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

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Slartibartfast said:
No mention of anything to do with being found not guilty of drug use by her sporting body.
Amazing what people see when they want.
Click to expand...

Looking further she did not even contest the sport Doping charges, it never even made it way to CAS.

She said did not do it, asked for B samples to be tested they came back positive and she accepted the ban.
 
Last edited:
Muggs said:
Looking further she did not even contest the Doping charges, it never even made it way to CAS.

She said did not do it, asked for B samples to be tested they came back positive and she accepted the ban.
Click to expand...
Can Australia bring in some backdated laws enabling them to charge dopers in sport.
Wow, that's a government taking the issue seriously.
Greeks did invent democracy!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Slartibartfast said:
That Greek finding was in a criminal court, was she charged by the Greek government in relation to doping once she was convicted by the sporting body? Not sure what the system is in Greece.
Don't think that relates to the finding of her being guilty of drug use by the sporting body.
Click to expand...

Yup, system seems to be you found guilty of doping in sport you get refereed for criminal charges. Intent not needed at sports level is needed at criminal level. Thus article nothing to do with sports ban.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
What a mess. The AFL can't even read its own rules…...o_O
Click to expand...

"Jess's queries to the AFL's Dillon, sent last month, have included whether Lovett-Murray is permitted, while banned, to take his son to AusKick."

Seems like Jess, in his capacity of Wobbler in Chief, has proved my point in the earlier post of BS clarifications
 
Muggs said:
Where does that say she was innocent of doping? That deals with a criminal charge and being found not guilty due to lack of intent needed for the criminal violation under Greek law. So she did not go to jail.

Nothing to do with her two year banned being overturned, which is was not as she tested positive in a strict liablilty code.
Click to expand...

My point is the lengths that athletes have to go to, at great expense and hardship, to prove innocence in a strict liability, zero tolerance scheme. The WADA code is designed to catch drug cheats but last year 4/8 runners in the 100m mens final at the world championships had served bans (some had had sentences reduced by CAS) and were back competing at an elite level. So, clearly deterred...

Richard Ings wrote last week about the cyclist Bobby Dea who had his ban reduced to 6 months by CAS enabling him to compete in Rio.
"CAS reducing ban of US cyclist Bobby Lea from 16m to 6m offers a chance at RIO. Dream team of @athleteslawyer @MSL_Mike Advocacy matters" (25 Feb) as if that was a good thing - athlete pleads guilty, says sorry, gets reduction, competes in said sport. There's little contrition in Lea's own account (http://www.bobbylea.us/blog/) just sheer relief that he still gets to compete in his chosen sport.

The way the scheme works there's no incentive for dopers not to dope - they just need to time their doping and plan accordingly. On the other hand, innocent athletes (and I would include Saad and the Collingwood boys in this too), might test positive - or be penalised on the comfortable satisfaction test, as in our case - and they've got very little room for arguing innocence in the WADA/CAS system. They're collateral damage in the greater aim of getting rid of drugs in sport. Which in my view is not working because it isn't fair.

In all sports but particularly high doping sports such as athletics and cycling, i think you've got to get athletes to respect the system if you want to have them conform and for that to work the scheme has to be fair and transparent. Athletes have to feel they're getting a fair go. The overwhelming impression I get is that the current system isn't working, vis Russia, Ethiopia, because it isn't fair. Zero tolerance programs rarely, if ever, work anywhere.
 
sameolds33 said:
My point is the lengths that athletes have to go to, at great expense and hardship, to prove innocence in a strict liability, zero tolerance scheme. The WADA code is designed to catch drug cheats but last year 4/8 runners in the 100m mens final at the world championships had served bans (some had had sentences reduced by CAS) and were back competing at an elite level. So, clearly deterred...

Richard Ings wrote last week about the cyclist Bobby Dea who had his ban reduced to 6 months by CAS enabling him to compete in Rio.
"CAS reducing ban of US cyclist Bobby Lea from 16m to 6m offers a chance at RIO. Dream team of @athleteslawyer @MSL_Mike Advocacy matters" (25 Feb) as if that was a good thing - athlete pleads guilty, says sorry, gets reduction, competes in said sport. There's little contrition in Lea's own account (http://www.bobbylea.us/blog/) just sheer relief that he still gets to compete in his chosen sport.

The way the scheme works there's no incentive for dopers not to dope - they just need to time their doping and plan accordingly. On the other hand, innocent athletes (and I would include Saad and the Collingwood boys in this too), might test positive - or be penalised on the comfortable satisfaction test, as in our case - and they've got very little room for arguing innocence in the WADA/CAS system. They're collateral damage in the greater aim of getting rid of drugs in sport. Which in my view is not working because it isn't fair.

In all sports but particularly high doping sports such as athletics and cycling, i think you've got to get athletes to respect the system if you want to have them conform and for that to work the scheme has to be fair and transparent. Athletes have to feel they're getting a fair go. The overwhelming impression I get is that the current system isn't working, vis Russia, Ethiopia, because it isn't fair. Zero tolerance programs rarely, if ever, work anywhere.
Click to expand...
There is no incentive for dopers not to dope because sportsmen like the EFC 34 create an arms race.
This is the reason the club should be further punished and no crocodile tears for the 34.
 
sameolds33 said:
My point is the lengths that athletes have to go to, at great expense and hardship, to prove innocence in a strict liability, zero tolerance scheme. The WADA code is designed to catch drug cheats but last year 4/8 runners in the 100m mens final at the world championships had served bans (some had had sentences reduced by CAS) and were back competing at an elite level. So, clearly deterred...

Richard Ings wrote last week about the cyclist Bobby Dea who had his ban reduced to 6 months by CAS enabling him to compete in Rio.
"CAS reducing ban of US cyclist Bobby Lea from 16m to 6m offers a chance at RIO. Dream team of @athleteslawyer @MSL_Mike Advocacy matters" (25 Feb) as if that was a good thing - athlete pleads guilty, says sorry, gets reduction, competes in said sport. There's little contrition in Lea's own account (http://www.bobbylea.us/blog/) just sheer relief that he still gets to compete in his chosen sport.

The way the scheme works there's no incentive for dopers not to dope - they just need to time their doping and plan accordingly. On the other hand, innocent athletes (and I would include Saad and the Collingwood boys in this too), might test positive - or be penalised on the comfortable satisfaction test, as in our case - and they've got very little room for arguing innocence in the WADA/CAS system. They're collateral damage in the greater aim of getting rid of drugs in sport. Which in my view is not working because it isn't fair.

In all sports but particularly high doping sports such as athletics and cycling, i think you've got to get athletes to respect the system if you want to have them conform and for that to work the scheme has to be fair and transparent. Athletes have to feel they're getting a fair go. The overwhelming impression I get is that the current system isn't working, vis Russia, Ethiopia, because it isn't fair. Zero tolerance programs rarely, if ever, work anywhere.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, because we don't barrack for Essendon , therefore we don't care, although we care enough to stop blokes from working, attending wakes and taking their kids to Auskick.

That is what we stand for on the HTB.
 
sameolds33 said:
Well of course we do. How many of us thought about doping at all until we were engulfed in it? And now that we know more about it, it's all a bit more complex than before. Read just the other day about the Greek athlete who, years after she had retired from the sport, finally had her 2 year ban that ended her career overturned. Innocent apparently, who would have thought? Too late to salvage her career but important to her nonetheless. No-one else cared of course.
Click to expand...

The Greek athlete was not found "innocent". Why don't you get the correct facts first?

This is the opinion of a CLEAN athlete:
"Greek athlete, Hrysopiyi Devetzi: she won the Olympic silver medal in Athens, and bronze in Beijing. She has been banned from the sport since 2009, not because she tested positive but because she failed to give a sample (a two-year ban after which she initially retired with the ban reactivated when she attempted to return to the sport to compete at London 2012)."
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/jun/30/london-2012-clean-athletes-drugs
 
Last edited:
For one, accept that the players have been caught and need to be appropriately punished.
Just don't understand why EFC fans try to minimise what the players did.
Understand that the players knowingly did this to themselves and need to take responsibility.
Why media commentary and welfare jobs are being offered up to this lot is a joke.
No respect for the system is what encourages doping.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

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