Play Nice WADA v Essendon 34: Guilty, 2 Yr Susp. (backdated to Mar 2015). Affects 17 current AFL plyrs.

[Stumpy Pete]

Ari and Lance Uppercut,

I'm interested in your views as to why the players didn't mention the supplements program as part of their testing carried out in 2012, particularly given that they were specifically asked (in the normal course of events) whether they have taken/received anything?

Regards

S. Pete

 

[leeloo]

Is there a journalist in this country with a backbone who will call a spade a spade ?

Some of the shits about the players being victims is cringeworthy

The NSW journalists are having a field day. The others are looking at this through their AFL accredited glasses.

 

[evo]

Chief facebook?! Really?

I can't even comprehend the rubbish my own supporters post on there.

Chief owns the largest AFL chat site in the world, yet his first port of call to catch up on the latest footy gossip is facebook.

Let that be a lesson to us all...

 

[JeffDunne]

Ari and Lance Uppercut,

I'm interested in your views as to why the players didn't mention the supplements program as part of their testing carried out in 2012, particularly given that they were specifically asked (in the normal course of events) whether they have taken/received anything?

Regards

S. Pete

You're a glutton for punishment!

 

[malteaser]

Manufactured outcomes.

A hallmark of the AFL.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Ok Mr Pedantic.

WADA has clear triggers for team doping penalties.

Triggers I might add, the AFL hasn't enacted.

you think not being completely wrong is being pedantic? Heh

Let me put it plainly. The AFL denied EFC due process by punishing them before the investigation was even concluded. Clearly neither party could publicly accept it was for doping issues because that would obviously prejudice them in the actual trial to come, so they cooked up a funny spin concept called "governance" and rolled that out knowing the great unwashed would swallow it, which you obviously did, and they could protect their precious 2013 finals series.

The idea that EFC should then be punished twice for the same offence because they had their due process denied to them is, if I can borrow a phrase, clearly nonsense no stilts. I've said it time and time again that the AFL have already punished EFC and well, wouldn't you know it.

Just maybe don't accuse me of style over substance when you yourself clearly don't even have a grasp of the basics eh

 

[CbayT]

DO you think they would have good grounds on appealing to the supreme court?

If so, how long would that take?

Jurisdiction problem

 

[Chief]

 

[imperial_oz]

Ok Mr Pedantic.

WADA has clear triggers for team doping penalties.

Triggers I might add, the AFL hasn't enacted.

I think you say that the AFL Anti-Doping Code has triggers for teams where multiple players are found to have breached the code. I'm not sure that WADA has any control or influence over anything but the actual individuals and they certainly are not in a position tio appeal the AFL's lack of action against Essendon (the club) Besides, who could they appeal to considering the club isn't an athlete.

 

[KM00]

I cant see that in the ASADA Act. My understanding is that the participation in the ASADA/ WADA regime by a domestic competition is entirely voluntary.

Can you cite me the relevant section of the ASADA Act or the Regulations that make it mandatory for clubs to comply?

There is absolutely nothing in the ASADA Act that penalises entities like the AFL for non compliance, or that gives ASADA the power to enforce compliance with the Act. As a domestic corporation, the AFL only has to comply if it wants to. If they dont want to, then they're on their own (from a federal government assistance position and from an international sporting position).

They could, but they would be an international laughing stock. The insulated sports in the USA have the financial clout (and a big enough domestic market) to simply not care. Until the AFL becomes an olympic or international sport, it can pretty much do what it wants.

This is how the AFL gets away with allowing its players to avoid sanction for cocaine, meth and other other prohibited drugs (all of which are banned under the WADA Code). It created exceptions for certain drugs (and it can make whatever exceptions it wants). The AFL could bring in a three strike policy for anabolic steroids if it wanted to, and there isnt a thing that ASADA or WADA could do about it (other than a declaration that the AFL is not in fact WADA compliant).

Of course, pulling out of the WADA regime entirely will lose the AFL face in the international sporting community, and piss off the Federal government (denying them Federal money and assistance, and possibly giving some momentum to an amendment to the ASADA Act to force compliance).

Theyre better off being WADA compliant (with exceptions). I anticipate (reading between the lines) that the AFL code is going to be amended to remove CAS appeals, dismantle a lot of ASADA's oversight and place all the power for its administration (and a lot more discretion) in the hands of the AFL exclusively.

Then the AFL can still claim to be WADA compliant, but in reality be able to do whatever they want whenever it suits them to do so.

I think you have answered your own questions there.

There is nothing in the ASADA Act that forces compliance at the moment. Only the government threat that it will act to force compliance (either via legislation or withdrawal of financial and other support) should the AFL make moves to withdraw from the WADA code - which you clearly understand and explain in the second quote .... so I am not sure exactly what your point is

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You're a gluten for punishment!

nah he's gluten free

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Man, reading the CAS report, it's pretty much precisely what us foamers have been saying for 3 years.
Almost word for word.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I think you say that the AFL Anti-Doping Code has triggers for teams where multiple players are found to have breached the code. I'm not sure that WADA has any control or influence over anything but the actual individuals and they certainly are not in a position tio appeal the AFL's lack of action against Essendon (the club) Besides, who could they appeal to considering the club isn't an athlete.

no no, you don't understand wada can just appeal. Against anything.

 

[Cronos]

no no, you don't understand wada can just appeal. Against anything.

Keep clutching your little wins Lance. Makes you look like such a big man

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Ari and Lance Uppercut,

I'm interested in your views as to why the players didn't mention the supplements program as part of their testing carried out in 2012, particularly given that they were specifically asked (in the normal course of events) whether they have taken/received anything?

Regards

S. Pete

presumably for 2 main reasons. 1) they'd been instructed not to. And 2) they knew it was at the very least "close to the edge". Pretty obvious no?

 

[peppy la pew]

Just devastated really. For the players.

I guess this is what happens when Australia signs up to an overseas sporting body that is designed for singular athletes and not teams.

The ruling is an opinion based on the lowering of the bar of 'comfortable satisfaction' and provides ZERO factual evidence that banned substances were taken. It's a scary precedent that has been set. Guilty until proven innocent.

Anyway, it's a stupid situation which should never have happened. I only wish that Essendon and eleven other clubs had better documented their injection programmes. I am obviously waiting for the other 11 clubs, who were also guilty of inadequate injection reporting and governance, to have their day in court and hope their outcome is better than that which Essendon received.

Defiant to the very end, and after reading that drivel I'm worried you have skulled all the kool aid.

Will the Bomber faithful start shifting their anger towards Hird & Dank now, or continue this pathetic stance of being the victim.

 

[McCrabblett]

They could, but they would be an international laughing stock. The insulated sports in the USA have the financial clout (and a big enough domestic market) to simply not care. Until the AFL becomes an olympic or international sport, it can pretty much do what it wants.

This is how the AFL gets away with allowing its players to avoid sanction for cocaine, meth and other other prohibited drugs (all of which are banned under the WADA Code). It created exceptions for certain drugs (and it can make whatever exceptions it wants). The AFL could bring in a three strike policy for anabolic steroids if it wanted to, and there isnt a thing that ASADA or WADA could do about it (other than a declaration that the AFL is not in fact WADA compliant).

Of course, pulling out of the WADA regime entirely will lose the AFL face in the international sporting community, and piss off the Federal government (denying them Federal money and assistance, and possibly giving some momentum to an amendment to the ASADA Act to force compliance).

Theyre better off being WADA compliant (with exceptions). I anticipate (reading between the lines) that the AFL code is going to be amended to remove CAS appeals, dismantle a lot of ASADA's oversight and place all the power for its administration (and a lot more discretion) in the hands of the AFL exclusively.

Then the AFL can still claim to be WADA compliant, but in reality be able to do whatever they want whenever it suits them to do so.

That half way house may not work though. in Wales v UEFA, in spite of UEFA arguing that their code, based on the WADA code but independent of it, did not allow a CAS appeal in that circumstance and therefore the CAS had no jurisdiction, the CAS heard the appeal anyway.

All this ignores the larger issue though.

The AFL may or may not be able to go it alone like MLB for example as a practical matter. And that may or may not have consequences for its funding.

The deeper issue, is it is a great way to **** up a sport. MLB has been rife with drug cheating, and it all came out, and has caused sufficient damage to the MLB brand (leaving aside the damage to its players), that it now has moved its penalties and drug testing regime into basic parity with the WADA code.

When you insource your drug testing regime to "manage" outcomes, you tend to give at least an amber light to drugs. Do I want a competition where up to 80% of players are on the gear (as was the figure at the peak of MLB's problems?)? I'd rather watch fiddly winks thanks. Anyone in AFL house wanting to go there better be prepared for the shit that follows, with far more potential to do long term damage to their precious "brand" not to mention a fair few lives.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Keep clutching your little wins Lance. Makes you look like such a big man

look at you on your big white steed!!

 

[Cronos]

presumably for 2 main reasons. 1) they'd been instructed not to. And 2) they knew it was at the very least "close to the edge". Pretty obvious no?

1. Told not to - why do you think players would be told not to tell anti doping authorities about specific supplements.
2. All the more reason to disclose, wouldn't you think?

 

[Norwood1878]

Everything you have said is right. However, I am pretty sure that if the AFL was not WADA compliant, it would have no ramifications for the players. In the scheme of world sport, the AFL is a closed competition with no real WADA requirement.

What about possible ramifications of trying to grow the game internationally?

 

[CbayT]

you think not being completely wrong is being pedantic? Heh

Let me put it plainly. The AFL denied EFC due process by punishing them before the investigation was even concluded. Clearly neither party could publicly accept it was for doping issues because that would obviously prejudice them in the actual trial to come, so they cooked up a funny spin concept called "governance" and rolled that out knowing the great unwashed would swallow it, which you obviously did, and they could protect their precious 2013 finals series.

The idea that EFC should then be punished twice for the same offence because they had their due process denied to them is, if I can borrow a phrase, clearly nonsense no stilts. I've said it time and time again that the AFL have already punished EFC and well, wouldn't you know it.

Just maybe don't accuse me of style over substance when you yourself clearly don't even have a grasp of the basics eh

Delusion they were punished for complete lack of governance. They now should be punished for running an unsafe work place, a dopping regime, misleading Asada and the AFl and bringing the game into disrepute. For good measure Hird and his cohorts should be banned for life from any afl venue or club.

To be honest EFC, assuming they don't get litigated into oblivion got off very lightly

 

[Cronos]

look at you on your big white steed!!

I shampooed it this morning. Isn't its mane silky!

 

[JeffDunne]

you think not being completely wrong is being pedantic? Heh

Let me put it plainly. The AFL denied EFC due process by punishing them before the investigation was even concluded. Clearly neither party could publicly accept it was for doping issues because that would obviously prejudice them in the actual trial to come, so they cooked up a funny spin concept called "governance" and rolled that out knowing the great unwashed would swallow it, which you obviously did, and they could protect their precious 2013 finals series.

The idea that EFC should then be punished twice for the same offence because they had their due process denied to them is, if I can borrow a phrase, clearly nonsense no stilts. I've said it time and time again that the AFL have already punished EFC and well, wouldn't you know it.

Just maybe don't accuse me of style over substance when you yourself clearly don't even have a grasp of the basics eh

I'm not sure if I enjoy laughing at you more than I do laughing at you . . . hang on . . . I'm starting to sound like you.

Remind me Lance, what did I swallow? Now that's one subject I'm sure you're an expert on.

 

[malteaser]

That, and no Fed Govt funding. Which is the only reason the AFL went with it in the first place, to get the money (does that sound familiar in any way?).

It's not about the money they get which is the issue, it's what they do with it. If it's going into the pockets to make people wealthy rather than putting it into Drug programs then there is a problem. Many organisations rely on taking on govt incentives to get money, it is very common.

 

[2006_Eagles]

I shampooed it this morning. Isn't it's mane silky!