Mega Thread All AOD-9604 Discussion - Still Illegal but ASADA will not press charges on AOD9604 - McDevitt

[Randomizor]

What is this big interim waste of paper for?

In projects, an interim report is often compiled to analyze how the project is proceeding, before its final completion.

 

[Cronos]

Dude, I do not value what you are saying. It is a pathetic attempt to save face. There is NO chance ASADA will allow players to keep playing if they have enough evidence to charge them. They don't. And they won't unless Dank says "I gave the players banned drugs"

And I do not value what you are saying.

Seriously, it's an interim report. ASADA only gave details of governance. The AFL statement tonight used every phrase they possibly could to say it wasn't over.
"Based on the information before the AFL"
"At the present time no infraction notices will be issued"
"The AFL notes that the investigation into Essendon's 2011/2012 supplements program... remains open and could lead to further charges"
"Infraction notices under the AFL Anti-Doping Code against individual Essendon FC players or other persons could also result"

How many more phrases need to be used before you believe that maybe, just maybe, there may be more to come?

 

[Randomizor]

Dude, I do not value what you are saying. It is a pathetic attempt to save face. There is NO chance ASADA will allow players to keep playing if they have enough evidence to charge them. They don't. And they won't unless Dank says "I gave the players banned drugs"

And suddenly switching your m.o from defending Hird to defending the players is not an attempt to save face? What are you accusing them of trying to save face about? About being a non-delusion supporter that said Hird and the club would be charged?

Nope, they were on the money with that. Unlike the majority of your supporters.

 

[Underdog]

Dude, I do not value what you are saying. It is a pathetic attempt to save face. There is NO chance ASADA will allow players to keep playing if they have enough evidence to charge them. They don't. And they won't unless Dank says "I gave the players banned drugs"

If Saad's B sample is positive, he might not be handed an infraction notice for 6-8 weeks. That is as clear cut as a positive test and he'll still be allowed to play for some time.

 

[Johnny92]

And I do not value what you are saying.

Seriously, it's an interim report. ASADA only gave details of governance. The AFL statement tonight used every phrase they possibly could to say it wasn't over.
"Based on the information before the AFL"
"At the present time no infraction notices will be issued"
"The AFL notes that the investigation into Essendon's 2011/2012 supplements program... remains open and could lead to further charges"
"Infraction notices under the AFL Anti-Doping Code against individual Essendon FC players or other persons could also result"

How many more phrases need to be used before you believe that maybe, just maybe, there may be more to come?

Of course they would say that. IT ISN'T FINAL. But all that means is they now have the power to interview Dank. But he won't give them nothing IF they can interview him. Gnight. Sleep tight.
I am a very relieved man at the moment.

 

[Johnny92]

"on the information before the AFL there is no specific Anti-Doping Rule violation attributed to any individual player for use of AOD-9604 or any other prohibited substance. "

 

[Randomizor]

Goodnight folks. I am going to sleep now knowing players are 100% drug free.

Unless ASADA come out and say that the investigation has concluded, this statement is not factual.

 

[smasha]

So teams like Collingwood and West Coast get an easy game while the Bomber players are fearing their future but we cop em after being cleared?
OH VLAD LOL.

 

[Cronos]

Of course they would say that. IT ISN'T FINAL. But all that means is they now have the power to interview Dank. But he won't give them nothing IF they can interview him. Gnight. Sleep tight.
I am a very relieved man at the moment.

Well enjoy your dreams where the Essendon players are fine and safe.

The nightmare will begin soon enough.

 

[Cronos]

"on the information before the AFL there is no specific Anti-Doping Rule violation attributed to any individual player for use of AOD-9604 or any other prohibited substance. "

Interim report.

 

[Johnny92]

Let it go. Feels good man.

 

[Johnny92]

Interim report.

Anyways, I've enjoyed watching Port this year. Good luck in finals!!

 

[Randomizor]

Essendon supporters would be happy about their players getting off. They need some trade currency when the AFL strips them of their ability to properly participate in the draft for 2-3 years.

Deluded to think that the AFL punishments won't affect them in the medium to long term future.

 

[Cronos]

Anyways, I've enjoyed watching Port this year. Good luck in finals!!

Cheers. It's been a great year (if you exclude rounds 6-10) and it's been much appreciated from us supporters.

Must admit that I'm a bit worried about where Monfries falls in to this whole issue though. Will be tough to miss him for a while if he is, but if he's been on the gear, he has to be sanctioned.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

"on the information before the AFL there is no specific Anti-Doping Rule violation attributed to any individual player for use of AOD-9604 or any other prohibited substance. "

considering the interim report didn't contain any individualised information for privacy reasons... it's not exactly a big surprise that based "on the evidence before the AFL" they wouldn't find any specific anti-doping rule violation to any individual player for the use of any prohibited substance.

i found the way he worded that quite interesting. just because prohibited substances couldn't be attributed to any individual player doesn't mean they weren't attributed to the player group as a whole.

either this means names weren't named (for privacy), or names couldn't be named (due to poor record keeping).

 

[Johnny92]

Cheers. It's been a great year (if you exclude rounds 6-10) and it's been much appreciated from us supporters.

Must admit that I'm a bit worried about where Monfries falls in to this whole issue though. Will be tough to miss him for a while if he is, but if he's been on the gear, he has to be sanctioned.

I guess if Monfries was on the gear all of his score involvements must be removed from Port matches therefore you must miss the finals. I would also demand Hinkley to step down for puting the game into disrepute for playing a player who outright cheated. #standbyhinkly

 

[Broken_Chairs]

Unless ASADA come out and say that the investigation has concluded, this statement is not factual.

to be fair, it might not be factual even if they do say it's concluded.

if ASADA can't issue bans to any individual player due to poor record keeping over who got what, it doesn't exactly say they're drug free.

 

[Cronos]

I guess if Monfries was on the gear all of his score involvements must be removed from Port matches therefore you must miss the finals. I would also demand Hinkley to step down for puting the game into disrepute for playing a player who outright cheated. #standbyhinkly

You don't get this whole system, do you.

The AFL commission can give penalties like point deductions under clause 22 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code. I'm going to assume you haven't read the Code, so here you go, I'll post the relevant clause for you:

22. Consequences to Teams

Where more than one Player from a Club has been notified of a possible Anti Doping Rule Violation in any one season, the Club shall be subject to Target Testing for the remainder of the season. If more than one Player in a Club is found to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation during a season, the Club may be subject to sanctions to be determined, in their absolute discretion, by the Commission.

So no, Port Adelaide will not be penalised by your club's mismanagement, however the individual involved will be sanctioned should he be involved.

See, here's the difference between the Essendon deniers, and us so called "foamers". I know, and understand the rules our clubs are bound by, and I am prepared to suffer the appropriate consequences for the Players.

 

[Randomizor]

I guess if Monfries was on the gear all of his score involvements must be removed from Port matches therefore you must miss the finals. I would also demand Hinkley to step down for puting the game into disrepute for playing a player who outright cheated. #standbyhinkly

That makes little sense. Think they are going to remove the score involvements from Saad (for example)? No, they'll just ban him.

 

[Randomizor]

to be fair, it might not be factual even if they do say it's concluded.

if ASADA can't issue bans to any individual player due to poor record keeping over who got what, it doesn't exactly say they're drug free.

True, but we'll have no proof to claim otherwise.

I still find it highly unlikely that WADA would allow poor record keeping to be a valid excuse. I'd find it more likely they'd sanction the whole team instead.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

True, but we'll have no proof to claim otherwise.

I still find it highly unlikely that WADA would allow poor record keeping to be a valid excuse. I'd find it more likely they'd sanction the whole team instead.

i suspect you're right, but that of course depends on how strong the circumstantial evidence ASADA has is, and what level of proof they need to issue infractions.

 

[Cronos]

i suspect you're right, but that of course depends on how strong the circumstantial evidence ASADA has is, and what level of proof they need to issue infractions.

Another thing the Code clearly states:

15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof
...This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or other Person alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.5 where the Player must satisfy a higher burden of proof.

14.3 and 14.5 deal with elimination or reduction of Period of Ineligibility and Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility respectively.

 

[Underdog]

If they have the consent forms, that should be enough. You don't need to have taken the drugs, just showing intent is enough.

 

[Randomizor]

Another thing the Code clearly states:

14.3 and 14.5 deal with elimination or reduction of Period of Ineligibility and Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility respectively.

So if they were to presume that a player has committed an offence because they were injected and prohibited substances were know to have been on the premises (and consent forms were signed), the player would have to show that this presumption is not probable?

 

[Broken_Chairs]

Another thing the Code clearly states:

14.3 and 14.5 deal with elimination or reduction of Period of Ineligibility and Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility respectively.

yep, though again it depends on whether what ASADA has actually meets that standard.

i guess we'll see when they cross all their i's and dot all their t's and get that final report out.