One year on Feb 7 - Anybody still think infractions are coming?

[Dave]

Sorry reading on my phone so not easy to see what's what. However he has absolutely shown you where players may have breached the code by allowing an unknown substance to be injected. If they could say they knew it was substance x, no worries (unless it is prohibited). If they don't know what it was they have definitely breached that obligation under the code.

I don't disagree with that Jenny. The discussion has morphed from a claim that taking an unknown substance is a subversion of the Doping Control process to one where an athlete may not have fulfilled all of their obligations under the code. Tell me, what's the penalty for failing to fulfill section 21.1.4? How many players do you think ask about every single substance they receive? If they aren't they are also breaching section 21.1.4, wouldn't you agree?

Edit: Is failing to fulfill your responsibilities under section 21.1.4 cause for issuing an ADRV?

 

[Argy]

Which is a marked change from your earlier incorrect claims that it subverts the Doping Control process.

Which it does. An athlete who willfully remains ignorant is guilty of breaching both articles.

Asked what he'd had injected into his hamstring Guerra said: ''I'm not too sure … I just lay on the table and I say, 'You do what you've got to do and I'll be quite happy to just lay there'.''

​

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-fixtures/guerra-true-blood-20120906-25hn1.html​

So when's Brent's infraction notice arriving?​

I'm pretty sure accurate records were kept and if Guerra had to front a tribunal he would be able to table them. But if they weren't then he is in trouble.

 

[Dave]

Which it does. An athlete who willfully remains ignorant is guilty of breaching both articles.

No, they don't. They may well not have fulfulled their obligations under 21.1.4, which in and of itself is not an Anti Doping Rule Violation, but in no way have they subverted the Doping Control Process. Unless you'd like to demonstrate how by referring to it? It's not like you haven't been asked several times to do so.

I'm pretty sure accurate records were kept and if Guerra had to front a tribunal he would be able to table them. But if they weren't then he is in trouble.

But he's in breach by not asking when it was injected according to you. How can he ensure it isn't banned if he doesn't ask about it at the time it was injected?

 

[Argy]

No, they don't. They may well not have fulfulled their obligations under 21.1.4, which in and of itself is not an Anti Doping Rule Violation, but in no way have they subverted the Doping Control Process. Unless you'd like to demonstrate how by referring to it? It's not like you haven't been asked several times to do so.

Subvert: undermine the power and authority of

Athletes are required under the code to know what goes into their bodies. By remaining willfully ignorant they undermine the power and authority of the code: they subvert it. Also remember that someone knew what was injected. If records have been destroyed then there is no question that tampering has occurred.

But he's in breach by not asking when it was injected according to you. How can he ensure it isn't banned if he doesn't ask about it at the time it was injected?

You are quoting Guerra from a newspaper article. My guess is that he was trying to deflect further questioning by giving a dumb answer. However, he might very well have been dumb enough not to assure himself that what was being done was legal, in which case he was probably in breach. Nevertheless, so long as the records are available I don't think he would be charged. Likewise, if non-fraudulent documents show that the EFC players were not injected with prohibited substances I would expect them to get off.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I don't have the time right now to go into the detail as to how I've come to this conclusion but IMO, ASADA will hit the EFC coaching staff with the following:

• Possession
• Trafficking
• Administration and / or attempted administration
• Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and general complicity

Important to note that not all coaches will be hit with all of these charges. Some will only get done for the final point (possibly Thompson...hope he doesn't but that's just a personal thing), others all four, some two etc...

I am not including the players in this. They may get issued with infractions (likely). However, I don't believe they will get hit with suspensions. They will be spared but by geez the coaches will be wearing the full brunt of this. And note, this does not make them martyrs. This makes them guilty of introducing and running a PED program @ EFC and has / will bring the club the club to its knees. The club however will be fine coming out of this. After you get your whack.

 

[Dave]

More guff that doesn't explain how the Doping Control Process is subverted

Ducking the question again. Here's another for you, though I wont hold my breath for an answer. What is your understanding of what the Doping Control Process is?

Also remember that someone knew what was injected.

Absolutely. It staggers me that so much energy is spent castigating players, coaches, medicos etc compared to the pserosn bearing the most responsibility.

If records have been destroyed then there is no question that tampering has occurred.

If records were destroyed then whoever did so is in serious trouble and would be in breach of 2.8/11.8 of both the AFL and WADA codes.

You are quoting Guerra from a newspaper article. My guess is that he was trying to deflect further questioning by giving a dumb answer. However, he might very well have been dumb enough not to assure himself that what was being done was legal, in which case he was probably in breach.

My guess is, like most players before this investigation, he didn't give a stuff. That's not a judgement on him, it's just the way it was IMO.

Nevertheless, so long as the records are available I don't think he would be charged. Likewise, if non-fraudulent documents show that the EFC players were not injected with prohibited substances I would expect them to get off.

Agreed.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Asked what he'd had injected into his hamstring Guerra said: ''I'm not too sure … I just lay on the table and I say, 'You do what you've got to do and I'll be quite happy to just lay there'.''

​

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-fixtures/guerra-true-blood-20120906-25hn1.html​

So when's Brent's infraction notice arriving?​

boom

 

[jenny61_99]

Can't agree there.

As far as I can see allowing someone give you a drug without knowing what it is counts for no more than carelessness, stupidity or both.

We all have an obligation to drive carefully. But if we ignore that obligation we are not guilty of culpable driving causing death. Until something more happens.

We aren't signatories to an anti doping code that requires us to know what goes into our bodies and ensure it does not contravene that code. If we drive recklessly we can be charged for doing so if caught.

 

[Dave]

I don't have the time right now to go into the detail as to how I've come to this conclusion but IMO, ASADA will hit the EFC coaching staff with the following:

• Possession
• Trafficking
• Administration and / or attempted administration
• Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and general complicity

Important to note that not all coaches will be hit with all of these charges. Some will only get done for the final point (possibly Thompson...hope he doesn't but that's just a personal thing), others all four, some two etc...

If you can't go into details, can you answer the following?

Which coaches had physical possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method? Which coaches had exclusive control over a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which they existed?

Which coaches sold, gave, transported, sent, delivered or distributed a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to any third party?

Which coaches administered or attempted to administer a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method?

Which coaches assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted, covered up or were complicit in an Anti Doping Rule Violation or any Attempted Anti Doping Rule Violation?

 

[DonsRule]

We aren't signatories to an anti doping code that requires us to know what goes into our bodies and ensure it does not contravene that code. If we drive recklessly we can be charged for doing so if caught.

I think the point he was making - yeah we break the rules we pay the price, but the obligation drive safely is irrelivent, being ignorant of the road rules isn't an excuse, the 'you don't know' itself isn't really a legally enforcable rule, but if found guilty of taking something prohibited' I didn't know what it was' isn't an excuse.

 

[Argy]

Ducking the question again. Here's another for you, though I wont hold my breath for an answer. What is your understanding of what the Doping Control Process is?

There is no definition of the term "Doping Control Process" within the Code. The whole of code outlines various rules, procedures, methods, roles, responsibilities, etc.. Taken as a whole, this is the doping control process. The document you linked to is a simplified version of this to give athletes an understanding of what happens when samples are taken - only one of the routes by which an athlete can be charged under the code. It is just a subset of the wider doping control process.

Absolutely. It staggers me that so much energy is spent castigating players, coaches, medicos etc compared to the pserosn bearing the most responsibility.

Agreed. (But only if they were duped.) Unfortunately, that is not the way the WADA code is written.

If records were destroyed then whoever did so is in serious trouble and would be in breach of 2.8/11.8 of both the AFL and WADA codes.

Agreed!

My guess is, like most players before this investigation, he didn't give a stuff. That's not a judgement on him, it's just the way it was IMO.

Agreed, again. (What's going on here?)

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't disagree with that Jenny. The discussion has morphed from a claim that taking an unknown substance is a subversion of the Doping Control process to one where an athlete may not have fulfilled all of their obligations under the code. Tell me, what's the penalty for failing to fulfill section 21.1.4? How many players do you think ask about every single substance they receive? If they aren't they are also breaching section 21.1.4, wouldn't you agree?

Edit: Is failing to fulfill your responsibilities under section 21.1.4 cause for issuing an ADRV?

That's a very good question and one I don't know the answer to. I would suspect that any breach of the code COULD result in an ADRV, however I suspect that it would only become an issue in an investigation such as this one. Don't forget we aren't talking about guerra who I believe had his club doctor administer a substance permitted to be used by afl medicos during a match, rather an unknown substance in an off site location, not during match day and by a person not qualified by the AFL (or anyone else for that matter) to administer injections. How the players allowed this to happen is just beyond me.

 

[DapperDon]

I'm pretty sure accurate records were kept and if Guerra had to front a tribunal he would be able to table them. But if they weren't then he is in trouble.

For 12 months all we've heard is how irresponsible it was for senior members not to know what was going into their body.

Funny how things change.

 

[Albert Ross]

Which it does. An athlete who willfully remains ignorant is guilty of breaching both articles.

I'm pretty sure accurate records were kept and if Guerra had to front a tribunal he would be able to table them. But if they weren't then he is in trouble.

Not only were their records, there was an effin article in the press about it. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy is legal if injected into the muscle - not the blood.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/guerras-injections-of-blood-ok-20120907-25jxe.html

 

[TerryWallet]

Not only were their records, there was an effin article in the press about it. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy is legal if injected into the muscle - not the blood.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/guerras-injections-of-blood-ok-20120907-25jxe.html

boom....lol

Accurate, undoctered records.....and legal

How very un Essendon

 

[neutralguy]

boom....lol

Accurate, undoctered records.....and legal

How very un Essendon

But But Lance already said Boom

 

[ZabsBlues]

But But Lance already said Boom

American pie

 

[DonsRule]

Not only were their records, there was an effin article in the press about it. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy is legal if injected into the muscle - not the blood.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/guerras-injections-of-blood-ok-20120907-25jxe.html

boom....lol

Accurate, undoctered records.....and legal

How very un Essendon

I may be missing something - and tbh, I don't think there is anything sinister with what the Hawks did, no where as far I saw (and, happy to be proven wrong) The Hawks declined to expand, a few doctors took a guess at what Guerra was talking about. The PRP treatment...without any real confirmation.

 

[Dave]

There is no definition of the term "Doping Control Process" within the Code.

Appendix 1 contains the definitions of terms used in the code, one of which is Doping Control:

Doping Control: All steps and processes from test distribution planning through to ultimate disposition of any
appeal including all steps and processes in between such as provision of whereabouts information, Sample collection
and handling, laboratory analysis, therapeutic use exemptions, results management and hearings.

The whole of code outlines various rules, procedures, methods, roles, responsibilities, etc.. Taken as a whole, this is the doping control process.

This is where we differ. Taken as a whole the code is the document upon which the Anti Doping Program is based.
Doping Control, as referenced in section 2.5 that you quoted earlier when talking about violations, is the process of taking, testing and analysing etc of samples. Section 2.5 refers only to this process when it talks about subverting Doping Control, not the entire document*.

Agreed. (But only if they were duped.) Unfortunately, that is not the way the WADA code is written.

I meant on here, not by the investigators ;-)

Agreed, again. (What's going on here?)

Communication perhaps?

*Again, this is all my layman's reading of it.

 

[nineteen eighty]

If you can't go into details, can you answer the following?

Which coaches had physical possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method? Which coaches had exclusive control over a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method or the premises in which they existed?

Which coaches sold, gave, transported, sent, delivered or distributed a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to any third party?

Which coaches administered or attempted to administer a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method?

Which coaches assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted, covered up or were complicit in an Anti Doping Rule Violation or any Attempted Anti Doping Rule Violation?

Happy to go into it in more detail when I get a moment later tonight. First thing ASADA need to do however is determine whether prohibited / banned drugs were either used or intended to be used. Based on what I have seen in the public domain (and discussed ad nauseam on BF), IMO there is little doubt that there will be a big tick on this item.

Once that has happened, it's a case of working through who was involved in what and the role they played.

I can't see how the coaches can get away with it. If ASADA and the AFL don't do it WADA will. One can see that WADA is itching for a fight. If suspensions are not put in place, WADA will look to step in. And you want them to feel as if they have had their win so that the players are left alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[interestedoz1]

The Sharks are gambling that ASADA does not have sufficient evidence against them, basically taking the view: We don't know what drugs we took, and the people who injected us aren't talking either.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/asada-wants-access-to-mountain-of-acc-evidence-20130515-2jmyh.html#ixzz2rBPBCWPshttp://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cc-evidence-20130515-2jmyh.html#ixzz2rBPBCWPs

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...cc-evidence-20130515-2jmyh.html#ixzz2rBPBCWPs


The above is something that concerns me. In my view there is a real possibility the WADA code allows the administration of unknown substances.

If WADA does allow the administration of unknown substances, and if EFC and Sharks can prove the substances are truly unverifiable (including the Mexican substance), the players imo will get let off.

 

[Dave]

That's a very good question and one I don't know the answer to. I would suspect that any breach of the code COULD result in an ADRV,

I would agree, but which of the defined violations in Section 2 would that fall under?

Don't forget we aren't talking about guerra who I believe had his club doctor administer a substance permitted to be used by afl medicos during a match

My understanding was it wasn't a match day injection, but treatment received in the lead up to the Grand Final. In any event, he didn't care what was in it.

How the players allowed this to happen is just beyond me.

As I said, I think that before this investigation most, if not all players, simply took their clubs on trust and did what they were told.

 

[I Rock]

boom

Question should be then asked if the doctor who injected it knows what it was and if he injected it into another 33 of the rugs teammates.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Question should be then asked if the doctor who injected it knows what it was and if he injected it into another 33 of the rugs teammates.

Not really. The whole discussion was merely around whether the lack of knowledge by a player of what he's getting injected with constitutes an ADV.

 

[I Rock]

Not really. The whole discussion was merely around whether the lack of knowledge by a player of what he's getting injected with constitutes an ADV.

after the rugs comments the afl should have gotten him and the club to clarify the statement. The afl if they found nothing else then at the very least the afl needed to ramp up their education of players on what is required.