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

[Smiling Buddha]

I would have thought a better question would be; One year on, wouldn't the investigation be over by now if Essendon did nothing wrong?

No, because only damned fools think Essendon 'did nothing wrong'. That was clear from the beginning.

The interesting question is whether there are still people out there DUMB ENOUGH to think that everything since the Blackest Day in Sport (trololol) has been anything but a charade.

500 posts later...

 

[Linda Lovelace]

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.

EFC and Sharks don't have to prove anything, really. That is ASADA's (supposed) job.

Only evidence that they need is to counter any evidence presented by ASADA. For, example if ASADA has a good case on TB4, Essendon would possibly need to present evidence that it was actually Thymomodulin or whatever the heck other drug starting with 'T' they decided they used.

Other than that, they can just sit there and say 'come at me bro' to ASADA. As is their right.

 

[jenny61_99]

EFC and Sharks don't have to prove anything, really. That is ASADA's (supposed) job.

Only evidence that they need is to counter any evidence presented by ASADA. For, example if ASADA has a good case on TB4, Essendon would possibly need to present evidence that it was actually Thymomodulin or whatever the heck other drug starting with 'T' they decided they used.

Other than that, they can just sit there and say 'come at me bro' to ASADA. As is their right.

Once infractions are issued, the onus of burden of proof shifts to the player(s)/personnel.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Once infractions are issued, the onus of burden of proof shifts to the player(s)/personnel.

the point is, though, that in the absence of an AAV you need to build a fairly watertight case to actually issue an infraction. I know you know this, by the way. So any shift in burden of proof isn't really relevant.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Once infractions are issued, the onus of burden of proof shifts to the player(s)/personnel.

That is an oversimplification and I would assume applies mainly to positive tests.

If ASADA don't have the necessary evidence to back up the infraction, it would be thrown out of the tribunal before the defendant even had to submit any evidence.

I acknowledged that if ASADA had compelling circumstantial evidence, counter-evidence would need to be provided.

If it was as simple as issuing infraction notices and then forcing people to prove their innocence, then Essendon would already be screwed as they admit that they can't do that. Luckily, even under this system, guilt has to be proven rather than innocence.

 

[mediumsizered]

See - You have answered my question - No-one knows what the product is - Everything is all hearsay and guesswork at this stage. You are assuming that is a muscular dystrophy product ? And even if so what matters is the substances/compounds in the product ?

Your question about WADA allowing the administration of unknown substances - I suggest this is very likely the way the WADA code is written - You could be administered cow poo and what could WADA do ?

No-one on BF knows what the product is, that is correct however there are at least 2 people who do know what the product is, one has been interviewed by ASADA whilst the other has yet to be interviewed. The question is, why the subterfuge from the 2 individuals about this product if it is all above board? TB4 suddenly became thymomodulin after questioning, however the details of the substance administered by the chiro don't seem to have found their way onto the public record. Hmmmm.

 

[jenny61_99]

That is an oversimplification and I would assume applies mainly to positive tests.

If ASADA don't have the necessary evidence to back up the infraction, it would be thrown out of the tribunal before the defendant even had to submit any evidence.

I acknowledged that if ASADA had compelling circumstantial evidence, counter-evidence would need to be provided.

If it was as simple as issuing infraction notices and then forcing people to prove their innocence, then Essendon would already be screwed as they admit that they can't do that. Luckily, even under this system, guilt has to be proven rather than innocence.

They won't issue infractions without a strong circumstantial case. This is all about process. If they get the process wrong at any stage, the athlete can appeal based on process and the case can be thrown out without addressing the ADRV. I suspect that's why this is taking so long.

 

[jenny61_99]

the point is, though, that in the absence of an AAV you need to build a fairly watertight case to actually issue an infraction. I know you know this, by the way. So any shift in burden of proof isn't really relevant.

It is relevant if infractions are issued (hence why I said that). If ASADA have significant circumstantial evidence against players or personnel, and enter them on the register, the AFL are obliged to issue infraction notices. The burden of proving the drugs weren't what the circumstantial evidence shows falls on the player/personnel.

 

[Argy]

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.

Yep, I don't think we differ too much in our interpretation here.

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*.

Yes, I think we differ there.

My view is that the entire document must be taken into account, including "Purpose and Scope" and the responsibilities assigned to each party.

The stated Purpose and Scope of the code is "to protect the Athletes' fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for Athletes worldwide." Looked at in this context it is easy to see why there is strict liability: "clean" athletes have to be protected.

It does not make sense that an athlete would be allowed to subvert the process by feigning ignorance of what he took. If it is the responsibility of the athlete to ensure that he does not contravene the code, how can he fulfill that responsibility if he does not know what is being administered to him?

Communication perhaps?

Nice to have a calm, sensible discussion with someone having an alternative view!

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

Ditto.

 

[Dave]

It does not make sense that an athlete would be allowed to subvert the process by feigning ignorance of what he took. If it is the responsibility of the athlete to ensure that he does not contravene the code, how can he fulfill that responsibility if he does not know what is being administered to him?

That an existing "loophole"/oversight is not sensible doesn't invalidate its existence. I don't disagree with you wrt to section 24.1.whatever it was about athletes roles and responsibilities, it's just that none of the violations listed refer to that IMO. If it were I'd have thought there would have been other prosecutions based on this as I'd be staggered if this was the first time an athlete said "I don't know what I took" (in fact I know it isn't).

Nice to have a calm, sensible discussion with someone having an alternative view!

Indeed.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

They won't issue infractions without a strong circumstantial case. This is all about process. If they get the process wrong at any stage, the athlete can appeal based on process and the case can be thrown out without addressing the ADRV. I suspect that's why this is taking so long.

The main point is that the reversal of burden of proof only, in a practical sense, applies to positive tests. Once they have that magical test result, the player has to try and prove innocence.

But with a case built on circumstantial evidence, all the evidence would have to be argued in front of any appeals tribunal, even if infraction notices were already issued. Essendon or Sharks wouldn't have to prove their innocence necessarily, they could just shoot holes in ASADA's evidence.

Let's say ASADA had some evidence that the Mexican drug was illegal goat urine or whatever and convinced the AFL to issue infractions. Essendon, not actually knowing what the drug was, cannot possibly 'prove' it wasn't goat urine. But what they can do is challenge the validity of ASADA's evidence. If the tribunal isn't satisfied with the evidence either, the case would be thrown out. At no point has the burden of proof actually shifted. The strength of ASADA's evidence is all that matters, not Essendon's.

 

[interestedoz1]

I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that a "we don't know who, we don't know what, and you can't prove it" defense if used has a very, very good chance of succeeding in relation to the WADA code...

 

[Rusty Brookes]

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.

This is my understanding. Had Guerra injected something that was illegal, then he would have worn the consequences. Luckily for him, ASADA approved the injection of Orthokine.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-set-the-pace-in-injection-science-20120924-26hhg.html

 

[Dave]

This is my understanding. Had Guerra injected something that was illegal, then he would have worn the consequences. Luckily for him, ASADA approved the injection of Orthokine.

That wasn't the point. Argy was arguing that any athlete who didn't know what they were receiving, be it legal or not, was in breach of the code. Given Guerra admitted as much, based on Argy's argument he would be. Personally, I don't agree with Argy, nor do I think Guerra breached the code, I was merely using the case as an example.

 

[Argy]

That an existing "loophole"/oversight is not sensible doesn't invalidate its existence. I don't disagree with you wrt to section 24.1.whatever it was about athletes roles and responsibilities, it's just that none of the violations listed refer to that IMO. If it were I'd have thought there would have been other prosecutions based on this as I'd be staggered if this was the first time an athlete said "I don't know what I took" (in fact I know it isn't).

It is difficult to know because the lists I have found don't go into much detail. However there have been a significant number of sanctions issued under article 2.5, Tampering (which is one of the sections I think apply). I simply don't have the google skills to find out whether or not the circumstances are the same.

Here is an example...http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/historical-sanctions/search (click on the ones with a <blank> in the substance column)

I suspect that in most cases where an athlete said "I don't know what I took" the enforcement agency has had evidence from other sources of what was actually taken (and this might even be the case with EFC - there must be records somewhere).

 

[Dave]

It is difficult to know because the lists I have found don't go into much detail. However there have been a significant number of sanctions issued under article 2.5, Tampering (which is one of the sections I think apply). I simply don't have the google skills to find out whether or not the circumstances are the same.

You need to Hire Ian or Jenny then .

Here is an example...http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/historical-sanctions/search

http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/historical-sanctions/search

I'll have a look tonight when I have the time.

I suspect that in most cases where an athlete said "I don't know what I took" the enforcement agency has had evidence from other sources of what was actually taken (and this might even be the case with EFC - there must be records somewhere).

I would agree. I also think in many cases where they say they don't know they are telling porkies, possibly even this one.

 

[Argy]

I would agree. I also think in many cases where they say they don't know they are telling porkies, possibly even this one.

In that case we'll never know who has the right interpretation - you or me!

 

[Dave]

Here is an example...http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/historical-sanctions/search (click on the ones with a <blank> in the substance column)

www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/download-decision/a/6158

This was the only case I could find that related to tampering on that site. In a nutshell, a basketball ring in got asked to provide a sample (unlucky) and pretended to be someone he wasn't. The team captain was asked to identify him as he said he had no photo Id. The team captain lied about who he was. After the sample tested positive and the agency figured out who he really was (having confirmed the player he was impersonating wasn't at the match), he was charged with use and the team captain was charged with tampering. All of this relates to the sampling/testing etc.

 

[Albert Ross]

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.

Again it is not a secret what they are doing "Six clubs have already tried Orthokine treatment and there has been an influx of interstate players booking in to Melbourne's Olympic Park clinic, which is pioneering the treatment in Australia."

Far from guessing, one of the Drs mentioned is Chris Bradshaw who works at the clinic. As does Hawthorn's Dr Dan Exeter, as Hawks docs have done for years.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-set-the-pace-in-injection-science-20120924-26hhg.html

Probably a great example of what happens when you leave the medical stuff to qualified doctors, not to some bloke's mate who has a pharmaceutical supply business.

 

[DonsRule]

Again it is not a secret what they are doing "Six clubs have already tried Orthokine treatment and there has been an influx of interstate players booking in to Melbourne's Olympic Park clinic, which is pioneering the treatment in Australia."

Far from guessing, one of the Drs mentioned is Chris Bradshaw who works at the clinic. As does Hawthorn's Dr Dan Exeter, as Hawks docs have done for years.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawks-set-the-pace-in-injection-science-20120924-26hhg.html

Probably a great example of what happens when you leave the medical stuff to qualified doctors, not to some bloke's mate who has a pharmaceutical supply business.

I don't disagree - but it's not complete confirmations, it's a lot of heresay - and I don't doubt that is what was done, thats all.

 

[blackshadow]

Don't mean to be a smartarse GG and you know I've welcomed the discussion on these boards. However, you should choose your words more carefully when saying "my brief". One can take from that that you have been engaged by someone to take the side you have

Surely nobody would be silly enough to pay for the garbage GG serves up...

But then again perhaps Essendon would.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[blackshadow]

Corcoran even being let back into your club was ridiculous. But he was one of the key reasons that they ensured no doping charges could be brought. A former CEO of Athletics Australia being involved in a doping regime raises a lot of questions that they don't want answered.

Hird is a much better target. A goldenboy who was never what people liked to think he was. More fun to attempt to bring down. Everyone basically knows Corcoran is a prick.

Wasn't Corcoran part of Hird's dream team, it was my understanding that Corcoran was part of the Hird package.

And therein lies the main problem, nobody at Essendon would say no to the Golden Boy.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[blackshadow]

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.



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*.



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



Communication perhaps?

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

I'd be very surprised if Hird's text to Corcoran about needing his UN skills to circumvent Reid shutting down the doping program wasn't viewed as circumventing doping control.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[blackshadow]

the point is, though, that in the absence of an AAV you need to build a fairly watertight case to actually issue an infraction. I know you know this, by the way. So any shift in burden of proof isn't really relevant.

I'd say the reason the investigation is still going is because ASADA are making sure that they have a watertight case.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[blackshadow]

www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/download-decision/a/6158

This was the only case I could find that related to tampering on that site. In a nutshell, a basketball ring in got asked to provide a sample (unlucky) and pretended to be someone he wasn't. The team captain was asked to identify him as he said he had no photo Id. The team captain lied about who he was. After the sample tested positive and the agency figured out who he really was (having confirmed the player he was impersonating wasn't at the match), he was charged with use and the team captain was charged with tampering. All of this relates to the sampling/testing etc.

This reminds me of a story from the West Coast Eagles days under Malthouse where drug testers turned up to training. The story goes that two rookie players were instructed to swap jumpers with Mainwaring and Lewis and MM sent Mainwaring and Lewis on a long run. Testers took urine samples from the rookies but were too clueless to realise they weren't who they thought they were.

Oh for simpler times.

(story comes from a close friend who was also pretty good mates with Mainwaring)

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk