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

[DemonFrog 1,354]

Asada hits dead-end with Gazelle.

It's been three months since ASADA was supposed to have been given some teeth in terms of interviewing people to help collect evidence in its investigations. It seems to me that the process is either flawed or inadequate or ASADA itself is incompetent. Whilst ASADA doesn't appear to have any time limits to complete its work, this is starting to look like a bit of a farce when they can't even get close to Dank's underling, let alone Dank himself.

Meanwhile, ASADA Chief John Fahey continues to advocate for patience.

James Hird might still be targeted by ASADA

WJ have you heard or read anything about the MFC investigation?

[Whispering_Jack 30,239]

WJ have you heard or read anything about the MFC investigation?

Only that I don't think it's started yet.

[DemonFrog 1,354]

Only that I don't think it's started yet.

Don't tell me they will make another annoucement just before the season starts to destabilise the Club again.

"We found you not guility but here is a $1 million dollar fine because we hate your Club and it should have had better control over the Doctor"

Is there anything else the MFC could get investigated over, dodgy Accountants maybe?

[Whispering_Jack 30,239]

Some news that came up during our server induced interregnum. Essendon chairman Paul Little seems to have become exceedingly cocky about his players avoiding the wrath of the doping authorities.

Essendon chairman Paul Little confident Bombers will avoid infraction notices

Bombers chairman Paul Little dismisses ASADA infraction talk

Perhaps it has something to do with the mystery surrounding why ASADA has chosen not to interview Stephen Dank despite the fact that more than 100 days have passed since they were given the additional teeth to force him to talk (in the form of a $5k per day fine).

I reckon he'll still end up with egg on his face over this.

Meanwhile, a couple of Bombers have apparently decided that their club's supply of free juice wasn't enough and they're now helping themselves to free meals:

Essendon players in restaurant scam

All later described as a "misunderstanding", of course.

[old dee 23,801]

Some news that came up during our server induced interregnum. Essendon chairman Paul Little seems to have become exceedingly cocky about his players avoiding the wrath of the doping authorities.Essendon chairman Paul Little confident Bombers will avoid infraction noticesBombers chairman Paul Little dismisses ASADA infraction talk

Perhaps it has something to do with the mystery surrounding why ASADA has chosen not to interview Stephen Dank despite the fact that more than 100 days have passed since they were given the additional teeth to force him to talk (in the form of a $5k per day fine).

I reckon he'll still end up with egg on his face over this.

Meanwhile, a couple of Bombers have apparently decided that their club's supply of free juice wasn't enough and they're now helping themselves to free meals:Essendon players in restaurant scam

All later described as a "misunderstanding", of course.

I have been saying all along that the players will get off lightly, I still think there will be only light sactions if at all.

As in life in general Time will tell.

[daisycutter 29,622]

I have been saying all along that the players will get off lightly, I still think there will be only light sactions if at all.

As in life in general Time will tell.

what do you see as a "light sanction" for players od?

[old dee 23,801]

what do you see as a "light sanction" for players od?

No idea dc

In the light of the fact there are no records of who got what, there are no positive tests and they seem reluctant to interview DANKS

I just don't see how anyone can be charged with anything.

IMO the longer it goes on the less chance of charges.

Just my feelings!

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

So that gives other clubs the green light to gamble on using banned substances??

Dangerous precedence OD

[old dee 23,801]

So that gives other clubs the green light to gamble on using banned substances??

Dangerous precedence OD

I am confident that precedence has nothing to do with it wyl.

After the Essendon and NRL investigations I find it hard to believe any club would go down a cavalier path in the future.

IMO Essendon are very lucky that Dank was such a dill that he never kept details.

[M_9 2,082]

In relation to there supposedly there being no record of who took what, there'd be little doubt that Dank kept records and any techo worth his salt could retrieve these from his computer if the authorities chose to have him hand it over.

[daisycutter 29,622]

I am confident that precedence has nothing to do with it wyl.

After the Essendon and NRL investigations I find it hard to believe any club would go down a cavalier path in the future.

IMO Essendon are very lucky that Dank was such a dill that he never kept details.

what makes you think danks (or essendrug) didn't keep records

there is no way you could inject that many players so many times without records

besides, records would be needed to plot progress

essendrug may have destroyed their records but i suspect danks still has his for obvious reasons

why should essendrug be "rewarded" for "losing" their records - some precedent that

the very fact essendrug don't have records now just further indicts them

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

what makes you think danks (or essendrug) didn't keep records

there is no way you could inject that many players so many times without records

besides, records would be needed to plot progress

essendrug may have destroyed their records but i suspect danks still has his for obvious reasons

why should essendrug be "rewarded" for "losing" their records - some precedent that

the very fact essendrug don't have records now just further indicts them

agreed.

You let Essendrug off and the problem does not go away.

Band Aids do not eradicate the problem

[sue 9,107]

the very fact essendrug don't have records now just further indicts them

It indicts the club very seriously, but may help the players.

If ASADA ends up reporting it can't charge any players because all the records are 'lost', then the AFL should have another go at Essendon with further charges (not that they will). It is also creates a precedent for cheats - eat your records as well as the pills. So ASADA would pressure the AFL to do more random testing of players.

[daisycutter 29,622]

asada do have ways to ban a whole team (even if some/many had no personal infractions)

if asada felt convinced that a number of players did take banned substances but can't definitevly say which ones it may still be open to ban the whole team

they do have some hard evidence

[sue 9,107]

asada do have ways to ban a whole team (even if some/many had no personal infractions)

if asada felt convinced that a number of players did take banned substances but can't definitevly say which ones it may still be open to ban the whole team

they do have some hard evidence

That is interesting. Can anyone point to the relevant document on this?

[Canberra Demon 159]

asada do have ways to ban a whole team (even if some/many had no personal infractions)

if asada felt convinced that a number of players did take banned substances but can't definitevly say which ones it may still be open to ban the whole team

they do have some hard evidence

IF they did get banned from ASADA/WADA (im not saying i think it would happen). Wouldnt the AFL have a interesting time with the ANZAC and Dreamtime rounds also the essendon supporters would be very angry..

Gee we would have to buckle up and enjoy the ride so to speak if this was the case..

[daisycutter 29,622]

IF they did get banned from ASADA/WADA (im not saying i think it would happen). Wouldnt the AFL have a interesting time with the ANZAC and Dreamtime rounds also the essendon supporters would be very angry..

Gee we would have to buckle up and enjoy the ride so to speak if this was the case..

technically asada(wada) don't do the banning per se

they issue infraction notices

the sporting body then issue punishment based on existing wada guidelines

if asada(wada) are not happy with punishment they go into negotiation with sporting body where it may get altered

on top of all this there can also be legal action

[daisycutter 29,622]

That is interesting. Can anyone point to the relevant document on this?

wada article 11 i believe sue

here is a quote from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/wada-wont-budge-on-disputed-drug-ban/story-fnd2ikbn-1226627386391#

"If three or more players from any club are found to have committed an anti-doping offence, that will expose their whole team to sanctions under the world anti-doping code, to which both the AFL and NRL subscribe.

Under Article 11 of the code, if more than two players from any team are found to have committed an anti-doping offence, the ruling body of their competition is required to impose an "appropriate sanction" against the whole team, which could include loss of points or disqualification from the competition.

An athlete does not have to test positive to be found to have used a prohibited substance.

Article 2.2 of the code says that "use" can be established by "any reliable means" including admissions by the athlete, witness statements and documentary evidence."

[titan_uranus 25,020]

asada do have ways to ban a whole team (even if some/many had no personal infractions)

if asada felt convinced that a number of players did take banned substances but can't definitevly say which ones it may still be open to ban the whole team

they do have some hard evidence

I don't think that's entirely correct. Whilst you're right in that, if more than two Essendon players are found to have committed an offence under the code, that does not mean they can use this to ban the other players who aren't guilty.

What it means is that they can use that to penalise the club, which may include what WADA calls 'disqualification', but WADA uses that term to refer to losing any awards or achievements earned. It's distinct from 'ineligibility', which is what WADA uses to call 'bans'. So I guess Essendon could be 'disqualified' from the 2014 season, but that would be a pretty substantial penalty given the AFL has already stripped Essendon of its 2013 points, which is essentially a disqualification from the 2013 season.

[Dees2014 2,377]

It indicts the club very seriously, but may help the players.

If ASADA ends up reporting it can't charge any players because all the records are 'lost', then the AFL should have another go at Essendon with further charges (not that they will). It is also creates a precedent for cheats - eat your records as well as the pills. So ASADA would pressure the AFL to do more random testing of players.

It won't happen. ASADA and WADA rules are very clear on this. First, ignorance is no excuse, and secondly, you can't get off by destroying evidence or not keeping records. ASADA is seeking to piece together evidence by talking to all involved, just the same as a police investigation would, and just the same as it is not possible to avoid the law if you destroy evidence, or fail to keep records.

I know people get extremely impatient with how long the ASADA investigation is taking, but this process takes time. It does not mean it is not going on, as Paul Little would like us believe.

Finally, whatever penalties are handed out by the AFL they are irrelevant to the ASADA investigation. Essendon seems to think they have somehow been cleared by the AFL penalties - they haven't. It is all in front of them.

[daisycutter 29,622]

I don't think that's entirely correct. Whilst you're right in that, if more than two Essendon players are found to have committed an offence under the code, that does not mean they can use this to ban the other players who aren't guilty.

What it means is that they can use that to penalise the club, which may include what WADA calls 'disqualification', but WADA uses that term to refer to losing any awards or achievements earned. It's distinct from 'ineligibility', which is what WADA uses to call 'bans'. So I guess Essendon could be 'disqualified' from the 2014 season, but that would be a pretty substantial penalty given the AFL has already stripped Essendon of its 2013 points, which is essentially a disqualification from the 2013 season.

quote " impose an "appropriate sanction" against the whole team, which could include loss of points or disqualification from the competition."

i'm not saying they would do it in this case, just that it is an option

btw i believe they have banned a whole team from competition before based on just some players

[titan_uranus 25,020]

quote " impose an "appropriate sanction" against the whole team, which could include loss of points or disqualification from the competition."

i'm not saying they would do it in this case, just that it is an option

btw i believe they have banned a whole team from competition before based on just some players

I know what the code says. 'Disqualification' does not mean 'ban'. It means 'stripped of results'. Handing the players periods of ineligibility (i.e. bans) is not a penalty that is available under that article of the code.

I'm not aware of them banning an entire team before because I'm not sure that's permissible.

Finally, whatever penalties are handed out by the AFL they are irrelevant to the ASADA investigation. Essendon seems to think they have somehow been cleared by the AFL penalties - they haven't. It is all in front of them.

That's not entirely correct either. I know what you're saying, in that the penalties so far have been for 'conduct unbecoming' as opposed to anti-doping breaches, but penalties against a team are difficult to lay under the code and are often discretion-based (e.g. r 11.2, as daisycutter has been discussing).

If the penalties under the WADA code involve losing points from an event, that's already taken place. The penalties available under the code have already been applied to Essendon, arising from the same matter.

The AFL will determine any penalties to be applied against Essendon under the code. If WADA doesn't like it, they can appeal to CAS, but since Essendon's already paid a heavy price so far, their chances aren't great.

[Dees2014 2,377]

I know what the code says. 'Disqualification' does not mean 'ban'. It means 'stripped of results'. Handing the players periods of ineligibility (i.e. bans) is not a penalty that is available under that article of the code.

I'm not aware of them banning an entire team before because I'm not sure that's permissible.

That's not entirely correct either. I know what you're saying, in that the penalties so far have been for 'conduct unbecoming' as opposed to anti-doping breaches, but penalties against a team are difficult to lay under the code and are often discretion-based (e.g. r 11.2, as daisycutter has been discussing).

If the penalties under the WADA code involve losing points from an event, that's already taken place. The penalties available under the code have already been applied to Essendon, arising from the same matter.

The AFL will determine any penalties to be applied against Essendon under the code. If WADA doesn't like it, they can appeal to CAS, but since Essendon's already paid a heavy price so far, their chances aren't great.

More typically, the international anti-doping bodies through their local arms (in our case ASADA), issue infraction notices to individuals rather than teams, as will happen in the case of Essendon. I don't know of one case either here or overseas where they have deducted points from a local football competition, whatever the code may be. That tends to be under the local competition rules of the various codes, which we all know mostly if tested would not stand up in a court of law. Also it is usually easier to make these penalties stick on individuals than teams.

What you can rely on though is if the local anti doping Organisation squibs it, then WADA will come over the top of it and ensure appropriate penalties are evoked. Essendon has nowhere to hide, no matter how much their chairman is in denial.

There is zero relationship between what the local football Organisation imposes in terms of penalties, and what ASADA will impose. There is definitely no netting out. ASADA decides its own penalties under its own rules. What the AFL does makes no difference at all to the penalties which they will impose, and believe me, they will.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Dees2014

[jazza 1,323]

thought they banned the soloman island weightlifting team?

managed and coached by paul aussie coffa

[Dees2014 2,377]

thought they banned the soloman island weightlifting team?managed and coached by paul aussie coffa

If you read my entry carefully at no stage did I say they did not ban teams. All I said was it is easier to make penalties stick on individuals than on teams.