Player's Strict Liability

[Daytripper]

They've gone from the odd injection of a pain killer to 40+ injections in a season - of drugs they'd never heard of most likely. Not ONE of them questioned it? Given everything they are told about their obligations, they don't ring ASADA? Don't ask their manager? Their Dad?

Ted Richards had 15 injections in the week leading up to the Grand Final last year.

Again, you are divorced from the realities of an AFL player. Something like this is not really that unusual in context.

If my doctor recommends any drugs for me, I will always check what they are for first - particularly if it's a substance I've not heard of before. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

I bet they appreciate you doing a little google after they've given you advice.

 

[mxett]

Stop being so naive. These are elite athletes, not some uneducated rednecks from back of Bourke. They are fully educated by the AFL, the AFLPA, their managers, their Clubs, their Docs - and I would hope their FAMILIES about everything to do with the WADA code and their obligations as elite athletes under that code. This is what they do for a living - and get very well paid for - not just some weekend hobby.

It is a simple rule they have to follow. If in doubt - DON'T. They are all given little cards with the ASADA hotline on it. They are all well drilled on both illicit and performance enhancing drugs. Don't tell me they are too stupid to understand it, that's a cop out. They don't have time to google? They spend hours on their frigging smart phones in between training sessions, at the airport, in the gym.

They've gone from the odd injection of a pain killer to 40+ injections in a season - of drugs they'd never heard of most likely. Not ONE of them questioned it? Given everything they are told about their obligations, they don't ring ASADA? Don't ask their manager? Their Dad?

If my doctor recommends any drugs for me, I will always check what they are for first - particularly if it's a substance I've not heard of before. I can't imagine I'm the only one.

You are not alone but certainly in the vast minority. I deal with patients and administer medications, and the number who question the process beyond their informed consent is very very few.

They trust their care givers as the athletes trust their medical staff

 

[jenny61_99]

Ted Richards had 15 injections in the week leading up to the Grand Final last year.

Again, you are divorced from the realities of an AFL player. Something like this is not really that unusual in context.

I bet they appreciate you doing a little google after they've given you advice.

I don't give a rats toss bag what they think. It's my body, therefore I want to be SURE.

I would think it would be more crucial for an afl player to question substances given the strict liability policy the WADA code demands. This is not new information to most of them - its drummed into them every year by various sources.

 

[Duckworth]

I don't give a rats toss bag what they think. It's my body, therefore I want to be SURE.

I would think it would be more crucial for an afl player to question substances given the strict liability policy the WADA code demands. This is not new information to most of them - its drummed into them every year by various sources.

So a player rings up WADA and questions them. They tell said player - ASADA is your governing body,you should contact them. Player rings up ASADA and the information they are given in 2012 is "AOD is not banned under S2".

Edit: Also, I sign a contract so that I know what I'm taking.

Aside from compounding the thing themselves as a 19yo player, What else should I do?

 

[jenny61_99]

So a player rings up WADA and questions them. They tell said player - ASADA is your governing body,you should contact them. Player rings up ASADA and the information they are given in 2012 is "AOD is not banned under S2".

As a 19yo player, What else should I do?

Google the frigging thing. Ask your manager, your dad, the aflpa FFS! If you don't understand what they said, then you don't take the drug until you know for sure you can.

 

[mxett]

Google the frigging thing. Ask your manager, your dad, the aflpa FFS! If you don't understand what they said, then you don't take the drug until you know for sure you can.

So after the player consults their local anti doping authority, who have intimate knowledge of the WADA code, they should head to google just in case?

Seriously?

 

[Duckworth]

Google the frigging thing. Ask your manager, your dad, the aflpa FFS! If you don't understand what they said, then you don't take the drug until you know for sure you can.

lol. A player would understand as follows. The player just rang ASADA. "hey Dad, ASADA said that AOD is not banned under S2". Dad "cool".

Are you seriously suggesting the player is culpable in this case?

 

[Hafey Ver]

Ted Richards had 15 injections in the week leading up to the Grand Final last year.

Again, you are divorced from the realities of an AFL player. Something like this is not really that unusual in context.

I bet they appreciate you doing a little google after they've given you advice.

Yes, yes, we know what Robbo spewed out on SEN on Saturday.

Who told him it was 16 injections? What was in the injections? Were they pain killers to get through training and on match day?

Where they administered in off site botox clinics in Sydney, using consent forms and into the stomach?

Why is Robbo dragging Ted through the EFC mud?

 

[Duckworth]

Yes, yes, we know what Robbo spewed out on SEN on Saturday.

Who told him it was 16 injections? What was in the injections? Were they pain killers to get through training and on match day?

Where they administered in off site botox clinics in Sydney, using consent forms and into the stomach?

Why is Robbo dragging Ted through the EFC mud?

Where is all this proof to drag us through it? With the exception of AOD, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that our players took anything else.

 

[teknodeejay]

Do you really think Jeffy Garlett or Chris Yarran have read that?

Got some sort of agenda regarding aborigines and reading? It seems barrels have no bottom for some.

At this stage they're not under scrutiny for being injected with god knows what that could be prohibited, so I'll assume they've dotted the i's and crossed the t's until they're called before the relevant authorities.

 

[forwardflanker]

Given WADA's strong reaffirmation that AOD9604 is banned under S0, are they looking at making sure that Essendon players are sanctioned to ensure that the tenet of athlete/player strict liability is not undermined?

Strict liability is key to the WADA system as without it anyone found to be doping can lay blame with coaches, doctors etc

I very much doubt that WADA will allow a precedent to be set that puts the principal of strict liability at risk.

Strict liability puts the onus totally on athletes/players to ensure that whatever they take isn't banned.

This is from the front page of the AFL Anti Doping Code.
" It is the responsibility of each Player to ensure that he does not use or administer prohibited substances or prohibited methods, whether or not included as examples. "

Discuss.

As I said in another thread, because ASADA messed up in the way they did, I think Essendon will be able to take whatever findings they don't like to a court and override the decision that way. Basically you can't have a body say one minute that something is ok, and then come back 10 minutes later saying it's illegal - that shit just wouldn't be right.

Also it won't set a precedent that puts the strict liability provisions at risk unless other sports in the world have messed up in the exact same way ASADA have.

WADA reaffirming that AOD9604 is kind of irrelevant. What's relevant is what Essendon were told by ASADA and by the sounds of things Essendon might be able to trump WADA's authority by going to court. Hence the deal that was made b/w them and ASADA imo

 

[jenny61_99]

lol. A player would understand as follows. The player just rang ASADA. "hey Dad, ASADA said that AOD is not banned under S2". Dad "cool".

Are you seriously suggesting the player is culpable in this case?

Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't understand something, you ask for clarification. And in any case, if the player contacted ASADA about a drug and was misinformed, they would have proof of that contact. The fact is they have to be seen to be taking every step to ensure they know what it is they are taking, and that it is legal.

 

[Duckworth]

Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't understand something, you ask for clarification. And in any case, if the player contacted ASADA about a drug and was misinformed, they would have proof of that contact. The fact is they have to be seen to be taking every step to ensure they know what it is they are taking, and that it is legal.

Oh please spare me. All information from ASADA said it was ok. If the governing body in your country gives you this information won't be too hard to prove 'no at fault' don't you think?

It's really sad that some on here just want to see player suspensions.

 

[blackshadow]

Oh please spare me. All information from ASADA said it was ok. If the governing body in your country gives you this information won't be too hard to prove 'no at fault' don't you think?

It's really sad that some on here just want to see player suspensions.

Bullshit Duckworth ASADA has clearly stated that they have never "said it was ok".

 

[lones37]

Bullshit Duckworth ASADA has clearly stated that they have never "said it was ok".

Exactly. No one questioned if it was S0 banned, only S2.

That's not ASADAs fault. ASADA said they gave no sporting organisation in the world permission to use it.

That's the bottom line, it wont stand up in court. Clearing it from S2 is one thing, but they never said it wasn't S0, there in lies the problem for East Germany.

Dank should have asked, and he was sloppy.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Oh please spare me. All information from ASADA said it was ok. If the governing body in your country gives you this information won't be too hard to prove 'no at fault' don't you think?

It's really sad that some on here just want to see player suspensions.

Yet ASADA has categorically denied this ever happened

 

[teknodeejay]

Dank should have asked, and he was sloppy.

Was he sloppy, or was he selective? I don't think he's a stupid man.

 

[Baldur]

So does whatever Essendon or Dank were advised actually matter (even if ASADA's advice was wrong)? They aren't the players. They're only relaying second hand information to the players that the substance is cleared for use.
.

Not really, what matters is if ASADA misadvised the players. We do not know this one way or the other at present.

But it will be an interesting legal issue of ASADA is forced to admit that if the players had contacted them they would have been misadvised.

 

[lucas matthysse]

Exactly. No one questioned if it was S0 banned, only S2.

That's not ASADAs fault. ASADA said they gave no sporting organisation in the world permission to use it.

That's the bottom line, it wont stand up in court. Clearing it from S2 is one thing, but they never said it wasn't S0, there in lies the problem for East Germany.

Dank should have asked, and he was sloppy.

Perhaps, but we can only guess at what happened.

If Dank had half a brain, and I have no doubt he does, he would have phrased the question as "what is the status of this xxxxx".

Asada, being the authority (which Dank conclusively deducted through a previous chain of communication to WADA) are compelled to tell the full status of the product in question as best they can at that time.

They cant answer in a riddle - the 'little person' ie the players will always get the benefit of the doubt.

Next question - did that Asada email (I assume) have a disclaimer? are they worth anything in this case?

 

[Hafey Ver]

As I said in another thread, because ASADA messed up in the way they did, I think Essendon will be able to take whatever findings they don't like to a court and override the decision that way. Basically you can't have a body say one minute that something is ok, and then come back 10 minutes later saying it's illegal - that shit just wouldn't be right.

Also it won't set a precedent that puts the strict liability provisions at risk unless other sports in the world have messed up in the exact same way ASADA have.

WADA reaffirming that AOD9604 is kind of irrelevant. What's relevant is what Essendon were told by ASADA and by the sounds of things Essendon might be able to trump WADA's authority by going to court. Hence the deal that was made b/w them and ASADA imo

How have ASADA messed up? That hasn't been demonstrated.

Did Essendon check the validity of ALL the substances listed and perhaps not listed on their Consent forms?

Did any players check?

Why did the handful of Essendon players refuse to take part in the injection program?

 

[Hafey Ver]

Exactly. No one questioned if it was S0 banned, only S2.

.

Did Dank inquire as to whether the alpha1 or beta4 BIT of the Thymosin molecule can be left off the consent forms?

Did anyone query or check up on any of the listed drugs on the consent forms?

And more importantly, what was in the vials at the botox clinics?

 

[Baldur]

Yep. Has anyone argued that strict liability doesn't apply in this case?
Strict liability is simple. You did it, or you didn't. It's like speeding. Admiral pointed out - correctly - what strict liability means if they took a prohibited substance under the circumstances it is reported to have occurred. You outlined a situation under which strict liability doesn't apply. They are two entirely different things.
However, my lay understanding is there is one defence available against strict liability offences - establishing a "reasonable mistake of fact". The accused can try to show they held a reasonable belief that a certain state of affairs existed which wouldve made their action legal (eg you reasonably believed - with evidence preferably - you were told by the governing body the drug you just injected in order to gain an unfair advantage was not prohibited). My hunch is this is the legal point that the essendon lawyers are now pushing behind the scenes re: aod. And this is why evidence of asada or wada confirmation is so critical. And if there was this advice, they should get off because they reasonably believed the drug was ok (I would think).
This won't get them off if they have used the s2 drugs. Nor will it justify why they even went down this path in the first place.

I think this would be a mistake of law not fact. And so not able to be used as a defence.

But just becouse something cannot be used as a defence does not make it useless. Many things are not a defence but too provide some assistance in sentancing

 

[Baldur]

Oh please spare me. All information from ASADA said it was ok. If the governing body in your country gives you this information won't be too hard to prove 'no at fault' don't you think?

It's really sad that some on here just want to see player suspensions.

Not banned under S2 is NOT saying it is ok.

 

[forwardflanker]

I think this would be a mistake of law not fact. And so not able to be used as a defence.

But just becouse something cannot be used as a defence does not make it useless. Many things are not a defence but too provide some assistance in sentancing

I'm not sure if it matters whether it was a mistake of fact or law. What matters is that it would be unconscionable for an ASADA tribunal to make a finding against Essendon when they had relied on incorrect information given to them by ASADA. I don't think it's that unreasonable to speculate that whatever feedback that ASADA gave to Essendon was dodgy, it seems to me the best explanation to why they've cut a deal concerning the defences.

 

[blackshadow]

I'm not sure if it matters whether it was a mistake of fact or law. What matters is that it would be unconscionable for an ASADA tribunal to make a finding against Essendon when they had relied on incorrect information given to them by ASADA. I don't think it's that unreasonable to speculate that whatever feedback that ASADA gave to Essendon was dodgy, it seems to me the best explanation to why they've cut a deal concerning the defences.

Under the strict liability provisions how is information supplied to a third party (Dank, Essendon, Doc Reid or Moses) relevant? Doesn't strict liability place the onus squarely with the players and wouldn't they have had to make their own enquiries outside the Essendon loop?
Perhaps our learned friend Baldur can shed some light from a legal perspective.