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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also the arbitrary manner in which they decide banned vs not banned is just insane.. they don't seem to ever look at each compound or what they substance does.. just drawing imaginary lines and then pick and choose how they police it..

The whole system is farked. And you still get the same nations producing teams of 'very large' athletes.. each and every year..
 
rines said:
Also the arbitrary manner in which they decide banned vs not banned is just insane.. they don't seem to ever look at each compound or what they substance does.. just drawing imaginary lines and then pick and choose how they police it..

The whole system is farked. And you still get the same nations producing teams of 'very large' athletes.. each and every year..
Click to expand...

It's pretty amazing how fit the Spanish football team is, isn't it?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...on-scandal-says-tony-shaw-20140615-zs8nf.html


i dont know if this has been brought up yet but if it wasn't for bomber we would probably be bottom 4 and be a more farcical club than we already are now. so before you start sniping Essendon you giant prick and chuck a tantrum with your son heath because your pizza has been delayed by 10 minutes open your eyes, at least bomber is doing something constructive to help the club get back to were it should be, all you do is hide behind a mike and take pot shots at people including your own club.
 
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2014/06/16/essendon-and-hird-v-asada/

The question of the joint investigation’s consistency with existing Australian legislation that governs the powers and activities of ASADA is the key issue for consideration in the case filed by Essendon and James Hird in the Federal Court last Friday.

Put simply anti doping and sporting organisations cannot do ‘whatever it takes’ to secure an anti doping conviction – they like all other organisations and persons are bound to act within the law.
 
Bargain pleas such as this minimum penalty currently on offer to our players are usually only offered when those attempting to prosecute are not confident they can make a larger charge stick. It looks like a desperate move by ASADA, and it's rather pathetic, and certainly condescending, the way Ben McDevitt is trying to coerce the players to accept it. "Come on little fella he's a nice lolly for you. You'd be silly not to take it."
 
Let me play devil's advocate, as the underlying theme throughout this entire saga is 'drugs are bad', when the reality is a lot less black-and-white than that.

IMO, the only stuff that should be banned in a professional team sport environment is substances / treatments that are unsafe for the athlete, as competitive pressures might otherwise lead athletes to take substances / treatments that are detrimental to their long-term health. (The counter-argument to that is to say that some athletes train harder / play harder than is good for them for the sake of an edge - should we try to prevent this too ? Should players who repeatedly back back into packs or charge in and put their head down over the football be suspended from time to time to teach them to take better care of themselves ?)

If something isn't unsafe for the athlete, then why do we ban it ? I expect the response would be that "the goal is to create a level playing field as poor teams / athletes couldn't always afford the really good stuff".

That's fine, but if you support that, to be consistent in a professional team sport environment like the AFL, you have to apply the same principle across the board - you have to support the salary cap on player salaries, you have to support a hard cap on coach salaries, you have to support a hard cap on football department expenditure, etc. You also have to support equalising everything else as much as possible - stadium deals, sponsorship agreements, TV exposure, match scheduling, etc. Basically an extreme socialist model in football, so that there is no way for any team to gain any advantage via having / spending more money.

Another argument would be "we want football games to be decided by who the best team is, not who is on the best drugs". This is fine, but to be consistent, you also have to support removing other non-football means of improving players from the AFL - you can't have nutritionists involved (we don't want games decided by who has the best dietary advice), you can't have sports psychologists involved (we don't want games decided by who has the best couch), you can't have sports medicos involved (we don't want games decided by who has the best doctor), you can't have trainers involved (we don't want games decided by who can work out best in the gym), etc.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2014/06/16/essendon-and-hird-v-asada/

The question of the joint investigation’s consistency with existing Australian legislation that governs the powers and activities of ASADA is the key issue for consideration in the case filed by Essendon and James Hird in the Federal Court last Friday.

Put simply anti doping and sporting organisations cannot do ‘whatever it takes’ to secure an anti doping conviction – they like all other organisations and persons are bound to act within the law.
Click to expand...
Lots of good info.. but the bit that stands out:

By virtue of Australian law NAD Scheme Personal Information is confidential information and its unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence that carries a penalty of two years imprisonment. Australian law requires that anti doping information or opinion, whether true or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from that information or opinion, is legally confidential information.

So legally speaking.. if the CHIEF of ASADA is found, on recorded tape, to have gone on mainstream media and given the following statement "In my OPINION, there are possible doping violations and that is why we have issued show cause notices".. then he is screwed twice. Once for the joint investigation and once for speaking like a moron on private matters.
 
rines said:
Lots of good info.. but the bit that stands out:

By virtue of Australian law NAD Scheme Personal Information is confidential information and its unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence that carries a penalty of two years imprisonment. Australian law requires that anti doping information or opinion, whether true or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from that information or opinion, is legally confidential information.

So legally speaking.. if the CHIEF of ASADA is found, on recorded tape, to have gone on mainstream media and given the following statement "In my OPINION, there are possible doping violations and that is why we have issued show cause notices".. then he is screwed twice. Once for the joint investigation and once for speaking like a moron on private matters.
Click to expand...

How did those names get in the media? Oh that's right, ASADA doesn't leak.
 
from a privacy point of view, not sure how they can win. I mean the interim report absolutely sinks them, plus everything else.

My question is what happens should be win the case - ie what evidence are they relying on that they can just 'get' again without the clubs co operation?

Or can we take this further and claim the whole thing must be thrown out, as there is no way we can get a fair trial anymore due to ASADA's actions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rines said:
Lots of good info.. but the bit that stands out:

By virtue of Australian law NAD Scheme Personal Information is confidential information and its unauthorised disclosure is a criminal offence that carries a penalty of two years imprisonment. Australian law requires that anti doping information or opinion, whether true or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from that information or opinion, is legally confidential information.

So legally speaking.. if the CHIEF of ASADA is found, on recorded tape, to have gone on mainstream media and given the following statement "In my OPINION, there are possible doping violations and that is why we have issued show cause notices".. then he is screwed twice. Once for the joint investigation and once for speaking like a moron on private matters.
Click to expand...

:thumbsu:

How many more mistakes are these hillbillys going to make before this is through?

Describing them as amateurs would be darn right flattery.
 
Pweter said:
How did those names get in the media? Oh that's right, ASADA doesn't leak.
Click to expand...
What is really crazy about McDipshit's media roadshow.. is that it isn't a 'leak'.. it is the DELIBERATE release of information, legally protected confidential information, that can be EASILY linked back to individuals..

I mean technically he should be arrested right now and charged.. it will be interesting to see if the Judge orders consequences because what he has done in the media this week is illegal under ANY definition...
 
Presumably nothing much of any substance is going to happen this week, other than the occasional media spot for McDevitt and / or Little.

And then next week, once the show cause notice window lapses, then we may get some more movement ?
 
cymarak said:
Presumably nothing much of any substance is going to happen this week, other than the occasional media spot for McDevitt and / or Little.

And then next week, once the show cause notice window lapses, then we may get some more movement ?
Click to expand...
I dunno, how many days did it take after the show cause was issued on dank for movement on that front?

And to think there are people who believe we should still adhere to the process.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't expect anything to happen until at least the 27th of June.

I also don't think ASADA will try and take this to the ADRVP before the court case.. too much risk associated with that.

So I suspect from a 'process' point of view.. very little will happen for at least a month or two
 
Find it weird that Zaharakis has been issued a show cause notice, he is the one player on the list that we know was never injected with anything. why should he settle for 6 months on the side.
 
Bombs Away said:
Find it weird that Zaharakis has been issued a show cause notice, he is the one player on the list that we know was never injected with anything. why should he settle for 6 months on the side.
Click to expand...

Eh? Where does it say Zaka got one?
 
They still have to reply to the show cause don't they?

I expect McNekminnit to say something in the media about them after the 10days...
 
Bombs Away said:
Find it weird that Zaharakis has been issued a show cause notice, he is the one player on the list that we know was never injected with anything. why should he settle for 6 months on the side.
Click to expand...
According to the media he never got one. But what most of the media says isn't usually very well... factual
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Duckworth
Delisted #38: Rhett Montgomerie - Not offered a contract for 2024 - 28/8
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
19K
Zach Package
Zach Package

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top