Now the Herald-Sun have a secret tape of Hird, Corcoran, Bomber et al?

[NoAFLinmycomp]

I don't know what they took, and have never claimed to know. Anything is possible with Dank, he's a fruitloop.
I certainly haven't seen enough solid evidence to warrant a guilty verdict though.
If new evidence arises that 100% confirms they doped, I'll humbly accept that with hat in hand.
Until then, this remains a huge farce.

And this is the "arms race" that trying to contain doping in sport, faces.

Some of the stuff mentioned in emails, reports, etc is not even cleared for human use. It then takes years to develop, test and ratify repeatable, accurate tests for the sporting bodies to then use.

The rules have to allow for the scenarios of illegal experimental in training and live competition - hence the strategies like catch-all for drugs (not reliant upon marketed brand/product names), athlete responsibility, etc.

 

[TheBrightSide]

Do you find it puzzling that none of the past players will openly come out and discuss what went on during that time? It's not like they can get any further punishment, is it? Why do you think the secrecy still goes on?

Good points, all along I would have liked to have heard more from the players and their perspective.
I'd like to why there hasn't been a single media agency, from anywhere, ask any player about their negligence with the doping control forms. That's something they were responsible for.

 

[TheBrightSide]

And this is the "arms race" that trying to contain doping in sport, faces.

Some of the stuff mentioned in emails, reports, etc is not even cleared for human use. It then takes years to develop, test and ratify repeatable, accurate tests for the sporting bodies to then use.

The rules have to allow for the scenarios of illegal experimental in training and live competition - hence the strategies like catch-all for drugs (not reliant upon marketed brand/product names), athlete responsibility, etc.

Yes understood, fair points.
But I believe Wada have an obvious agenda to find athletes guilty, as it serves their purpose and justifies their existence. It would be almost impossible for them not to have this attitude. And for an organisation that bangs on about fairness in sport, how they go about their business is far from fair. For my 2c, they are liars.

 

[Sector 7G]

Yes understood, fair points.
But I believe Wada have an obvious agenda to find athletes guilty, as it serves their purpose and justifies their existence. It would be almost impossible for them not to have this attitude. And for an organisation that bangs on about fairness in sport, how they go about their business is far from fair. For my 2c, they are liars.

WADA wrote the code to make it easy for them to ban cheats and they lose very few cases. Everyone knew this when the AFL signed on to the Code.

If you are looking to push the limits of the code, you make damn sure you stay on the right side of it and document what you are doing. To think EFC acknowledged they had a problem documenting the program and then gave the task to Wallis,a guy who wasn't allowed to have access with the team due to his football related gambling and lack the computer skills to update a spreadsheet and who had to get the IT department to do it for him. Says a lot about the management at EFC at the time.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Yes understood, fair points.
But I believe Wada have an obvious agenda to find athletes guilty, as it serves their purpose and justifies their existence. It would be almost impossible for them not to have this attitude. And for an organisation that bangs on about fairness in sport, how they go about their business is far from fair. For my 2c, they are liars.

It absolutely isn't fair. And the athletes get the harshest responsibilities laid upon them - because that is all that the international framework (and more importantly, the countries that sign up to it) will allow.

We are only just now starting to see some movement in a number of countries, in bringing in criminal punishment for drugging in sport - but they are finding it difficult to do.

Yes WADA has to be unfairly weighted in it's burden on athletes - because who else can they (athletes) really trust but themselves?

WADA is suspect, as the most recent Olympics have shown - they still rely too heavily for the majority of their funds, on the international organisations that they have to police and often, generate bad publicity for.

I would argue your 2c with my own larger copper piece, WADA's agenda it to make the athletes hold those around them to account - an then if they are stupid enough to ignore that, or intentionally cheat, then yes, they have to go after them.

As was well discussed here before the CAS escalation by WADA, this had to be challenged as the "we lost our records guv, but we only took the good stuff!" would have been a flood-gate-opening precedence.

 

[jenny61_99]

Another amazing coincidence.

Isn't it also amazing how none of the Essendon people involved in all this will go near the topic of Stephen Dank. They don't have a bad word to say about him. Almost as if they are scared of what he might say.

They started to do the "He went rogue" scenario, and he responded with an interview saying that half the coaching staff were on "the good stuff". They knew better than to continue down that path.

 

[jenny61_99]

And I just have to say, are there really EFC apologists in here still arguing their boys are innocent? Really?

 

[Bobby Shaftoe]

And I just have to say, are there really EFC apologists in here still arguing their boys are innocent? Really?

There's people that still think the Earth is flat, it's not a big surprise to see a deluded minority. Particularly given how overly-invested people get in this sport (see the book chronicling various EFC supporters that let the doping saga ruin their lives...)

 

[Samsquanch]

Assuming all this is true, the players should be at no fault, with no suspensions.
They sought extraordinary assurances that what they were taking was legal. That's more than enough, even for an anti doping tribunal that salivates over a guilty verdict, like they tend to.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

Doctor F*rr*r*, I'm here for my vitamins. Whatever you do, make sure it's "legal" wink wink.

Immunity!

The athlete is responsible. Seeking extraordinary assurances while failing to notify your club doctor and logging the details of what was taken is a fail. Plausible deniability will not get you off. Even though in the past it had been the Aussie way.

I'd bet they logged how much vegimite they had on their toast, and the club dietitian has records for every player before, during and after the period of the doping. Yet they never even found traces of the injection regimen on the clubs servers or computers.

 

[Satan]

There's people that still think the Earth is flat, it's not a big surprise to see a deluded minority. Particularly given how overly-invested people get in this sport (see the book chronicling various EFC supporters that let the doping saga ruin their lives...)

 

[lethalselbow]

And I just have to say, are there really EFC apologists in here still arguing their boys are innocent? Really?

To be honest, I think most of them have left. Might be some that are still here, but i have a couple of them on block as they were just being silly.

I think most of the Essendon people in here are probably of the belief that in all likelihood banned drug taking did happen, but that the process doesn't prove it to their comfortable satisfaction. Or something along those lines.

Probably simplistic and wrong, but most EFC supporters in here seem passionate, but reasonable. Besides, it mostly a good discussion.

 

[gavaniacono]

To be honest, I think most of them have left

No you don't.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Assuming all this is true, the players should be at no fault, with no suspensions.
They sought extraordinary assurances that what they were taking was legal. That's more than enough, even for an anti doping tribunal that salivates over a guilty verdict, like they tend to.

It's an opinion that has merit in a 'real world' scenario.

But in the anti-doping space, it's not really relevant or accurate.


Merely getting a consent form written up saying it's legal is nowhere enough in the anti-doping space. Asking someone who's injecting you 'is this legal?' is nowhere near enough.

It's obvious as to why it's not enough too.

I mean seriously, imagine how easy it would be to dodge a breach if all an athlete had to do was get a note from someone at the club or from their team to avoid being punished for doping! We all know that just can't work.


I get what you're saying, but this quote from McDevitt the other day sums it up perfectly...

"one example of the chasm which seems to exist between those infinitely versed in the administration of sports law, such as the numerous highly experienced teams of lawyers and barristers who represented Essendon and the players throughout these matters, and the understanding of occasionally confused onlookers who are generally more familiar with criminal law processes."


For some reason, many Essendon people and other dimwitted cretins in the media just can't grasp this. This is, was and always has been an anti-doping case. The rules are very different to criminal law. And some would argue that's for very good reason.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think most of the Essendon people in here are probably of the belief that in all likelihood banned drug taking did happen, but that the process doesn't prove it to their comfortable satisfaction. Or something along those lines.

It seems to me, that the current argument from Essendon people is, that 'yeah they did it - but it's unfair that they got caught and punished'.

 

[lethalselbow]

It seems to me, that the current argument from Essendon people is, that 'yeah they did it - but it's unfair that they got caught and punished'.

Pretty much. The argument has been massaged from "they didn't do it" to "there isn't enough proof".

We all know they did it. They know they did it. The players won't speak out openly to keep the matter blurred in the public and more especially their supporters minds.

 

[TheBrightSide]

To be honest, I think most of them have left. Might be some that are still here, but i have a couple of them on block as they were just being silly.

I think most of the Essendon people in here are probably of the belief that in all likelihood banned drug taking did happen, but that the process doesn't prove it to their comfortable satisfaction. Or something along those lines.

Probably simplistic and wrong, but most EFC supporters in here seem passionate, but reasonable. Besides, it mostly a good discussion.

Yes this probably sums up my position.
And as you could probably guess from my avatar, I don't take it all too seriously (and I do like the idea of people arguing with a teddy bear on the internet)
Plus I assumed we're all mostly killing time till the proper season starts?

 

[TheBrightSide]

It's an opinion that has merit in a 'real world' scenario.

But in the anti-doping space, it's not really relevant or accurate.


Merely getting a consent form written up saying it's legal is nowhere enough in the anti-doping space. Asking someone who's injecting you 'is this legal?' is nowhere near enough.

It's obvious as to why it's not enough too.

I mean seriously, imagine how easy it would be to dodge a breach if all an athlete had to do was get a note from someone at the club or from their team to avoid being punished for doping! We all know that just can't work.


I get what you're saying, but this quote from McDevitt the other day sums it up perfectly...

"one example of the chasm which seems to exist between those infinitely versed in the administration of sports law, such as the numerous highly experienced teams of lawyers and barristers who represented Essendon and the players throughout these matters, and the understanding of occasionally confused onlookers who are generally more familiar with criminal law processes."


For some reason, many Essendon people and other dimwitted cretins in the media just can't grasp this. This is, was and always has been an anti-doping case. The rules are very different to criminal law. And some would argue that's for very good reason.

Good points. I can't stand McDevitt but he got that right.
Perhaps Wada/Cas guilty verdicts should have an asterisk next to it:
*Probably wouldn't stand up in a real court of law.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yes this probably sums up my position.
And as you could probably guess from my avatar, I don't take it all too seriously (and I do like the idea of people arguing with a teddy bear on the internet)
Plus I assumed we're all mostly killing time till the proper season starts?

Unfortunately, we've been killing time for 5 years!

 

[jenny61_99]

Good points. I can't stand McDevitt but he got that right.
Perhaps Wada/Cas guilty verdicts should have an asterisk next to it:
*Probably wouldn't stand up in a real court of law.

What's that got to do with it? This wasn't a criminal case (though lord knows it probably should have been - experimental drugs for research use only, and all).

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Good points. I can't stand McDevitt but he got that right.
Perhaps Wada/Cas guilty verdicts should have an asterisk next to it:
*Probably wouldn't stand up in a real court of law.

It doesn't need an asterisk though. Everyone knows (well, most people) that a court of law and an anti-drug hearing are different and have different sets of rules.

 

[Samsquanch]

Good points. I can't stand McDevitt but he got that right.
Perhaps Wada/Cas guilty verdicts should have an asterisk next to it:
*Probably wouldn't stand up in a real court of law.

There is an * but not against WADA or CAS. They did what they were required to do. If the players had lived up to the agreements they signed they might have realised they were vulnerable to the highest possible anti doping penalties.

They signed contracts. Their breeches were dealt with as the process required.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Good points. I can't stand McDevitt but he got that right.
Perhaps Wada/Cas guilty verdicts should have an asterisk next to it:
*Probably wouldn't stand up in a real court of law.

It's like the AFL Tribunal hearing a striking charge and the bloke crying because the evidence wouldn't have held up in a criminal court.

 

[TheBrightSide]

It doesn't need an asterisk though. Everyone knows (well, most people) that a court of law and an anti-drug hearing are different and have different sets of rules.

I would guess most people don't know this at all.
I think most people would assume that any guilty verdict in a trial was "beyond reasonable doubt", as in very hard to refute.
More along the lines of the first hearing.

 

[blackshadow]

So WaDa wouldn't take me either? They love selling pork pies.

I'm yet to see any sign of brightness...

 

[TheBrightSide]

I'm yet to see any sign of brightness...

What's up with blackshadow? Aren't all shadows black?
I would have just gone with shadow and save time logging in.