Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[Glacier]

Claims on Twitter that Hird is done.

For those who aren't on twitter ( me !!) , give us something Main Man

 

[Main Man]

For those who aren't on twitter ( me !!) , give us something Main Man

Rory Cahill ‏@rmcahill

56m​

BREAKING: AFL to confirm Hird bound by Anti Doping Code, ASADA report to confirm hexarelin use. Hird gone. Stories to follow.

Rory Cahill ‏@rmcahill

59m​

James Hird will face suspension for violating the AFL Coaches Code due to his consumption of S2 banned substances.

 

[Whirling Dervish]

This. It would be an absolute travesty if the negligent absence of specific injection records is somehow used as 'proof' they never happened? The onus should be on the *EFC to prove they didn't.

So, guilty until proven innocent? That is far more unpalatable to me than unwitting players "getting away with it".

The issue is that the circumstantial evidence of use (buying it, possessing it, attending a clinic where it is administered etc.) also only points to some players having taken the banned substances. There is certainly no suggestion I've heard that any player intended to take a banned substance or did anything but demand to know that the substances were legal.

ASADA will need to attempt to connect the banned substances to specific players on the balance of probabilities (e.g. dispensation dates, testimony of parties involved, evidence of players attending on that day using mobile records and such). We'll have to wait and see.

Don't worry though guys, if you want blood the poor record-keeping might save the players, but it will damn the club.

 

[Glacier]

Rory Cahill ‏@rmcahill

56m​

BREAKING: AFL to confirm Hird bound by Anti Doping Code, ASADA report to confirm hexarelin use. Hird gone. Stories to follow.

Rory Cahill ‏@rmcahill

59m​

James Hird will face suspension for violating the AFL Coaches Code due to his consumption of S2 banned substances.

Ignorance on my part
Who is this Cahill guy ?

 

[Main Man]

Ignorance on my part
Who is this Cahill guy ?

To be honest not sure and not sure how credible he is, but where there is smoke there is fire for mine.

 

[Hungry Hawk]

Where do I throw petrol?

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

So, guilty until proven innocent? That is far more unpalatable to me than unwitting players "getting away with it"..

Nonsense. We are not discussing criminal prosecution, not even a civil dispute. No one will go to jail. This is all about complying with a sporting standard.

Many drugs will not be found by testing. In this environment proving you are clean is not unreasonable.

 

[Davo23]

Nonsense. We are not discussing criminal prosecution, not even a civil dispute. No one will go to jail. This is all about complying with a sporting standard.

Many drugs will not be found by testing. In this environment proving you are clean is not unreasonable.

Exactly

And this is not very different from Lance Armstrong's case, and the Yankees Alex Rodriguez.
Neithert of them ever tested positive, but there was a huge volume of incriminating evidence.

It may be circumstantial evidence, but there are people in jails serving life terms, based on circumstantial evidence


.

 

[Glacier]

This Cahill fella has just retracted his tweets
He has either been threatened or made a complete dick of himself
Who knows

 

[Pessimistic]

For mine, give suspect players suspended sentences

Throw the book at the club

 

[Whirling Dervish]

Nonsense. We are not discussing criminal prosecution, not even a civil dispute. No one will go to jail. This is all about complying with a sporting standard.

Many drugs will not be found by testing. In this environment proving you are clean is not unreasonable.

No it's not nonsense, it's my opinion. I'm not sure what distinction you're making referring to criminal matters and civil disputes, but I think you may be confusing the standard of proof with the onus of proof. My problem is with placing the onus of proof on the players and asking them to prove they're clean, partly for the reason you've given - if some drugs cannot be found by testing or record-keeping (whether due to the nature of the drug or the time elapsed since it was taken) how are those players possibly able to prove they're clean?

 

[Books]

Essendon will be punished, but it will be a negotiated penalty.

IMO they will lose their points for this season, and cop a large fine. This looks tough but in reality is soft.
Essendon get to keep all their draft picks and start next season with a clean slate.

Most important, the AFL get to minimize the damage. That is what it's really about.

 

[play2win]

Nonsense. We are not discussing criminal prosecution, not even a civil dispute. No one will go to jail. This is all about complying with a sporting standard.

Many drugs will not be found by testing. In this environment proving you are clean is not unreasonable.

although there has been talk that civil action may follow from the player managers camps. i am no expert but there may also be legal ramifications regarding work place safety.

 

[Arrogant Frog]

This article doesn't address the question of identifying what was given to specific players. We're still relying on rumour and contradictory unproven assertions on that question. The only actual information I'm aware of that's out there as to who took what is:

1. Jobe Watson "thinking he may have" taken AOD-9604; and
2. An invoice issued to Essendon recording generic descriptions for substances that may or may not describe banned substances.

The worse the record keeping and the more circumstantial the evidence, the less likely it is that specific players will be banned. If you have record of 11 doses of Thymosin-beta 4 being dispensed and 20 players recorded as taking 'Thymosin', who do you ban?


We'll find out in due course if there is more specific information or witness testimony that may identify what was actually given to which players. I'm guessing we won't find out until ASADA has had a go at Dank under their new powers.

Yeah I agree with alot of what you have said. I guess it comes down to whether circumstantial evidence is strong enough to impose infraction notices. Cause at moment we have at least 11 players saying they were given Thymosin and circumstantial evidence suggests that it was thymosin-beta 4.

 

[play2win]

my guess is

club stripped of points 2013-14 and large $fine
club officials banned for 2 years
players with circumstantial evidence supporting thymosin 2 year ban
players with circumstantial evidence supporting AOD 1 year ban

 

[Argy]

So, guilty until proven innocent? That is far more unpalatable to me than unwitting players "getting away with it".

The issue is that the circumstantial evidence of use (buying it, possessing it, attending a clinic where it is administered etc.) also only points to some players having taken the banned substances. There is certainly no suggestion I've heard that any player intended to take a banned substance or did anything but demand to know that the substances were legal.

ASADA will need to attempt to connect the banned substances to specific players on the balance of probabilities (e.g. dispensation dates, testimony of parties involved, evidence of players attending on that day using mobile records and such). We'll have to wait and see.

Don't worry though guys, if you want blood the poor record-keeping might save the players, but it will damn the club.

WADA has a different requirement of proof than our legal systems. It is not "beyond reasonable doubt", but "to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel".

This is somewhere between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities".

 

[Davo23]

my guess is

club stripped of points 2013-14 and large $fine
club officials banned for 2 years
players with circumstantial evidence supporting thymosin 2 year ban
players with circumstantial evidence supporting AOD 1 year ban

And James Hird an extra 6 months suspension for the dumb look on his face when he faces the cameras.

And for his damn hair!

.

 

[Argy]

And James Hird an extra 6 months suspension for the dumb look on his face when he faces the cameras.

And for his damn hair!

.

Add another six for smugly saying yesterday that ASADA had complimented Essendon on how honest he was in his interview.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

my guess is

club stripped of points 2013-14 and large $fine
club officials banned for 2 years
players with circumstantial evidence supporting thymosin 2 year ban
players with circumstantial evidence supporting AOD 1 year ban

I would be pretty cheesed if I were supporting a club that lost a game to Essendon in 2013.

Thinking specifically of Fremantle, who lost by less than a kick and will probably be 4 points of getting a home final.

 

[Argy]

I would be pretty cheesed if I were supporting a club that lost a game to Essendon in 2013.

Thinking specifically of Fremantle, who lost by less than a kick and will probably be 4 points of getting a home final.

Makes up for their soft draw.

 

[JustKickIt]

they should be,injections,off site and pushing the boundries...hello they all cant be that stupid.

Everytime I get medication I always look it up on the internet.... takes 2 minutes. If I operated in an environment where taking certain compounds could cause me to lose my income, I wouldnt be able to get on there soon enough to check it out.

 

[Flukey!]

I don't think any players will get banned. The report said they were unwitting participants to a poorly run program.

A report last week from Peter Brukner who is a recognised expert in this area states the following.

There is only one section of the WADA Code that allows avoidance of suspension altogether – Section 10.5.1, No Fault or Negligence. This relates to suspension being waived in specific rare scenarios where an athlete can prove he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. It specifically states that it is not applicable in the following scenario:
"The administration of a prohibited substance by the athlete's personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the athlete (athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any prohibited substance).''
So it is hard to see how zero suspension can be applied in the Essendon case.

The WADA code stipulates a standard punishment of two years' suspension.
However, there are several clauses in the WADA Code that relate to reduction of the standard ban. The first is 10.5.2, entitled No Significant Fault or Negligence. It states:
"If an athlete or other person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears no significant fault or negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable."
It is possible under this clause for players to argue they have no significant fault and have their bans halved.

The next relevant clause is 10.5.3, Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations. This clause states:
"An anti-doping organisation ... may ... suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the athlete or other person has provided substantial assistance to an anti-doping organisation, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the anti-doping organisation discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules by another person ... No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended."

If the Essendon players were considered to be eligible for reductions under both clauses 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, then the best-case scenario is a six-month ban.
The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:
"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."

Based on that, they cannot possibly escape suspensions.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-escape-sanction-its-hard-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html#ixzz2bGDrWkeN

 

[MrFujiMoto]

This article doesn't address the question of identifying what was given to specific players. We're still relying on rumour and contradictory unproven assertions on that question. The only actual information I'm aware of that's out there as to who took what is:

1. Jobe Watson "thinking he may have" taken AOD-9604; and
2. An invoice issued to Essendon recording generic descriptions for substances that may or may not describe banned substances.

The worse the record keeping and the more circumstantial the evidence, the less likely it is that specific players will be banned. If you have record of 11 doses of Thymosin-beta 4 being dispensed and 20 players recorded as taking 'Thymosin', who do you ban?


We'll find out in due course if there is more specific information or witness testimony that may identify what was actually given to which players. I'm guessing we won't find out until ASADA has had a go at Dank under their new powers.

Not sure how it goes legally but common sense would dictate
ASADA / WADA - "you have given 20 doses of Thymosin and 11 of those were Beta 4"
Essendon - Yes sir but sorry we are not sure which ones were Beta 4
ASADA / WADA - OK, until you can identify who the 11 were, all of the the players given Tymosin will be banned.

Amazing that due to Essendons poor management or more likely their fantastic shredding and destruction abilities that they may get their lying, cheating arses out of it.

 

[Whirling Dervish]

Flukey, as I said earlier in this thread this may be so, but it still depends on ASADA connecting the banned substances to a specific player in the first place.

As Argy said ASADA needs to be comfortably satisfied a player has taken a banned substance. ASADA may be comfortably satisfied from the evidence that Essendon players have been given banned substances, but it will also need to be comfortably satisfied which ones took the banned substances. There have been cases of identical twins being acquitted of crimes where the court is sure that only one of them did it, but cannot determine which one.

The Brukner article is discussing how a player may seek to minimise or avoid punishment once they're found to have taken a banned substance.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

....if some drugs cannot be found by testing or record-keeping (whether due to the nature of the drug or the time elapsed since it was taken) how are those players possibly able to prove they're clean?

You could always say the cat ate the medical records.