach James Hird during their Federal Court action against ASADA and a transcript of each player’s interview with ASADA and AFL investigators.
McDevitt told the Herald Sun ASADA had gathered “comprehensive and compelling’’ evidence that Essendon players were given a banned substance as part of a regimented, systematic program.
The summary of evidence quotes at length from testimony and documents provided by convicted drug importer Shane Charter and compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi and text messages and emails between Charter, Alavi and sports scientist Stephen Dank.
Neither Charter nor Alavi claims to have direct knowledge of Essendon’s supplement program. Dank, who is facing extensive doping allegations and, potentially, a lifetime ban from sport, has declined to be interviewed by ASADA. The AFL will review ASADA’s full brief of evidence against the 34 players before it decides whether to refer the cases to hearing.
CHIP LE GRAND THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 21, 2014 12:00AM
FOOTBALLERS accused of taking a banned peptide during Essendon’s 2012 supplement regime will be advised to hold their nerve and defend their case rather than bargain with anti-doping authorities.
Lawyers representing current and former Essendon players yesterday met the AFL Players Association to discuss the strength of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s case, re-initiated last Friday.
A summary of evidence provided by ASADA, although expansive, contains no material previously unseen by the players’ legal team. “It is a just a rehash of old stuff,’’ a source said.
A telephone hook-up will be arranged over the next few days for lawyers to brief the players directly, all of whom are on end-of-season leave.
With some of the 34 players accused of doping — particularly Port Adelaide’s Angus Monfries and new recruit Paddy Ryder — under pressure to plead guilty to secure their availability for next season’s premiership campaign, the AFLPA and its legal team believe ASADA’s evidence falls short of establishing that any footballer was administered with the banned peptide Thymosin Beta 4.
The players will be told that some NRL players who in August opted to plead guilty to using a banned peptide in exchange for an effective, token suspension of just a few weeks now regret their decision. With the AFL, Essendon, other clubs and ASADA all pushing for a resolution to the case, the players will be cautioned against rushing into settlement.
They will be also be briefed on the cumbersome anti-doping process that will result, almost certainly, in their cases being scheduled for hearing before an AFL-appointed tribunal.
By the time it reaches a formal hearing, the case against the players will be independently assessed by three separate bodies; ASADA, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and the AFL. In each instance, the burden of proof required to proceed to the next step is low.
To issue a show cause notice and refer the case to the ADRVP, ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt needs only be satisfied of the possibility of a doping offence. The ADRVP applies the same burden of proof when deciding whether to add a player to its register of findings.
Once that happens, the evidence will be reviewed by AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon. Under the AFL anti-doping code, if he believes a doping offence “may have been committed’’ he must refer the case to hearing. It is only at hearing the higher burden of proof of “comfortable satisfaction’’ applies.
The 350-page “show cause pack’’ provided to the players’ legal team last Friday contains a summary of evidence substantially unchanged from that discovered by Essendon and coach James Hird during their Federal Court action against ASADA and a transcript of each player’s interview with ASADA and AFL investigators.
McDevitt told the Herald Sun ASADA had gathered “comprehensive and compelling’’ evidence that Essendon players were given a banned substance as part of a regimented, systematic program.
The summary of evidence quotes at length from testimony and documents provided by convicted drug importer Shane Charter and compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi and text messages and emails between Charter, Alavi and sports scientist Stephen Dank.
Neither Charter nor Alavi claims to have direct knowledge of Essendon’s supplement program. Dank, who is facing extensive doping allegations and, potentially, a lifetime ban from sport, has declined to be interviewed by ASADA. The AFL will review ASADA’s full brief of evidence against the 34 players before it decides whether to refer the cases to hearing.
Come on guys, there was supposed to be a heap of new stuff.
Where's the chiropractor? Where's the nurse? Where's the frikken smoking gun?
You've been telling me there's a smoking gun for so long I was starting to believe you.
Where's the chiropractor? Where's the nurse? Where's the frikken smoking gun?
You've been telling me there's a smoking gun for so long I was starting to believe you.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Have they provided all the evidence to the players, or a summary? I recall Ben mcdevitt said something about not giving all the evidence.
It took chip 3 days to tell us EFC have nothing to worry about.
Caro told us 2 days ago there was no smoking gun.
The lawyers had to make sure.
It was like playing where's wally with 12,000 pages.
Just when you think you've cleared a page you see the smoking gun hiding behind the table of contents.
Opens up a tort.
If he wins that case we're going to be paying more taxes next year and his hair will be more luxurious.
Might even be able to buy back Tania's investment mansion.
Jenny's desperate for Essendon to go down, 2 years and 20,000 posts are quite an investment.
They're not bluffing mate, they've got enough for a register of findings for 'possible use'.
RoF can trigger provisional suspensions but I don't think the AFL will play ball since Essendon started playing nice.
Edit: more info
The players have decided to call ASADA's bluff by requesting that it the matter go straight to the tribunal. This means that the '18 month provisional suspension while we process this matter' BS that got the Cronulla players to take light bans isn't in play.
Believe me, if he wins on appeal (he'll take it to the high court) then he'll get a lot more back from the tort.Fancy wasting a mill to suppress evidence that was never going to convict the players anyway.
Plus on principle he believes that doping matters shouldn't be played out in the papers, so he'll pursue it on principle alone.
Plus he can afford it. Worst case he can auction off his arse to one of us foamers.
So why did he door stop at every chance and then Tania chipped in with her door stop. Why did he let the papers print a photo of him chasing his son ?
McDevitt has already given clear indication there will be no deals and the matter will go to the tribunal.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/es...supplements-saga/story-fni0fiyv-1227095209763
You think he'd risk taking it to the tribunal if they have no case?
Freo2012
Premiership Player
So the Cerebral section is effectively the arse end of the brain? So someone thinking and speaking "cerebrally" is talking out of their arse?
seems to make sense, I always thought of mediums as a lot of hot air.
- Status
