AFL held plea bid without ASADA - Large Fries

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
mxett said:
Regarding Cronulla players:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...n-supplement-investigation3a-mcdevitt/5692600
"In relation to these particular players, their claim is that they took performance enhancing drugs unwittingly. They are saying they were doped and they were duped. "On the evidence that we have gathered that is also a fact and that entitles them to a reduction in the penalty. "It is a fact that they have a claim here to be able to reduce that penalty to a one-year penalty due to them having no significant fault."

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...ts-on-penalties-20140613-zs6i5.htmlAustralian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief executive Ben McDevitt told 3AW on Friday that if any of the 34 past and present Essendon players caught up in the investigation weren’t aware of what they were taking they could face a minimum ban of one year, as opposed to the maximum of two years.

He said if players “provided substantial assistance”, including making a full admissions, there was an option of a further six months being slashed off their penalty.
Click to expand...
I find the whole no significant fault argument a little hard to swallow to be honest. The consents make such a possibility ridiculous (I know you disagree with this but I respectfully disagree with you).
 
BlueWorld said:
Key word being IF. The media and you have taken his explanation of what MAY happen as fact.
Click to expand...

The irony is delicious as they say, if they were duped how would they know anything, in fact the players were complimented on their openess and honesty by ASADA during the investigation to their own detriment it appears.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jedi Anderson said:
I find the whole no significant fault argument a little hard to swallow to be honest. The consents make such a possibility ridiculous (I know you disagree with this but I respectfully disagree with you).
Click to expand...
Why? The consents never mention a banned substance (AOD excluded) and in fact provided evidence why all substances were compliant. PLayers signed these documents and they were kept for future reference. Doesnt that strongly suggest players believed they were playing within the rules?
 
compact72 said:
The Red Sash @The_Red_Sash · 59m59 minutes ago
@ringsau the AFL pushed hard to get a precedent set by pressuring non-Essendon players to take a deal. This would have set the others up.

Apparently its just an attempt to punish Essendon. Imagine the insecurity if they had relationships? Wife wouldn't be allowed to walk outside without them thinking somebody is going to talk to her

Essendon players were offered the same deal too
Click to expand...
The first part of what you're saying has some merit but then you go into boo hoo victim land - if the AFL set a precedent for small bans that would 'advantage' any future doper from any club. Don't be closed to the possibility there will be more in the future. There will be
 
compact72 said:
The Red Sash @The_Red_Sash · 59m59 minutes ago
@ringsau the AFL pushed hard to get a precedent set by pressuring non-Essendon players to take a deal. This would have set the others up.

Apparently its just an attempt to punish Essendon. Imagine the insecurity if they had relationships? Wife wouldn't be allowed to walk outside without them thinking somebody is going to talk to her

Essendon players were offered the same deal too
Click to expand...
Oops - misinterpreted your post. My post agreed with you ultimately. Sorry!
 
mxett said:
Why? The consents never mention a banned substance (AOD excluded) and in fact provided evidence why all substances were compliant. PLayers signed these documents and they were kept for future reference. Doesnt that strongly suggest players believed they were playing within the rules?
Click to expand...
TB4 is banned. Thymosin was referring to TB4. TA-1 and (the other one) was never something that was going to achieve the ends they signed up to. Quite a stretch from the bloke who is given it when he is unconscious. MORE than enough notice to do checks. You've argued as much yourself on this forum
 
mxett said:
Why? The consents never mention a banned substance (AOD excluded) and in fact provided evidence why all substances were compliant. PLayers signed these documents and they were kept for future reference. Doesnt that strongly suggest players believed they were playing within the rules?
Click to expand...
They mentioned 'thymosin'. If they were going to mention legal substances why were these not mentioned specifically? Another attempt to cover themselves but they are poor innocent footballers who had no idea.
 
yaco55 said:
Ah ! Chip has been on the money with many of the backroom dealings by ASADA and the AFL.
Click to expand...
Please.. there have never been any backroom dealings between ASADA and any other organisation. Nor any leaks from ASADA. They have been watertight and professional throughout this entire ordeal. If only we could say the same about the other major players.
 
Jedi Anderson said:
TB4 is banned. Thymosin was referring to TB4. TA-1 and (the other one) was never something that was going to achieve the ends they signed up to. Quite a stretch from the bloke who is given it when he is unconscious. MORE than enough notice to do checks. You've argued as much yourself on this forum
Click to expand...
sorry but the consents dont say TB4. I'm not saying the players arent culpable, I'm saying they didnt plan to dope, didnt consent to being doped, werent aware they were being doped.

ASADA agreed players for Cronulla were duped. I dont see the difference in how either set of players behaved. In fact IMO Cronulla players were more likely to have been doped because no information has surfaced showing the players question what was happening, they just went along with it without objection
 
Saturday@2 said:
Please.. there have never been any backroom dealings between ASADA and any other organisation. Nor any leaks from ASADA. They have been watertight and professional throughout this entire ordeal. If only we could say the same about the other major players.
Click to expand...

Interesting how the NRL players got a deal and the other Ex NRL players did not.

or are you being sarcastic ?.
 
BlueWorld said:
They mentioned 'thymosin'. If they were going to mention legal substances why were these not mentioned specifically? Another attempt to cover themselves but they are poor innocent footballers who had no idea.
Click to expand...
That is no where near proof the players used this generic term as an attempt to cover themselves. If they wanted to cover themselves why sign and keep consents in the first place. They were never going to stop them being charged and in fact have given ASADA a cause to charge them. The idea is ridiculous
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mxett said:
sorry but the consents dont say TB4. I'm not saying the players arent culpable, I'm saying they didnt plan to dope, didnt consent to being doped, werent aware they were being doped.
Click to expand...
Anyone getting that big that quick would be aware something was not right. They probably chose not to enquire too deeply, together with the consent forms they could then maintain plausibly deniability.
 
Was deal rejected because ASADA wouldn't sign off?

2 Month suspension = 2 months + the "self suspension" the players are now serving? = 6 months?

I betting similar discussions are being attempted to be had with others hence the careful denials from Port?
 
BlueWorld said:
They mentioned 'thymosin'. If they were going to mention legal substances why were these not mentioned specifically? Another attempt to cover themselves but they are poor innocent footballers who had no idea.
Click to expand...

The big question regarding the consent forms is did Dr Reid signed off on it? Did he check which Thymosin was used and why didn't he ask for the forms to be more specific about the substances being used because it was sub-standard (I would have thought a medical professional would have done his due diligence before signing a form. I would especially expect him to not sign his name to something generically listed).

As a mentioned in another thread. IMO If the doctor gave the green light and signed off on the form then it can be claimed the players were duped. If not, then the players were just naive and ignorant rather than being duped.
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
Your own captain said it was "eye opening" how much their bodies changed in just 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in this statement does it mention affects on player bodies
"It's noticeable that the program that has been put in place has already been effective on most guys. Certainly it has been an eye-opener for the guys who have been doing it for two-and-a-half weeks.

2 more points:
- if the players were part of this doping regime why would Jobe say such a thing to the Australian media?
- if the players even suspected the program was questionable why would they draw attention to it by mentioning it to the Australian media?
 
mxett said:
That is no where near proof the players used this generic term as an attempt to cover themselves. If they wanted to cover themselves why sign and keep consents in the first place. They were never going to stop them being charged and in fact have given ASADA a cause to charge them. The idea is ridiculous
Click to expand...
The consents were not valid as they did not mention the substance specifically enough. Stating everything is Wada compliant is meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

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