AFLPA Statement

[Lance Uppercut]

Fairly sure we haven't heard the last of those three capital letters.

I'm fairly sure we have.

Media too embarrassed to go back on it. WADA knew whatever issues were up with it, that's why they "clarified" it in 2013. McD wouldn't have spoken with WADA imprimatur. Forget AOD, it's dead

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Stephen Dank

Essendon players need to provide ASADA with evidence that they were deceived by Dank & Golden Boy in order to receive a reduced ban.

consent forms

 

[legend166]

Just to be clear - if the AFLPA got their way and were able to stop the process until the court case was over, we'd still be sitting here in 12 months wondering what was going to happen.

But hey, they all just want it to be over!

 

[Chief]

Then why is it being publicly taken off the table by Mr Mcdevo?

As he explained, they don't feel players could have known it was banned. I'm interested in seeing their reasoning if it is ever made public.

But it was banned.

 

[QuietB]

What?

Why do Essendon need to see the evidence? They were there remember. So is it;

1. To find out what happened? or
2. Find out how much ASADA knows?

 

[Jobe Watson]

ASADA have said in the SC notices that based on the evidence they have, they believe the players have a case to answer, now the players/EFC/etc need to provide some kind of evidence that they don't.

How are you supposed to prove you didn't do something?

 

[Chief]

consent forms

AFL rules on reporting substances taken to club medical officer.

Player education on PEDs.

Publicly available hotline to check on drug status.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

AFL rules on reporting substances taken to club medical officer.

Player education on PEDs.

Publicly available hotline to check on drug status.

better give ASADA a call then. Clearly they don't get it like you do what with all this talk of reduced penalties

 

[ManWithNoName]

- This is false, Jobe Watson believes he took AOD, a prohibited substance.

That's why ASADA issued show cause notices for AOD. Oh hang on.

 

[Hill2Pav]

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 do it by ensuring that prior to being injected with any substance that it has been approved for use for the relevant sporting body.

 

[Chief]

Why do Essendon need to see the evidence? They were there remember. So is it;

1. To find out what happened? or
2. Find out how much ASADA knows?

You would want to see evidence if you were accused of anything, wouldn't you?

 

[QuietB]

As he explained, they don't feel players could have known it was banned. I'm interested in seeing their reasoning if it is ever made public.

But it was banned.

The AOD decision baffles me. ASADA are going all legal and straight down the line on everything else, but then throw in action on AOD would be "unfair". It does not make a lot of sense.

 

[The Prosecutor]

Why do Essendon need to see the evidence? They were there remember. So is it;

1. To find out what happened? or
2. Find out how much ASADA knows?

That is such an incredible straw-man argument - ASADA hasn't specified when this where supposedly happened.

Or how about 3. So they can actually properly and directly respond to the specifics of the allegation.

 

[neutralguy]

I don't get it? Do ASADA really have to provide all their evidence at this juncture? The notices are asking the players to demonstrate why this action shouldn't go any further..and it's now on the players or the club to present some form of evidence (that ASADA doesn't have) that knocks this whole thing on the head, otherwise infractions and off to the tribunal we go..

The AFLPA are basically saying "we don't want to respond until we know what you have on us". It shouldn't matter.

ASADA have said in the SC notices that based on the evidence they have, they believe the players have a case to answer, now the players/EFC/etc need to provide some kind of evidence that they don't.

For everyone saying blah blah blah ASADA should provide the evidence. It is simple, listen to the SEN councloud. Mcdevvitt explains it all in there, ASADA does not under it's strict guidlines provide the evidence at the SC stage. It is in their legislation, so if EFC wants to keep saying this needs to be fair, guess what, it is fair ASADA are following their legislated guidelines. Seriously the information was given by the ASADA CEO just listen and comprehend the SEN soundcloud.

 

[van peebles]

Wut?

Why would the players take a reduced ban if they think they're innocent/there's no evidence?

Good poser for the masses there.{Why would the players take a reduced ban?}
Why would the players not front the SCs and present the"im innocent and you have no evidence".
Seems they are conflicted with their own innocence.

 

[Chief]

That's why ASADA issued show cause notices for AOD. Oh hang on.

Unless ASADA say they aren't chasing them over AOD because "it is not now nor was it ever banned" this is irrelevant. They are giving the reason that they can't with certainty say that players could have found out it was banned. Fair enough, but I am curious about their reasoning.

It was banned at the time and is still banned. Jobe believes he took it.

 

[The Prosecutor]

You do it by ensuring that prior to being injected with any substance that it has been approved for use for the relevant sporting body.

That does nothing to address my point or the issue at all.

 

[QuietB]

You would want to see evidence if you were accused of anything, wouldn't you?

I am sure I will get my day in court when the time comes and the evidence will be made available to me and I can test it.

I don't think I have a right to know how much the other side has on me before I decide how much I am going to cooperate.

If the players truly believe they are innocent, put it in the show cause response.

 

[ziad]

How are you supposed to prove you didn't do something?

Its a bit like rorting the tax man but not having any evidence you have or have not. You have no defence and are just dumb.

The AFLPA and EFC both have a duty of care to have helped the players understand and administer their individual responsibilities. Clearly neither was effective and one may be culpable.

ASADA has a responsibility to find the cheats. They appear to be the one party doing their job well.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Unless ASADA say they aren't chasing them over AOD because "it is not now nor was it ever banned" this is irrelevant. They are giving the reason that they can't with certainty say that players could have found out it was banned. Fair enough, but I am curious about their reasoning.

It was banned at the time and is still banned. Jobe believes he took it.

You should call ASADA and offer to run the joint. You clearly know more about their job than they do. Or maybe they just missed that episode of On The Couch. Unfortunate.

 

[greennick]

The AOD decision baffles me. ASADA are going all legal and straight down the line on everything else, but then throw in action on AOD would be "unfair". It does not make a lot of sense.

ASADA thinks they them on TB4, so they're not interested in AOD as it appears the evidence is weaker and there was ambiguity.

 

[tesla1962]

Clearly not a fair process as how can you defend a blind argument.

Is not providing evidence for the charges normal practice in the SC process and is it legal?

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 . 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.

If you are charged with murder you certainly do - absolutely fundamental to our legal system

 

[greennick]

For everyone saying blah blah blah ASADA should provide the evidence. It is simple, listen to the SEN councloud. Mcdevvitt explains it all in there, ASADA does not under it's strict guidlines provide the evidence at the SC stage. It is in their legislation, so if EFC wants to keep saying this needs to be fair, guess what, it is fair ASADA are following their legislated guidelines. Seriously the information was given by the ASADA CEO just listen and comprehend the SEN soundcloud.

This needs to be continually quoted for prosperity.

 

[thejester]

That is such an incredible straw-man argument - ASADA hasn't specified when this where supposedly happened.

Or how about 3. So they can actually properly and directly respond to the specifics of the allegation.

But that is what happens at the next stage of the process, yeah? I mean this seems to be another example of the way in which a process designed for individual athletes is failing when faced with this more ambiguous situation, but ultimately the players will be shown the evidence against them and get the chance to contest it before they're banned.

 

[greennick]

If you are charged with murder you certainly do - absolutely fundamental to our legal system

ONCE YOU GET CHARGED! The players haven't been charged yet, that is not what a show cause notice is. This is the prequel to a charge, where they will then get the evidence.