AFLPA Statement

[Tiger71]

Its funny, ASADA does not have to show what evidence they have for SC notices. They have issued them and sit back, ignore the whinging and simply say, if you believe you will win " Come at me bro".

If I was the players or EFC I would be now very concerned. People need to realize, ASADA does not issue SC notices if they dont believe 99% of the time they will win.

 

[Dicky_Knee]

Can you show me where there is irrefutable evidence that Essendon players took TB4? Actual evidence, not just a theory linking together some circumstantial evidence?

I guess ASADA has that info, seeing they issued SC notices

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

Chief works for ASADA now?

His cubicle is between those of Jenny and IanW.

 

[van peebles]

Can you show me where there is irrefutable evidence that Essendon players took TB4? Actual evidence, not just a theory linking together some circumstantial evidence?

No,to answer your question, i cant show you proof.

But there is an organisation called asada that can look into the allegation your making.

 

[Tiger71]

Can you show me where there is irrefutable evidence that Essendon players took TB4? Actual evidence, not just a theory linking together some circumstantial evidence?

Can you show me where there is irrefutable evidence that Essendon players DID NOT TAKE TB4? Actual evidence, not just a theory linking together some circumstantial evidence?

 

[Boxhead_31]

The players have every right to ask Asada to show all the documents they have if Asada's case was so strong they would have no problems giving the players that information.

Is this stated in the ASADA or NAD act, that they have to show what evidence they have against the players at the SC stage?
No one can confirm this for me an am very interested if this is the case or not or if the AFLPA is asking ASADA to contravene its act.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

The parallels between EFC and Armstrong's responses are staggering.

It was actually a "whoa" moment for me. It seems like the exact same situation, right down to the "need to see evidence!" (which they didn't get to see, because of the process they had signed up for with WADA).

 

[Baldur]

I was just being a google detective on whether it was usual for the WADA body to send show cause notices without evidence. Found this delightful summary of what happened when USADA sent Lance Armstrong his show cause letter:

Sure enough, on Friday June 22, an eleven-page retort was delivered to the USADA review board by Robert Luskin, one of Armstrong’s coterie of lawyers, who said USADA’s February 12 letter was “long on stale allegations disproved long ago and short on evidence” and “offensive to any notions of due process. USADA’s overly expansive view of its own authority – not to mention its smug self-regard – undoubtedly explains its threadbare charging document, its arrogant and craven refusal to disclose evidence, and its complacent expectation that the Review Board will not hold it accountable,” wrote Luskin. He recommended that the agency drop its charges “because there is no evidence to support them”, or, at the very least, “suspend consideration” until all prima facie evidence is turned over. “The Review Board must recommend that this case not move forward,” the letter said, also alleging false testimony was garnered by offering immunity, which they argue violate bribery laws.

USADA, rather unsurprisingly, did not accede to Team Armstrong’s demands or claims. In a statement released that same Friday, Travis Tygart, chief executive of the agency, said: “We follow established procedures that were approved by athletes, the US Olympic Committee and all Olympic sports organisations.”

- See more at: http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2012/10/living-strong-lie?page=show#sthash.4kSD3LHC.dpuf

So the AFLPA and the players following Lance Armstrong's lead, not a good place to be methinks.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Can you show me where there is irrefutable evidence that Essendon players DID NOT TAKE TB4? Actual evidence, not just a theory linking together some circumstantial evidence?

Bugger showing you, if he's got that evidence he can show it to the AFLPA, who can show it to ASADA and this is all over!

 

[boncer34]

I was giving an example of the reasoning I think could lead to dropping one angle. McDevitt has said why they dropped it.

All we've got in response seems to be an illogical, circular argument.

"It was and is banned but BM said they aren't prosecuting because they have advice that they couldn't state with certainty that players could work out it was banned."

"IF IT WAS BANNED WHY AREN'T THEY PROSECUTING??"

"It was and is banned but BM said they aren't prosecuting because they have advice that they couldn't state with certainty that players could work out it was banned."

"IF IT WAS BANNED WHY AREN'T THEY PROSECUTING??"


... for 7 pages of thread

Actually I was asking how come the stronger case in your opinion is TB4 when AOD was banned and admitted to having been taken by the players. Sorry if you misunderstood

Dunno where I used a circular illogical argument.

 

[greennick]

The players have every right to ask Asada to show all the documents they have if Asada's case was so strong they would have no problems giving the players that information.

And ASADA has every right to say, no. In fact, is obligated to by legislation, something Essendon obviously thinks is so important. When it suits them.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Is this stated in the ASADA or NAD act, that they have to show what evidence they have against the players at the SC stage?
No one can confirm this for me an am very interested if this is the case or not or if the AFLPA is asking ASADA to contravene its act.

The NAD provisions require the SC notices to contain 'details' of the alleged contraventions.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Explain to me again how a statement that specifically does not retract previous statements that the drug is and was illegal means that the drug was legal?

It makes me chuckle.

Isn't there a specific thread or twenty that deals with AOD and its status that this discussion could be held in?

 

[Boxhead_31]

The NAD provisions require the SC notices to contain 'details' of the alleged contraventions.

Thank you

 

[boncer34]

If you call up and ask is AOD9604 on the prohibited list of substances the correct answer, and the answer given, is no. It is not on the S2 list of prohibited substances. Some non experts (eg: the ACC) took this at face value without realising you then need to look at the S0 clause to determine whether you can use it. Under the S0 clause it is banned and always was. Dank was told about this but chose to ignore it and tried to get around the S0 clause using prescriptions and compounding chemists. ASADA have generously taken AOD off the table because they recognise that non experts could have been confused by all of this. This stuff has been covered on other threads many times.

That seems a little dumb to me. If a law is been broken then they prosecute.

They don't be generous surely?

 

[Baldur]

24 Examples of aggravating circumstances which may justify the imposition of a period of Ineligibility greater than the standard
sanction are: the Player or other Person committed the Anti Doping Rule Violation as part of a doping plan or scheme, either
individually or involving a conspiracy or common enterprise to commit Anti Doping Rule Violations; the Player or other Person
Used or Possessed multiple Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods or Used or Possessed a Prohibited Substance or
Prohibited Method on multiple occasions; a normal individual would be likely to enjoy the performance-enhancing effects of the
Anti Doping Rule Violation(s) beyond the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility; the Player or Person engaged in deceptive
or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an Anti Doping Rule Violation.
For the avoidance of doubt, the examples of aggravating circumstances described in this above are not exclusive and other
aggravating factors may also justify the imposition of a longer period of Ineligibility. Violations under Clause 11.7 (Trafficking or
Attempted Trafficking) and 11.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) are not included in the application of Clause 14.5
because the sanctions for these violations (from four years to lifetime Ineligibility) already build in sufficient discretion to allow
consideration of any aggravating circumstance.

Which is why the players should be very careful before they get involved in the present litigation to overturn the investigation. And also very careful about the reply they give to the Show Clause notices.

 

[Cronos]

That seems a little dumb to me. If a law is been broken then they prosecute.

They don't be generous surely?

I agree, it does seem dumb.

I've sent an email to ASADA asking for some clarification on why they aren't pursuing AOD. I don't expect a response, but I've done what I can to attempt to figure it out. If I do get one, I'll happily share it.

 

[evo]

Nice find. The parallels are telling.

Sure enough, on Friday June 22, an eleven-page retort was delivered to the USADA review board by Robert Luskin, one of Armstrong’s coterie of lawyers, who said USADA’s February 12 letter was “long on stale allegations disproved long ago and short on evidence” and “offensive to any notions of due process. USADA’s overly expansive view of its own authority – not to mention its smug self-regard – undoubtedly explains its threadbare charging document, its arrogant and craven refusal to disclose evidence, and its complacent expectation that the Review Board will not hold it accountable,” wrote Luskin. He recommended that the agency drop its charges “because there is no evidence to support them”, or, at the very least, “suspend consideration” until all prima facie evidence is turned over. “The Review Board must recommend that this case not move forward,” the letter said, also alleging false testimony was garnered by offering immunity, which they argue violate bribery laws.

Oi! Who are you calling smug!

 

[good4footy]

I'd like bomber supporters to give their view on the following points:
1. Did the players do everything in their power to check if what was being injected into them was legal? Remember this wasn't a solitary injection that was not out of the ordinary.
2. Does the code they follow require them to keep records of exactly what was given to them and when? Did they do this?
3. Do you think that this may be exactly what ASADA are asking to see to help show their innocence?
4. If they haven't followed procedure as specified by the code should they not receive any punishment at all?

Thanks.

This goes to the crux of the issue for the players. Show cause- sure as an elite athlete bound by this code I at all times asked the Dr to do the following:

1) Tell me what the drug is ( player rings the relevant body to ensure said drug is above board)
2) Show me the label
3) Dr sign the relevant date in my diary indicating that is exactly what was given to me in this session.

Dear Mr ASADA, as per your request to show cause please find attached my diary indicating what I did as an elite athlete to meet the requirements of the code. If the actual drug is not what is was supposed to be I did everything within my power to ensure I was meeting all requirements. Your issue is not with me but with those that duped me. Game over by this coming Monday.

If I can't do the above then IN comes my way, I get to see the evidence and defend myself.

Everything else is just noise.

 

[Chief]

Actually I was asking how come the stronger case in your opinion is TB4 when AOD was banned and admitted to having been taken by the players.

Where did I say that was my opinion?

That is ASADA's opinion, I've just modeled possible reasoning behind it.

 

[dmc333]

I was just being a google detective on whether it was usual for the WADA body to send show cause notices without evidence. Found this delightful summary of what happened when USADA sent Lance Armstrong his show cause letter:
- See more at: http://bicyclingaustralia.com.au/2012/10/living-strong-lie?page=show#sthash.4kSD3LHC.dpuf

Go and read more of Armstrong's response to USADA and the lawsuit he filed against them before the judge threw it out.

For some reason it's all very familiar.

 

[Baldur]

That seems a little dumb to me. If a law is been broken then they prosecute.

They don't be generous surely?

If AOD-9604 is a bad test case. sure. Even without the possible and in my opinion likely, misleading if not incorrect advice re AOD's status pre April 2013. AOD-9604 is not a very sexy drug to run a S0 test case on. The stuff has not been shown to have any effects whatsoever.

Wait until they have some brand new horror drug that makes players have heart attacks, their balls drop off, their children have birth defects or the like. Some stuff that has not and will never passed ok for human use because of its horrid side effects. Then go them re S0. Once you have your test cases lined up. Petty ante stuff like AOD can be chased up.

 

[blue harvest]

That seems a little dumb to me. If a law is been broken then they prosecute.

They don't be generous surely?

But the law wasn't written as clear as maybe it should have been. This has now been fixed.

 

[neutralguy]

Is this stated in the ASADA or NAD act, that they have to show what evidence they have against the players at the SC stage?
No one can confirm this for me an am very interested if this is the case or not or if the AFLPA is asking ASADA to contravene its act.

Sigh, BM has already stated that the evidence is not required to be presented at the SC stage, listen to the SEN grab of him explaining it. ASADA has no obligation whatsoever to hand over any evidence at this stage.

 

[PieBeast]

Show cause is a chance for players to come clean and take their medicine. If they do not, then it goes to the next stage (assuming their responses do not see the case dropped) and infractions are issued, in which case it goes to the tribuannal and both cases show their respective hands. Given the court action in progress I can't see ASADA releasing anything.

Players look like rolling the dice, its either nothing or 2 years, in which case the AFL will be shitting bricks.

Logic tells me the evidence will have to be presented when the infraction notices are issued and then ADRV will make a ruling based upon that evidence.