• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

AFLPA Statement

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief said:
It was.
Click to expand...

How can it be if ASADA say there was no reasonable way for anyone to know that it was?

It was either clearly banned or, for all intensive purposes, it wasn't.

After all, it's all a matter of interpretation and ASADA obviously interpreted it at the time to not be a banned substance, so therefore it wasn't until April 2013.
Chief said:
What other?
Click to expand...

The other in this case would the 'than' that mysteriously decided to run away before the post submitted.
 
Chief said:
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.
Click to expand...

Me too, Hence the massive wave of confusion and platform for the media to whip the public into a lynching frenzy over AOD... Almost seems wrong to take it off the table...?!? :confused:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

thejester said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well not really, considering players are meant to be stood down from the issuing of infraction notices to the hearing.
 
The Prosecutor said:
How can it be if ASADA say there was no reasonable way for anyone to know that it was?

It was either clearly banned or, for all intensive purposes, it wasn't.

After all, it's all a matter of interpretation and ASADA obviously interpreted it at the time to not be a banned substance, so therefore it wasn't until April 2013.


The other in this case would the 'than' that mysteriously decided to run away before the post submitted.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, it was banned under the S0 catch-all, however was not banned explicitly. Which is where the ambiguity came in.
 
To use the copper analogy, if brought in for questioning.

You either answer or u dont,
They either charge you/ release you on bail pending court
Remand you in custody until court

In all the above cases the coppers must provide a brief of evidence to you or your counsel before you go to court.

If you are brought in for questioning and they release you without charge, they dont have to give you any evidence they have on you, no matter what they have until you are charged with an offence. They may tell not to leave town.

So if the players havent actually been charged with with an offence and only been asked why they shouldnt be charged with an offence under the code, why should they be given what evidence ASADA thinks they have.

It really is quite simple as i put it in another post.

We have you on toast, we know you are not fully to blame, but you must take some blame, take the reduced sentences and thank your lucky stars it wont be a 2 year suspension and then we can get onto the real culprits in all this mess.

Pretty simple eh???
 
The Prosecutor said:
How is anyone meant to respond to a SC then beyond saying "We didn't" if ASADA refuse to expand upon their allegation?
Click to expand...

Simple, the SC alleges you were injected with TB4 as part of the Essendon 2012 supplements program.

So, you as a player respond with:

No ASADA, here is the record of the supplements I was injected with, these records were maintained by my clubs doctor.

That's how you respond, if you were playing for most other clubs.

Really, if you are an Essendon player, the only way you can respond is by saying:

As is on public record, the club responsible for injecting and providing me with supplements is unable to advise me what I was administered with during 2012.

At the time we were told all supplements were WADA legal, I still believe this to be the case
 
thejester said:
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.
Click to expand...
Each individual player has a SC - not the club or team. Because each individual is responsible - they stuffed up as individuals. Lack of leadership, governance etc contributed but only the individual is responsible. Other may be found culpable.

If not, the perfect defence would be I was only following orders. This doesn't even cut it in war crimes trails these days.
 
greennick said:
From what I understand, it was banned under the S0 catch-all, however was not banned explicitly. Which is where the ambiguity came in.
Click to expand...

It's long been reported that ASADA advised that it wasn't a prohibited substance - so while now it is banned, it was interpreted as not being being banned during Essendon's program. Hence, it was not a banned drug at the time.
 
If the aflpa are complaining about the system than maybe they should look at egypt and their legal system . Aussie journalist stuck in jail since december, you pay prosecutor to see evidence. As mentioned in threads before the asada procedure is based on Wada which is european law based. Guilty till proven innoncent
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Prosecutor said:
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?
Click to expand...

Don't you reckon you'd know where/when you were injected? And with what?
 
Lance Uppercut said:
better give ASADA a call then. Clearly they don't get it like you do what with all this talk of reduced penalties
Click to expand...
Your argument seems to be "because ASADA said so". Why is this argument only valid now?

I don't know their reasoning, as I've said many times in this thread. I'd be interetsed to see it. My guess is they think TB4 case is strongest so are going with that so as not to get bogged down. I think most people have said that AOD is not the main event anyway. I know I have.
But AOD is and was banned. Jobe admitted using it. Texts show other players have used it, I believe. The AFLPA statement is wrong in that regard.
 
greennick said:
ASADA thinks they them on TB4, so they're not interested in AOD as it appears the evidence is weaker and there was ambiguity.
Click to expand...


McDevitt said at his first press conference that he would not prioritise ANYTHING over CERTAINTY.

After advice from Judge Downes, Richard Young and a CAS tribunal member, ASADA are CERTAIN on TB-4 use.

Everything else has been dropped to protect CERTAINTY.

As no doubt advised by Richard Young, they will now follow normal WADA/ASADA process to prosecute that.

And as usual.....the fingered doper/s will scream blue murder.
 
The Prosecutor said:
It's long been reported that ASADA advised that it wasn't a prohibited substance - so while now it is banned, it was interpreted as not being being banned during Essendon's program. Hence, it was not a banned drug at the time.
Click to expand...
From memory, it was a bit different to that. They said it wasn't on the banned list, however you will need to determine whether it it legal.
 
QuietB said:
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.
Click to expand...
IMO it saves time and money to go after them on TB4 and ditch AOD. That's fine, AOD has been a sideshow anyway.
 
neutralguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would they start following the rules now!
 
The Prosecutor said:
It's long been reported that ASADA advised that it wasn't a prohibited substance - so while now it is banned, it was interpreted as not being being banned during Essendon's program. Hence, it was not a banned drug at the time.
Click to expand...

It's long been claimed by Essendon, which is how it got reported. No-one else has claimed it and there hasn't been any evidence to support this theory.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFLPA Statement

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top