Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[rjay 24,919]

Watson never admitted he took AOD. His 'admission' was simply that he believed he was taking AOD.

If the players didn't admit to it, then your whole argument here is...well, I refer you to your first word.

Rubbish rjay. Total and utter rubbish.

You are advocating here for a complete reversal of everything that constitutes natural justice. If ASADA doesn't know who took what, it is completely improper for them to just say 'well, we know someone took something, so we'll charge every player'. That is ripe to be destroyed in a court of law; that's exactly the type of situation Essendon will be able to get itself out of.

WADA don't work this way 'Titan', so it's not rubbish. They have the power to rub out the entire club if they see fit. Lets wait and see what happens, my bet is that evidence will come up that implicates some players, evidence that has been missing to date.

Not sure if anyone has posted this but according to the WADA code 3.2 the burden of proof required for an anti doping violation is more than balance of probability and less than beyond reasonable doubt. So having a waiver signed by a player whilst not a smoking gun as such may be enough to consider an an Anti Doping Violation.

P.S pure speculation regardin whether it is enough as i am not a lawyer

This 'Titan', it's not absolute rubbish it's the way they do business.

[Josh 1,420]

no argument from me corowa, and youd know , coming from the federation capitolbtw , are you a barttlett

I'm from Corowa. Not a Bartlett but know them

[beelzebub 23,364]

You're completely off topic.

The intent of the players is irrelevant. If they took it, they took it. If they intended to take it but didn't take it, then they didn't take it.

The issue is about what happened, not about intent.

lol...intent is irrelevant...what planet are you on ?

thats exactly the reason Lees was done..Intent... try answering whats put in front. You may have other meaningful input but dont shy from the topic.

[titan_uranus 25,016]

WADA don't work this way 'Titan', so it's not rubbish. They have the power to rub out the entire club if they see fit. Lets wait and see what happens, my bet is that evidence will come up that implicates some players, evidence that has been missing to date.

This 'Titan', it's not absolute rubbish it's the way they do business.

No, it's absolute rubbish.

There is a difference between having circumstantial evidence that Essendon administered some of its players with drugs (likely to be the case) and having circumstantial evidence regarding specific players having consumed the drugs (unlikely to be made out).

Blanket hyperbolic statements like 'WADA has the power to rub out the entire club if it sees fit' is nothing more than sensationalist speculation. WADA can't just rub out clubs as it sees fit.

If ASADA thinks it's going to be lawful to charge every Essendon player without being able to back up any specific claim against any specific player, they're going to be slammed in court, which is where such a situation will end up. That is a total abuse of due process and a complete lack of natural justice.

Moreover, what FerdDaDee said supports my case, not yours rjay. The standard of proof is higher than the balance of probabilities. It's not enough, therefore, for ASADA to state 'it's more likely than not that player X took a banned substance'. They need to go beyond this. If they don't know who took what they won't meet this threshold.

[titan_uranus 25,016]

lol...intent is irrelevant...what planet are you on ?

thats exactly the reason Lees was done..Intent... try answering whats put in front. You may have other meaningful input but dont shy from the topic.

The situations are markedly different. Lees bought a drug. The drug was a banned substance. He was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance'

Which Essendon player did this? There is no argument that an Essendon player 'attempted' to use a banned substance like Lees did when he imported it.

The situations are completely different.

The concept of 'intent' is not relevant to the Essendon saga.

[beelzebub 23,364]

The idea of Intent is everything to do with the Messendon fiasco.

Lees got done for thinking about the idea of using something and ordering it. That went to intent. he never used it but intended to. Watson has admitted by inference that he Intended to use AOD 9604 because hes openly admitted it. So even going by you arguments Jobe cant be shown to have used anything but his signing of a waiver and the belief he was going to be using it goes to intent.

They are actually far more similar than you might think

[sue 9,102]

The situations are markedly different. Lees bought a drug. The drug was a banned substance. He was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance'

Which Essendon player did this? There is no argument that an Essendon player 'attempted' to use a banned substance like Lees did when he imported it.

The situations are completely different.

The concept of 'intent' is not relevant to the Essendon saga.

I don't think it is as clear cut as you make out. How did they prove Lees intended to use it? Maybe he bought if for a mate or his dog. It came down to a balance of probabilities about his intent, with the conclusion that he did intend to use it himself. There may be Essendon evidence which is comparable to Lees' purchase, and then intent may be relevant to the Essendon case. We'll see. Perhaps.

[deanox 9,914]

Watson never admitted he took AOD. His 'admission' was simply that he believed he was taking AOD.

My understanding is intent to take a banned substance is punishable under the code ie the vfl player who got banned without taking the drugs.

In that case is a signed consent form naming named substances enough to establish intent?

[dazzledavey36 54,889]

I'm from Corowa. Not a Bartlett but know them

Wang boy here

[beelzebub 23,364]

funny just spent the weekend in Corowa lol huge rsl btw..lol

[rjay 24,919]

The situations are markedly different. Lees bought a drug. The drug was a banned substance. He was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance'

Which Essendon player did this? There is no argument that an Essendon player 'attempted' to use a banned substance like Lees did when he imported it.

The situations are completely different.

The concept of 'intent' is not relevant to the Essendon saga.

No you're right as usual, in the Essendon case the club bought a bunch of banned drugs.

[corowa 216]

You have to have proof corowa.

Both your examples above there was positive proof.

No Essendon player has tested positive to anything.

Appears there are no records that show what was adminstered.

On that basis to charge someone who denys liabilty would IMO be laughted out of court.

We are all guessing at present but that apperas to be the way it is going.

We should know in the next few days you would think.

Saad bought a drink from a retail outlet, I would expect.

Essendon players signed up to receive injections. Warnings would ring for me and many others at this stage.

Saad is likely to get banned for 2 years. Seems heavy handed to me. If it was Chip Frawley or Nathan Jones I wouldn't be happy.

Essendon players, rumour has it, are likely to be exonerated. Seems light to me.

Then I hate Essendon as much as I hate Collingwood, so looking at things in a fair light with those mongrels is something I have trouble coming to terms with.

[corowa 216]

I'm from Corowa. Not a Bartlett but know them

No, I'm not a Bartlett.

I grew up in Corowa and went to high school there (in the 1960s), but left the town many long years ago.

Knew Bartletts in Corowa (Jack had a business involving fruit, I think). His son, Greg, was killed in a car accident over 40 years ago.

Another lot of Bartletts had a farm out towards Buraja.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

A question about the Bartletts. Do they grow pears up there?

[beelzebub 23,364]

A question about the Bartletts. Do they grow pears up there?

you just pipped me to that !!

Edited August 12, 2013 by belzebub59

[titan_uranus 25,016]

The idea of Intent is everything to do with the Messendon fiasco.

Lees got done for thinking about the idea of using something and ordering it. That went to intent. he never used it but intended to. Watson has admitted by inference that he Intended to use AOD 9604 because hes openly admitted it. So even going by you arguments Jobe cant be shown to have used anything but his signing of a waiver and the belief he was going to be using it goes to intent.

They are actually far more similar than you might think

Watson said that he believed he was being administered AOD. That doesn't mean he wanted to take it at the time, or intended to take it at the time. It means, after the fact, he thinks he may have taken it. That is a difference.

Lees was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance' in purchasing the drug. Watson didn't buy the drug, he doesn't even know if he was given the drug. Whilst the club could well be analogised with Lees (in that, whether or not they gave the drug to anyone, they bought it to use on someone), the players didn't buy it, and is not enough evidence to suggest they 'attempted' to do anything with it.

I don't think it is as clear cut as you make out. How did they prove Lees intended to use it? Maybe he bought if for a mate or his dog. It came down to a balance of probabilities about his intent, with the conclusion that he did intend to use it himself. There may be Essendon evidence which is comparable to Lees' purchase, and then intent may be relevant to the Essendon case. We'll see. Perhaps.

There may definitely be evidence, that's completely true. But it's not in the public domain right now. On what we know at the moment, there isn't enough.

Also remember that it's going to take more than a balance of probabilities (WADA Code 3.2).

My understanding is intent to take a banned substance is punishable under the code ie the vfl player who got banned without taking the drugs.

In that case is a signed consent form naming named substances enough to establish intent?

Yes, Lees was charged with 'attempted use of a prohibited substance'.

It's going to be interesting to see what those 'consent forms' actually say. I'm not sure they specify the drug to be taken, there have been some conflicting reports on what they were and what they said.

No you're right as usual, in the Essendon case the club bought a bunch of banned drugs.

Essendon bought the drugs. So, Essendon can be liable.

Unlike Lees, no player bought anything.

The situations are different.

[beelzebub 23,364]

TU..did Jobe object ? Did he carry through ? The prosecution rests your honour !!

[titan_uranus 25,016]

TU..did Jobe object ? Did he carry through ? The prosecution rests your honour !!

This explains why you're not a prosecutor.

Did he carry through? Do you have that evidence?

Did he fail to object? What if he claims he was unsure at the time, but was pressured into signing it?

You think this is all so clear, mainly because you dislike Essendon and want to see them fail. The club is going down, that's for sure, but there are significant legal issues at play with the players.

[old dee 23,788]

This explains why you're not a prosecutor.

Did he carry through? Do you have that evidence?

Did he fail to object? What if he claims he was unsure at the time, but was pressured into signing it?

You think this is all so clear, mainly because you dislike Essendon and want to see them fail. The club is going down, that's for sure, but there are significant legal issues at play with the players.

Yes tu

People''s hatred of Essendon is clouding their judgement

[beelzebub 23,364]

He wasnt pressured into it TU . I know it , you know it. I appreciate you line of argument but the only ones who objected are on record.

TU I think this is clear for the simple reason it is. They have attempted to muddy the waters and deflect argument. They are in violation of WADA directives. Whats not clear is how the local parties will deal with it.

Various parties are pointing fingers. This doesnt alter what happened.

"I signed that consent form and my understanding, after it being given through (club doctor) Bruce Reid and the club, that I was receiving AOD,"

Shows intent and action. Theres no conspicuous action to object. He was complicit. Before you argue that he "thought it legit'" he is complicit because he is ultimately responsible for his actions and this is the view explained and enforced by WADA

"I don't know it was that vast, in terms of the numbers being reported," he said.

"As a player myself, it was a new frontier for us.

"Having that many injections was something I had not experienced in AFL football before."

Hello....alarm bells !! Just how f'n stupid are this lot ??

Edited August 12, 2013 by belzebub59

[titan_uranus 25,016]

He wasnt pressured into it TU . I know it , you know it. I appreciate you line of argument but the only ones who objected are on record.

TU I think this is clear for the simple reason it is. They have attempted to muddy the waters and deflect argument. They are in violation of WADA directives. Whats not clear is how the local parties will deal with it.

Various parties are pointing fingers. This doesnt alter what happened.

"I signed that consent form and my understanding, after it being given through (club doctor) Bruce Reid and the club, that I was receiving AOD,"

Shows intent and action. Theres no conspicuous action to object. He was complicit. Before you argue that he "thought it legit'" he is complicit because he is ultimately responsible for his actions and this is the view explained and enforced by WADA

"I don't know it was that vast, in terms of the numbers being reported," he said.

"As a player myself, it was a new frontier for us.

"Having that many injections was something I had not experienced in AFL football before."

Hello....alarm bells !! Just how f'n stupid are this lot ??

You're conflating the club with the players. Treat them as separate and you'll see where the issues are.

Your argument about muddying the waters and deflecting arguments is completely spot on - when levelled at Essendon/Hird/Thompson/Evans/Robson/Reid/Corcoran/Robinson/Dank.

The players, though, are different. What you've got there from Watson is not an admission to anything. The only interview that is really going to count is the ASADA one, so we'll have to wait and see what he really admitted to in that.

We're just going to have to see exactly what was said, exactly what evidence ASADA has, and what they have compiled it towards. On what we know right now, I cannot see anything other than severe legal challenges to anything ASADA tries to level against the players.

[beelzebub 23,364]

TU..we 'll agree shall we to varyingly similar views though not the same.

[corowa 216]

You're conflating the club with the players. Treat them as separate and you'll see where the issues are.

Your argument about muddying the waters and deflecting arguments is completely spot on - when levelled at Essendon/Hird/Thompson/Evans/Robson/Reid/Corcoran/Robinson/Dank.

The players, though, are different. What you've got there from Watson is not an admission to anything. The only interview that is really going to count is the ASADA one, so we'll have to wait and see what he really admitted to in that.

We're just going to have to see exactly what was said, exactly what evidence ASADA has, and what they have compiled it towards. On what we know right now, I cannot see anything other than severe legal challenges to anything ASADA tries to level against the players.

Just how 'strong' is ASADA?

Is it a body that has real clout? Should Essendon fear its power?

Or is it a typical bully boy that rides roughshod over weak individuals and is likely to cave in to the might and power of Essendon?

Where does the AFL sit? Do they determine the extent of the sanctions/fines/penalties?

What chance would Essendon have of successfully appealing them in the Supreme Court?

Can WADA come in over all of them if not satisfied with the outcome?

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

I hate essendon.

[deejammin' 2,370]

Legal Issues aside. What irratates me about this is that if the players get off as perhaps they should I don't believe it is fair to the 17 other clubs in the competition.

Essendon clearly gave substances to their players in order to aid recovery, be able to increase training loads, improve speed in recovering from injuries and generally gain an advantage. I don't think this is in the spirit of professional sport in general. But also if they went so close to the line they found a grey area and manipulated it, it may not be illegal but its certainly unfair to the 17 other clubs who didn't pursue this avenue and to the players who weren't willing to take part in such a program.

Even worse if the players were injected with performance enhancing drugs like thymosin beta 4, then whether or not they were willing and aware, they were given a clear advantage that is outside the rules and is totally unfair to the rest of the competition. It may be that Essendon were so corrupt, incompetent or both as to not know which players these are, and it may not be proscecutable as a result. However the fact remains, every other player in the comp is at a disadvantage as long as these people are playing and the integrity of the sport will be questionable until they cease to compete, or such a time passes as the drug would no longer have aided their performance.

I understand the sympathy for the Essendon players, but I feel far more sympathy for all the players from other clubs who have always stayed within the rules.

Edited August 12, 2013 by deejammin'