Appeal ASADA v Dank (AFL) WADA V Players CAS(Nov), WADA v Dank? New evidence players tested TB4

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

thegerman said:
You are right. The process is stuffed, as you put it.

Imagine, the Chinese swim team injecting unknown substances into their swimmers, then go on to win every gold medal in the pool.

Would you be happy with that?
Click to expand...
Yep.

Couldn't give a **** about swimming. :)
 
james hirds fault I guess?
 
not_working said:
First, on evidentiary standards and burden of proof, that is completely dependent on what has been defined before as Lance had argued. Plenty of cases where burden of proof has been inverted by law, for example; in anti doping regulation, you have to document (give notice) of your whereabouts and if you are not where you said you would be, you are automatically assumed to have infringed (after x times). So plenty of precedence already existing of what Lance is suggesting. You can argue whether that is practical to do, but not really that it would go against basic law. And of course Lance is also right in arguing that this should not / cannot apply to EFC case since it is not established yet ...
Click to expand...

the whereabouts system is not an example of inverted burden of proof. If you miss a test you are not assumed guilty of doping and have to prove your innocence, you are charged with a seperate offence of 'having a missed test'. The regulators still face a burden of proving that you did indeed miss a test ... but you are not presumed to be guilty and required to prove your innocence.

The same as a positive test is not presuming you are guilty - it is considered proof that you did indeed consume that drug. You may argue the test was wrong, and therefore it is not adequate proof. You may accept the proof but argue mitigating circumstances of how that drug got into your system (eg contamination) in order to reduce your sanction ... indeed sometimes if you can prove no fault of yours in consuming that substance you can have the sanction reduced to zero. You are still not 'presumed guilty' though.

not_working said:
But I agree with you that the standards of proof shouldn't be weakened from where they are today - comfortable satisfaction seems about right. Problem is that this standard seems to mean different things to different people (lawyers) when applied to specific cases, so I guess only more and more cases being prosecuted will provide a clearer picture on what is what ... (which is not really ideal for athletes)
Click to expand...

Agreed - comfortable satisfaction is pretty good.

And the whole benefit of having the WADA code is that it is the same code, and the same standard applicable across the board to many sports. So there are indeed a wide variety of cases to provide that clear picture on what that standard is. You only have to look at the vast array of CAS cases to find precedent.

(which is where Essendon may run into a little trouble. The AFL tribunal standard is exceptionally high compared to many other cases, so while the evidence may not have changed any, the standard of proof applied may significantly differ with this new panel)
 
LongBomb said:
Which is why CAS will be the judge of this. Proves my point exactly.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Your point was that they're not innocent until the CAS hearing. You were wrong. They are innocent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jedi Anderson said:
But did the tribunal make any ruling on whether the substance in the shipment was part of the program? Nope. Are you a teeny bit curious to know if substance x in the said shipment ended up being used at the Bombers? Serious question btw
Click to expand...

I am REALLY interested in that question. I want to know what was in the needles. But, a trial that doesn't involve Dank will not answer that question. A process that doesn't involve Dank will not answer that question. What I really want to know is why ASADA went to great lengths to get the power to compel interviews and then didn't get the guy who was doing the injecting in to chat.
 
andrewb said:
I am REALLY interested in that question. I want to know what was in the needles. But, a trial that doesn't involve Dank will not answer that question. A process that doesn't involve Dank will not answer that question. What I really want to know is why ASADA went to great lengths to get the power to compel interviews and then didn't get the guy who was doing the injecting in to chat.
Click to expand...
They invited, he declined. And Whilst they can get people to turn up, they couldn't make them talk. Ala the gazelle with his roid ice-cream. He signed a statdec to say he had nothing to give them so it was a moot point. Would have loved them to fine his shiny arse, but I guess if you say you have nothing, and you aren't going to talk, what's the point?
 
KM00 said:
You only have to look at the vast array of CAS cases to find precedent.

(which is where Essendon may run into a little trouble. The AFL tribunal standard is exceptionally high compared to many other cases, so while the evidence may not have changed any, the standard of proof applied may significantly differ with this new panel)
Click to expand...
No mate, they won't run into any trouble because CAS sets the bar pretty high. Have a look at this and ponder how difficult it will be to overturn the AFL Tribunal's findings;
: http://www.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIMO/64.pdf
The best bits:

III. The Other Players
1. Have doping offences been committed by the Other Players?
195. WADA also challenges in the arbitration, the Decision concerning the Other Players, whereby the CFA decided not to start disciplinary proceedings against them. Contrary to the CFA’s decision, WADA requests this Panel to find the Other Players responsible for the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article II.2 of the FIFA DCR, as having used the prohibited substance administered by Mr Eranosian. As a result, the sanction provided by Article 65.1.a of the FIFA DC should apply and the Other Players should be suspended for two years.
196. As mentioned above (§§ 155-156), WADA, being the party asserting that an anti- doping rule violation has occurred, has the burden of establishing the infringement committed by the Other Players. In other words, WADA has to prove that the Other Players used a prohibited substance.
197. The Panel notes that WADA offers, in support of its claim against the Other Players, a line of reasoning based on logic as follows: Mr Eranosian administered some pills to Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros containing a prohibited substance; Mr Eranosian administered the same pills to the Other Players; therefore the Other Players used a prohibited substance. In other words, WADA is basing its allegation on a presumption:
starting from two established facts, it infers a conclusion with regard to a third, uncertain fact.
198. The Panel is not convinced to its “comfortable satisfaction” that such conclusion – failing additional corroborating evidence – can be accepted.
199. The Panel notes, in fact, that there is no evidence that the actual pills individually used by each of the Other Players contained a prohibited substance. Indeed some players took the pills, were subsequently tested and there was no adverse analytical finding.
200. No clear-cut evidence was brought to show that – contrary to a common assumption in the CFA disciplinary proceedings concerning Mr Medeiros, Mr Marques and Mr Eranosian – the pills administered by Mr Eranosian were “plain steroids” and not “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids. WADA itself refers in its submissions (see § 79.i above) to the dangers of “nutritional supplements”; and the concrete possibility that the pills were a contaminated product can be shown by the fact that the players of APOP Kinyras who underwent doping controls did not produce adverse analytical results (except Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros).
201. The supposition that the pills administered by Mr Eranosian were “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids excludes the possibility to follow the mentioned WADA’s line of reasoning, since it is possible that, even though Mr Eranosian administered some pills to Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros containing a prohibited substance and Mr Eranosian administered the same pills to the Other Players, the Other Players did not use a prohibited substance.
202. In light of the above, the Panel holds that there is insufficient evidence that the Other Players used a prohibited substance. The decision not to open disciplinary proceedings against them was correct: the WADA appeal against the Other Players must be dismissed
 
mxett said:
rubbish. They may be to blame for the saga overall, but not every aspect of how it progressed
Click to expand...
Isn't the application of time off due to delay purely at the discretion of WADA? So if they decide they don't want to give time reduction, there's no body that can force WADA to do so.
 
Red_Emperor said:
No mate, they won't run into any trouble because CAS sets the bar pretty high. Have a look at this and ponder how difficult it will be to overturn the AFL Tribunal's findings;
: http://www.centrostudisport.it/PDF/TAS_CAS_ULTIMO/64.pdf
The best bits:

III. The Other Players
1. Have doping offences been committed by the Other Players?
195. WADA also challenges in the arbitration, the Decision concerning the Other Players, whereby the CFA decided not to start disciplinary proceedings against them. Contrary to the CFA’s decision, WADA requests this Panel to find the Other Players responsible for the anti-doping rule violation contemplated by Article II.2 of the FIFA DCR, as having used the prohibited substance administered by Mr Eranosian. As a result, the sanction provided by Article 65.1.a of the FIFA DC should apply and the Other Players should be suspended for two years.
196. As mentioned above (§§ 155-156), WADA, being the party asserting that an anti- doping rule violation has occurred, has the burden of establishing the infringement committed by the Other Players. In other words, WADA has to prove that the Other Players used a prohibited substance.
197. The Panel notes that WADA offers, in support of its claim against the Other Players, a line of reasoning based on logic as follows: Mr Eranosian administered some pills to Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros containing a prohibited substance; Mr Eranosian administered the same pills to the Other Players; therefore the Other Players used a prohibited substance. In other words, WADA is basing its allegation on a presumption:
starting from two established facts, it infers a conclusion with regard to a third, uncertain fact.
198. The Panel is not convinced to its “comfortable satisfaction” that such conclusion – failing additional corroborating evidence – can be accepted.
199. The Panel notes, in fact, that there is no evidence that the actual pills individually used by each of the Other Players contained a prohibited substance. Indeed some players took the pills, were subsequently tested and there was no adverse analytical finding.
200. No clear-cut evidence was brought to show that – contrary to a common assumption in the CFA disciplinary proceedings concerning Mr Medeiros, Mr Marques and Mr Eranosian – the pills administered by Mr Eranosian were “plain steroids” and not “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids. WADA itself refers in its submissions (see § 79.i above) to the dangers of “nutritional supplements”; and the concrete possibility that the pills were a contaminated product can be shown by the fact that the players of APOP Kinyras who underwent doping controls did not produce adverse analytical results (except Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros).
201. The supposition that the pills administered by Mr Eranosian were “caffeine pills” contaminated by steroids excludes the possibility to follow the mentioned WADA’s line of reasoning, since it is possible that, even though Mr Eranosian administered some pills to Mr Marques and Mr Medeiros containing a prohibited substance and Mr Eranosian administered the same pills to the Other Players, the Other Players did not use a prohibited substance.
202. In light of the above, the Panel holds that there is insufficient evidence that the Other Players used a prohibited substance. The decision not to open disciplinary proceedings against them was correct: the WADA appeal against the Other Players must be dismissed
Click to expand...
Hmm, that does sound similar to what the comfortable satisfaction standard (ie close no beyond doubt level) used by afl tribunal.

Implication is that anti doping is dead, use drugs that have no tests as yet and keep no records of it that you can't get prosecuted by WADA. And drug abusers will always be ahead of any tests developed.

Might as well make it open season. HGH anyone?
 
jenny61_99 said:
They invited, he declined. And Whilst they can get people to turn up, they couldn't make them talk. Ala the gazelle with his roid ice-cream. He signed a statdec to say he had nothing to give them so it was a moot point. Would have loved them to fine his shiny arse, but I guess if you say you have nothing, and you aren't going to talk, what's the point?
Click to expand...
They invited, he declined, they sought and were granted additional powers to compel, then they never used them. I don't understand why? Shouldn't he be copping a $5k a day fine?
 
andrewb said:
They invited, he declined, they sought and were granted additional powers to compel, then they never used them. I don't understand why? Shouldn't he be copping a $5k a day fine?
Click to expand...
They asked him once they had their super power. I guess they didn't want to go the whole hog knowing it was a pointless exercise. He signed a stat dec that said he had no documents, and he told them he had nothing to say to them. So you can fine him a shit load of money and still end up with nothing... or just get on with the job at hand.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Appeal ASADA v Dank (AFL) WADA V Players CAS(Nov), WADA v Dank? New evidence players tested TB4

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top