• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

What if the AFL ignores the WADA decision

Remove this Banner Ad

Laphroaig said:
You seem to be unaware of just how much of a s**tstain the other 90% of people in AFL states view EFC as. Even people not terribly interested in football recognise Essendon as being synonymous with dishonesty.

As for the non AFL states, especially NSW which is THE seat of political power in this country.......
Click to expand...
Point well made, plus WA and SA (as people not as football clubs) have a distain for the Vic centric AFL who would be seen as just propping up another cheating vic club.

NSW and QLD people generally hate AFL
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The political argument just does not stand up. Politics is a numbers game so let's look at the numbers.

Essendon Club Members - 56 000
AFL Club memberships - 800 000
Australian Electoral Roll - 15 000 000

So EFC make up 0.37% of the voter population
AFL Club members make up 5% of the voter population
(Both of these figures make a lot of assumptions that flatter EFC)

I wonder if the other 95% would give a rats about this issue enough to bother.

The last election was lost by a 5% swing to Libs you would need 800 000 plus voters to agree with your argument that the AFL should not be accountable to WADA.

Good luck
 
flamethrower said:
CAS will give all the "Austrian players" 2 years suspensions.

The AFL and ASADA will agree to back date the suspensions to 2012.

Big Footy will go into meltdown until the next big scandal.
Click to expand...
If they are found guilty I would expect they would get the full four years. Isn't two years part of the discount for helping out with information during the investigation?
 
Vindicater said:
The interesting thing here is that the AFL would win in terms of public support if they took on government.

You do not **** with peoples national pastime.

Neither the liberal or the labour party would like to be the party that upsets the AFL because the message would go from the AFL to the clubs to throw their support behind certain parties and we all know there is enough tribalism in footy that the lower echelon of thinking fans would vote for whoever their footy club told them to.
Click to expand...
Really. So now the AFL clubs are going to tell you how to vote. :rolleyes: You also forget that only the southern states care about AFL. The rest couldn't care less.
 
telsa1962 said:
Have heard all the arguments here and it's pretty clear.

Read the view of WADA on the cronulla decision - they specify a set of unexplained and unnecessary delays due to ASADA and the Aust. Govt. Most of these apply to the EFC case and I believe there were further delays after the cronulla sanctions.

The first court case was hardly frivolous given the many internal emails at ASADA that questioned the legality of the joint investigation and it was their legal right to appeal, as it is WADAs now. Hird's appeal may have been frivolous but he sought assurances that it wouldn't delay the process.

Finally, I strongly disagree with this idea floated around here about lack of EFC records meaning it was their fault that the thing took so long. The unexplained and unnecessary delays that WADA slammed ASADA for suggest not. Three and half years is clearly becoming a case of justice delayed is justice denied. Particularly given the full and immediate cooperation of the club and all the players back in 2013.
Click to expand...

A well-made and reasonable point. I tend to think the delays are due to a bit of both, but to outright disregard ASADA's involvement in the delays is clearly wrong.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pugthemagician said:
They can't ignore the CAS as signing the code they accept the CAS as the final umpire. If you ignore it them there are national consequences

23.6 Additional Consequences of a Signatory’s Non-compliance with the CodeNon-compliance with the Code by any Signatory may result in consequences in addition to ineligibility to bid for events as set forth in Articles 20.1.8 (international Olympic Committee), 20.3.11 (international Federations) and 20.6.6 (Major event organizations), for example: forfeiture of offices and positions within Wada; Ineligibility or non-admission of any candidature to hold any International event in a country; cancellation of International events; symbolic consequences and other consequences pursuant to the Olympic Charter.The imposition of such consequences may be appealed to CaS by the affected Signatory pursuant to Article 13.6.
Click to expand...
Sure - this is the diplomatic stick for the Government. Which politically emboldens/forces the Government to take a (funding) stick to the AFL. That's what you're saying? Because if you are that's the best answer in the thread (apart from Judd the Chickenwinger and Kim Jong Pav).
 
HTPunter said:
A well-made and reasonable point. I tend to think the delays are due to a bit of both, but to outright disregard ASADA's involvement in the delays is clearly wrong.
Click to expand...
Accused (certain criminally) are entitled to have matters dealt with without unnecessary delay. HOWEVER, the relevant period is generally once someone is charged. Let's remember the INs only came in November last year. Yes the SCNs came earlier but there was a court case that slowed it down a bit. The problem with the sense of this being a long process was the choice to make the investigation public. This was NOT done by ASADA.
 
Jedi Anderson said:
What happens?

Not saying it will happen - just interested....
Click to expand...

Rather than ignore the CAS decision, could they decline to apply bans to the players due to no fault if they believe that even though to the CAS's comfortable satisfaction they were administered with something prohibited (i.e., TB4), the players thought they were being given something not prohibited (e.g., thymomodulin)?
 
Whatsonswhat said:
Rather than ignore the CAS decision, could they decline to apply bans to the players due to no fault if they believe that even though to the CAS's comfortable satisfaction they were administered with something prohibited (i.e., TB4), the players thought they were being given something not prohibited (e.g., thymomodulin)?
Click to expand...
If CAS says otherwise it would be ignoring it
 
Jedi Anderson said:
If CAS says otherwise it would be ignoring it
Click to expand...

That's not what CAS is being asked to decide though. They are only required to determine whether or not the players were administered with TB4 (and if so, strict liability would suggest 2 year bans), not whether or not the players were aware that was what they were administered (if they decide yes).
 
Whatsonswhat said:
That's not what CAS is being asked to decide though. They are only required to determine whether or not the players were administered with TB4 (and if so, strict liability would suggest 2 year bans), not whether or not the players were aware that was what they were administered (if they decide yes).
Click to expand...
Hmm. The great legal sage Bunk Moreland says this is not an appeal but a hearing de novo and retrial. Maybe have this stoush with him. Bear in my mind the width of what CAS can do and consider as stated in the code.
 
Jedi Anderson said:
Hmm. The great legal sage Bunk Moreland says this is not an appeal but a hearing de novo and retrial. Maybe have this stoush with him. Bear in my mind the width of what CAS can do and consider as stated in the code.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is (and perhaps you have already answered that you don't know), would the defendants arguments to reduce any penalty (if CAS finds in WADA's favour), due to no fault, be done during the CAS hearing, or separately back at the AFL tribunal level?
 
Whatsonswhat said:
I suppose the question is (and perhaps you have already answered that you don't know), would the defendants arguments to reduce any penalty (if CAS finds in WADA's favour), due to no fault, be done during the CAS hearing, or separately back at the AFL tribunal level?
Click to expand...
Without knowing more I'd say CAS. Happy to be proven wrong if there are cases where CAS make some decisions but send other decisions back to the original decision maker but that sounds more like an (administrative) appeal to me
 
Whatsonswhat said:
I suppose the question is (and perhaps you have already answered that you don't know), would the defendants arguments to reduce any penalty (if CAS finds in WADA's favour), due to no fault, be done during the CAS hearing, or separately back at the AFL tribunal level?
Click to expand...
But again these questions (which aren't at all bad questions by the way) are better off asked in Bunk's thread - that is - if this is not an appeal perse what is the breadth of the decision making at CAS. From what I've seen of the code in division 2 my view is that CAS would do it all
 
Last edited:
Whatsonswhat said:
I suppose the question is (and perhaps you have already answered that you don't know), would the defendants arguments to reduce any penalty (if CAS finds in WADA's favour), due to no fault, be done during the CAS hearing, or separately back at the AFL tribunal level?
Click to expand...

as I understand it's entirely within cas now but a two step process. first hearing to determine guilt and second hearing to determine penalties.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

What if the AFL ignores the WADA decision

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
590
sosos
sosos
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top