No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[cymarak]

i dont disagree. as ive said already, im surprised by the reports ASADA is willing to consider a plea with no admission of guilt

How can you have a plea with no admission of guilt ?

Surely a plea is stating that you believe you've violated a doping rule, otherwise what are you pleading to having done ?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

What if the players take a deal but they want the board and / or the football department to stay ?

They don't have the ultimate say in that. No matter what, the members ultimately elect the board. Re management, the board make the decision they want.

If the players don't like it, they'll leave.

 

[DonsRule]

What if the players take a deal but they want the board and / or the football department to stay ?

Becomes very hard to call that either way. I'd probably prefer to move them on, But, players views would hold a fair bit of weight there too.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

How can you have a plea with no admission of guilt ?

Surely a plea is stating that you believe you've violated a doping rule, otherwise what are you pleading to having done ?

No idea how it would be done (im no lawyer, just repeating what was reported). My only guess would be that they can plea "no contest"

 

[Bunk Moreland]

How can you have a plea with no admission of guilt ?

Surely a plea is stating that you believe you've violated a doping rule, otherwise what are you pleading to having done ?

Concede it possible you committed a violation. You agree to serve a penalty in return for the investigation ceasing.

 

[jmoo wan]

i dont disagree. as ive said already, im surprised by the reports ASADA is willing to consider a plea with no admission of guilt

More talking about your assertion that the players wont be labelled as drug cheats if they take the deal, yet then subsequently calling on the board to resign because players are banned for PED use.

It's probably been done to death on this board, but at this point there can be no deal, it is all in. They admit to, or our found guilty of using PEDs and are appropriately punished by both the AFL tribunal and the court of public opinion, or they are found not guilty and the long road of forgiveness begins.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

1. The players can train, just not at the club. I think you'll find we'll train just fine.

Not sure about this. Why wouldn't clubs do that all the time then?

2. I agree, it's a very difficult decision for the players to make. The club is at fault here and if they can't still to this day say with 100% conviction that they know what the players took then that doesn't help our case.

Agreed.

3. Sponsors come and go, we are still a big brand, a tarnished one yes, but big enough that corporates will pay money to be attached to it.

But a loss in income is a loss in income. If we lose sponsors or they aren't willing to pay as much, we still lose.

4. Fans are fickle, if we keep playing the way we have been and continue moving forward the majority will stick around as once this is finished the media will run out of steam and then it's all about football again.

A lot of new fans would have backed the club in support of this saga. I suspect many would be disillusioned if we caved and they felt it was for nothing. But that is just opinion.

5. A great deal is not being branded a drug cheat, a good deal is not getting 2 years for something that may have actually occurred.

The players believe it did not occur. So any deal involving any suspension is a bad deal.

As I said earlier, this is 100% decision the players make and the players alone. The club doesn't try to sway them one way or another. If at the end they choose to take a deal then we back them in on it. The board goes and football department replaced.

We back them. The board and footy dept not sure what will happen as it would be a mess.

 

[scottmclaren]

1. The players can train, just not at the club. I think you'll find we'll train just fine.
2. I agree, it's a very difficult decision for the players to make. The club is at fault here and if they can't still to this day say with 100% conviction that they know what the players took then that doesn't help our case.
3. Sponsors come and go, we are still a big brand, a tarnished one yes, but big enough that corporates will pay money to be attached to it.
4. Fans are fickle, if we keep playing the way we have been and continue moving forward the majority will stick around as once this is finished the media will run out of steam and then it's all about football again.
5. A great deal is not being branded a drug cheat, a good deal is not getting 2 years for something that may have actually occurred.

As I said earlier, this is 100% decision the players make and the players alone. The club doesn't try to sway them one way or another. If at the end they choose to take a deal then we back them in on it. The board goes and football department replaced.

So apparently players can train as a group and could commission there own coaches. What happens if this is funded by a donation? It could not be included in the football department spending tax figures because the club is not allowed to pay the players or for this???

Farcical!

 

[letstayunited]

The very unfortunate reality is, if you assume an appeal wouldn't succeed and that the players would find it difficult to get 100% cleared, then it becomes a question of what is the smallest evil- what is the most palatable but still bitter pill for the players to swallow.

There is an enormous stigma associated with taking a deal, in that, even if the official wording doesn't say it, they are more or less conceding in the eyes of many to cheating. And if they genuinely believe they didn't, well, that's not a nice prospect.

But, I'd say the prospect of a two year suspension is worse.

So it comes to back to, essentially, how likely are the players to get 100% cleared? If it's likely, why appeal? Bring on the SCNs and beat them.

Agreed re the stigma if they do take a deal, regardless of the wording.

There would have to be less stigma attached to the players if they beat the SCNs, but having said that the football public are so irrational you couldn't be sure of that.

With regard to beating the SCNs, one thing that hasn't been discussed much is the standard of proof, which ultimately could be the most crucial factor in this whole drawn out saga. The wording for the standard of proof is "somewhere between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt".

I love it how they managed to use the words "somewhere between"

 

[Pevers-Legend]

To those wanting the board and coaches gone, what do you expect to gain from this?

 

[carnthedons]

i dont disagree. as ive said already, im surprised by the reports ASADA is willing to consider a plea with no admission of guilt

This to me means ASADA need a result to be seen to be doing something and if I were a player, it would make me question how strong the ASADA hand is. This mob get their jollies from banning VFL footballers for importing things and AFL footballers for drinking energy drinks.

 

[DapperDon]

What if the players take a deal but they want the board and / or the football department to stay ?

It's a tough one, but ultimately the football department put the players in this position and should stand down. While I respect the players position on this the members also have a strong say in these matters also. If players, by choice or not, get an infraction then the place needs to be swept clean.

 

[cymarak]

Agreed re the stigma if they do take a deal, regardless of the wording.

There would have to be less stigma attached to the players if they beat the SCNs, but having said that the football public are so irrational you couldn't be sure of that.

With regard to beating the SCNs, one thing that hasn't been discussed much is the standard of proof, which ultimately could be the most crucial factor in this whole drawn out saga. The wording for the standard of proof is "somewhere between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt".

I love it how they managed to use the words "somewhere between"

It's a tough thing to define - how do you even measure probabilities ? Even if 'comfortable satisfaction' were defined as a threshold of, say, 75% probability, how would you measure the probability of doping ?

The main thing is that ASADA don't just have to prove that doping may have occurred, that have to prove - on a player-by-player basis - that it more likely did occur than it didn't. So they can't just say 'we have some evidence' - they need to show that their evidence is significantly more compelling than the counter-argument.

 

[letstayunited]

Is it definitely the case that the players can't be paid whilst suspended if they were to take a deal?

Presumably its another problem with the WADA code if that's the case.

But I wonder if the flakey code covers a scenario where the players take legal action against the club and asks for financial compensation.

IF they were compensated financially by the club this would in effect be paying the players anyway.

I guess it just reinforces that the code was written for Olympic athletes as opposed to team sports.

With Olympic athletes there is less chance that they have been "duped" by their employer.

Having said that, I still strongly believe we are innocent and should continue to fight.

As others have pointed out, ASADA don't have any reason to offer sweet heart deals if they have anything even resembling decent evidence.

If they had strong evidence they would refuse to offer deals and nail us to the wall.

 

[scottmclaren]

It's a tough one, but ultimately the football department put the players in this position and should stand down. While I respect the players position on this the members also have a strong say in these matters also. If players, by choice or not, get an infraction then the place needs to be swept clean.

honestly if the players want to take and deal and also want the coaches and staff to remain (or demand this) then why wouldn't they remain. The media agenda is ostensibly about the players, as long as the players push the same agenda...

 

[cymarak]

It's a tough one, but ultimately the football department put the players in this position and should stand down. While I respect the players position on this the members also have a strong say in these matters also. If players, by choice or not, get an infraction then the place needs to be swept clean.

So if the players take a deal, you would vote for the board to go, regardless of whether the players want that or not ?

 

[rines]

Or we could try and work out what changed between August last year when ASADA told the AFL that the players would be 'in the clear' ... and now.. exactly who said what that would indicate doping actually occurred...

We know Dank didn't 'fess up'.. we know the players didn't say they did.. we can be pretty confident on one at the club suddenly decided to tell ASADA.. "we did it"...

So from the rumours we have.. the only 'new' evidence ASADA has aquired is a Chemist stating that there may have been TB4 floating around and with Dank at some stage.. and Charters saying he imported TB4.. even though Charters was, at NO TIME, involved in the EFC program...

I'm failing to see how they put TB4 at EFC, let alone in anyones arm..

Time to attack the process and clear the players. As BTG said, the first step will be clearing the 20 players that aren't actually involved.. and get it down to the 10-14 that actually admitted to anything even close to 'Thymosin' being injected. Then those 10-14 players can make a decision regarding their options.

If ASADA hurry up.. this could be done and dusted by December anyway.. hearings and all. Especially if only 10-14 get send to ADRVP..

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

If the players took a deal i reckon they still have Hird as coach.

 

[DapperDon]

honestly if the players want to take and deal and also want the coaches and staff to remain (or demand this) then why wouldn't they remain. The media agenda is ostensibly about the players, as long as the players push the same agenda...

They could very likely stay, that doesn't mean they should.

 

[DapperDon]

So if the players take a deal, you would vote for the board to go, regardless of whether the players want that or not ?

Yes I would.

In the end players were suspended and that is just unacceptable.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

More talking about your assertion that the players wont be labelled as drug cheats if they take the deal, yet then subsequently calling on the board to resign because players are banned for PED use.

It's probably been done to death on this board, but at this point there can be no deal, it is all in. They admit to, or our found guilty of using PEDs and are appropriately punished by both the AFL tribunal and the court of public opinion, or they are found not guilty and the long road of forgiveness begins.

The best way I can describe this is to use the comparison to a real world commercial situation.

If a company cops a recall for selling an unsafe item, there are often three levels of how its found to have occurred.

- one is the shit happens scenario, and you get this a lot in the food industry. Even with quality controls and testing programs, its always possible for a pathogen to fall through the cracks. This gets recalled and investigated, but sanctions are usually minimal if appropriate controls and processes were in place.

- one is the negligent failure, and a good example of this are recalls in the toy industry. Often they rely on third parties too much to ensure the integrity of their supply chain, and when recalls occur the ACCC will fine them for failing to have the proper processes to protect the integrity of their product in place. The consequences of this tend to depend upon the extent of the problem. One line, it often goes through to the keeper. A core product range, it can destroy the company

- finally you have intentional breaches, the best example being Snow Brand in Japan who repasteurized and resold expired drinking milk. In these situations company management is usually turfed, and often faces criminal charges

For EFC, I think the fault lies in the second one (assuming of guilty verdict of course). The issue is if guilty, this isn't a minor breach, it effects 34 players, and will effect the ability of the team to field a competitive side.

FWIW, on a personal level I was in favour of the board being booted out on the Ziggy report, but I tend to be a hard arse on the whole compliance issue (and I also appreciate that I'm in the cheap seats, and talking about a club thats not my own).

 

[letstayunited]

It's a tough thing to define - how do you even measure probabilities ? Even if 'comfortable satisfaction' were defined as a threshold of, say, 75% probability, how would you measure the probability of doping ?

The main thing is that ASADA don't just have to prove that doping may have occurred, that have to prove - on a player-by-player basis - that it more likely did occur than it didn't. So they can't just say 'we have some evidence' - they need to show that their evidence is significantly more compelling than the counter-argument.

Very true, its certainly far from an exact science applying any standard of proof. No one can really define "beyond reasonable doubt" but I would still much prefer that were the standard of proof.

I have very little doubt that the players will beat the SCNs.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Yes I would.

In the end players were suspended and that is just unacceptable.

If they end up only end missing 3 or 4 games it will be ok but if players cop 2 years then that's a different story.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Of course we don't know for certain. Is it likely insurance is going to wholly cover the cost of a QC, though? They charge rather steeply.

I don't know. I'm not the one throwing ridiculous definitive statements around then being patronising and dismissive of contradiction.

 

[scottmclaren]

Yes I would.

In the end players were suspended and that is just unacceptable.

This is just chasing dogma without concern for the players or EFC as a club, its culture and members. Everyone be damned, who cares what is best, we are chasing some ideal, specified by someone, somewhere, and this is right and nobel!