AFLPA Statement

Remove this Banner Ad

T
Now the lawyers and law enforcement folk amongst us will know more then me, but if I get dragged into police headquarters to be questioned for a murder I committed I don't think I have any rights to inspect the police evidence. I am pretty sure they will unleash that on me when they are ready.
Yeah, that is the way i see it too.

Why would ASADA have to present their case here and now. If you wanna see all the evidence ignore the Show Cause, then you'll get to see it soon enough.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is a hilarious little standoff.

Why should the players need the evidence - it happened to them, THEY WERE THERE!

Of course their club is still running with the line that they do not have records :rolleyes:. And the players are still running with the line that they were duped.

Now the lawyers and law enforcement folk amongst us will know more then me, but if I get dragged into police headquarters to be questioned for a murder I committed I don't think I have any rights to inspect the police evidence. I am pretty sure they will unleash that on me when they are ready.

Also, stop saying there are offers of deals on the table. There are no deals on offer, just the established process.

That is such a stupid comparison - it just baffles me how you think it's appropriate and logical in this context.
 
No player has been charged with anything yet, if they are charged then the evidence will be handed to the panel.

Exactly. They have been told ASADA has evidence that show a doping violation may have occurred. They have to chance to show cause why this evidence shouldn't be sent to the ADVRP. They can either do that or not. This is not at the trial stage.
 
That is such a stupid comparison - it just baffles me how you think it's appropriate and logical in this context.

Why? The players are not charged with anything. They have been asked to show cause why they shouldn't be charged with something. Why do they need to see what evidence ASASA has before they can respond? Why should ASADA's evidence change how they respond? That is the real point here.
 
Exactly. They have been told ASADA has evidence that show a doping violation may have occurred. They have to chance to show cause why this evidence shouldn't be sent to the ADVRP. They can either do that or not. This is not at the trial stage.

How the **** are they meant to do that if they have no idea what the evidence is?!
 
This is a hilarious little standoff.

Why should the players need the evidence - it happened to them, THEY WERE THERE!

Of course their club is still running with the line that they do not have records :rolleyes:. And the players are still running with the line that they were duped.

Now the lawyers and law enforcement folk amongst us will know more then me, but if I get dragged into police headquarters to be questioned for a murder I committed I don't think I have any rights to inspect the police evidence. I am pretty sure they will unleash that on me when they are ready.

Also, stop saying there are offers of deals on the table. There are no deals on offer, just the established process.

LOL
 
This is a hilarious little standoff.

Why should the players need the evidence - it happened to them, THEY WERE THERE!

Of course their club is still running with the line that they do not have records :rolleyes:. And the players are still running with the line that they were duped.

Now the lawyers and law enforcement folk amongst us will know more then me, but if I get dragged into police headquarters to be questioned for a murder I committed I don't think I have any rights to inspect the police evidence. I am pretty sure they will unleash that on me when they are ready.

Also, stop saying there are offers of deals on the table. There are no deals on offer, just the established process.

The complete brief does have to be provided long before the trial. There can be no ambushing at trial.
 
If i ASADA i would show them the consent forms they signed show they agree to take thymosin.

Then show them the texts from DAnk to the weapon saying thymosin is going to be the cornerstone of program.

Then show them the texts from DANK to Charters asking for a butt load of TB4 vials.

Then say your move A-holes!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Why? The players are not charged with anything. They have been asked to show cause why they shouldn't be charged with something. Why do they need to see what evidence ASASA has before they can respond? Why should ASADA's evidence change how they respond? That is the real point here.

How the hell do they respond without knowing the specifics of the allegation and the reasoning behind it?

You want to use the cop comparison? This is like being brought in, asked why you shouldn't be charged as a murderer without even being told why they brought you of all people in or asking any other question or providing any details over the death in the first place.
 
How the **** are they meant to do that if they have no idea what the evidence is?!

Hand over all evidence of the substances the players believe they took. This may disprove any evidence ASADA has.

If the players dont have any evidence (which is the case i believe) then they cant refute the show cause and will be charged.
 
How the hell do they respond without knowing the specifics of the allegation and the reasoning behind it?

You want to use the cop comparison? This is like being brought in, asked why you shouldn't be charged as a murderer without even being told why they brought you of all people in or asking any other question or providing any details over the death in the first place.
in the eyes of the ASADA barrackers they can do no wrong
 
Hand over all evidence of the substances the players believe they took. This may disprove any evidence ASADA has.

If the players dont have any evidence (which is the case i believe) then they cant refute the show cause and will be charged.
what do you actually think the investigation was about? Have you forgotten that took place?

Are you suggesting the players didn't cooperate?
 
How the hell do they respond without knowing the specifics of the allegation and the reasoning behind it?

You want to use the cop comparison? This is like being brought in, asked why you shouldn't be charged as a murderer without even being told why they brought you of all people in or asking any other question or providing any details over the death in the first place.

That example is totally wrong. Using your example, It would be like the cops bringing you in, asking you a whole heap of questions in relation to the murder, releasing you then sending you a letter to show cause as to why you should not be charged with murder.
 
The players took all reasonable steps to ensure that the substances they were to be administered were compliant with the WADA Code, and were provided with written guarantees to this effect. If it turns out that those substances were not compliant, and the players were deceived by those who they were asked to trust, they should not be punished as a result.”

I would have thought that all reasonable steps would have involved having a discussion with the club Dr on the purpose of the injections and whether or not the Drugs were compliant with the WADA code.
 
How are the players meant to respond if the only allegation is "You took TB4 at some point"?

No referral to when, how and all that.

How do you refute that allegation without ASADA expanding on why the believe that?
You follow the process and go through to ADVRP panel and get to see the evidence against you.
The SC is a precurser to that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFLPA Statement

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top