Who will abide by the tribunal decision

[jenny61_99]

Of course. And people who get bombed just for being near intended bombing targets, just shouldn't have been near them. It's their own fault through their own negligence. They allowed themselves to be in the same vicinity, either stupidly or willfully.

That is a truly stupid statement. Would you like the opportunity to rethink that?

"Oh No, someones needle flew into my arm by mistake".

 

[Whatsonswhat]

That is a truly stupid statement. Would you like the opportunity to rethink that?

"Oh No, someones needle flew into my arm by mistake".

There are other ways a player could have been given something they were strongly against being given (i.e., banned substances), while trusting they were only being given something they were okay with (i.e., non-banned substances), that would allow an accurate metaphorical comparison with better known examples of collateral damage.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Of course. And people who get bombed just for being near intended bombing targets, just shouldn't have been near them. It's their own fault through their own negligence. They allowed themselves to be in the same vicinity, either stupidly or willfully.

I'm always up for a debate about hypotheticals. That analogy is hideously inappropriate.

As is your strawman avatar. How about we get back to talking about what may or may not have happened at EFC and leave the disassociated ethics discussions to another board?

 

[jenny61_99]

There are other ways a player could have been given something they were strongly against being given (i.e., banned substances), while trusting they were only being given something they were okay with (i.e., non-banned substances), that would allow an accurate metaphorical comparison with better known examples of collateral damage.

So what you are suggesting is that Dank said it was this (thymomodulin), and actually gave them that (thymosin). As I said to you before, if they can prove they contacted ASADA re the substance they were expecting to get to assure its compliance, then they have every reason to claim the no significant fault reduction in penalty and couldn't be deemed as cheats. The problem then is, they actually took a PED and therefore had an advantage over their competitors. Is that fair to the other competitors who were clean?

 

[Argy]

So it's stupid to ask if people would consider those two the same as murderers even though they were incorrectly convicted? I'd probably agree if everyone was quick to point out that that would be stupid: of course they're not murderers (but unfortunately sometimes innocent victims are punished in our attempt to keep people safe from murderers). But this seems to be the last thing ASADA cultists would like to admit.

My god you have little capacity for comprehension. My first sentence was an acknowledgement that "sh*t happens". Now, please re-read what I wrote in the second sentence...

"But, as Jenny says, about the only way for a person to be truly innocent under the WADA code is for them to have been unconscious when injected. The EFC players aren't claiming that as a defence."​

 

[Whatsonswhat]

So what you are suggesting is that Dank said it was this (thymomodulin), and actually gave them that (thymosin). As I said to you before, if they can prove they contacted ASADA re the substance they were expecting to get to assure its compliance, then they have every reason to claim the no significant fault reduction in penalty and couldn't be deemed as cheats. The problem then is, they actually took a PED and therefore had an advantage over their competitors. Is that fair to the other competitors who were clean?

Thanks.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

But, as Jenny says, about the only way for a person to be truly innocent under the WADA code is for them to have been unconscious when injected. The EFC players aren't claiming that as a defence.

Then the WADA code can sometimes cause situations where someone is considered 'guilty' when they have actually done nothing wrong except agree to take substances they believe to be okay to take. In effect they would still be 'murderers' even though they didn't murder anyone, because the reason they didn't isn't good enough according to the law (if such was the law outside of sports).

 

[Dave]

That was covered in the threads concerned. Some posters found the relevant information and posted it a while back.

It may have been discussed, but the bolded bit is rubbish. Nowhere have ASADA distinguished between AAF and non AAF cases when discussing their success rates. I've asked this question of people a few times and they've always ducked it.

 

[Cronos]

Then the WADA code can sometimes cause situations where someone is considered 'guilty' when they have actually done nothing wrong except agree to take substances they believe to be okay to take. In effect they would still be 'murderers' even though they didn't murder anyone, because the reason they didn't isn't good enough according to the law (if such was the law outside of sports).

Like it or not, but attempted use of a prohibited substance still makes you guilty, whether you know it's prohibited or not.

Just like drug possession is still drug possession whether you believe it's oregano or icing sugar.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Sure. And like it or not, if you're a woman and get raped in a country abiding by Sharia law, you're guilty of adultery and will be punished accordingly. Doesn't matter that you didn't want to be raped; too bad. Don't live in a country abiding by Sharia law if you don't like it.

Call me an infidel, but I think maybe in this case, there might be something wrong with Sharia law.

 

[evo]

Sure. And like it or not, if you're a woman and get raped in a country abiding by Sharia law, you're guilty of adultery and will be punished accordingly. Doesn't matter that you didn't want to be raped; too bad. Don't live in a country abiding by Sharia law if you don't like it.

Call me an infidel, but I think maybe in this case, there might be something wrong with Sharia law.

 

[BlueWorld]

It seems you are the one flogging the dead horse by continually bringing up a moot point. Yes, everyone knows the way it is. But the question is, does, or can, the way it is sometimes result in outcomes where there are truly innocent victims (collateral damage)?

Most athletes will not take anything without checking. If in doubt they won't take it. This is drummed into them from day 1. The Essendon players don't seem to have used this approach. If they failed to make sure they were taking WADA compliant substances then they only have themselves to blame.

 

[BlueWorld]

Of course. And people who get bombed just for being near intended bombing targets, just shouldn't have been near them. It's their own fault through their own negligence. They allowed themselves to be in the same vicinity, either stupidly or willfully.

Ridiculous analogy.

 

[Argy]

Sure. And like it or not, if you're a woman and get raped in a country abiding by Sharia law, you're guilty of adultery and will be punished accordingly. Doesn't matter that you didn't want to be raped; too bad. Don't live in a country abiding by Sharia law if you don't like it.

Call me an infidel, but I think maybe in this case, there might be something wrong with Sharia law.

Then don't sign a contract that requires you to play by the rules of Sharia law.

It's your choice mate. Just as it was the players' choice to abide by the WADA code so that they could play at the highest level. It was a conscious decision and one they made in full knowledge of the consequences. No one forced them into it.

 

[BlueWorld]

There are other ways a player could have been given something they were strongly against being given (i.e., banned substances), while trusting they were only being given something they were okay with (i.e., non-banned substances), that would allow an accurate metaphorical comparison with better known examples of collateral damage.

Why did 8-10 players not participate in the program?

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Most athletes will not take anything without checking. If in doubt they won't take it. This is drummed into them from day 1. The Essendon players don't seem to have used this approach. If they failed to make sure they were taking WADA compliant substances then they only have themselves to blame.

Yes, yes. But what if what they thought they were getting (which they thoroughly checked was okay to get), was not what they actually got? Again, I'm not asking what people think the result might be, just whether or not people think the result would be fair on the player.

 

[FuManchu]

Thanks.

Do you have evidence of player's making enquiries to ASADA?

 

[Argy]

Yes, yes. But what if what they thought they were getting (which they thoroughly checked was okay to get), was not what they actually got? Again, I'm not asking what people think the result might be, just whether or not people think the result would be fair on the player.

You are looking sooo desperate.

Let me ask you a couple of complementary questions. What if the players knew what they were taking was banned, but get off on a technicality? Should they be labelled cheats? What if they suspected they were getting banned stuff but deliberately didn't check so they could claim wriggle room if infractions hit?

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Then don't sign a contract that requires you to play by the rules of Sharia law.

It's your choice mate. Just as it was the players' choice to abide by the WADA code so that they could play at the highest level. It was a conscious decision and one they made in full knowledge of the consequences. No one forced them into it.

But this is where I live. I have no choice but to sign up to Sharia law if I want to live here. I was really hoping, and doing everything I could, not to be raped.

 

[mxett]

Like it or not, but attempted use of a prohibited substance still makes you guilty, whether you know it's prohibited or not.

Just like drug possession is still drug possession whether you believe it's oregano or icing sugar.

So if I attempt to speed in my car but my car runs out of petrol am I a speeding driver?

 

[FuManchu]

But this is where I live. I have no choice but to sign up to Sharia law if I want to live here. I was really hoping, and doing everything I could, not to be raped.

Your hypotheticals are bordering on ridiculous ...... no, they have broken thru ridiculous.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

But this is where I live. I have no choice but to sign up to Sharia law if I want to live here. I was really hoping, and doing everything I could, not to be raped.

Mate, you are talking offensive rubbish now.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Do you have evidence of player's making enquiries to ASADA?

I'm not making any claims or assumptions at all. Simply presenting some circumstances that show the OP's black and white approach to whatever the tribunal decision is, might be somewhat ingenuous. Have also suggested another circumstance might be if the players were let off even though they clearly deliberately cheated just because of a technicality that rules the evidence inadmissible. But nobody's been offended by that.

 

[Argy]

But this is where I live. I have no choice but to sign up to Sharia law if I want to live here. I was really hoping, and doing everything I could, not to be raped.

That's just plain offensive. It has nothing to do with the players' predicament. They had a CHOICE. Women living under Sharia law do not.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

You are looking sooo desperate.

Let me ask you a couple of complementary questions. What if the players knew what they were taking was banned, but get off on a technicality? Should they be labelled cheats? What if they suspected they were getting banned stuff but deliberately didn't check so they could claim wriggle room if infractions hit?

Pretty simple to answer really. Yes. Of course they are cheats. In both cases. And it would be a travesty that they got off.