The AFL's anti-doping tribunal

[thegerman]

Because we gave appropriate address updates unlike GWS and their poor governance.

Tell me why we should be punished any further than poor governance?

I have no problem with teams pushing the absolute edge, its when you go on the other side of that line i have a problem, whether that has happened we still dont know.

But that's the point, the players pushed the envelope, by not consulting.

They were injected with at least AOD, which is banned. Sure, they got conflicting advice, but it remains, they did at least push this.

Now, what does the panel need, that they did go over the edge, then didn't have records to prove innocence?

In my point, Banister did nothing wrong other than give the wrong address. I do see your linkage, but, GWS didn't inject their players 100s of times either.

 

[thegerman]

In some sports if more than 2 athletes are found to have doped the whole team is disqualified. But AFL is different.

Yep, two cyclists in a team do it, whole team is gone, owner and manager also have to prove they can manage a team again.

 

[BlueWorld]

Because we gave appropriate address updates unlike GWS and their poor governance.

Tell me why we should be punished any further than poor governance?

I have no problem with teams pushing the absolute edge, its when you go on the other side of that line i have a problem, whether that has happened we still dont know.

Thanks to lack of records we probably never will. But we can't have players banned.

 

[Keystone agony]

But that's the point, the players pushed the envelope, by not consulting.

They were injected with at least AOD, which is banned. Sure, they got conflicting advice, but it remains, they did at least push this.

Now, what does the panel need, that they did go over the edge, then didn't have records to prove innocence?

In my point, Banister did nothing wrong other than give the wrong address. I do see your linkage, but, GWS didn't inject their players 100s of times either.

Either did Bannister though?

The players signed a written consent form with everything on that form seen to be legal. Whether that was followed by Dank or not is unsure. However Dank says everything was above board, not that im saying i would trust that or him, but we have nothing else unless ASADA really dovwe will know on the 31st of March.

Was AOD banned at the time, from my understanding came under the S2 category which meant it was not prohibited and was to be officially banned and placed in S0 category on the 22nd of March which well before that time had injections seized. Im only going off Whately and a few of those AFL 360 shows.

 

[thegerman]

Either did Bannister though?

The players signed a written consent form with everything on that form seen to be legal. Whether that was followed by Dank or not is unsure. However Dank says everything was above board, not that im saying i would trust that or him, but we have nothing else unless ASADA really dovwe will know on the 31st of March.

Was AOD banned at the time, from my understanding came under the S2 category which meant it was not prohibited and was to be officially banned and placed in S0 category on the 22nd of March which well before that time had injections seized. Im only going off Whately and a few of those AFL 360 shows.

Well AOD wasn't approved for human use, so it should be under that category anyway. The regulatory agencies cannot keep up with every backyard chemist, either in Australia or worldwide, so that catch all phrase means that it is not approved for use and is therefore illegal to provide under the code.

There's a lot of writeups on whether the injections ceased, or whether they actually didn't. There's evidence that Hird said to stop them, but they kept on going for three months. Funny that Hird now says he had nothing to do with the program, yet had the authority it seems by his email to tell Dank to stop.

 

[Keystone agony]

Well AOD wasn't approved for human use, so it should be under that category anyway. The regulatory agencies cannot keep up with every backyard chemist, either in Australia or worldwide, so that catch all phrase means that it is not approved for use and is therefore illegal to provide under the code.

There's a lot of writeups on whether the injections ceased, or whether they actually didn't. There's evidence that Hird said to stop them, but they kept on going for three months. Funny that Hird now says he had nothing to do with the program, yet had the authority it seems by his email to tell Dank to stop.

Yes but it wasnt in the S0 category it was in the S2 category.

Youd be stupid to think they didnt stop after the 'Blackest Day in Sport' and him confronting the media.

You really think he kept injections of AOD going after that?

You really think players after that confrence from Hird, Evans, Robson co and the 'Blackest Day in Sport' would still go in and get injections? really?

Can you show me these 'writeups' or link me.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwaLzqaVKzM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj7SsyLEPTE

Fox Footy's Gerard Whateley has revealed what he calls "documentary proof" that the drug at the centre of ASADA's investigation into Essendon was "not prohibited".

On AFL 360, Whateley said that prior to April 22 this year, multiple parties that inquired about AOD-9604 told by ASADA that it was not prohibited substance.

The rationale for that ruling was contained in WADA's own instructions, in a document relating to the 2012 prohibited list.

The TV progam showed an excerpt from the document which read: "As a reminder it is stressed that if a designer drug or any other non-prohibited substance falls into any of the S1-S9 categories then it will be deemed to be included in that section."

"Inclusion in S0 applies only after all the other categories have been considered inadequate."

Dr Andrew Garnham, currently working as a consultant for the Essendon Football Club, said in the below interview that scientific evidence showed AOD-9604, the substance at the centre of the Bombers' supplements saga, had minimal side effects.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Gil says in an interview that by the evidence they were duped, Danks is going to be found guilty of administering banned drugs to Essendon players, and he has admitted so (Re: the AGE) the players may get off due to insufficient evidence as individuals but as as whole they are "guilty". It's where the AFL Commission must grow some nuts and invoke a team ban for a period of time, which is part of the WADA Rules, left up to AFL discretion. No chance they will though. Wouldn't be surprised if the Tribunal recommended that, although they wouldn't have that power to invoke it.

Either way, this will go on for a while yet with appeals. Danks will get done so ASADA will keep going with it.

 

[Keystone agony]

Happy to cop a team ban relating to those there at the time if and when Dank is found guilty of injection Essendon players with banned substances.

 

[DapperJong]

No, you have a think. This shouldn't be about the competition, it should be about making sure that harmful, illegal substances are wiped from the game.

If the club and players have systematically gone above and beyond to challenge the edges of the system, stuff them.

They've got every excuse under the sun; yet couldn't pick up the phone to either the union or ASADA itself.

Stupidity is not a defence. Duping is not a defence.

I can't stand poor ethical choices. Second to that is the hypocrites that hate lance Armstrong, joke about the Chinese swim teams; yet we have a team based systematic ploy to get off all charges because they have no paperwork.

Banister was banned for 18 months, for failing to give an appropriate address update. So he missed 3 tests.

Missed 3 tests. That's it. Why should Essendon players get small time, or out of season credits or no punishment? Tell me.

What's worse is that we have a Brownlow winner, who is given the award in part based on fairness; yet he knows he was injected with a non-approved drug for human use.

Where's his morals?

errrrr sorry what anti-drug code are we following again? Do you realise the difference between the 34 copping bans and the ENTIRE team?

Shame you wasted so much time writing all of this spew

 

[thegerman]

errrrr sorry what anti-drug code are we following again? Do you realise the difference between the 34 copping bans and the ENTIRE team?

Shame you wasted so much time writing all of this spew

Ok 6 of the team can continue to play.

 

[DapperJong]

Ok 6 of the team can continue to play.

deal

 

[AdamMarrett]

No it's not.

ASADA have never guaranteed anything of the sort - not least of all because ... it's not ASADA who hand down the penalty, it's the Tribunal.

In any case, co-operation is meaningless. For a reduction they have to do a lot more than just "co-operate", they have to "provide substantial assistance" (i.e., acknowledge their own guilt, then dob other players in). Or for "no fault or negligence", for starters they have to show that they did everything they could and everything they needed to do - such as contacting ASADA to check the substances. Which, er, they didn't do.

Don't know where all these half-baked posters are coming from. At least Mxett and co have been here the whole time and are up to speed on the case.

Find the court transcripts online of the 1st Hird/Essendon vs ASADA case and read all of that it is mentioned in there.And also just because I don't post here often in this thread for obvious reasons now,don't think for a minute I haven't read as much as I can on this case,the same as most on here.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You don't want 16 and 17 year old kids who want to play AFL to take protein powder?
Bwaahhahaaaa

Nope protein powder industry can f**k off for all I care

 

[Crankyhawk]

There are plenty of tablets and powders that contain banned substances and/or chemicals with possible side effects.

Saying 'its only powders its fine' is equivalent to calling a drug injection regime a 'supplement' scandal.

That said, it is 'probably' harmless unless Dank was being too smart for his own good again.

Warfarin is a tablet too.

 

[Crankyhawk]

FME on the HTB it would be 95% vindictive against Essendon, 4.5 % actually concern for the players, it is human nature and i understand it.

ashamed to say but i have noticed some real tree hugging, land rights for gay whales mentality from Freo fans, very soft, they make up .5%

Lyon should look at that.

And .1% execute dank viewpoint (me alone I think)

 

[fabulousphil]

And .1% execute dank viewpoint (me alone I think)

that would make 100.1%, but what stats aren't skewed, fair enough

 

[Crankyhawk]

that would make 100.1%, but what stats aren't skewed, fair enough

Blame it on rounding

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Either did Bannister though?

The players signed a written consent form with everything on that form seen to be legal. Whether that was followed by Dank or not is unsure. However Dank says everything was above board, not that im saying i would trust that or him, but we have nothing else unless ASADA really dovwe will know on the 31st of March.

Was AOD banned at the time, from my understanding came under the S2 category which meant it was not prohibited and was to be officially banned and placed in S0 category on the 22nd of March which well before that time had injections seized. Im only going off Whately and a few of those AFL 360 shows.

Then it is all a very simple misunderstanding. The 34 players just have to present their enquiry numbers to ASADA showing that they personally, checked that these substances presented on the "seen to be legal" form, were OK to be injected.

Even a photo of a print-out of the enquiry number will suffice, if that is the Essendon way.

As has been done to death on HTB, the vagueness of at least one of the substance supposedly referenced ("Thymosin") would have required more information from the players to confirm it's status.

I'd really love to see a few of those enquiries (hell even one), to see what was given out as an assessment of AOD. Might shed some light on EFC's use of AOD not being chased.

 

[pugthemagician]

Keep reading about players being duped or even ignorant (Gill) but their own code says if you want to get reduced sanctions for no fault significant or otherwise it is all about intent? Knowledge of being injected does not help this case also the number of injections and any consent forms signed with Thymosin would not help either.. I really cant see the 2 years being reduced. If the tribunal believes to a comfortable satisfaction that the player took TB4 2 years is the minimum.


only delays not contributed to and substantial assistance left after that.

 

[jenny61_99]

Tuesday can't come quick enough.

 

[mxett]

Keep reading about players being duped or even ignorant (Gill) but their own code says if you want to get reduced sanctions for no fault significant or otherwise it is all about intent? Knowledge of being injected does not help this case also the number of injections and any consent forms signed with Thymosin would not help either.. I really cant see the 2 years being reduced. If the tribunal believes to a comfortable satisfaction that the player took TB4 2 years is the minimum.


only delays not contributed to and substantial assistance left after that.

Conulla's ban was justified as 12 months because the players were duped. How is this different to Essendon?

 

[mxett]

How many times did Crounlla delay the investigation and drag ASADA into court to try and get evidence thrown out?

The two cases are nothing alike.

how would that change ASADA's opinion the players were duped? Oh and the Cronulla players delayed the investigation by refusing to answer questions until their season finished

 

[jenny61_99]

Conulla's ban was justified as 12 months because the players were duped. How is this different to Essendon?

I don't know. How many injections did cronulla players get? Not many I'm guessing as essendon as dank wasnt there very long. Now how many injections for essendon players over how many months? Surely it's easier to dupe over a shorter period of time? The longer it goes, the more injections, the more questions asked?

 

[onemancyclone]

Conulla's ban was justified as 12 months because the players were duped. How is this different to Essendon?

Different in the part where the outcome of one case isn't binding on the other.

 

[mxett]

Different in the part where the outcome of one case isn't binding on the other.

similar in the context of the comment I responded to. Both Cronulla and Essendon players appeared to be duped