The Australian 6/8 - Teflon Dons escape drug bans

[I Rock]

Thank you Daytripper.

As I once said on this board - you will never cop more flak than when you prove the mob is wrong.

Absolutely guaranteed.

If you are correct it means (besides you get to be King of the Boards for a while ) that the EFC knowingly went in to a complex program that looked to expose a loophole that allowed them to use a banned substance on their players.

So all this talk of “we didn’t know”, “it was a rogue element” are out of the picture; they might be able to snub their nose at ASADA/WADA but in terms of their actions in fairness to the competition, bringing the game in to disrepute etc are now a completely different matter.

It’s not a governance issue; it’s a well planned and implemented structure that has put the competition in a terrible position. It’s a disgrace what they have done (regardless of the outcome or scenario) and if they use backroom politics to get out of a serious penalty from the AFL then both the EFC and the AFL have shamed the sporting code.

 

[hoianbulldog]

only if the ADVRP recommends infractions. If they don't, there's nothing to come over the top of.

And I still have seen nothing that explicitly demonstrates that WADA can appeal a team-based penalty previously decided on by the Commission "in their absolute discretion". Cygninae did seem to think that was the case and he obviously knows his law talking stuff, so I take that on board, but I'm still not completely convinced personally. Happy to consider other POV though.

Is that how it will work? If WADA believe that a team or player has been on the juice they can only appeal if they think the sanction is on the lite side but can't appeal if no sanctions are issued?

Bizarre if true.

 

[Barkly St End]

Why, because you've read one article in the Australian?

The vibe.

 

[Daytripper]

What did I make up?

OTC: Jobe said he believed that he had been given AOD and also that he felt he had done nothing wrong. He also expressed surprise at the number of injections he received "It was a new frontier for us. The experience of that many injections wasn't something I'd experienced in football before".

I don't care what his father stated (vested interest?) recently, I am only quoting what he said on the couch and the part containing the injections is verbatim.

Once again what is not a fact.

Here is your original post. I will underline the part that you have just basically made up and then reiterated as 'fact'.

But admitted to being surprised at the number of injections he had so WTF were they. Neither he, the EFC or even can say that.

Now again, that last bit is not a 'fact'.
The players and their families are now comfortable in knowing what they were given and that it was safe.

It would be appreciated if you did not make things up to suit your argument from here on in.

Thanks.

 

[clogged]

Would they not also need WADA in the room to okay the outcome? Last thing they'd want is for WADA to challenge any outcome managed by ASADA and AFL.

As far as I understand it, ASADA does the investigation, penalty is applied by the sports body or ASADA, WADA either appeals the penalty or doesn't. WADA otherwise has no involvement, unless it's a big case like Armstrong or events like the Olympics, but even then they let others do the work for them.

If ASADA's investigation turns up nothing, what can WADA do?

They are effectively powerless. This is what a few of us have been saying for a while - they are quite limited in what they can say or do. There first has to be a finding of doping for WADA to do anything.

 

[Barkly St End]

If you are correct it means (besides you get to be King of the Boards for a while ) that the EFC knowingly went in to a complex program that looked to expose a loophole that allowed them to use a banned substance on their players.

I don't know.

Maybe EFC were conned by a charlatan?

Maybe EFC paid a lot of money for a whole lot of nothing?

Maybe EFC are bigger dumbasses than ASADA?

 

[MrMan]

I respectfully disagree with his take on this.

The interim report is the report by which all penalties will be assessed, & as such is as 'final' as it needs to be.

The end game is now in play.

Fair enough. Time will tell.

 

[IanG]

You're miles away with this. Tigerland is very much on the right track.

Gerard Whateley explained the situation quite well on Offsiders on Sunday morning.

Exactly so:
1. why is this article even news?
2. How can it be considered the final report on the Essendon investigation.

 

[Daytripper]

Is that how it will work? If WADA believe that a team or player has been on the juice they can only appeal if they think the sanction is on the lite side but can't appeal if no sanctions are issued?

Bizarre if true.

Its how most legal systems operate around the world.

No such thing as double jeopardy.

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

It's a mistake to compare this to a push bike race.

No.

The comparison of drug cheating in football and cycling is very valid.

A failed anti-obesity lotion.


The blackest day in Australian sport.

And yet the internal EFc report says "disturbing pharmacological experiment"

 

[Broken_Chairs]

A six month report has resulted in a 400 page report with no evidence of breaches of the WADA code.

It's looking likely that this is it.

ASADA will now move on.

Oh great so you know the contents of the report? You know exactly what was covered?

 

[Gavstar]

"It began with an email from a disgruntled employee at a Miami-based anti-aging clinic named Biogenesis.
The email, sent to a reporter at a weekly Miami newspaper, hinted at new information about baseball players using drugs.
In late January, after almost four months of investigation by staffer Tim Elfrink, the Miami New Times reported that some 20 players, including New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez, had purchased from the clinic substances that are banned by baseball, including human growth hormone (HGH)"

This is what ASADA is after with their new power imagine some purchasing clerk in an anti-aging clinic in Melbourne hit with an ASADA disclosure notice.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If you're busily attending an ASADA interview, and they just sit there waiting for you to answer, it will become difficult to earn a crust. Call him in for a month of interviews on pain of $5,100/day fines for non-appearance, and wait for his bills to break him. Somewhat abusive, but not necessarily outside the intent of providing coercive powers to ASADA for use against people who potentially have information relating to suspected doping violations.

ah, I get you. Hahaha I dunno, it's pretty brutal. I doubt it to be honest.

 

[MrMan]

Exactly so:
1. why is this article even news?
2. How can it be considered the final report on the Essendon investigation.

Yes. It befuddles me also.

 

[Barkly St End]

And yet the internal EFc report says "disturbing pharmacological experiment"

Sounds shocking.

 

[Oneiros]

Never before have so many known so little about so much

If I came across someone bearing a copy of that report, it would take a great deal of personal restraint not to try and rob them blind!

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

Sounds shocking.

I know. Lots of fuss for a lotion.

Wonder what the external report will say when its finished.

 

[go_nodders]

The vibe.

That was actually funny......much like you stance on AOD!!!

 

[Tiger2709]

Wiggle out of what?

They haven't been found guilty of anything.

Honestly, I hope the courts are looking at this thread. They could eliminate thousands of potential jurists at a stroke as seemingly they do not understand the concepts of due process or presumption of innocence or evidence.

Essendon and their supporters conveniently forget any incriminating evidence that has popped up in the past and carry on with the clubs new spin for the week, a player has admitted taking a s0 banned substance, yes he used the term believed but still this should be enough for any thinking person to realise that they have a case to answer at least with that particular player.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance you know better then this. Saad has not had an infraction issued yet eitheir and he will not until the process is over. Is the process over? No

yes but there will be a definite processed followed there, won't there? ie he will have his B Sample tested, if it comes back irregular the ADVRP will immediately refer him for an infraction, which will be issued by the AFL GM, who will write to him, then he will attend a tribunal and face the music. Fully transparent and we know what will occur.

This is very different because whilst it's not a positive test, there has been admissions made to investigators about certain substances. Yet there's been 6 months of investigations, an "interim" report released, and still no hint of infractions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is finished. But I am saying: people might have to start recognising shades of grey in areas they had previously seen as very black and white...

 

[I Rock]

I don't know.

Maybe EFC were conned by a charlatan?

Maybe EFC paid a lot of money for a whole lot of nothing?

Maybe EFC are bigger dumbasses than ASADA?

Now it's one thing to push your ideas on S0; it's another to start to hit the Hawker areas of Essendon sympathy.

So lets assume AOD-9604 was in play here and Essendon manage to get the players off a penatly of using a substance that has been publicly stated as BANNED on several occassions by the Governing bodies and that at no stage was there an approval giving for its use. They either:

1. Have a complete lack of Governance in a program thay have admitted on several occassions as being close to the line. Not a very good way to manage and run a program you knew was going to be pushing the boundries. And if so, why so many complex structures to the program and how did they know about this loophole?
2. Had researched and implemented a complex substance program that is close to the edge and looked to expose a legal loophole that allowed them to give their players a known banned substance.

They can't have it both ways. I know which one I would lean towards.

 

[IanG]

I respectfully disagree with his take on this.

The interim report is the report by which all penalties will be assessed, & as such is as 'final' as it needs to be.

Based on what?

 

[mxett]

Consenting is enough.

Not my point, nor was it of the poster I replied to

 

[mxett]

ASADA never gave that advice. There is no electronic documentation or receipt to say so, essential fr om ASADA when advice is given. If there was any either Essendon or ASADA could easily produce it. Your letter of legality came from the company...lol!

Danks was told in Feb 2012 by WADA to check the S0 status of AOD with ASADA as they had not come across any regulatory approval from any country. He obviously didn't as ASADA never gave him any advice on SO. Danks was an expert at mis-representation as we have found out .

Prove it

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

Based on what?

"inevitable doesn't mean is it certain to happen"