Sympathy for the players.

[evo]

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

On the one the hand many of them are young, type A individuals keen to sucede in a highly cutthroat business. Some are probably a little undereducated and were being pressured by coaches, team leaders and scientists with impressive letters after their names.

On the other hand, as I wrote in the big thread

Even if you were as dopey as Reimers, surely your spidey senses would start tingling when the club's mad scientist was asking you to pop across the road to have weekly injections in the stomach of Alzheimers medicine.

As footy fans, loyal club members, and a for lot of us current or ex-footy players ourselves, where should we stand on this?

Smiling Buddha

 

[Snake_Baker]

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.

 

[JeffDunne]

I have sympathy for the players but I don't think they should avoid bans.

Using a scapegoat (rouge scientist) as an excuse means organisations have an out for doping.

Was there sympathy for East German or other athletes doped by Totalitarian Governments? They wouldn't have had the right to ask questions let alone getting honest answers.

Yes I have sympathy for athletes but you can't give people an easy out to cheat.

 

[Messenger]

I feel terrible for the players if the charges are true. A fringe player might find his place on the team gone but the time any suspension is lifted.

Having said that, I think an example must be set.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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

 

[evo]

Players have been screwed

Yes and no. The players also has the the most to gain if the PED program was successful, and of course kept secret. Underweight 19 year old centre half forward suddenly becomes a viable option to play in the firsts, possibly 18 months before his time. Accolades and rise in contract value ensues.

 

[lihei]

Mmmmmmm, nah!

 

[IanW]

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

Agreed on all points.

 

[campbell]

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, but....ALL players are given extensive education on their role and responsibilities in drug taking.....They ALL chose to blindly follow others.

I feel for them in that they have been given substances that are no supposed to be used on humans, and the possible long term effects on their health.

I dont feel anything else, because they agreed to take a quick fix approach to training and playing our game....sorry.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

For 500k a year, they can pump me with anything. And i mean anything!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yes and no. The players also has the the most to gain if the PED program was successful, and of course kept secret. Underweight 19 year old centre half forward suddenly becomes a viable option to play in the firsts, possibly 18 months before his time. Accolades and rise in contract value ensues.

That only applies if they knew what was happening and bought into it. For the guys who did this stuff in their own time, and knew what was going on, I have no sympathy.

 

[evo]

That only applies if they knew what was happening and bought into it. For the guys who did this stuff in their own time, and knew what was going on, I have no sympathy.

Seems to me having the drugs that I will be administered explained to me, signing a form consenting to it and then tromping across the street for my weekly injections well and truly "buying in".

 

[Malifice]

Having said that, I think an example must be set.

An example must be set.

The whole ASADA/ WADA regime relies on being self regulating. There are what.. 300 blokes emplyed by ASADA - and around 5 million althletes to monitor. The regime achieves self regulation via being extremely draconian (strict liability on the athlete).

You wind up with terrified and paraniod athletes too scared to take anything.

I feel for these guys a bit. They were mislead by their clubs (whom they trust).

But they were mislead by their clubs during a program of systemic injections of acknowledged 'borderline' drugs. They knew they were skirting the sun here, and cant really complain if they get burnt.

Coulda (and shoulda) just said no.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Seems to me having the drugs that I will be administered explained to me, signing a form consenting to it and then tromping across the street for my weekly injections well and truly "buying in".

It looks like they had their medical and sports science team tell them they were all compliant, and may have used to the fake WADA letter to help convince them (mixed reports on this, some saying the letter was with the consent forms at signing, others saying it was referenced by not there).

With no reason to distrust these guys, why would they question them? Your doc is supposed to be the expert on this, and the one who looks after your best interests.

I agree the clinic thing is dopey, but we are talking footballers here, they aint brain surgeons. They would have been told "do this", and they would have just nodded and done as to,s

 

[Malifice]

Seems to me having the drugs that I will be administered explained to me, signing a form consenting to it and then tromping across the street for my weekly injections well and truly "buying in".

Exactly.

They didnt blunder into an AOD filled syringe in a darkened room here.

They willingly participated in a fairly dodgy program (that at least one ex player in Reimers has acknowledged the players knew was dodgy) designed to put substances in them to enhance performance and recovery.

Later down the track, when one of those substances turns out to be banned (despite assurances from the person administering it that it was safe) they cant really claim a 'zero fault or negligence' defence.

They'll sure as hell sue the crap out of the Essendon FC though.

I feel for them, but they deserve the bans.

If they're angry at anyone, it should be the club who did this to them.

 

[Malifice]

With no reason to distrust these guys, why would they question them?

But the evidence from Spike (and Reimers) is the players did question them.

Rather than question them, they should have said 'no'.

Spike claimed they were given just his very option.

Your doc is supposed to be the expert on this, and the one who looks after your best interests.

Under the ASADA code, the athlete is responsible for anything that enters his body.

Doc gives you an asprin, that turns out to contain HGH, and you get banned for two years.

I agree the clinic thing is dopey, but we are talking footballers here, they aint brain surgeons. They would have been told "do this", and they would have just nodded and done as to,s

Thats an issue for when they sue the crap out of the Essendon FC (who was clearly negligent here).

Its not enough to meet the 'no fault or negligence' threshold in the ASADA code.

 

[blackshadow]

Exactly.

They didnt blunder into an AOD filled syringe in a darkened room here.

They willingly participated in a fairly dodgy program (that at least one ex player in Reimers has acknowledged the players knew was dodgy) designed to put substances in them to enhance performance and recovery.

Later down the track, when one of those substances turns out to be banned (despite assurances from the person administering it that it was safe) they cant really claim a 'zero fault or negligence' defence.

They'll sure as hell sue the crap out of the Essendon FC though.

I feel for them, but they deserve the bans.

If they're angry at anyone, it should be the club who did this to them.

Pretty much exactly what I feel.

 

[myyakhasfleas]

I do feel sympathy for the players, if they were duped by Dank, especially if younger players (under 50 games played) were also involved. If they do get bans (especially 2 year bans) it pretty much destroys the younger players development. I do not feel any sympathy for the administration and coaching staff of the Essendon Football Club however.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

But the evidence from Spike (and Reimers) is the players did question them.

Rather than question them, they should have said 'no'.

Spike claimed they were given just his very option.



Under the ASADA code, the athlete is responsible for anything that enters his body.

Doc gives you an asprin, that turns out to contain HGH, and you get banned for two years.




Thats an issue for when they sue the crap out of the Essendon FC (who was clearly negligent here).

Its not enough to meet the 'no fault or negligence' threshold in the ASADA code.

I meant why would they question the answers they were given from the sources they got them from.

Remember this is coming from their club docs, people who are supposed to be medical professionals, and experts in this field. Cases like this are few (where the doc screws the athlete) so its not like it's something players would be asking "is my doc lying to me?"

When most of us go to the doc, we do what they say and swallow the pills they tell us without question. I'd imagine it's even stronger for these guys (given the team bond)

 

[Malifice]

I meant why would they question the answers they were given from the sources they got them from.

Because they face a mandatory two year ban from the sport (with no mercy, and 100% althete liability) if those sources **** it up.

In other words, they should have walked away.

By punishing them, the next athlete in a similar situation will (hopefully) do just that. Walk the **** away.

Remember this is coming from their club docs, people who are supposed to be medical professionals, and experts in this field. Cases like this are few (where the doc screws the athlete) so its not like it's something players would be asking "is my doc lying to me?"

Plenty of ASADA and WADA cases of Medical error/ negligence relying on an athlete getting accidentally doped by a trusted doctor. And in each one of them, the athlete was banned.

The only exception is when the athlete had literally no choice in taking the susbtance (i.e. they were unconsious or attacked with a drug filled syringe by a competitor).

Literally, as in zero fault or negligence.

When most of us go to the doc, we do what they say and swallow the pills they tell us without question. I'd imagine it's even stronger for these guys (given the team bond)

As athletes they should be doing the eact opposite.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Because they face a mandatory two year ban from the sport (with no mercy, and 100% althete liability) if those sources **** it up.

In other words, they should have walked away.

By punishing them, the next athlete in a similar situation will (hopefully) do just that. Walk the **** away.



Plenty of ASADA and WADA cases of Medical error/ negligence relying on an athlete getting accidentally doped by a trusted doctor. And in each one of them, the athlete was banned.

The only exception is when the athlete had literally no choice in taking the susbtance (i.e. they were unconsious or attacked with a drug filled syringe by a competitor).

Literally, as in zero fault or negligence.



As athletes they should be doing the eact opposite.

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"

 

[QuietB]

I feel massively sorry for the players and would still hope they get cleared somehow. They have been letdown on a massive scale and if they do get suspended, and they do choose to sue the EFC are in a bigger world of hurt than we could ever imagine.

 

[maculosus]

No sympathy really.

Surely with all the dodgy stuff going on (injections, consent forms, doctor gone missing, clinic over the road) some players, especially the older ones, must have realised the way they were running out games and the fast recovery was suspicious. They must have thought "why aren't other clubs using this?". They could see "glory" down the road and stayed on that road. They must have been suspicious that they were "cheating".

Guilty.

 

[Malifice]

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 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.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

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"

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.