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

[ManWithNoName]

The current ASADA regime (under WADA) is far from competent. The system needs an overhaul as it has many failings.

If you can explain how a program should be run, who should run it and how it should be funded, I'm all ears.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

A) Don't go full Yaco. Never go full Yaco
B) I could show you the copyright forms, I just don't want to

A) Never do things in half measure.
B) Drawing from CAS logic I would assume that failure to prove you're innocent of copyright fraud suggests you and your family are guilty and should serve two years in jail under the piracy act of some other country.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You say per capita doesn't matter - it absolutely does when you are talking government funding. You've got the most popular sport in country and you're telling me population size is irrelevant - please... AFL can easily afford to pay for an anti doping authority. They've already introduced illicit drug testing above and beyond the WADA code so I see no reason this cannot be extended to include performance enhancing drugs. It's actually a double cost at present - illicit drug testing and ASADA on top. Makes sense to consolidate this together under one banner.

The government's position will be to use the anti-doping agency that we already fund, or do it yourself. Can you seriously imagine an incumbent government trying to get a bill through the houses that will effectively double expenditure on ASADA because the biggest league in the country doesn't wish to work with them anymore? Would be an absolute nightmare to try and achieve that with all the talk of government waste going on at the moment. As a taxpayer I'd certainly be opposed to it. This stuff will be behind essendon in a few years and I have no intentions of living with the legacy.

Illicit drug testing is a criminal matter, PEDs are a matter of ethics. One is handled by the legal system, the other is handled by a quasi-legal body. I don't think we should be putting them together. PEDs don't belong in front of magistrates, criminal matters don't belong in front of ASADA.

If you think the AFL can fund this by themselves, where is the money going to come from? Can all clubs equally afford to fund it? Will there be a fight over who has to pay more? Will ticket prices be affected? TV deals? What's your business case? ASADA costs us about $15 million a year, can the AFL even find $5 million a year and can we afford to set it up?

 

[DonsRule]

Personally I'm still confused about what we're appealing and how we're going about it because there appears to be 101 different versions and angles of appeal that have been reported by the media, which is what I've been relying on to stay in the loop. And really, I've seen everything suggested from length of sentence to integrity of the panel.

Yeah but to have any real chance I believe you have to make a submission during the hearing that their was something up.


You can question the integrity of the panel, but that pretty much has to be made in a submission . One I saw was the CAS chairman is the IAAF head of ethics. And the IAAF is in a little hot water with WADA of late. But you really had to question that during the hearing, if they dismissed it, you can take it to the Swiss courts.

Evidence wise their isn't really much you can question.

My view on those I have talked to, even Essendon sided people the chances of success are virtually zero.

Essentially the only was to get off is the CAS panel stuffed up. And within the international arbitration act which Australian is signed onto, which covers CAS, their is nothing in the verdict that comes into question.

The lawyers will earn their money if they get the players off.

 

[ManWithNoName]

My new favourite phrase in the world is "The WADA Cabal"

 

[efcboy]

Personally I'm still confused about what we're appealing and how we're going about it because there appears to be 101 different versions and angles of appeal that have been reported by the media, which is what I've been relying on to stay in the loop. And really, I've seen everything suggested from length of sentence to integrity of the panel.

How could you be confused now? I've explained the basis of appeal multiple times and given you the link to the players association statement on the basis of appeal. There is only one avenue of appeal and it's as I described it. They are appealing the legality of WADA's appeal. Nothing else. Capisce that is it.

Good grief!

 

[efcboy]

My new favourite phrase in the world is "The WADA Cabal"

Someone did mention a blacklist earlier when talking about prohibited substances...

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

How could you be confused now? I've explained the basis of appeal multiple times and given you the link to the players association statement on the basis of appeal. There is only one avenue of appeal and it's as I described it. They are appealing the legality of WADA's appeal. Nothing else. Capisce that is it.

Good grief!

Please berate me some more then.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

I can hear Doss's foot steps.

 

[efcboy]

If you can explain how a program should be run, who should run it and how it should be funded, I'm all ears.

We could be here a while for all that detail. Sounds like something an AFL CEO should be doing

 

[efcboy]

Please berate me some more then.

I've answered your questions - given you links. I've tried to help you understand.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You need to read the WADA code since 2010. I don't think you've read it. Google it and read it.

Is there something in here that's supposed to say that the right to a fair hearing no longer applies? Because it doesn't and as such, CAS not giving the players a fair hearing is still considered an error of law and as such, still considered a grounds for appeal. Difficult to prove but a grounds nonetheless.

 

[AsIfYouCare]

Unprocessed meat, fruit, and vegetables contain tens of thousands of compounds. Everything you can touch is made of (gasp) chemicals.

Apologies if I'm labouring the point, but the human body contains 50,000 different proteins alone (http://www.innovateus.net/health/how-many-proteins-exist-human-body). And that figure is counted conservatively, considering very many chemically different proteins to be the same (see remarks re haemoglobin). On top of that you've got to add non-protein chemicals.

So, if you're whitelisting detectable substances you're looking at well in excess of 50,000 (probably hundreds of thousands) of compounds. If you're looking to whitelist food chemicals, your list will probably be in the millions, having to include a vast array of non-human chemicals as well.

And of course you're not just whitelisting chemicals. you have to whitelist LEVELs of chemicals, e.g. HGH and caffeine.

Whitelisting just isn't going to work.

 

[yaco55]

The government's position will be to use the anti-doping agency that we already fund, or do it yourself. Can you seriously imagine an incumbent government trying to get a bill through the houses that will effectively double expenditure on ASADA because the biggest league in the country doesn't wish to work with them anymore? Would be an absolute nightmare to try and achieve that with all the talk of government waste going on at the moment. As a taxpayer I'd certainly be opposed to it. This stuff will be behind essendon in a few years and I have no intentions of living with the legacy.

Illicit drug testing is a criminal matter, PEDs are a matter of ethics. One is handled by the legal system, the other is handled by a quasi-legal body. I don't think we should be putting them together. PEDs don't belong in front of magistrates, criminal matters don't belong in front of ASADA.

If you think the AFL can fund this by themselves, where is the money going to come from? Can all clubs equally afford to fund it? Will there be a fight over who has to pay more? Will ticket prices be affected? TV deals? What's your business case? ASADA costs us about $15 million a year, can the AFL even find $5 million a year and can we afford to set it up?

What - There is no extra expense - The AFL already has a list of prohibited substances which go beyond the WADA code -The AFL will still do the the same number of tests which are sent to WADA accredited labaratories - So no extra suspense - The AFL will still have Anti Doping Tribunals etc - All that will change is the AFL will adopt their own list of suspensions for AAF's or similar.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

What - There is no extra expense - The AFL already has a list of prohibited substances which go beyond the WADA code -The AFL will still do the the same number of tests which are sent to WADA accredited labaratories - So no extra suspense - The AFL will still have Anti Doping Tribunals etc - All that will change is the AFL will adopt their own list of suspensions for AAF's or similar.

Economies of scale. ASADA spreads the expense over many customers and offets expenditure through government funding as it is non-profit, the AFL will not be able to do that.

 

[efcboy]

The government's position will be to use the anti-doping agency that we already fund, or do it yourself. Can you seriously imagine an incumbent government trying to get a bill through the houses that will effectively double expenditure on ASADA because the biggest league in the country doesn't wish to work with them anymore? Would be an absolute nightmare to try and achieve that with all the talk of government waste going on at the moment. As a taxpayer I'd certainly be opposed to it. This stuff will be behind essendon in a few years and I have no intentions of living with the legacy.

Illicit drug testing is a criminal matter, PEDs are a matter of ethics. One is handled by the legal system, the other is handled by a quasi-legal body. I don't think we should be putting them together. PEDs don't belong in front of magistrates, criminal matters don't belong in front of ASADA.

If you think the AFL can fund this by themselves, where is the money going to come from? Can all clubs equally afford to fund it? Will there be a fight over who has to pay more? Will ticket prices be affected? TV deals? What's your business case? ASADA costs us about $15 million a year, can the AFL even find $5 million a year and can we afford to set it up?

In general population illicit drugs is a criminal matter however the afl has extended this bringing in their own 3 strike policy as illicit drugs are not covered by ASADA/WADA unless a stimulant is detected on match day. Out of competition testing is being done by afl for illicit drugs. So yes the afl are paying more for this on top of ASADA testing. So why not do both at once? Same agency testing for illicit drugs also tests for PEDs. Players get it over in one test - at present a player could be tested by one agency for illicit drugs and then get another tap from ASADA for PEDs testing. Where is the money going to come from? Well they're already paying for illicit drug testing separate to ASADA. It's just extending this process. And there's no reason the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system given AFL is Australia's biggest and most popular sport. So funds would come from a combination of government and afl funds. The afl could start by not paying poorly performed CEOs such as Demetriou 3+ million bonuses upon exit...I'd dare say the AFL would have saved money if they had run their own system since 2011 with all the legal costs surrounding ASADA/WADA since 2012.

 

[DonsRule]

I can hear Doss's foot steps.

Doss the coward. Not a chance.

 

[yaco55]

A fifth positive test for Melatonium since added to WADA's Prohibited list on 01/01/2016 . You have to worry about how widely and clearly these changes are communicated to athletes. Or is the case of the substance being long acting in the body - So in effect could have been taken three months ago when legal but lingers in the system. Are WADA getting positive tests by stealth.

 

[efcboy]

Economies of scale. ASADA spreads the expense over many customers and offets expenditure through government funding as it is non-profit, the AFL will not be able to do that.

The AFL is arguably the biggest fish ASADA has. Take AFL out ASADA loses funding and is compromised. ASADA need AFL more than AFL need ASADA.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The AFL is arguably the biggest fish ASADA has. Take AFL out ASADA loses funding and is compromised. ASADA need AFL more than AFL need ASADA.

ASADA only bills the AFL for AFL-related expenses so how is this going to work? 75% of ASADA staff are casuals on short term contracts.

 

[DonsRule]

Economies of scale. ASADA spreads the expense over many customers and offets expenditure through government funding as it is non-profit, the AFL will not be able to do that.

I don't think that is the issue.

I think the AFL could easily afford their own anti doping code. The issue is if the govt continue to tie funding for stadiums etc to being signed up to ASADA.

But none of that will happen in time to make any difference to our players....and I don't really trust the AFL in managing their own anti doping code either.

 

[efcboy]

Is there something in here that's supposed to say that the right to a fair hearing no longer applies? Because it doesn't and as such, CAS not giving the players a fair hearing is still considered an error of law and as such, still considered a grounds for appeal. Difficult to prove but a grounds nonetheless.

If you went on HTB with this they'd eat you alive. Personally I don't think they did get a fair hearing but it is incorrect to say this is an error of law. I've argued the players have had their human rights violated as per the United Nations constitution. However the appeal needs to be an error of law. If it were grounds for appeal the players lawyers would have considered it - they've chosen their best and only real option - The change of WADA code as I described earlier. There's only one appeal for players and this is it.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

In general population illicit drugs is a criminal matter however the afl has extended this bringing in their own 3 strike policy as illicit drugs are not covered by ASADA/WADA unless a stimulant is detected on match day. Out of competition testing is being done by afl for illicit drugs. So yes the afl are paying more for this on top of ASADA testing. So why not do both at once? Same agency testing for illicit drugs also tests for PEDs. Players get it over in one test - at present a player could be tested by one agency for illicit drugs and then get another tap from ASADA for PEDs testing. Where is the money going to come from? Well they're already paying for illicit drug testing separate to ASADA. It's just extending this process. And there's no reason the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system given AFL is Australia's biggest and most popular sport. So funds would come from a combination of government and afl funds. The afl could start by not paying poorly performed CEOs such as Demetriou 3+ million bonuses upon exit...I'd dare say the AFL would have saved money if they had run their own system since 2011 with all the legal costs surrounding ASADA/WADA since 2012.

All your saying is that the same samples are going to be tested twice, once for illicit drugs and once for PEDs. This might save on containers and swabs but I can't see it making an enormous difference. Testing processes for different drugs are different, so it can't always be done in one test. In fact rarely can it be done in one test.
There is a huge reason why the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system; they have better things to spend money on like things that boost the economy or improve schooling or health. The simple things in life. Enough said. If the AFL wants to fund it, they will be asked to foot the bill as they should be. The only reason that the government funds ASADA is probably the olympics. AFL, League etc. have to pay their own costs to use ASADA albeit at a discounted rate.

 

[efcboy]

Unprocessed meat, fruit, and vegetables contain tens of thousands of compounds. Everything you can touch is made of (gasp) chemicals.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

If you went on HTB with this they'd eat you alive. Personally I don't think they did get a fair hearing but it is incorrect to say this is an error of law. I've argued the players have had their human rights violated as per the United Nations constitution. However the appeal needs to be an error of law. If it were grounds for appeal the players lawyers would have considered it - they've chosen their best and only real option - The change of WADA code as I described earlier. There's only one appeal for players and this is it.

It was an error of law in 2007. Nothing that affects this has changed in Swiss Law, nor does the CAS nor the Swiss courts nor WADA specifically state that this will not be considered grounds for an error of law. I concur that this is not their best option as it would be extremely difficult to prove, however it is 100% ground for an appeal as a failure of the court to perform with integrity does indeed constitute a legal error that would be grounds for an appeal, as in any legal system in the world.
This does not mean you are able to say "I disagree with the decision so I believe they have committed an error of law", this means they are identifying a procedural or systematic error in the operation of the court. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that this could not be considered an error of law in any legal system in the world, and definitely not this one as there is no mention of any change relating to this since the Canas case.