Saga should be over soon.

[tesla1962]

Make no mistake, Essendon will carry the stigma of peptide abuse for years to come regardless of what happens to the players. That I can promise you.

LOL I reckon 99.999999999%, nah 100% of the time you read/hear someone starting a sentence with 'Make no mistake' what follows is bullshit. And to end the post with "I can promise you" is gold. You missed out on the trifecta of overused cliches by not including 'with all due respect'. Tired old prose.

 

[Seadog]

- the players remain steadfast in their belief they have done nothing wrong;
- the players have cooperated fully throughout the entire process;
- the evidence should have been provided when the show cause notices were originally issued in June; and
- the unnecessary delays that the players have had to endure that are in no part attributable to them, without there being any finality to this saga.
This process has already taken up 21 months – about half the average AFL player’s career. The prospect that players would have to endure a third season with these proceeding hanging over their head is simply unacceptable.
The players want this matter resolved quickly and fairly. It is time to bring this matter to an end.


No, no, no, the players have not co-operated, only Cronulla did.

No, no, no , the evidence should not have been supplied with the SCN's only at Cronulla should this have happened.

No, no, no , ASADA was simply crossing T's and dotting some other stuff, not sitting on their hands wasting time.

No, no, no, 34 players together with Hird all colluded in a drug crack house at Windy Hill and yet still no-one has cracked and dobbed in their mates after 2 years ....... they must have very strong constitutions at Windy Hill.

No, no, no, the players have never been given bad advice and led up the garden path before.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

The AFL now have the burden of prosecuting each case and it does not have to prove anything.

Bullshit.

15.PROOF OF DOPING
15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof
AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an AntiDoping Rule Violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an AntiDoping Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability,....

"Proof" is with respect to the act of proving.

 

[fishardansin]

It's obvious, ASADA and the AFL conspired to go after Hird and the EFC. They hate them and want to see them burn.

They are even prepared to pay off criminals like Charter and find dubious chemists such as Alavi so that they provide false statements so that Hird and the EFC can burn in hell.

But Zaharakis knew what was going and said no. And Reimers knew exactly what the peptides were doing to his body because he was paying attention in team meetings unlike Spike.

And Reid wrote a letter.

No records.

Everybody involved at the EFC including the players, don't know what was in 1600+ injections. Not a clue.

But 20 minutes with Alavi and a hidden wire, and the Carlton football club get a recording of what was given to the players at least from Alavi's premises.

Alavi Recordings mysteriously go missing of course.

'The players haven't done anything wrong"

Except for Zaharakis who is petrified of needles and pricks

You were right. It will be over soon.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Not sure I'd describe it those terms but from my understanding (disclaimer - not a lawyer) ASADA / WADA can appeal id they disagree with the decision. Maybe they can simply claim the Tribunal applied too high a standard or say a reasonable person should have arrived at a different decision. Theres not a lot appeals to go by that I've seen on a quick search.

Watch this space I guess

yeah I agree, and there are the "points of law" I referred to, so if we can put aside my probable misnomer I think the point I made was still valid

 

[Play by Numbers]

so you disagree. Whoopee for you

I am suing for caution, on posters jumping to conclusions.

Given I was saying 12 months ago that the case would be made on TB4 and that's where ASADA should be looking, whereas you were quoting fogdog, I don't think you are in any position to be posting asinine responses.

 

[BlueWorld]

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 33s33 seconds ago
. @auskadi @The_Red_Sash I note that the AFL tribunal will reportedly hear the matters within 7 days. Not 18 months as some suggest

Has to go to the ADRVP first.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I think this is what Essendon are hoping for, there is a reason ASADA are going to be present in any AFL tribunal hearing, they don't trust them to do their jobs honestly, CAS I feel will be having the last say on this and if it goes there then 2 year bans will be at the ready.

rubbish. What do the AFL have to gain by being corrupt? They would be immediately hauled before CAS and made an embarrassment of

 

[Argy]

You've gotten the whole process a bit confused there.

ASADA present the results of the investigation to the ADRVP who must decide if a doping violation has possibly occurred. If so they refer the matter to the AFL.

ASADA presents the results of the investigation to the AFL, who at this point take control of the process. The General Counsel reviews the evidence and if he decides that a violation may have occurred issues Infraction Notices.

The burden of proof up until this point is reasonably low but note that no violation has been demonstrated and no player has been found guilty.

The next step is the Tribunal where the burden of proof is comfortable satisfaction. ASADA do not present the evidence in the Tribunal, the AFL does. This is the same as any Tribunal process for striking, rough conduct etc but ASADA have requested to be present and this has been agreed to by the AFL.

The AFL now have the burden of prosecuting each case and it does not have to prove anything. It has to show that a violation probably occurred or most likely occurred. The standard required is less than a criminal case where beyond a reasonable doubt has to be achieved. If the Tribunal thinks that Player X most likely was given TB4 then they will uphold the violation and adjuditcate on a penalty. A lot of criminal cases fail in court because juries are instructed that if there is a potential explanation other than that proposed by the prosecution then the jury must acquit.

That isn't the case here. There may be reasonable alternatives but if the Tribunal thinks that an anti-doping violation most likely occurred that is sufficient to make a guilty finding. Look at the conviction rates in the doping cases vs criminal cases and just from what I've remembered over the years, the anti-doping cases are almost always successful. People shouldn't underestimate the possibilities either way.

That said, I haven't seen any of the evidence that the ASADA investigation has uncovered so any comments about the strength of the case or otherwise are pretty pointless. Its worth noting that the ASADA case has been reviewed externally by experts in the field and given approval, so that would lead me to think there is at least a fair bit of substance to it.

Great post. The only minor point I can add is that the ASADA is empowered to present its findings and recommend sanctions at the AFL tribunal by the AFL anti-doping code, the NAD scheme and the ASADA Act. The explicit approval of the AFL is not needed. (See 4.(a).(iv) of the AFL Anti-Doping Code.)

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I am suing for caution, on posters jumping to conclusions.

Given I was saying 12 months ago that the case would be made on TB4 and that's where ASADA should be looking, whereas you were quoting fogdog, I don't think you are in any position to be posting asinine responses.

I was quoting fogdog was I?

Do yourself a favour and don't make shit up.

I do enjoy the fact you are "suing for caution" on posters "jumping to conclusions" and putting forward as evidence your own alleged wisdom when you yourself jumped to a conclusion. Derp.

 

[imperial_oz]

You were correct up until the AFL not having to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove "to a comfortable satisfaction" that this particular player had TB4. That is more than the balance of probabilities, but less than beyond reasonable doubt. It is still requires some work.

Arguing semantics here again See my earlier post. You are correct but the word prove is arguably the wrong word here. The AFL has to demonstrate to a comfortable satisfaction and that is short of "prove". We are still making the same point but as I said, prove refers to beyond reasonable doubt

 

[BlueWorld]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

Used by a dodgy club in a dodgy program.

 

[evo]

And what is your witness?

• A "rogue" scientist
• An egomaniac coach who never saw a letter from the club doctor, but helped write it?
• The football club that has no records of what was pumped into 34 players
• Or the CEO that injects himself with tanning solution?
• Or the chairman that tries to null all the evidence?

Sorry, I'm confused who is more credible

Hehe.

I seriously reckon Charters is the most credible witness in this whole saga.

It's the whole Tony Montana thing:

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Has to go to the ADRVP first.

You could use the same argument, ie the wording of the NAD Scheme, to say that the Cronulla deals could not have been done without the ADRVP reviewing the evidence at the end of the SCN period. ASADA and the NRL chose to bypass that part of the NAD Scheme. I expect they can do the same again if they wish. Who is going to complain?

 

[Hinkley Power]

You were right. It will be over soon.

...let's hope so.

Although pretty much everything that you predicted would happen in this drug saga hasn't eventuated.

You may chalk up a point soon

 

[fishardansin]

Arguing semantics here again See my earlier post. You are correct but the word prove is arguably the wrong word here. The AFL has to demonstrate to a comfortable satisfaction and that is short of "prove". We are still making the same point but as I said, prove refers to beyond reasonable doubt

Dude you're arguing semantics. What is proof? As a published academic in the fields of science and mathematics let me break it down for you. Proof is proof .... there are levels of proof. That is what is the case here. So to a certain level ASADA has to prove the case. They normally have an easy job when there is a positive test.

An athlete was banned for 2 years for failing to answer to reception at his hotel.

Keep wishing up this scenario of the flimsy evidence.

What you actually mean is that an athlete was banned for missing a test. Has any Essendon players missed a test? Done a Ben Cousins?

But you don't actually know this.

Also, the language taken is not that Essendon fans hope the club is innocent, nor concern for player safety, simply that they avoid sanction

What a croc. All Essendon fans are hoping for vindication that our players and all staff remaining at the club did nothing against the WADA regulations.

 

[The 747]

interesting take on it. The only way a "lettuce leaf slap" can come is via a deal, not via a tribunal.

I'd say the players have clearly been given a "wink wink" that the evidence isn't going to hold up at the tribunal, like some of us have said for ages, and that they want to get it tested.

If they thought the evidence was strong the statement would be talking about approaching ASADA for deals. The writing is on the wall people.

Lucky y'all blew a few million dollars in court action then, that was some excellent management.

 

[Gigantor]

I posted in the legal thread, but what is the process now?

Do the players automatically get put into the register of findings?
Then I assume it goes straight to a hearing?
Then findings, sanctions?
Appeals obviously - what have I missed?

the players' association is clearly wanting ASADA to put it up to the ADRV Panel as quickly as possible
but, they have stated:
"In the event that ASADA is not able to meet that timeline, ASADA has been requested to simultaneously provide the AFL General Counsel and the players’ legal team with all the documentation and evidentiary material it has in this matter so that the matter can be dealt with in accordance with the AFL Anti-Doping Code."
this is interesting because under the AFL anti-doping code, the AFL does not need the ADRV Panel or a RoF entry to issue infractions (for violations not involving an AAF), in fact, I can go further, the AFL code does not even mention the ADRV Panel and RoF, it will make up its own mind as to whether the evidence is sufficient to issue infraction notices

 

[imperial_oz]

Has to go to the ADRVP first.

Ings hasn't been able to get too much right so far in this whole saga. For a former CEO of ASADA, he's been distinctly unimpressive in my view. Kaillis on the other hand has been quite the opposite. I know who's comments have my attention and those i take with a grain of salt.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I was quoting fogdog was I?

Do yourself a favour and don't make shit up.

I do enjoy the fact you are "suing for caution" on posters "jumping to conclusions" and putting forward as evidence your own alleged wisdom when you yourself jumped to a conclusion. Derp.

You have shamed yourself so frequently and so comprehensively, lance, that you no longer know where the truth begins and your bullshit ends.

As for my own alleged wisdom, nothing alleged about it, nor was it wisdom. I made a reasoned argument based on the evidence at hand, which you and others rejected. I was proven correct.

Caution is what should be exercised, given from the time of fogdog, every new development has somehow meant resolution in Essendon's favor.

Anyway, the AFLPA are currently doing the players a disservice, whilst their concern is to avoid player sanction, as I have stated from the very first, the real issue should be player health and welfare. Finding out what was given to the players, the health risks involved and ensuring ongoing medical support or monitoring in the case of potential complication.

 

[andrewb]

We will beat these charges in a tribunal where ASADA only needs to establish 'comfortable satisfaction' and you guys will still think we're guilty.



Frikken hilarious.

Guilty until proven otherwise.

 

[Engimal]

LOL I reckon 99.999999999%, nah 100% of the time you read/hear someone starting a sentence with 'Make no mistake' what follows is bullshit. And to end the post with "I can promise you" is gold. You missed out on the trifecta of overused cliches by not including 'with all due respect'. Tired old prose.

Except Bosk is actually spot on. Carlton still get called Carltank and that was for an issue that was much less severe than this.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

fogdog likes this

fixed.

 

[Gigantor]

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 33s33 seconds ago
. @auskadi @The_Red_Sash I note that the AFL tribunal will reportedly hear the matters within 7 days. Not 18 months as some suggest

and if ASADA could send their briefs of evidence to the AFL at the same time that they put it up to the ADRV Panel, it will be even quicker, because the AFL does not rely on the ADRV Panel or a RoF entry to issue injunctions (in the absence of an AAF), so ASADA would merely be wasting time if they didn't follow the PA's suggestion

 

[Play by Numbers]

What a croc. All Essendon fans are hoping for vindication that our players and all staff remaining at the club did nothing against the WADA regulations.

You should be worried about the truth, not about sanction.