Little has seen the evidence

[BomberBro2]

There has been no suggestion that I am aware of the any evidence has been tainted. Collected contrary to the Act possibly. In this instance, these are very different things.

Again, as far as I am aware, no one has made any suggestion that the players and support staff told anything but the full truth as they know it in the interviews. As far as the truth itself is concerned, does it matter much if the truth was freely given or collected contrary to the Act?

If the players and support staff are re-interviewed, would you support them in once again telling the truth and thus repeating what they have previously stated?

Even if that turns out to be the case, they're still only 70% sure.

I understand why anti-doping laws have such a low threshold, but when it happens to us I can't accept being labelled doping cheats when we're a good chance to be innocent the whole time.

 

[Matilda05]

Yes I can, hence the agreement the evidence needs to be gathered in a legal manner. My question(s) to you, say there is "evidence" that shows prohibited conduct by the EFC, but it is found to be gained unlawfully, should it be considered invalid (yes IMO) and thus can't be used by ASADA, does this mean EFC didn't cheat?

I agree that ASADA are confident they will stand up to our appeals - because they only have to be 70% sure.

That's why we don't want to take that risk.

Meanwhile, we don't have records to prove our innocence (our bad) but that doesn't mean we cheated. Just that we're 70% guilty until proven innocent.

Actually I think not have records is a breach of the AFL (and WADA?) code. That is one of the issues to me that sticks out like the proverbial. If you can't say what you took you're punished, done and dusted. Don't get me started on your presidents views on this matter.

 

[Matilda05]

Actually I think not have records is a breach of the AFL (and WADA?) code. That is one of the issues to me that sticks out like the proverbial. If you can't say what you took you're punished, done and dusted. Don't get me started on your presidents views on this matter.

No idea how I replied to my own quote.. my bad

 

[BomberBro2]

Actually I think not have records is a breach of the AFL (and WADA?) code. That is one of the issues to me that sticks out like the proverbial. If you can't say what you took you're punished, done and dusted. Don't get me started on your presidents views on this matter.

It wouldn't matter.

If we're innocent, we're innocent - even if we stuffed up with our records.

The only thing that matters is the truth and our poor record keeping wouldn't change the truth.

Ban us for negligence at worst, but it doesn't make us doping cheats.

 

[BlueWorld]

It wouldn't matter.

If we're innocent, we're innocent - even if we stuffed up with our records.

The only thing that matters is the truth and our poor record keeping wouldn't change the truth.

Ban us for negligence at worst, but it doesn't make us doping cheats.

Innocent people have nothing to hide.

 

[Matilda05]

It wouldn't matter.

If we're innocent, we're innocent - even if we stuffed up with our records.

The only thing that matters is the truth and our poor record keeping wouldn't change the truth.

Ban us for negligence at worst, but it doesn't make us doping cheats.

See that's were we disagree, if you commit an anti doping violation even for governance, you cheated. Most instances you can't be innocent and commit a violation of the policy, except under extreme (happy to be corrected) conditions.

 

[Grin]

Paul little on 774, just said he has seen the evidence scn are based on, his words were that its easily defendable and is all circumstantial. not good asada

I didn't read this thread past the OP.
But Mr Little must just piss himself at how some Essendon supporters will believe any bare faced lie he tells them.

A couple of days ago he was saying he may appeal to the federal court then the full bench of the high court, spending hundreds of thousands of other peoples money in flailing attempts to ensures that this "easily defendable" evidence never sees the light of day.

 

[Thrawn]

Why is he discussing it when he is supposedly under a confidentially agreement with the court (assuming he did actually get this 100 page report and isn't lying through his teeth)?

 

[BomberBro2]

See that's were we disagree, if you commit an anti doping violation even for governance, you cheated. Most instances you can't be innocent and commit a violation of the policy, except under extreme (happy to be corrected) conditions.

We could have committed a violation of the policy in regards to governance while still being innocent in regards to actually injecting prohibited substances.

I only care what went into the players, and I accept we had an obligation to govern the program better.

Doesn't mean we took performance-enhancing drugs though.

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

It wouldn't matter.

If we're innocent, we're innocent - even if we stuffed up with our records.

The only thing that matters is the truth and our poor record keeping wouldn't change the truth.

Ban us for negligence at worst, but it doesn't make us doping cheats.

The truth seems important to you, but you ducked the question last time, so I will ask again. If, as we are told, the players told the truth in the interviews, do you support them doing so again if re-interviewed, or would you prefer them not to answer?

 

[BomberBro2]

The truth seems important to you, but you ducked the question last time, so I will ask again. If, as we are told, the players told the truth in the interviews, do you support them doing so again if re-interviewed, or would you prefer them not to answer?

Should always tell the truth and have faith in the process to arrive at a fair conclusion. But even then, I'd want them to have some pretty damning evidence that we took prohibited drugs because so far the waters are far too muddy to draw a definitive conclusion either way.

I would hate to get banned purely because the onus of proof is on us, when if the onus of proof was on them, we would get off. That's a procedural factor influencing the result... which shouldn't happen.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Should always tell the truth and have faith in the process to arrive at a fair conclusion. But even then, I'd want them to have some pretty damning evidence that we took prohibited drugs because so far the waters are far too muddy to draw a definitive conclusion either way.

I would hate to get banned purely because the onus of proof is on us, when if the onus of proof was on them, we would get off. That's a procedural factor influencing the result... which shouldn't happen.

Tell me something as i am very curious, if the players told the truth, and they are innocent as you say, then why the court case?

 

[Grin]

Jobe celebrating the moment he heard the case against the players.

Nah.
Celebrating how going to secret locations and injecting himself to the eyeballs with banned drugs won him a Brownlow Medal.

 

[BomberBro2]

Tell me something as i am very curious, if the players told the truth, and they are innocent as you say, then why the court case?

Because the onus is on us to prove we are innocent and we don't have sufficient records. All they have to do is provide 70% probability through circumstantial evidence, and it's enough to lock us away.

The threshold for punishment is very low and we've been neglectful in our duties to keep sufficient records. As such, we might be wrongly punished.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Because the onus is on us to prove we are innocent and we don't have sufficient records. All they have to do is provide 70% probability through circumstantial evidence, and it's enough to lock us away.

The threshold for punishment is very low and we've been neglectful in our duties to keep sufficient records. As such, we might be wrongly punished.

so you told ASADA, no we didn't take any prohibited drugs, and you want that evidence wiped?

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

Should always tell the truth and have faith in the process to arrive at a fair conclusion. But even then, I'd want them to have some pretty damning evidence that we took prohibited drugs because so far the waters are far too muddy to draw a definitive conclusion either way.

I would hate to get banned purely because the onus of proof is on us, when if the onus of proof was on them, we would get off. That's a procedural factor influencing the result... which shouldn't happen.

Fair enough - thanks for the answer

 

[BomberBro2]

so you told ASADA, no we didn't take any prohibited drugs, and you want that evidence wiped?

I don't know... the evidence should only be wiped if it's tainted (which evidence suggests it might be).

Can we prove our innocence? It depends on how certain they have to be to call us guilty. The whole system is extremely strict (for good reason) and we're victims of this necessarily strict criteria. Does that mean we should be let off? Not automatically... we need to find a way to either:

a. Prove our innocence, or
b. Get out of any penalties while maintaining a strict image (to prevent others from intentionally being reckless with record keeping)

 

[Jamie007]

Unfortunately for Paul Agro Little, Im pretty sure circumstantial evidence is good enough for ASADA to sit 34 players out for 2 years...

 

[LoungeLizard]

I don't know... the evidence should only be wiped if it's tainted (which evidence suggests it might be).

Can we prove our innocence? It depends on how certain they have to be to call us guilty. The whole system is extremely strict (for good reason) and we're victims of this necessarily strict criteria. Does that mean we should be let off? Not automatically... we need to find a way to either:

a. Prove our innocence, or
b. Get out of any penalties while maintaining a strict image (to prevent others from intentionally being reckless with record keeping)

so if the players are innocent and they told ASADA this, now they want that evidence thrown out, how does help their cause?

 

[hoianbulldog]

It wouldn't matter.

If we're innocent, we're innocent - even if we stuffed up with our records.

The only thing that matters is the truth and our poor record keeping wouldn't change the truth.

Ban us for negligence at worst, but it doesn't make us doping cheats.

So any club can snort, inject whatever the hell they like. Simply don't keep records and as long as there isn't a positive test result they are all good in your book.

Think about what you are saying.

 

[BomberBro2]

so if the players are innocent and they told ASADA this, now they want that evidence thrown out, how does help their cause?

All I know is we're innocent and there's not enough credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Everything else is just noise.

 

[BlueWorld]

Because the onus is on us to prove we are innocent and we don't have sufficient records. All they have to do is provide 70% probability through circumstantial evidence, and it's enough to lock us away.

The threshold for punishment is very low and we've been neglectful in our duties to keep sufficient records. As such, we might be wrongly punished.

You do realize that the afl ant-doping code REQUIRES you to have kept records of all substances administered to players, so you have failed already.

 

[BomberBro2]

So any club can snort, inject whatever the hell they like. Simply don't keep records and as long as there isn't a positive test result they are all good in your book.

Think about what you are saying.

Yeah I'm not sure how we could stop that. Don't want us to be a precedent for that kind of stuff.

 

[LoungeLizard]

All I know is we're innocent and there's not enough credible evidence to suggest otherwise. Everything else is just noise.

really?
show us the evidence, then show us the bits that aren't credible please, i am very curious

 

[BomberBro2]

You do realize that the afl ant-doping code REQUIRES you to have kept records of all substances administered to players, so you have failed already.

Yes but maybe we are innocent without keeping records? Lack of proof doesn't mean we are definitely guilty.