News Dons ASADA scandal (Latest: Pg 101 - CAS verdict. Guilty, 12 months.)

[MarkT2]

Yep thanks understand all that - however as stated in response to your initial post, i don't think WADA are 'appealing' based on 'we have different evidence nor more evidence' but that the evidence presented should have been enough for the tribunal to be comfortable satisfied.

Whether that is right our wrong will be decided by CAS.

I suspect you are right on that. All I have said from the outset is it is a huge uphill battle to ping any specific player and the evidence they have won't be any more convincing second time around. As you say, all yet to be determined.

 

[good4footy]

If you are happy for Essendon to get a week each without whinging, harping about some fictional conspiracy and think the last 18 months of hyperbole were worth the cost and effort, I have no issue at all. Though I know that will not be the case.

I don't care about Essendon. I care about the game. The game will be better off without the stench of a home town decision, which ever way the CAS decision goes.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Yep. Jurisdictional home court (no pun intended) advantage.

Ah yes ...

... If the 34 AFL players lose this case, they will never ever be able to play footy in Switzerland!

 

[76woodenspooners]

Do people really think WADA will achieve a different outcome with same evidence or, more to the point, lack of evidence against any specific player?
ASADA lost an unwinnable case against the players. WADA can have it hear wherever they like it won't change the result in an evidenced base hearing.

There's potentially different burden of proof for starters.

 

[76woodenspooners]

richard young to prosecute for WADA.

he only wins.

google him.

Lawyers "who only win" typically do so because they only accept cases with a high probability of success.

Regardless, it's not looking good for the 34 players.

 

[donkeyballs]

There's potentially different burden of proof for starters.

I think it may be the same 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof as in the previous hearing (I may be wrong). The burden - or onus - is on wada

 

[MyManLynch]

The case has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese.

 

[Bard]

The case has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese.
View attachment 136608

The Swiss Connection?

 

[76woodenspooners]

I think it may be the same 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof as in the previous hearing (I may be wrong). The burden - or onus - is on wada

IIRC didn't WADA specifically request that CAS consider an appropriate burden of proof in their submission to CAS?

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I think it may be the same 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof as in the previous hearing (I may be wrong). The burden - or onus - is on wada

Same standard, but WADA believes the AFL tribunal took an overly tough interpretation of what "comfortably satisfied" meant. They hope CAS may take a more reasonable view of how much evidence you need to be "comfortably satisfied".

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Same standard, but WADA believes the AFL tribunal took an overly tough interpretation of what "comfortably satisfied" meant. They hope CAS may take a more reasonable view of how much evidence you need to be "comfortably satisfied".

Exactly, the AFL Tribunal's summation of the evidence bordered on "Reasonable Doubt"

 

[Subprime]

Have I missed anything here?

We have an extremely well resourced government funded entity called ASADA in place, which has the ability to randomly and target test players at any location or time of their choosing. The players have agreed to be subjected to the testing regime and I don't recall any reports of tests being refused.

The alleged offending is carried out by 34 players from one club, which is more than 75% of their list, and it apparently takes place over a reasonable period of time. The full details of all players, including their whereabouts, have been provided so ASADA can turn up on a doorstop in the early hours to demand a sample.

Am I asking too much to expect a positive drug test to be the reasonable standard of proof?

 

[Helfarch]

Have I missed anything here?

We have an extremely well resourced government funded entity called ASADA in place, which has the ability to randomly and target test players at any location or time of their choosing. The players have agreed to be subjected to the testing regime and I don't recall any reports of tests being refused.

The alleged offending is carried out by 34 players from one club, which is more than 75% of their list, and it apparently takes place over a reasonable period of time. The full details of all players, including their whereabouts, have been provided so ASADA can turn up on a doorstop in the early hours to demand a sample.

Am I asking too much to expect a positive drug test to be the reasonable standard of proof?

Yes.

 

[Apex36]

Have I missed anything here?

We have an extremely well resourced government funded entity called ASADA in place, which has the ability to randomly and target test players at any location or time of their choosing. The players have agreed to be subjected to the testing regime and I don't recall any reports of tests being refused.

The alleged offending is carried out by 34 players from one club, which is more than 75% of their list, and it apparently takes place over a reasonable period of time. The full details of all players, including their whereabouts, have been provided so ASADA can turn up on a doorstop in the early hours to demand a sample.

Am I asking too much to expect a positive drug test to be the reasonable standard of proof?

I don't believe there is a test available for TB4 in Australia currently.

 

[Subprime]

Yes.

Succinct.

 

[Subprime]

I don't believe there is a test available for TB4 in Australia currently.

So do we know if the 34 were sampled so they could be tested in the future?

After all if extradition measures to Switzerland are on the agenda this could drag on for years.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Have I missed anything here?

We have an extremely well resourced government funded entity called ASADA in place, which has the ability to randomly and target test players at any location or time of their choosing. The players have agreed to be subjected to the testing regime and I don't recall any reports of tests being refused.

The alleged offending is carried out by 34 players from one club, which is more than 75% of their list, and it apparently takes place over a reasonable period of time. The full details of all players, including their whereabouts, have been provided so ASADA can turn up on a doorstop in the early hours to demand a sample.

Am I asking too much to expect a positive drug test to be the reasonable standard of proof?

There is no test for TB4 ..... yet.
Samples were taken and have been frozen for when a test is eventually developed

 

[good4footy]

So do we know if the 34 were sampled so they could be tested in the future?

After all if extradition measures to Switzerland are on the agenda this could drag on for years.

Yes - they have samples for future testing. As to a couple of your earlier posts - are you suggesting only positive tests should lead to bans

Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong are two examples of non positive athletes that have been banned.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Have I missed anything here?

We have an extremely well resourced government funded entity called ASADA in place, which has the ability to randomly and target test players at any location or time of their choosing. The players have agreed to be subjected to the testing regime and I don't recall any reports of tests being refused.

The alleged offending is carried out by 34 players from one club, which is more than 75% of their list, and it apparently takes place over a reasonable period of time. The full details of all players, including their whereabouts, have been provided so ASADA can turn up on a doorstop in the early hours to demand a sample.

Am I asking too much to expect a positive drug test to be the reasonable standard of proof?

It is a reasonable standard of proof, but it isn't and can't be the only standard.

 

[Subprime]

Yes - they have samples for future testing. As to a couple of your earlier posts - are you suggesting only positive tests should lead to bans

Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong are two examples of non positive athletes that have been banned.

In this case over 75% of the list stands accused and they were all subject to an ASADA testing program. We are not talking about individuals here.

In the Armstrong case, as I understand it, there were several witnesses and their testimony led somewhat to the eventual outcome. I haven't heard of similar here. There are so many players and others involved that I would have expected someone to 'cut a deal'.

So a bit different I would have thought.

 

[vjknight]

Have I missed anything here?

We have an extremely well resourced government funded entity called ASADA in place, which has the ability to randomly and target test players at any location or time of their choosing. The players have agreed to be subjected to the testing regime and I don't recall any reports of tests being refused.

The alleged offending is carried out by 34 players from one club, which is more than 75% of their list, and it apparently takes place over a reasonable period of time. The full details of all players, including their whereabouts, have been provided so ASADA can turn up on a doorstop in the early hours to demand a sample.

Am I asking too much to expect a positive drug test to be the reasonable standard of proof?

when the AFL first got wind of something not quite right, they and ASADA sent samples to germany for testing - the most up to date testing facility available. came back inconclusive. but it did suggest something was happening and was worth further investigation.

 

[Subprime]

when the AFL first got wind of something not quite right, they and ASADA sent samples to germany for testing - the most up to date testing facility available. came back inconclusive. but it did suggest something was happening and was worth further investigation.

'Inconclusive' doesn't exactly meet my burden of proof but hey that's just me.

 

[Helfarch]

So do we know if the 34 were sampled so they could be tested in the future?

After all if extradition measures to Switzerland are on the agenda this could drag on for years.

There is no test, you would have to test every player on an intrusively regular basis for something like TB4 and even then you wouldn't be 100% guaranteed you'd be correct.

The simple fact is the AFL signed up to the WADA code, Essendon hired known dodgy as **** campaigners and let them inject 34 of their players. Made no effort to have proper oversight, kept no records, lied about it, held up investigation. First TB4 "wasn't banned" then "it wasn't even TB4, I never said TB4?!?", tried to scape goat "the weapon" but he calls himself "the weapon" so no one gives a shit about that idiot and on and on and on.

Personally I believe the players must be punished to force the AFL to adequately (life ban) punish all those involved with the regime, if the players aren't banned the AFL has no reason to pursue it. I think everyone is sick of the AFLs shit and definitely sick of Essendon's shit. None of the timeline or any other issues can be blamed on ASADA or WADA, they have been forced to work through and now around the AFL "system".

In the end it's about player safety, accountability within the business and the fairness of the competition.

Having said all that I mostly agree with this - http://monash.edu/news/show/doping-and-bad-arguments

I have always been of the opinion recovering is not cheating. Pain killers are.

 

[vjknight]

'Inconclusive' doesn't exactly meet my burden of proof but hey that's just me.

true. but thats what triggered the whole thing from ASADA's side. then the ACC gave them more info and boosted their chase.

 

[vjknight]

Personally I believe the players must be punished to force the AFL to adequately (life ban) punish all those involved with the regime, if the players aren't banned the AFL has no reason to pursue it. I think everyone is sick of the AFLs shit and definitely sick of Essendon's shit. None of the timeline or any other issues can be blamed on ASADA or WADA, they have been forced to work through and now around the AFL "system".

ABSOLUTELY.