Mega Thread Questions about the ASADA/ EFC/ players and the legal process/ defences/ liability

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm glad you agree, and being the facts as we understand them, they are what I post every time someone asks me what amounts to the exact same question.

Here's proof that you only take what you want from people's posts and ignore anything that ruins your argument. You originally posted this, saying that you were glad that I agreed when I clearly stated that I wasn't agreeing. Then you edited it out.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I ignored the petty stupid stuff

petty stupid stuff = anything that you can't refute
Smoke and mirrors. Keep toeing that line.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Here's proof that you only take what you want from people's posts and ignore anything that ruins your argument. You originally posted this, saying that you were glad that I agreed when I clearly stated that I wasn't agreeing. Then you edited it out.

See above

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

See above

Still refusing to address any of my previous points? You virtually asked for an argument, then refuse to reply to any serious points offered. You only make yourself look stupid by dancing around and avoiding answers. From now on I will just treat you as a troll, because that's clearly what you are.

 

[Aerial Ping Pong]

The reason WADA have referred this case to CAS is that they need a final determination so they can determine the changes to the rules that apply to athletes as a result of the activities undertaken by EFC in 2011 and 2012. WADA thought it had rules to discourage, detect and prosecute athletes taking drugs for which there are no available tests or have not yet been evaluated. The results of the AFL tribunal have invalidated what WADA thought were the rules and standard of proof for for non-presence violations.

WADA thought for an athlete to comply with the code, it is up to the athlete to make sure it is impossible that they could have taken performance enhancing drugs. If it was possible that an athlete has taken PEDs, they are in violation of the code and sanctions apply. The result of the tribunal is that even though it is possible PEDs were taken, no sanctions apply.

If the AFL tribunal ruling stands. The new protocol athletes will have to adhere to will be onerous. Who would have thought that in November 2011 when the EFC embarked on their new training program that the end result would be a re-writing of the WADA code.

This trip to Switzerland is all about determining the changes to the WADA code. Will athletes from now on have to source for themselves and retain samples of all substances they ingest?

 

[ezard15]

You don't have a clue do you? For a start, there was no "not guilty" verdict, it was a case of insufficient evidence. The players' guilt was never addressed. I wish dopey Essendon supporters would get this into their thick skulls.

This is not a matter of overturning the decision of the AFL tribunal. This is an entirely new case, being prepared by the WADA, and NOT presented to the AFL whose best interests were to wash their hands of the entire case.

You don't have a clue what information WADA have, so stop pretending you do, and start being concerned about the effect this could have on your football club.

lol, what a dummy spit!!!

Relax man, its only sport.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

lol, what a dummy spit!!!

Relax man, its only sport.

Yeah it's only sport... Let's just allow everyone to take whatever the hell they want right?

 

[ezard15]

Yeah it's only sport... Let's just allow everyone to take whatever the hell they want right?

You need to loosen up mate lol

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

They don't hold high hopes for WADA being able to coerce witnesses to appear >

In short, on a ‘first principle’ basis, it appears plain that a Lausanne, Switzerland hearing does not mean it would be smooth sailing in assuring witness attendance.

Jeeezus......talk about cherry picking.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The reason WADA have referred this case to CAS is that they need a final determination so they can determine the changes to the rules that apply to athletes as a result of the activities undertaken by EFC in 2011 and 2012. WADA thought it had rules to discourage, detect and prosecute athletes taking drugs for which there are no available tests or have not yet been evaluated. The results of the AFL tribunal have invalidated what WADA thought were the rules and standard of proof for for non-presence violations.

WADA thought for an athlete to comply with the code, it is up to the athlete to make sure it is impossible that they could have taken performance enhancing drugs. If it was possible that an athlete has taken PEDs, they are in violation of the code and sanctions apply. The result of the tribunal is that even though it is possible PEDs were taken, no sanctions apply.

If the AFL tribunal ruling stands. The new protocol athletes will have to adhere to will be onerous. Who would have thought that in November 2011 when the EFC embarked on their new training program that the end result would be a re-writing of the WADA code.

This trip to Switzerland is all about determining the changes to the WADA code. Will athletes from now on have to source for themselves and retain samples of all substances they ingest?

Yeah that isn't even remotely correct. There has never been a philosophy of being guilty and sanctioned if there is a mere possibility a violation has occurred, and there was never any intention to reverse the onus of proof such as it is with strict liability when a substance is detected. That is just completely wrong

 

[JD Tomahawk]

Is it one of those times where the majority of us have no clue which way WADA will vote.
I feel like whatever decision is made I'll be like yep I see how that happened. Players have been punished enough. Fine the club some more if they have to.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Is it one of those times where the majority of us have no clue which way WADA will vote.
I feel like whatever decision is made I'll be like yep I see how that happened. Players have been punished enough. Fine the club some more if they have to.

WADA vote wont. Its the 3 members of the Court of Arbitration for Sport who will vote. Pretty much every case that goes to court you dont know how the judge or judges will vote. Lawyers will always tell you they have a good case to good chance win, but they will never say there is no chance they will lose.

 

[blackshadow]

Is it one of those times where the majority of us have no clue which way WADA will vote.
I feel like whatever decision is made I'll be like yep I see how that happened. Players have been punished enough. Fine the club some more if they have to.

The only way that the club gets punished is if the AFL punishes them and they've basically said they aren't going to penalise Essendon further.

 

[manboob]

AFL have only punished them for "governance" not drug taking.

 

[blackshadow]

AFL have only punished them for "governance" not drug taking.

Correct but Gilligan has basically said no more punishment from the AFL for Essendon. Looks like the players will be left carrying the can if the CAS rules in favour of WADA.

 

[threesixpio]

Correct but Gilligan has basically said no more punishment from the AFL for Essendon. Looks like the players will be left carrying the can if the CAS rules in favour of WADA.

Punishment of the club should be contingent on the findings. If there is anything to suggest that doping occurred due to something more than governance issues I would be flabbergasted if they were not punished more.

 

[blackshadow]

Punishment of the club should be contingent on the findings. If there is anything to suggest that doping occurred due to something more than governance issues I would be flabbergasted if they were not punished more.

I think most footy fans would be but it's the AFL...

 

[VL3OJ]

Punishment of the club should be contingent on the findings. If there is anything to suggest that doping occurred due to something more than governance issues I would be flabbergasted if they were not punished more.

Going to need a bigger lettuce leaf

 

[Smashwood]

This is not a trick question. Ahmed Saad and the two Collingwood players were found with an illegal substance in their system and were banned. Why weren't Essendon players?

 

[DonsRule]

This is not a trick question. Ahmed Saad and the two Collingwood players were found with an illegal substance in their system and were banned. Why weren't Essendon players?

Said players had a positive test.

The Essendon players don't have positive tests. The case if based on circumstantial evidence, linking Dank to Tb4 etc. Charters bought Tb4 from China, delivered it to Dank,, had Alavi compound it, took it to EFC, and injected it into players. But there are no positive test (that we are aware of) that prove that happened.


In this case, it is ASADA/WADA's job to prove all of the avove happened.

 

[Smashwood]

Said players had a positive test.

The Essendon players don't have positive tests. The case if based on circumstantial evidence, linking Dank to Tb4 etc. Charters bought Tb4 from China, delivered it to Dank,, had Alavi compound it, took it to EFC, and injected it into players. But there are no positive test (that we are aware of) that prove that happened.


In this case, it is ASADA/WADA's job to prove all of the avove happened.

Thanks for answering the question. I honestly wasn't sure if Essendon players had actually tested positive to a banned substance. If they had I was about to go on an AFL rant, as to why the mentioned players were banned pronto yet the Essendon players were not. But if no positive test, well then no punishment I guess.

 

[Akka76]

Thanks for answering the question. I honestly wasn't sure if Essendon players had actually tested positive to a banned substance. If they had I was about to go on an AFL rant, as to why the mentioned players were banned pronto yet the Essendon players were not. But if no positive test, well then no punishment I guess.

There's 2 Positive tests for Ess players that we are aware of, it was covered on BF some months back.

 

[DonsRule]

There's 2 Positive tests for Ess players that we are aware of, it was covered on BF some months back.

Iirc, they were not positive tests, they were just labeled along the lines of suspicious. Somewhat higher than normal. But not enough to trigger a positive. More we do not know any of the details of the reults, as far as I am aware, WADA have not shared those details with the players legal teams.

 

[Malifice]

Iirc, they were not positive tests, they were just labeled along the lines of suspicious. Somewhat higher than normal. But not enough to trigger a positive. More we do not know any of the details of the reults, as far as I am aware, WADA have not shared those details with the players legal teams.

I was of the undertanding that TB4 is pretty hard to pin down in blood tests at the best of times?

 

[DonsRule]

I was of the undertanding that TB4 is pretty hard to pin down in blood tests at the best of times?

I'd probably agree with that. There was this new test etc, would be interesting to see the accuracy of it.

But, more I was pointing (what we know anyway) what WADA have submitted isn't a positive test, just an elevated test, but they had not supplied any analysts as to what the results could mean. That is an area well over my head.

A few I talked to said the test WADA seems to have used has only really had relatively small scale testing to gain data from.

Anything I have said has said it may be something that well get the case over the line, but the test results themselves won't on their own.