Who will abide by the tribunal decision

[Broken_Chairs]

I don't know. But it remains a possibility that might be revealed to be true when the defense gets to make a case in the tribunal hearing?

christ, no it's not possible.

they agreed to take part in a boundary pushing, new frontier supplement program
they weren't tied down or injected while sleeping
they agreed to be injected with various drugs
they were told they were going to be injected with thymosin
they agreed to be injected with thymosin
they were injected with thymosin

if the players feel deceived by their club, then by all means take it up with the club, but if you try to push the boundaries as far as they can go and get burnt when you go too far then you get no sympathies from me.

 

[Argy]

christ, no it's not possible.

they agreed to take part in a boundary pushing, new frontier supplement program
they weren't tied down or injected while sleeping
they agreed to be injected with various drugs
they were told they were going to be injected with thymosin
they agreed to be injected with thymosin
they were injected with thymosin

if the players feel deceived by their club, then by all means take it up with the club, but if you try to push the boundaries as far as they can go and get burnt when you go too far then you get no sympathies from me.

I've speculated in the past that if the players were injected with an unknown drug they might be penalised under S0. No "unknown" drug has been certified for human use anywhere in the world. "Unknown" drugs therefore fall foul of S0.

 

[Matilda05]

I've speculated in the past that if the players were injected with an unknown drug they might be penalised under S0. No "unknown" drug has been certified for human use anywhere in the world. "Unknown" drugs therefore fall foul of S0.

See I have raised this point also, but now I am of the opinion ASADA aren't going at them from the unknown angle, because they probably have a fair idea of what was administered from the investigation. The absence of reporting of this angle from the media confirms my opinion too

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

if it is made clear they were doped against their will... i'll get hirdy on the phone to organise a humanitarian trip to the middle east. i definitely feel that all those those women who have been/continue to be raped and abused under sharia law would find it invaluable to hear from the essendon players experiences. they'll really be able to relate to a group of highly paid, educated, first world football stars who ended up being doped while actively embarking on a cutting edge, boundary pushing supplement program that was designed to circumvent the WADA code, who suspected enough to ask for a list of substances taken to cover their own asses but couldn't be bothered to double check what was actually on the list. all in an attempt to win some games of football

Great post!

It's not even as though the EFC players were having to make the choice of get on board or give up playing footy. They all could have taken the opt out option that Zaharakis allegedly took. Why don't we look under that rock? What knowledge was he exposed to that made him not want to be on the program? Presumably the other players had that same knowledge.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It's not irrelevant to the OP.

I will make the scoreboard 1:1, therefore I will have accepted that a goal has been scored.

Once the ref signals the goal, then it's a goal.

Although there was an event worth recalling from the 1982 World Cup, in which France smashed Kuwait 4:1. At some point the ref signalled another goal for Les Bleus, but the Kuwaitis remonstrated, saying that they had stopped playing because they heard a whistle which may have come from the crowd. They surrounded the ref, and after much pushing, shoving, gesticulating, etc, the ref actually reversed his decision and cancelled the goal.

I do not expect a repeat of this anytime soon.

That's like claiming Admire Rakti finished equal with Protectionist in the Melbourne Cup after Purton claimed to be travelling like a winner at the halfway. Absurd.

 

[FuManchu]

christ, no it's not possible.

they agreed to take part in a boundary pushing, new frontier supplement program
they weren't tied down or injected while sleeping
they agreed to be injected with various drugs
they were told they were going to be injected with thymosin
they agreed to be injected with thymosin
they were injected with thymosin

if the players feel deceived by their club, then by all means take it up with the club, but if you try to push the boundaries as far as they can go and get burnt when you go too far then you get no sympathies from me.

Further to that, after being told they were going to push the boundaries, did one of those idiots think to maybe check with ASADA that they weren't actually crossing over this boundary?

You know, pick up the phone and ask the ASADA hotline if this 'Thyomisin' was ok!

Maybe if they had rung the hotline they might have been asked which Thyomisin were they referring to.

Or maybe the players chose not to find out.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

I've speculated in the past that if the players were injected with an unknown drug they might be penalised under S0. No "unknown" drug has been certified for human use anywhere in the world. "Unknown" drugs therefore fall foul of S0.

interesting point.

it would really come back to what the players knew at the time, and what actually occurred.

did they believe it was just vitamins/amino acids/a substance on the waiver? if so, did they believe this because they were told so? or did they not think to ask?

if they were told they were getting something and were then given something completely different, then i'd feel sorry for them.

however, if they didn't have a clue what they were taking but were happy to take it... then that raises some questions. i don't believe not asking or caring to know what was being administered is an appropriate excuse, nor do i think it's one deserving my sympathies.

 

[Crankyhawk]

H

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.

Hertier lumumba does not like this. You are showing your religious intolerance and a western centric viewpoint.

 

[Crankyhawk]

On topic re what whatsonwhat is saying

IF it is shown that Dank told them you are getting this drug which is called thymomodulin, it comes as a clear liquid, but it's WADA compliant and showed them documentation of wada compliance and THEN substituted that clear liquid for another clear liquid of TB4 id say that the Essendon players are unlucky but still would be banned. Would I view it as cheating? Maybe the same way as salary cap fraud - ie blame the club, not the players.

 

[KGBeast]

You know, pick up the phone and ask the ASADA hotline if this 'AOD' was ok!

This is claimed but hotly contested. Who knows in regards to thymosin.

 

[gavaniacono]

See I have raised this point also, but now I am of the opinion ASADA aren't going at them from the unknown angle, because they probably have a fair idea of what was administered from the investigation. The absence of reporting of this angle from the media confirms my opinion too

Couldn't it therefore be a fall back position?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

On topic re what whatsonwhat is saying

IF it is shown that Dank told them you are getting this drug which is called thymomodulin, it comes as a clear liquid, but it's WADA compliant and showed them documentation of wada compliance and THEN substituted that clear liquid for another clear liquid of TB4 id say that the Essendon players are unlucky but still would be banned. Would I view it as cheating? Maybe the same way as salary cap fraud - ie blame the club, not the players.

Players have had enough chance to cooperate with the investigations. They've elected to say SFA, so if they are innocent but cop a ban, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[the_interloper]

Players have had enough chance to cooperate with the investigations. They've elected to say SFA, so if they are innocent but cop a ban, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

They also don't deserve any lenience in their sentence either.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Players have had enough chance to cooperate with the investigations. They've elected to say SFA, so if they are innocent but cop a ban, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The topic is about whether we would view them as cheats. And in the circumstance I described (which I am a subscriber to as Dank is a shifty seakayaker) then I would view the players more as victims - yes still cop a ban but mock the club rather than the players. Bit like when Carlton cheated salary cap, I didn't feel the need to hang it on the players for trying to get the money, rather put the blame on the club.

Although it seems a bit of both with Adelaide's salary cap - they're blaming both club and Tippett.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

IF it is shown that Dank told them you are getting this drug which is called thymomodulin, it comes as a clear liquid, but it's WADA compliant and showed them documentation of wada compliance and THEN substituted that clear liquid for another clear liquid of TB4 id say that the Essendon players are unlucky but still would be banned. Would I view it as cheating? Maybe the same way as salary cap fraud - ie blame the club, not the players.

Great post. At least one person here is able to comprehend.

 

[jenny61_99]

The topic is about whether we would view them as cheats. And in the circumstance I described (which I am a subscriber to as Dank is a shifty seakayaker) then I would view the players more as victims - yes still cop a ban but mock the club rather than the players. Bit like when Carlton cheated salary cap, I didn't feel the need to hang it on the players for trying to get the money, rather put the blame on the club.

Although it seems a bit of both with Adelaide's salary cap - they're blaming both club and Tippett.

Because tippett put the club over a barrel saying he'd only sign if they underwrote the extra payments (in case endorsements didn't meet that level) and guarantee him to be able to go "home". Of course, we all know now he meant sydney not Gold Coast where his actual home is. He gets equal blame absolutely. campaigner.

 

[Big Sim]

I have always said since day dot I just want to know what happens and then I will make my judgement. I've also been extremely meticulous on process. I have always been a believer in abiding by the umpires decision and my biggest pet peeve in football is people sooking about the umpire, when you may as well complain about the bounce of the ball.

That's why I for one am so pleased this isn't being resolved by a deal. The evidence is being tested in a properly constituted tribunal, and is subject to external review. There is no way to fudge this. Whilst I'd personally prefer it be a public hearing I understand why it probably won't, but I don't have any concerns about the legitimacy of the outcome whichever way it goes.

If there is no ADRV established and the players are cleared then I will be more than happy to accept that. After all, the level of proof required is comfortable satisfaction, not beyond reasonable doubt. If ASADA cannot make a case to comfortable satisfaction then that is pretty telling. I am sure others won't be, but I personally won't give a s**t.

On the flipside, if the evidence against the players sustains an ADRV, and penalties are meted out in line with the WADA code, then the exact same logic applies. The evidence has been rigorously tested against established quasi-judicial procedures and the case has been made. In those circumstances I will consider that the club I support has cheated (regardless of how much the players knew), and as a long-standing member I will demand the removal of anyone who was involved, including coaching staff and board members so that a clean start can occur and restitution can begin.

One way or another, it's happening. Praise geebus it's happening

Great post Lance.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Great post Lance.

Yes I agree with Lance too. Even if it's revealed that Dank swapped drugs and injected players with something banned all off his own bat, Essendon as a club, since they employed him, (in my view) will be cheats. However, I would still maintain the players would be unfortunate victims, and of course would be well within their rights to sue the club and/or Dank.

 

[Bluesince62]

1. The players and officials wanted to gain an advantage on the other clubs.
2. The majority of the players agreed to be injected with substances they believed would give them an advantage.
3. The AFL and EFC do not operate under Sharia law. The said players could have refused to be injected.
4. If it is found that the said players were injected with a banned substance then they were trying to gain an unfair advantage.
5. Anyone trying to gain an unfair advantage is cheating.

 

[Argy]

1. The players and officials wanted to gain an advantage on the other clubs.
2. The majority of the players agreed to be injected with substances they believed would give them an advantage.
3. The AFL and EFC do not operate under Sharia law. The said players could have refused to be injected.
4. If it is found that the said players were injected with a banned substance then they were trying to gain an unfair advantage.
5. Anyone trying to gain an unfair advantage is cheating.

I used to have a modicum of sympathy for the players, but after reading all the twaddle that Whatsonswhat, mxett, GG and BSE have written any goodwill I had has vanished.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Because tippett put the club over a barrel saying he'd only sign if they underwrote the extra payments (in case endorsements didn't meet that level) and guarantee him to be able to go "home". Of course, we all know now he meant sydney not Gold Coast where his actual home is. He gets equal blame absolutely. campaigner.

I wouldn't use that word on him Jen. He's an out and out Sea Kayaker!

 

[Whatsonswhat]

The players and officials wanted to gain an advantage on the other clubs.

So do the players and officials of every club.

The majority of the players agreed to be injected with substances they believed would give them an advantage.

Yes, but perhaps they also thought the substances were allowed to be used.

The AFL and EFC do not operate under Sharia law. The said players could have refused to be injected.

No. But a certain aspect of the rules they do operate under (the WADA code) is analogous to a certain aspect of Sharia law, whereby people can be punished for something being done to them against their will. Yes they could have refused to be injected at all, just like a woman subject to Sharia law can lock herself in a safe.

If it is found that the said players were injected with a banned substance then they were trying to gain an unfair advantage.
Anyone trying to gain an unfair advantage is cheating.

What's the difference between an unfair advantage and a fair one?

 

[Albert Ross]

Yes I agree with Lance too. Even if it's revealed that Dank swapped drugs and injected players with something banned all off his own bat, Essendon as a club, since they employed him, (in my view) will be cheats. However, I would still maintain the players would be unfortunate victims, and of course would be well within their rights to sue the club and/or Dank.

The moment they agreed to be injected they took the risk that they would be injected with something illegal. They could take precautions against that (demanding to see the labels, recording the dosages and times, insisting on witnesses, demanding to see a WADA note authorising the substance, checking with Dr Reid or the AFLPA or their own family doctor, asking for a sample they they could take to be tested themselves).

The moment they signed up to receive injections that were of unprecedented volume, were known to be cutting edge, were administered by a non-medical professional, and off-site, they took a risk. They were certainly aware that the guy administering the injections had no enquired after their allergies, health or what else they were taking. He hadn't thought to warn them of risks or side-effects.

The analogy you're after is driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Sure you observed the road-rules, were attentive, weren't speeding and your reaction times were good - but when your brakes didn't grip and you slid into the back of that taxi you don't have a case to defend yourself. You take the risks, you wear the consequences.

Our unroadworthy driver might have had no intent to stack, or to hurt anyone. May be an upstanding citizen who made a simple mistake. Some may argue that our driver has made no moral error. They will though be open to chargers of manslaughter because of their negligence.

The Essendon players took the risk. They did not mitigate the risks. They bare the consequences of the risks they took. Even if they are innocent they bare the consequences of the risks they took.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

The moment they agreed to be injected they took the risk that they would be injected with something illegal. They could take precautions against that (demanding to see the labels, recording the dosages and times, insisting on witnesses, demanding to see a WADA note authorising the substance, checking with Dr Reid or the AFLPA or their own family doctor, asking for a sample they they could take to be tested themselves).

The moment they signed up to receive injections that were of unprecedented volume, were known to be cutting edge, were administered by a non-medical professional, and off-site, they took a risk. They were certainly aware that the guy administering the injections had no enquired after their allergies, health or what else they were taking. He hadn't thought to warn them of risks or side-effects.

The analogy you're after is driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Sure you observed the road-rules, were attentive, weren't speeding and your reaction times were good - but when your brakes didn't grip and you slid into the back of that taxi you don't have a case to defend yourself. You take the risks, you wear the consequences.

Our unroadworthy driver might have had no intent to stack, or to hurt anyone. May be an upstanding citizen who made a simple mistake. Some may argue that our driver has made no moral error. They will though be open to chargers of manslaughter because of their negligence.

The Essendon players took the risk. They did not mitigate the risks. They bare the consequences of the risks they took. Even if they are innocent they bare the consequences of the risks they took.

You can go with the unregistered vehicle analogy if you wish, but the Sharia rape law analogy still holds. These are all arguments that are used by Sharia prosecuters of women who have been raped. They take the risk, by going to or remaining in a Sharia law state, of being raped and subsequently prosecuted for it. They can take all the precautions in the world to avoid it, but if they do anything less than lock themselves in isolation (analogous to a player not allowing anything to go into their body), they took a risk and must wear the consequences. Nonetheless, I personally still think they are being unfairly punished.

 

[Big Sim]

You can go with the unregistered vehicle analogy if you wish, but the Sharia rape law analogy still holds. These are all arguments that are used by Sharia prosecuters of women who have been raped. They take the risk, by going to or remaining in a Sharia law state, of being raped and subsequently prosecuted for it. They can take all the precautions in the world to avoid it, but if they do anything less than lock themselves in isolation (analogous to a player not allowing anything to go into their body), they took a risk and must wear the consequences. Nonetheless, I personally still think they are being unfairly punished.

Thats even better than the asbestos victims analogy, which I thought could not be topped. Well done.