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

[jenny61_99]

I think that's correct. 38 signed consent forms and I believe 4 of those said they didn't receive any injections and we know from public statements that it's likely Reimers was one. It's the most likely explanation.

Thanks Chris, and sorry I spelled your name wrong... I knew it looked weird!

 

[OneGreatClub]

Chris Kais was suggesting the the CAS ruling stated that unless they had signed consent forms (that had thymosin listed on them) AND admitted to receiving an injection or injections from Dank, they didn't receive infraction notices. So perhaps two that had signed forms (Reimers was one), told ASADA they didn't receive any injections from Dank, or they didn't have thymosin on their form? Then you have kids like Hal Hunter who DIDN'T sign a consent form but had injections - only he doesn't know WHAT he got. He also didn't get an IN.

But ASADA has said the players lied to them about not having injections when in fact they did have them.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Re read the decision this morning and yes I thought the same.

That said propensity evidence is typically about past acts of the defendant rather than past acts of others but of course it's relevant what Dank has done historically

I have a feeling we'll see Dank hung up by cable strands as well, after his tribunal hearing.

 

[ChrisKaias]

But ASADA has said the players lied to them about not having injections when in fact they did have them.

Players didn't mention injections on the Doping Control Forms while getting tested, but they all admitted injections by Dank in their player interviews.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Amazing that the players that told the truth and the ones that were on the hastily prepared consent forms designed to protect the players and the club are the ones that got done in the end. We all know what the message there is.

 

[piesaregreat]

The AFL and the EFC are now claiming that the governance punishment includes punishment for doping. Did the AFL inform ASADA at the time of the EFC confession/admittance of guilt? If not would this violate AFL/ASADA agreements or the AFLs requirments under the NADS agreement?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

The AFL and the EFC are now claiming that the governance punishment includes punishment for doping. Did the AFL inform ASADA at the time of the EFC confession/admittance of guilt? If not would this violate AFL/ASADA agreements or the AFLs requirments under the NADS agreement?

It's just a shame we are such an apathetic nation of people. We're basically going to let the AFL get away with letting Essendon off the hook because we couldn't be bothered writing a letter, signing a petition or going to any extreme lengths like boycotting.

Vote with your feet people. If you're are pissed at the AFL, don't give them your money.

 

[Manila_Hawk]

Players didn't mention injections on the Doping Control Forms while getting tested, but they all admitted injections by Dank in their player interviews.

To me, this is the crux of the matter:

Nobody is disputing that:
- EFC had a program of injections in 2012
- That they made the players sign a consent form
- That they had injections off-site
- That the Doctor was kept out of the loop
- That the injections felt like concrete in their arse
- That even the coaches were given stuff to take
- THAT ALL OF THE PLAYERS DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO MENTION ANY DRUG TAKING ON THEIR FORMS

If it was TB-4 or TB-900, it doesn't matter.

The players had a very well documented duty to:
- Know what was going into their body, and,
- Record it on the forms provided

They didn't. = Guilty.

The TB-4 stuff is additional but not necessary information to find them guilty. IMHO.

 

[dave123]

Players didn't mention injections on the Doping Control Forms while getting tested, but they all admitted injections by Dank in their player interviews.

Yup

They were either told to lie by Hird or by lawyers or by Essendon

Not smart, they may have been suspended anyways but to lie to an anti doping body is just dead set thick

 

[rippersnipper]

To me, this is the crux of the matter:

Nobody is disputing that:
- EFC had a program of injections in 2012
- That they made the players sign a consent form
- That they had injections off-site
- That the Doctor was kept out of the loop
- That the injections felt like concrete in their arse
- That even the coaches were given stuff to take
- THAT ALL OF THE PLAYERS DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO MENTION ANY DRUG TAKING ON THEIR FORMS

If it was TB-4 or TB-900, it doesn't matter.

The players had a very well documented duty to:
- Know what was going into their body, and,
- Record it on the forms provided

They didn't. = Guilty.

The TB-4 stuff is additional but not necessary information to find them guilty. IMHO.

Yep, there are about 8 things which are considered doping by wada including illegal methods/practices. I would assume that they would put this under that branch because it was done behind closed doors and all of these documents were signed to keep it secret when they are required to inform the AFL.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

thanks for the feedback and information.
whether the wording is shall or may, if there is no withdrawal from competition penalty imposed on essendon as a club for this systematic infraction, by the AFL there never will be for any club at any time. why have that provision in there at all?
if i was allocating blame percentage on this whole sorry saga it would be around the 80/20 essendon as a club responsibility.
bearing in mind that sanctions imposed on essendon by the AFL have all been around governance issues, nothing to do with this finding.

I think it's safe to assume that the AFL is in no rush to hand out further sanctions to the club as a whole. They want to move on and forget all this happened. They made a mistake by penalising for governance. They wanted something immediate to satisfy the masses and make look like they were doing something. They should have just left the governance thing out completely and waited for the results, then handed down the same penalties as doping penalties.
The only glimmer of further penalties, IMHO, is if Essendon finish last and there's a furore over them getting the #1 pick and public outcry forces them to do something. They might potentially move them to end of first round, or the last pick of the bottom 8, but I think that's even doubtful.
As far as the AFL, ASADA, WADA and CAS are concerned, the players and the club are done. Dank is still an issue and the potential for a suit against the club by the players is still a small chance.
Will be interesting to see if/when any of the involved parties start to talk and throw people under the bus. Hird seems to be doing a bit of finger pointing and mud throwing to see what sticks.

 

[the conch]

Yup

They were either told to lie by Hird or by lawyers or by Essendon

Not smart, they may have been suspended anyways but to lie to an anti doping body is just dead set thick

Hird has said he didn't direct them to lie on the doping control forms. Will be interesting to see if this is contested or what the truth/ legal claims will be based on.

 

[Kwality]

It's just a shame we are such an apathetic nation of people. We're basically going to let the AFL get away with letting Essendon off the hook because we couldn't be bothered writing a letter, signing a petition or going to any extreme lengths like boycotting.

Vote with your feet people. If you're are pissed at the AFL, don't give them your money.

so penalise your club ? Damn effective that !!

 

[Kwality]

Hird has said he didn't direct them to lie on the doping control forms. Will be interesting to see if this is contested or what the truth/ legal claims will be based on.

Watson has lead the playing group throughout this saga - is he really a leader?

 

[NikkiNoo]

Watson has lead the playing group throughout this saga - is he really a leader?

Maybe they will have a sit in to protest?

 

[blackshadow]

Watson has lead the playing group throughout this saga - is he really a leader?

Led down the garden path?

 

[Mr_Moogle]

so penalise your club ? Damn effective that !!

How the **** else are we supposed to express our feelings to the league? The only thing they give a shit about is their bottom line.

 

[Kwality]

How the **** else are we supposed to express our feelings to the league? The only thing they give a shit about is their bottom line.

Point being your suggestion is not the answer but you know that.

The AFL in this instance are acting in what they consider the best interests of the game, yep they aren't doing too well.

 

[Kwality]

Led down the garden path?

More like a prickle patch - still the media generally misrepresent him as a fine leader. Quite the opposite really.

 

[Malifice]

Prosecution result summary for the Worksafe breaches here.

Between December 2011 and February 2013 the Essendon Football Club conducted a supplements program that was not properly controlled. The risk of the program was that the Essendon players may have been given substances that could be harmful to their health or that the substances may have been given in a manner that was harmful to their health. It was reasonably practicable for the club to have provided a system of work that ensured an appropriate procedure was used in the administration of the supplements. Between 15 January 2012 and September 2012 the club did provide such a system however failed to maintain the use of the system. The risk therefore continued as described above. The club pleaded guilty to both charges and was convicted and fined $50 000 on the first and convicted and fined $150 000 on the second.

Convicted on both counts. EFC now have a criminal record.

Its my understanding that convictions against a body corporate can never be spent either.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Interesting too that magistrate Reardon found that it had been "impossible to tell how many players were given injections and what was in the injections". Also said it would be hard to imagine young players confronting the coach and declaring they would not take part.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

To me, this is the crux of the matter:

Nobody is disputing that:
- EFC had a program of injections in 2012
- That they made the players sign a consent form
- That they had injections off-site
- That the Doctor was kept out of the loop
- That the injections felt like concrete in their arse
- That even the coaches were given stuff to take
- THAT ALL OF THE PLAYERS DELIBERATELY OMITTED TO MENTION ANY DRUG TAKING ON THEIR FORMS

If it was TB-4 or TB-900, it doesn't matter.

The players had a very well documented duty to:
- Know what was going into their body, and,
- Record it on the forms provided

They didn't. = Guilty.

The TB-4 stuff is additional but not necessary information to find them guilty. IMHO.

Could you confidently it wasn't a placebo they were given, that maybe Dank sourced tb or whatever from China for own business? Look I don't necessarily think so but my point is CAS' assumptions were so general and lack of any real solid evidence that the strand just doesn't hold up.

Like the magistrate said, it was impossible to know what was injected. That's effectively four out of four Australian judges who think the same way.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Could you confidently it wasn't a placebo they were given, that maybe Dank sourced tb or whatever from China for own business? Look I don't necessarily think so but my point is CAS' assumptions were so general and lack of any real solid evidence that the strand just doesn't hold up.

Like the magistrate said, it was impossible to know what was injected. That's effectively four out of four Australian judges who think the same way.

Please stop saying that. A) The three AFL tribunal judges didn't say whether it was possible or not. They said they weren't satisfied about the importation part of the chain so never needed to assess what happened at EFC. B) The dog-whistling about the greater reliability of Strayan judges is just embarrassing. C) no-one counts judgements across different cases and jurisdictions to get a total. The workcover judge, the CAS judges and the AFL Tribunal members had access to different evidence, bring different levels of experience and expertise in the sports doping field, and above all are viewing this in the context of different rules and laws. This program has been assessed by three separate and different courts - one couldn't reach a clear conclusion and said they couldn't be satisfied on that basis, and two were satisfied of guilt.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Please stop saying that. A) The three AFL tribunal judges didn't say whether it was possible or not. They said they weren't satisfied about the importation part of the chain so never needed to assess what happened at EFC. B) The dog-whistling about the greater reliability of Strayan judges is just embarrassing. C) no-one counts judgements across different cases and jurisdictions to get a total. The workcover judge, the CAS judges and the AFL Tribunal members had access to different evidence, bring different levels of experience and expertise in the sports doping field, and above all are viewing this in the context of different rules and laws. This program has been assessed by three separate and different courts - one couldn't reach a clear conclusion and said they couldn't be satisfied on that basis, and two were satisfied of guilt.

Tribunal wasn't satisfied with the full evidence and ASADA case broke down pretty much at first link, magistrate had evidence on injection program and clearly stated impossible to determine what was injected. Also the wprkcover guilt had nothing to do with doping.

 

[Muggs]

magistrate had evidence on injection program and clearly stated impossible to determine what was injected.

The magistrate could only examine the evidence he was presented, The Workcover case would have focused on the records Essendon kept, or in this case lack there off, that the doctors were bypassed etc. effectively Workcover was asking the question were there records kept of the record program to determine what was injected to whom. We know the answer to this was no. This is a very specfic question. The AFL tribunal was also very daming towards EFC on the lack of records.

Because of the lack of internal records WADA case was based on other information, the molecular weight, text messages, interviews etc. Most, if not all, this evidence is from sources other than from the records that Essendon needed to keep to statisfy it's OHS requirements. As such the magistrate did not examine this external evidence to determine what was injected, the fact that this type of evidence was needed to establish guilt at CAS is proof of the Workcover charges.

Basically Essendon found guilty of breaching Workcover laws by not having internal records of what was injected, forcing WADA to prove what was injected into the players using other evidence. Two very different cases, different evidence (internal vs external), asking different questions.