ASADA defied as banned dog at work. 2/3: Prismall no longer working for Dogs

[DapperDon]

Jake to start his 2 years from SCRATCH.

Only thing that CAN happen.

Rules are rules, they MUST be abided BY!!


Here's an article about a singing cat to back me up.
http://www.lovemeow.com/luna-the-ca...n-who-saved-her-from-the-stre-1608494299.html

 

[Armchair Critic]

Really, does anybody? I don't use illicit substances but nobody goes around and tests me for them. Why should the football players? While it is an illegal activity, I don't think that they should be singled out for testing. Let the cops deal with it like they do with the rest of the community.

How is it being singled out though. All other players on AFL contracts can be randomly tested for illicit substances can't they

 

[Ancient Tiger]

"St Kilda recruit Jake Carlisle is not permitted to train at his new club or under its guidance, but Saints chief executive Matt Finnis seemed not to be aware of this yesterday.

“We are still dealing with the AFL, but Jake will definitely have a program that will have him ready for pre-season ‘17,” he said on Twitter. "

Send the Saints to oblivion

Maybe he is talking about the last quarter of his suspension when they are allowed to train?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

How is it being singled out though. All other players on AFL contracts can be randomly tested for illicit substances can't they

I was talking about all AFL players not just the banned ones.

 

[Jimthegreat]

They aren't allowed to even be in the same training facilities or even club rooms.

Stay at home welfare manager?

WADA rules prevent you from playing, coaching or any other on-field support role. The grey area is that is he doesn't play for the Bulldogs, and playing is what he is suspended from. He plays for some local club. He's not allowed on the facilities of a local club he plays for but how does that work for another club he is employed by in a general day job? Suspended players can work for sporting organisations in administrative roles, just not in any playing coaching or other on field sports staff capacity. The grey area is where the job of Welfare Officer fall. Same question with the retired Essendon players, as they are not associated with Essendon are they allowed on the facilities of Essendon but not of the local club they are coaching?

 

[jenny61_99]

WADA rules prevent you from playing, coaching or any other on-field support role. The grey area is that is he doesn't play for the Bulldogs, and playing is what he is suspended from. He plays for some local club. He's not allowed on the facilities of a local club he plays for but how does that work for another club he is employed by in a general day job? Suspended players can work for sporting organisations in administrative roles, just not in any playing coaching or other on field sports staff capacity. The grey area is where the job of Welfare Officer fall. Same question with the retired Essendon players, as they are not associated with Essendon are they allowed on the facilities of Essendon but not of the local club they are coaching?

10.12.3. The term “activity” also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organization described in this Article. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognized by other sports (see Article 15.1, Mutual Recognition).]

 

[sameolds33]

To me this is the clearest sign so far that the bodies closest to this matter - the AFL and the Club concerned - do not think that the CAS penalty was fair. I expect that the clubs will be a little less bullish with players who want to play next year but think it is worth pushing it with a retired player. I doubt that WADA will push it either - they got the result they wanted at CAS. I don't think they'd even care if the result is overturned subsequently now that they've got their political mileage out of it.

 

[Cronos]

WADA rules prevent you from playing, coaching or any other on-field support role. The grey area is that is he doesn't play for the Bulldogs, and playing is what he is suspended from. He plays for some local club. He's not allowed on the facilities of a local club he plays for but how does that work for another club he is employed by in a general day job? Suspended players can work for sporting organisations in administrative roles, just not in any playing coaching or other on field sports staff capacity. The grey area is where the job of Welfare Officer fall. Same question with the retired Essendon players, as they are not associated with Essendon are they allowed on the facilities of Essendon but not of the local club they are coaching?

Can't do admin roles either. In the notes under Clause 22:
40 For example, subject to clause 22.2, an Ineligible Player cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice. The term ’activity’ also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organisation described in this clause. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognised by other sports.

 

[compact72]

I loved the bit where Fox openly boasted that they'd broken into St Bernards (which is private property) to film them and had then been evicted by security guards.

Boasted.

Absolute muppets. Difference from just reporting that they are doing training etc (only need 1 article). No need for pictures. I don't feel sorry for the players that they got banned, but feel for them when you have the media stalking them because they are training. Just leave them alone ffs

 

[Doss]

Absolute muppets. Difference from just reporting that they are doing training etc (only need 1 article). No need for pictures. I don't feel sorry for the players that they got banned, but feel for them when you have the media stalking them because they are training. Just leave them alone ffs

What next?

'Exclusive audio of banned player farting at breakfast'.

Anyway, I suspect the reporting of every minuscule thing they do will die down eventually but for the time being, that sort of thing is getting pretty tedious.

 

[jenny61_99]

To me this is the clearest sign so far that the bodies closest to this matter - the AFL and the Club concerned - do not think that the CAS penalty was fair. I expect that the clubs will be a little less bullish with players who want to play next year but think it is worth pushing it with a retired player. I doubt that WADA will push it either - they got the result they wanted at CAS. I don't think they'd even care if the result is overturned subsequently now that they've got their political mileage out of it.

Of course they don't think it's "fair".

Being fair, and being correct are two very different things. AFL and Essendon would have been much happier if CAS had said, "players are guilty, but we'll back date the penalty so they don't actually lose any games". In fact, that's what they were expecting. But wouldn't you know, players not telling the whole truth to ASADA testers, and signing consent forms (without doing any research), saw them not get the expected reduction in penalty. The penalties are there for a reason. Applies to ALL athletes found guilty of breaching the anti-doping code. End of story. People just need to accept the consequences of their actions.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Of course they don't think it's "fair".

Being fair, and being correct are two very different things. AFL and Essendon would have been much happier if CAS had said, "players are guilty, but we'll back date the penalty so they don't actually lose any games". In fact, that's what they were expecting. But wouldn't you know, players not telling the whole truth to ASADA testers, and signing consent forms (without doing any research), saw them not get the expected reduction in penalty. The penalties are there for a reason. Applies to ALL athletes found guilty of breaching the anti-doping code. End of story. People just need to accept the consequences of their actions.

But, but, but it's always someone else's fault!



Isn't it?

 

[Jimthegreat]

Can't do admin roles either. In the notes under Clause 22:
40 For example, subject to clause 22.2, an Ineligible Player cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice. The term ’activity’ also includes, for example, administrative activities, such as serving as an official, director, officer, employee, or volunteer of the organisation described in this clause. Ineligibility imposed in one sport shall also be recognised by other sports.

Must admit, haven't fully investigated the rules, more took it from a news article the day after the verdict came down, which did say at the time that suspended players could be employed by sports organisations in non-hands on roles. Rule does read different. In that case he shouldn't be working for the Dogs.

 

[sameolds33]

Of course they don't think it's "fair".

Being fair, and being correct are two very different things. AFL and Essendon would have been much happier if CAS had said, "players are guilty, but we'll back date the penalty so they don't actually lose any games". In fact, that's what they were expecting. But wouldn't you know, players not telling the whole truth to ASADA testers, and signing consent forms (without doing any research), saw them not get the expected reduction in penalty. The penalties are there for a reason. Applies to ALL athletes found guilty of breaching the anti-doping code. End of story. People just need to accept the consequences of their actions.

They don't seem to think it's correct either, given that they're prepared to push it with Prismall.

 

[sameolds33]

But, but, but it's always someone else's fault!



Isn't it?

you're just upset because the people who have a much better idea of what actually happened over the last 4 years don't appear to be as convinced that the CAS decision was correct - to use Jenny's word.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

They don't seem to think it's correct either, given that they're prepared to push it with Prismall.

Don't you worry, they know the decision of guilt was correct. They just did not think the penalty was correct for their own business. And that is what the AFL is, a business. When a third party takes some of your income away form your business you are never going to be happy with the decision. TBH they don't give a stuff about the players. They are only interested in money. Money that is generated from having a competitive Essendon and the ratings and bums on seats that leads to that money.

 

[jenny61_99]

you're just upset because the people who have a much better idea of what actually happened over the last 4 years don't appear to be as convinced that the CAS decision was correct - to use Jenny's word.

These are the same people that insist two things. A) the players took nothing harmful or illegal. B) they don't know what the players got.

 

[Ron The Bear]

To me this is the clearest sign so far that the bodies closest to this matter - the AFL and the Club concerned - do not think that the CAS penalty was fair. I expect that the clubs will be a little less bullish with players who want to play next year but think it is worth pushing it with a retired player. I doubt that WADA will push it either - they got the result they wanted at CAS. I don't think they'd even care if the result is overturned subsequently now that they've got their political mileage out of it.

This is the AFL we're talking about. The mob who cut a deal for Hird to serve a suspension with pay and then denied knowledge of the deal to the public. They lie for fun.

 

[Jimthegreat]

you're just upset because the people who have a much better idea of what actually happened over the last 4 years don't appear to be as convinced that the CAS decision was correct - to use Jenny's word.

The one's that have the best idea are the CAS judges, who heard the evidence and found Essendon guilty of drug cheating. Essendon cheated and got caught. Accept it!

 

[Ancient Tiger]

you're just upset because the people who have a much better idea of what actually happened over the last 4 years don't appear to be as convinced that the CAS decision was correct - to use Jenny's word.

You are deluded if you think this affects my happiness or mood in anyway. If you read a previous post of mine, I said I couldn't give a stuff about any of this.
You are the one that keeps on talking about moods and wants of people that post here. I'd take a look in the mirror first because you are the one that seems upset about the "poor players". In the end, I just think they got what they deserved for their incompetence and misplaced trust. They are still getting paid for the year. They are not out on the streets homeless. If anything they will become richer than they could have imagined after they sue the EFC for their part in this disaster.

 

[Oscarman]

You want to read about 6-8 blokes running on an oval?

I want to know if they are wearing hats. Particularly Andrew Walker style.

 

[sameolds33]

Must admit, haven't fully investigated the rules, more took it from a news article the day after the verdict came down, which did say at the time that suspended players could be employed by sports organisations in non-hands on roles. Rule does read different.

Don't you worry, they know the decision of guilt was correct. They just did not think the penalty was correct for their own business. And that is what the AFL is, a business. When a third party takes some of your income away form your business you are never going to be happy with the decision. TBH they don't give a stuff about the players. They are only interested in money. Money that is generated from having a competitive Essendon and the ratings and bums on seats that leads to that money.

The AFL have a contractual obligation to look after the players - the same contract that got the players into this process in the first place.

 

[DapperDon]

I want to know if they are wearing hats. Particularly Andrew Walker style.

Only non club sanctioned hats. Otherwise ban resets.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The AFL have a contractual obligation to look after the players - the same contract that got the players into this process in the first place.

I do recall that the AFL told Hird point blank to stay away from peptides in August 2011. Now Hird is not a little child that needs his hand held everyday. They told him in no uncertain terms. As an adult, they would have expected him to heed their advice. Alas, he ignored them, hired the peptide king in Dank and surprise, surprise we are where we are. While the AFL may have done more to prevent this situation, Hird and the EFC completely ignored the advice of the AFL and headed for their own course of destruction.
So the AFL are contractually obligated to look after the players while they are playing by the rules. Once they break the rules, less so. The players also need to take responsibility for not abiding by the education they continually get from ASADA.

 

[sameolds33]

You are deluded if you think this affects my happiness or mood in anyway. If you read a previous post of mine, I said I couldn't give a stuff about any of this.
You are the one that keeps on talking about moods and wants of people that post here. I'd take a look in the mirror first because you are the one that seems upset about the "poor players". In the end, I just think they got what they deserved for their incompetence and misplaced trust. They are still getting paid for the year. They are not out on the streets homeless. If anything they will become richer than they could have imagined after they sue the EFC for their part in this disaster.

I am upset for the players. They've been put out of work for a year in a career that lasts 10 years if you are lucky, after enduring three years of vitriolic bile from the AFL community, and, in the 4th year of this saga, now have to pursue a claim in a Swiss court in German to try and clear their names. CAS is not a court, it's a private arbitral body not bound by the rules of evidence and none of us know how that decision was reached. In the absence of a transparent process, I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the men whose lives have been rocked by this event. And if it was your team, your mate, your son, your family member you would too.