I wouldn't put too much stock into the arguments raised in the article. First he starts by saying the consent form doest prove anything. I think most reasonable people would assume a signed named on a consent form would be enough to satisfy the balance of probabilities as to the use or attempted use of a banned substance.
He then moves onto the status of AOD and uses the ACC report as an example of the lack of clarity surrounding it. How a report in Feb 13 can be used as justification for use in Summer 11-12... I don't know. This is brought up over the course of a couple paragraphs, seemingly giving the ACC some sort of authority in the absence of WADA making mention of their commentary on the status of AOD under s2.
The only interesting, and somewhat new bit of info is the last para about the specified substances. This does seem to provide a pathway, at least in regards to AOD use, to players not missing games.
It appears the real work the lawyers are doin is to keep this away from the anti doping tribunal. WADA can appeal those decisions. But say the investigation results in no doping rule violation notices being issued? Can WADA appeal that?
For Essendon this needs to be paramount because the longer it stays out of the anti doping tribunal, nothing can really happen, especially given how far down the process they are now. For ASADA/AFL/WADA to make any comment (positive or negative) could possibly prejudice the players right to the presumption of innocence. Once it gets there though, the playing field changes because the lawyers for Essendon are kind of hamstrung in what they can do. My understanding is that any questions of fact are to be dealt with the by doping tribunal, and then if appealed at CAS. The Aus/Vic law courts couldn't really get involved as the players have collectively bargained to follow that process and would need to demonstrate a reason why they should not have to follow what they signed up to, and it generally won't cut it if your reason is to avoid punishment
He then moves onto the status of AOD and uses the ACC report as an example of the lack of clarity surrounding it. How a report in Feb 13 can be used as justification for use in Summer 11-12... I don't know. This is brought up over the course of a couple paragraphs, seemingly giving the ACC some sort of authority in the absence of WADA making mention of their commentary on the status of AOD under s2.
The only interesting, and somewhat new bit of info is the last para about the specified substances. This does seem to provide a pathway, at least in regards to AOD use, to players not missing games.
It appears the real work the lawyers are doin is to keep this away from the anti doping tribunal. WADA can appeal those decisions. But say the investigation results in no doping rule violation notices being issued? Can WADA appeal that?
For Essendon this needs to be paramount because the longer it stays out of the anti doping tribunal, nothing can really happen, especially given how far down the process they are now. For ASADA/AFL/WADA to make any comment (positive or negative) could possibly prejudice the players right to the presumption of innocence. Once it gets there though, the playing field changes because the lawyers for Essendon are kind of hamstrung in what they can do. My understanding is that any questions of fact are to be dealt with the by doping tribunal, and then if appealed at CAS. The Aus/Vic law courts couldn't really get involved as the players have collectively bargained to follow that process and would need to demonstrate a reason why they should not have to follow what they signed up to, and it generally won't cut it if your reason is to avoid punishment
