Sympathy for the players.

[LanceRomance]

So what happens now, any time the team doctor has a pill for you, you refuse? They say it's a painkiller, you refuse. They say it's compliant, you refuse. They give you the name, you ring asada and they say it's not on the banned list but that doesn't mean it's banned, so you refuse.

Docs are administering supplements and medicines, but under this rationale they have to stop taking everything, because they cannot trust their doctor, and asada will never tell them "this is okay"

There is a difference between:

A) Doctor: here have this needle, it will treat the pain.

To

B) Doctor: here have a needle, it will improve your aerobic capacity and improve recovery.


A) shouldn't raise many questions

B) should raise many questions

 

[Malifice]

Obviously the whole system runs on trust but the reason the program punishes the way it does is due to the drug program's that went on in the American sports collages.

There was systemic use of drugs and if the players we're caught the doc put up his hand admitted he gave them drugs without their knowledge and walked away with a nice fat compensation check for having his contract terminated. (That's right a payout for doping players)

The doctors acted has a shield to protect coaches and playing groups that wilfully used drugs.

It's not just coincidence that all this stopped when the doping regulators removed that possibility.

This.

The 'strictness' is designed to protect athletes (in general).

The theory goes that when an athlete is confronted by just such a systemic dopic regime from their club they walk away (knowing that if it goes pear shaped, they are the ones who will be the first to be going down).

Really, the Essendon players should have confronted Hird and told him they didnt want to be a part of it.

Big burden to put on an althlete, but any other precedent opens an even bigger can of worms (and potentials to cheat the system).

 

[scarecrow2k1]

They trusted people they are supposed to trust, who have screwed them through a combination of arrogance, ignorance, and deception.

Players have been screwed, and will most likely, take the worst of the sanction

Agree. I really feel for the players in this but do understand there need to be suspended if all is true.

However its important that the people who implemented this program face the same sanctions. Can you imagine if the players are banned 6 months to two years and the football staff who implemented it keep on working? Just not right.

 

[The Goon]

So what happens now, any time the team doctor has a pill for you, you refuse? They say it's a painkiller, you refuse. They say it's compliant, you refuse. They give you the name, you ring asada and they say it's not on the banned list but that doesn't mean it's banned, so you refuse.

Docs are administering supplements and medicines, but under this rationale they have to stop taking everything, because they cannot trust their doctor, and asada will never tell them "this is okay"

You seem intent on the most generous interpretations possible RFC.

While I have sympathy for the players being potentially misled I do think they share culpability. This was a new program put in place to assist recovery / performance, and on the balance of probabilities it seems the players were aware that the program was pushing the boundaries. They were certainly concerned enough to request the consent forms. Seeing as it has been impressed on them time and again that they are responsible for what goes into their bodies if they then did not do any further research into the substances then they must share some responsibility for that. Further, the program was designed to give the team an advantage and the players had to understand this, so to my mind they implicitly bought into the aims. If the program then strayed over the line they again have to share responsibility. In this instance whether it was inadvertent or not is to my mind irrelevant.

As I said, I do have sympathy for them. Especially young and fringe players who would have felt pressure to conform to the recommended program, but at the end of the day these guys are all over 18. They can vote, go to war, be imprisoned for murder, drink etc etc etc, they're legally responsible for their actions.

 

[demon_dynasty13]

Umm if i was being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and making a carreerout of footy I would have been on the phone to ASADA or WADA myself before raking anything that was suggested to be taken

The players are at fault as much as anyone

 

[Baldur]

I feel really sorry for the teenage draftee's. Somewhat sorry for most of the players. Not at all for the older, mature players and those in the leadership group.

The mature players and those in the leadership group had a duty to the other players to protect their interests, they failed.

But this cannot mean that they are not punished. They cannot be allowed to compete or other clubs will be certain to take the same risk.

The East Germans were injecting 10 year olds. Hell yes I feel sorry for those little kids. But allowing them to complete would only promote other scum to copy.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You either:

A) Run the risk. In the unlikely event you were lied to, mislead or duped by your doctor, you sue the crap out of him for medical negligence. (Hope he has good insurance).
B) You walk away.

Its not 'fair' but its designed that way. It places ultimate 'strict liability' on the athlete. Its designed to be self regulating for a number of very good reasons (which outweigh the occasional bad outcome that results).

The ASADA Code is unambiguous in this respect. Sucks to be an athlete I guess.

Compare it to the double jeopardy rule, or the presumption of innocene in criminal matters. Sometimes obviously guilty people get off because of the double jeopardy rule, or the requirement to prove a criminal matter 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. But its better to have it that way, because it forces the State/ Prosecution to do the job right the first time and not screw with your liberty and keep hauling you in with flimsy evidence.

I actually understand this premise very well, the ACCC use exactly the same approach and I used to deal with them on a daily basis. The issue however is people are ignoring one key plank in this policy approach.

Using the ACCC example, they do very similar to WADA. The onus is on the person selling the product to confirm their product complies with Australian regulations. However, they will not tell you if your product does, only if it doesn't (and that's when they are recalling it).

They will tell you that you can send your product to a lab, who can test it to Aust standards. You spend thousands, get a shiny test report, and ask the ACCC "is my product now compliant?". Again they will say they cannot tell you, and it's your responsibility to make sure it is.

This is when you start head butting walls, and ask the question "how can I make sure something is compliant if no one will tell me it is?"

The truth is the ACCC agree it's impossible for someone to 100% guarantee the compliance of their product. Like WADA though, they need an absolute regulatory requirement to ensure they catch people who attempt to loophole their way out of it (like in the is college example).

The big difference however to most posters here is the ACCC retain discretion. If during their investigation, they find you regularly tested your product, had audits of your factory, and used best efforts to ensure the compliance of your item, your product will still be recalled, but you may escape without a fine (just a warning).

If the players have found to have used a substance, some penalty will occur - no argument there. However talk that they MUST get 2 years without question or discussion is too much. Trav Casserley attempted to argue leniency for his sudafed use, but this was rejected because the volumes used according to asada didn't indicate accidental use. He got his two years because they thought the volume indicated deliberate abuse, not because it's a two year minimum and you shall die. Likewise Sam Riley and the Uki rower were let off (medals taken though) because their argument was accepted at the time.

The players being screwed is important in this, because everything they do to attempt to confirm the compliance of their supplements helps their cause for reduced penalties, this is why it's important, and shouldn't be ignored. It doesn't mean they get a get out of jail free card without question, but it allows asada to properly review their case, hear their testimony, and review the data to see if it backs this up.

If you don't have this discretion in a complete liability system like this, it actually encourages people to ignore the regulation, as it's impossible to properly ensure compliance without stopping all activities.

 

[spark12]

Obviously put trust the club , coach, admin etc etc and were let down very badly.

But you would think if your a player and given something to sign regarding injections etc etc the penny would drop about something being dodgy or you would at least say hold on a second i might just get the AFL players association or a representative to look at this etc etc before signing or letting someone inject me , Anyway that is what i would do if i were an AFL player.

 

[SAINTKILDA]

No!!! They're the ones who were open to the idea of getting bigger stronger faster by pushing the boundaries (cheating) so they don't deserve anything other than 2yr bans.

 

[TerryWallet]

I understand the peer pressure situation for some of the younger players involved. At the time it would have been hard for them to say NO. Considering this, the actions of the older players and the ON and OFF field Leaders of EFC is reprehensible.

After saying that, the words and the actions of ALL EFC players vividly show their complete buy in to James Hird and what has gone down.

So NO i don't have sympathy for Essendon players. Their total buy in has been worn as a badge of honour for all to see.

 

[dmc333]

Times like this really undermine the AFL culture of crushing the individual.

 

[Ricmel]

Intersted to gauge the general feeling of Bigfooty on wether one should feel sympathy for those that look like getting suspended.


Smiling Buddha

I have some sympathy for them for sure. It is looking increasingly like they were duped. But remember the East German athletes in the 1970s said the same thing....."we didn't know, we were told it was OK".

I think this whole thing has put a stain on last year and this year. If what appears to have happened has actually happened I think the people who should have been doing appropriate governance at Essendon should be sacked and quick. That includes Hird. They have badly let down the players.

The players are going to have to cop it. They are told at session after session that they are ultimately responsible for what goes into their bodies. If I was earning $500,000 a year and someone was injecting me and I knew banned drugs could be career threatening....I would do my own checking.

But their club has badly let them down.

 

[Purple Suit]

I feel some sympathy for the players as it's hard to go against your employer who you trust and who provides everything for you. Don't get me wrong, they should be banned if they have taken illegal drugs. The players should be compensated massively though and will probably end up better off in a commercial sense, compared to if they had not been banned.

The only thing I wonder about is the consent form. If smart lawyers can make that the Essendon's get out of jail free card and players aren't looked after, then I will feel extra sympathy towards them. Can't see this happening though, as it would be a PR shit storm in the middle of a PR nightmare.

 

[PieBeast]

I've always said they should avoid the ban as long as everyone responsible for this mess gets their camuffins.

However with a lot more startling info coming to light I'd add the loss of all premiership points for 2013 to that condition.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

People will have more sympathy for the players when they realise that the Dank 'letter' defence is not about protecting the players from WADA, it is about protecting Essendon from the players...

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I have sympathy for the 18, 19, 20 year olds who had only been at the club for their first or second preseason, as they are naive and are pressured by a team culture.

The rest I have no sympathy for. They had hours of lectures and would have been told plenty of times they were 100% responsible for what goes in their bodies. I keep on hearing about leadership at AFL clubs. Somebody should have shown leadership and said if this is all ok then why am I signing a consent form and where is the written proof this is all acceptable.

If they get suspended then they should see the penalty as a stupidity tax or a laziness tax. They abrogated their responsibility.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I feel bad for the ones that haven't assaulted a cab driver.

 

[The_Reaper]

I have some sympathy.

Still believe they should cop it

 

[Scott Emberton]

i'm no elite sports person but someone wants to jab me with something he needs to explain himself fully and i have to be convinced. No sympathy - none of em were kids! You wanna roll the dice you gotta be prepared for the worst outcome. Looks like these boys weren't and its gonna hurt

 

[SwampRat]

So what happens now, any time the team doctor has a pill for you, you refuse? They say it's a painkiller, you refuse. They say it's compliant, you refuse. They give you the name, you ring asada and they say it's not on the banned list but that doesn't mean it's banned, so you refuse.

Docs are administering supplements and medicines, but under this rationale they have to stop taking everything, because they cannot trust their doctor, and asada will never tell them "this is okay"

Excellent point. Also, the drugs actually administered might not be what the doctor says they are, but player has liability for what he takes.

According to ASADA, a player should NEVER trust the advice of the club on medicines administered. Yet by all practicalities, the club has responsibilities over medicine and player care.

I'm not sure how these two conflicting positions can be resolved.

 

[jmac70]

There is no point feeling sympathy. If they are found to have taken a banned substance they must be banned. Anything else makes a mockery of the entire sport.

 

[sr36]

I feel a bit of sympathy for the younger players who wouldn't have felt that they were in a position to question things.

But if Reimers is to be believed, and as the story is infolding he is becoming the most believable voice, the players knew that what they were doing was 'right on the edge'. As far as I'm concerned, 'right on the edge' suggests against the spirit of the drug code, but avoiding breaking it. If it turns out that they've not only broken the spirit of the code, my sympathy will be minimal, particularly for the experienced guys.

 

[muttley45]

bit of sympathy for kyle " tell the truth " reimers

 

[laminex]

My sympathy extends to large financial compensations for players that were unwittingly used as lab rats, but harsh penalties in the way of bans must be upheld.

If you feel bad for the Essendon players, then what about the players at clubs who bust their arses training in the proper manner, only to have their hard work unlawfully affected by a group involved in a systematic program of cheating? They are the real victims here.

Every player would take what ever they could to get the edge. As long as there club told them it's legal, so don't blame the players blame the people that have cheated them.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Every player would take what ever they could to get the edge. As long as there club told them it's legal, so don't blame the players blame the people that have cheated them.

The opposition clubs have also been disadvantaged by players that have taken performance enhancing substances with effects that last beyond the cessation of use.