WADA to appeal AFL Tribunal's Essendon ruling

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief said:
This was my thinking - put it all together and the likelihood decreases with every bit of evidence. Filling in the missing pieces to form a picture showing no untoward activity seems almost impossible.
Click to expand...
I think it will be more whether they see the gaps as evidence of activity untoward or are satisfied the gaps do not represent a breach.

Because anyone with a small amount of imagination can determine an outcome, then fill in the gaps accordingly to reach that outcome.
 
citizen-erased said:
I get strict liability. Its part of the code. Its very narrow-minded and everyone seems to love it. I'm just saying it's wrong.
Click to expand...

And I totally disagree.

The system is designed to create an atmosphere of fear among athletes. At the end of the day YOU are responsible for what goes into your body. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

This is specifically designed to stop what has happened in this very circumstance. This all could have been avoided if your players simply said 'No - I do NOT want to be part of a 'black ops' off site injection regime of tribulus, lube all plus, pigs testicle and other assorted peptides, recommended to me by a man I know as The Weapon'.

What they did carried a clear risk. They were aware that if that risk manifested they were subject to strict liability. They cant complain about it now that that risk has come home to roost.

I feel next to zero sympathy for them.

The players are wholly responsible for what enters their system. If charging someone, you need enough evidence to prove it was in their system
Click to expand...

For a charge of 'use' you need to prove it was used by the athlete 'to your comfortable satisfaction' taking into account all evidence (including circumstantial evidence).

This can be established without a blood test, piss test, hair test or anything remotely similar.

For example:

You are an AFL footballer. I come to your house and you tell me you are using steroids. I watch you inject what you claim to be steroids, followed by what you explain to me is a masking agent. I dob you in to ASADA. They seize your computer and it contains orders (made by you) to a company in Mexico ordering steroids and a masking agent. These match visa transactions from your bank account. The method you used to inject the steroids into your body matches the method one would use to inject this particular type of steroids, and is contained in an email to you (also located on your computer) detailing how to inject them. ASADA also find many unused needles at your home that you have no explanation for, however they find no drugs in your house of any kind. They also drug test you and it comes back negative.

Drug test or not, CAS could (and and almost certainly would) find you guilty of use of a prohibited substance. The circumstantial evidence (and its more than simply circumstantial evidence here - we have direct witness testimony) clearly indicates that you used steroids even in the absence of any positive drug tests, or any steroids being found at all.

The standard of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction'. If I am comfortably satisfied that it looks like a Duck, and am comfortably satisfied that it quacks like a Duck, then its a Duck.

For everyone spewing strict liability at me, it only comes into play if CAS is satisfied the evidence points to the substance being in their system
Click to expand...

This is not true mate. See above.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

citizen-erased said:
you mean the substance banned for competition use, but free for anyone else to use?
These pesky little things are facts.
Click to expand...

And you are the perfect example of why Hird is still at the club, its supporters like you with your ignorance and stupidity that allow the club to still employ Hird.

If Hird knew that the guy in charge of the program was bringing banned substances on to EFC grounds because he himself was being injected with them, then he can hardly claim that he had no idea that the same guy could also be bringing banned substances ion to EFC grounds to use in the injection regime that he was placed in charge of by none other than Hird.
 
tassiedog said:
Interesting that Brian Collis, the chairman of the AFL tribunal, is one of the three potential arbitrators to hear the case. Given that the players can select one of the arbitrators you'd think he'd be a shoe in unless he removes him self due to conflict of interest.
Most of the others are from the Sydney legal fraternity. I wonder if Roy is working the phones right now.
Click to expand...


I believe that there can't be a conflict of interest whatsoever so this narrows the gene pool considerably when you consider it's the number one game in the country
 
Malifice said:
And I totally disagree.

The system is designed to create an atmosphere of fear among athletes. At the end of the day YOU are responsible for what goes into your body. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

This is specifically designed to stop what has happened in this very circumstance. This all could have been avoided if your players simply said 'No - I do NOT want to be part of a 'black ops' off site injection regime of tribulus, lube all plus, pigs testicle and other assorted peptides, recommended to me by a man I know as The Weapon'.

What they did carried a clear risk. They were aware that if that risk manifested they were subject to strict liability. They cant complain about it now that that risk has come home to roost.

I feel next to zero sympathy for them.



For a charge of 'use' you need to prove it was used by the athlete 'to your comfortable satisfaction' taking into account all evidence (including circumstantial evidence).

This can be established without a blood test, piss test, hair test or anything remotely similar.

For example:

You are an AFL footballer. I come to your house and you tell me you are using steroids. I watch you inject what you claim to be steroids, followed by what you explain to me is a masking agent. I dob you in to ASADA. They seize your computer and it contains orders (made by you) to a company in Mexico ordering steroids and a masking agent. These match visa transactions from your bank account. The method you used to inject the steroids into your body matches the method one would use to inject this particular type of steroids, and is contained in an email to you (also located on your computer) detailing how to inject them. ASADA also find many unused needles at your home that you have no explanation for, however they find no drugs in your house of any kind. They also drug test you and it comes back negative.

Drug test or not, CAS could (and and almost certainly would) find you guilty of use of a prohibited substance. The circumstantial evidence (and its more than simply circumstantial evidence here - we have direct witness testimony) clearly indicates that you used steroids even in the absence of any positive drug tests, or any steroids being found at all.

The standard of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction'. If I am comfortably satisfied that it looks like a Duck, and am comfortably satisfied that it quacks like a Duck, then its a Duck.



This is not true mate. See above.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you said here. The bold bit is where i question where this case is at. Does anybody have an admittance from the players on a banned substance (other than AOD by Jobe)
What I'm trying to find is the direct link to the players of any banned substances
 
Malifice said:
And I totally disagree.

The system is designed to create an atmosphere of fear among athletes. At the end of the day YOU are responsible for what goes into your body. No ifs, no buts, no excuses.

This is specifically designed to stop what has happened in this very circumstance. This all could have been avoided if your players simply said 'No - I do NOT want to be part of a 'black ops' off site injection regime of tribulus, lube all plus, pigs testicle and other assorted peptides, recommended to me by a man I know as The Weapon'.

What they did carried a clear risk. They were aware that if that risk manifested they were subject to strict liability. They cant complain about it now that that risk has come home to roost.

I feel next to zero sympathy for them.



For a charge of 'use' you need to prove it was used by the athlete 'to your comfortable satisfaction' taking into account all evidence (including circumstantial evidence).

This can be established without a blood test, piss test, hair test or anything remotely similar.

For example:

You are an AFL footballer. I come to your house and you tell me you are using steroids. I watch you inject what you claim to be steroids, followed by what you explain to me is a masking agent. I dob you in to ASADA. They seize your computer and it contains orders (made by you) to a company in Mexico ordering steroids and a masking agent. These match visa transactions from your bank account. The method you used to inject the steroids into your body matches the method one would use to inject this particular type of steroids, and is contained in an email to you (also located on your computer) detailing how to inject them. ASADA also find many unused needles at your home that you have no explanation for, however they find no drugs in your house of any kind. They also drug test you and it comes back negative.

Drug test or not, CAS could (and and almost certainly would) find you guilty of use of a prohibited substance. The circumstantial evidence (and its more than simply circumstantial evidence here - we have direct witness testimony) clearly indicates that you used steroids even in the absence of any positive drug tests, or any steroids being found at all.

The standard of proof is 'comfortable satisfaction'. If I am comfortably satisfied that it looks like a Duck, and am comfortably satisfied that it quacks like a Duck, then its a Duck.



This is not true mate. See above.
Click to expand...
That was 6 minute charge :)
 
citizen-erased said:
I have very little doubt our players knew there was an illicit drugs policy, were able to look substances up and determine what they were (Crameri and his mum utilised google), and yes, they are accountable to ensure what is put in their body is compliant with the code.

However, my point is, all the checking in the world means nothing, if what you are told you are getting is not what you are getting.
Click to expand...
Mate can you tell me what the Doc meant in his letter to Hird about not being sure if AOD was approved yet?
Yet the players were already being injected with it, that makes little sense if the Doc didn't even know if it was approved or not
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You only need to take a brief look at her personal life to understand why she has a job.

Her partner is a guy by the name of John Hartigan, who just happens to be chief executive at News Limited.

She can (and does) spew out mountains of crap because she is the ultimate in protected species.

Why anyone actually thinks she has any credibility as a journalist is beyond me.
 
telsor said:
You only need to take a brief look at her personal life to understand why she has a job.

Her partner is a guy by the name of John Hartigan, who just happens to be chief executive at News Limited.

She can (and does) spew out mountains of crap because she is the ultimate in protected species.

Why anyone actually thinks she has any credibility as a journalist is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I can tell you she is hated in Rugby circles
 
carlton2dabone said:
And you are the perfect example of why Hird is still at the club, its supporters like you with your ignorance and stupidity that allow the club to still employ Hird.

If Hird knew that the guy in charge of the program was bringing banned substances on to EFC grounds because he himself was being injected with them, then he can hardly claim that he had no idea that the same guy could also be bringing banned substances ion to EFC grounds to use in the injection regime that he was placed in charge of by none other than Hird.
Click to expand...
Ha. Cheers. I embrace this stupidity. Its taken me far in life.
I especially like that i have such a hold on the club's actions.

Hird, as far as I'm aware, wasn't injected with banned substances. It was quite alright for him to have them, just not the players.
 
Dinsdale said:
excuse my ignorance, but I cant find any info on what power CAS actually have over the AFL to enforce sanctions - if it indeed comes down to that?

what would stop the AFL saying "we dont recognise your power so bugger off"?
Click to expand...
They would be in breach of the WADA code and the government who forced them to sign up or be denied funding. Could potentially affect Australia's standing in world sport.
 
Very surprised to be honest.

Was confident Essendon would not be found guilty at the first tribunal, but I don't think WADA would have appealed unless they had a solid path. ASADA had a fair few holes to fill - if WADA can fill those holes, it'll be very interesting.
 
citizen-erased said:
Agree with everything you said here. The bold bit is where i question where this case is at. Does anybody have an admittance from the players on a banned substance (other than AOD by Jobe)
What I'm trying to find is the direct link to the players of any banned substances
Click to expand...
Consent forms I guess. The AFL flatly rejected it was Thymosin Alpha.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

WADA to appeal AFL Tribunal's Essendon ruling

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
881
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top