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

[Slartibartfast 17,663]

If AFL players absolve themself of responsibility and place trust in the club then so be it. But that is an informed choice they have made and now they need to wear the outcome.

So a player is responsible if during a game he needs a needle to kill pain and the doctor, without telling him, adds a little bit of a banned drug known to speed healing.

What on earth is the player to do? Sorry doc, give me a sample of that fluid in the syringe and I'll send it for testing.

Players can be innocent and be victims. In those cases they should not be punished.

[Slartibartfast 17,663]

The players knew the program was "on the edge" they said so

They knew they were to have an extensive and prolonged program of abdominal injections

They knew the program was intended to improve their performance

They signed a waiver

They claim they don't know exactly what they were injected with

They weren't all kids

Yet....not one seems to have sought outside professional advice despite their asada-related education

You would have to agree their behaviour (at least as reported) was highly reckless

Whilst you argue that the players "must" have known because of the process I'd argue that it's inconceivable that 43 players knowingly took banned drugs.

Therefore I believe they didn't think they were taking banned substances.

But it's a moot point and my argument is based on us disagreeing on that point. I agree that on your basis they should be punished.

[daisycutter 29,756]

Whilst you argue that the players "must" have known because of the process I'd argue that it's inconceivable that 43 players knowingly took banned drugs.

Therefore I believe they didn't think they were taking banned substances.

But it's a moot point and my argument is based on us disagreeing on that point. I agree that on your basis they should be punished.

no i don't say they knew they were taking banned drugs. I just don't know

what i am saying is that there was much for them to be very suspicious about and none of them seem to have taken any precautions

this i find puzzling and as i said it at least indicates their behaviour was reckless if not worse and certainly limits my sympathy

[Slartibartfast 17,663]

no i don't say they knew they were taking banned drugs. I just don't know

what i am saying is that there was much for them to be very suspicious about and none of them seem to have taken any precautions

this i find puzzling and as i said it at least indicates their behaviour was reckless if not worse and certainly limits my sympathy

We are not privy to what inquiry the players made and whether this inquiry was individual or collective or both. We are not privy to what they were told.

In the same way you find it puzzling they they didn't take any precautions I find it puzzling that they all participated willingly. I don't believe that 43 players would have all acted in this "puzzling" way without some compelling reasons to do so. Hence I conclude they didn't believe they were taking banned drugs.

[Nasher 33,617]

what i am saying is that there was much for them to be very suspicious about and none of them seem to have taken any precautions

this i find puzzling and as i said it at least indicates their behaviour was reckless if not worse and certainly limits my sympathy

The implied counterfactual is that from where they were sitting, there was no reason to be suspicious (because the doc or Dank was telling fibs). Like Bob I find it hard to believe that if it was so obvious at the time, that not one of the 43 players stopped and questioned it. That just seems too wild to believe.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Here....sign this waiver !!! Ffs...not to far to go to suspicion surely

[Whispering_Jack 30,739]

As I said in my first post yesterday I don't give a flying fox about the legalities. It may well be that under the rules/laws that exist the players are in breach. That doesn't address my concerns.

I understand you've made a living in law and the principles of law are something you will respect and live by. I'm not burdened with that legacy and I see the law as an ass. So often we get inequitable results because it's not possible for the law to anticipate all situations. This is one such case.

I start from the premise that the players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did then throw the book at them. They are professional footballers and are expected and trained to be professional in the way they play. They rely on professional trainers, coaches, physiotherapists, doctors, administrators and so on and so forth to ply their trade.

They have been given a cocktail of substances which can't or won't be identified. They may or may not have had their lives put at risk. They may suffer minor, major or terminal health problems as a result. Those problems may surface in the short or long term. They will unquestionably suffer the stress of wondering what those health problems may be and they will live with that stress for a very long time (hopefully). They placed their trust in people who were responsible for them. They were duped.

You are welcome to explore the legalities of the situation and follow the intellectual demands of the law. All common sense says these kids have suffered enough.

If you don't care about the legalities and I do accept that as your position, then you've left no room for any debate because in the real world the kids who in your opinion have "suffered enough" are not above the law or beyond it's reach (I would strenuously argue that nor should they be) and whether you or they like it or not, their suffering might well not have even started yet.

[Nasher 33,617]

Here....sign this waiver !!! Ffs...not to far to go to suspicion surely

That's precisely the point - don't you think if it were something as obvious whiffy as that, at least one of the players would have the sense to query it? It would be a statistic fluke PhD worthy if every last player on the list just said "sure, no worries".

[jnrmac 20,189]

So a player is responsible if during a game he needs a needle to kill pain and the doctor, without telling him, adds a little bit of a banned drug known to speed healing.

What on earth is the player to do? Sorry doc, give me a sample of that fluid in the syringe and I'll send it for testing.

Players can be innocent and be victims. In those cases they should not be punished.

Ok so Lance Armstring blames his doctor. The Chinese swimmers blame their doctor. 'my coach gave me a pill - not my fault'

Doesn't work.

[daisycutter 29,756]

That's precisely the point - don't you think if it were something as obvious whiffy as that, at least one of the players would have the sense to query it? It would be a statistic fluke PhD worthy if every last player on the list just said "sure, no worries".

groupthink can be a powerful force nasher, suppressing individuality

it can seem to be easier to go along with the group than fight it. there is much evidence of this human behaviour in history

history also shows that those who chose groupthink find it no defence in the final analysis

no statistical flukes required

[beelzebub 23,383]

My point still valid id suggest.. The word waiver should have set of alarms.

Why no players apparently took that further isnt an answer I can provide but it doesn't diminish its value as a red flag in all of this.

Worth noting not every player did go along.

[Elwood 3184 1,338]

That's not actually a defence under the WADA code. Which the AFL is signatory to, as are all players:

5.3 c)

It is the obligation of each Person to whom this Code applies to inform himself of all substances and methods prohibited under this Code. It is not a defence to any claim that a Person has breached this Code for that Person to contend:

(i) ignorance that a substance or method is prohibited;

(ii) an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a substance or method is not prohibited under this Code;

etc.

This should be the end of the current story on the question of the legal position.

Those who don't consider the legalities matter are on a different planet to the rest of us.

[Slartibartfast 17,663]

If you don't care about the legalities and I do accept that as your position, then you've left no room for any debate because in the real world the kids who in your opinion have "suffered enough" are not above the law or beyond it's reach (I would strenuously argue that nor should they be) and whether you or they like it or not, their suffering might well not have even started yet.

Yes, I agree with that. It's why I hope they get off and the law and the burden of proof fails in this instance.

I wonder if those so advocating that the players be punished because of the law will as willingly agree that the protection the law offers from the burden of proof has provided a good and fair result.

As far as your last point in regards their suffering not having started I'd argue that the stress, fear, anguish and anger resulting from their situation means their suffering has most definately started but still has a long way to go with many unknown directions. And it's not only the players that are suffering. Parents, spouses, partners, brothers and sisters and friends. The pain is everywhere.

It's a very sad situation with no winners. It's why punishing the players further will serve little of no purpose.

[Canberra Demon 159]

I have never played top level sport but i have competed in state level and to somewhat national competitions and have been tested on occasions and i was made well aware that i am responsible for whatever goes into my body.

I think the players should have raised their concern about the program if they had any. The fact that they didn’t while it was going on shows how naive they were or how much the EFC lied to or pressured the players.

A systematic program of injections that occurred in locations away from the club is different from a player who cops a bump and is given a pain relief injection in the clubrooms during the game. Sure they are both injections but they are worlds apart. One thing im sure of is the players knew they were about to be injected with a substance and agreed to it. I am certain that there wasn’t a medic running around the EFC secretly injecting the players without their consent or knowledge.

[deanox 10,010]

The players were apparently told not too tell anyone because the program was their confidential advantage. I understand that may have scared then out of telling family or managers. But it doesn't excuse them not calling asada to check or googling the substance names on their own.

The consent form they signed listed a number of illegal substances. They were duped into receiving illegal substances while insert the impression they were being given something else. They all knew what they were getting.

They were negligent in not checking the rules themselves.

[sue 9,146]

Sue I'm not sure that I've argued that reinforcing the deterrent effect is less important than penalising the "duped innocent" players.

I said earlier that I'd punish as far as I could those responsible for initiating and implementing the supplement program at Essendon. I've argued that Hird and Little should never be allowed in an AFL venue again. I've argued Reid should not be allowed to practice medicine. If that isn't a deterrent effect I don't know what is. I'd also advocate criminal charges if there are any and if it's possible.

In my view these players didn't knowingly take banned drugs. If they did I've no issue with punishment. Hence your example above relating to a player and his coach is moot because the player knowingly takes the drug.

BB, no you haven't directly said that, but I think it is clear that that is your attitude. You dismiss as legal bulldust the rules and give preference to your emotions about the players being screwed. But the rules are designed as WJ has said to have a deterrent to discourage players from hiding behind coaches and playing innocent when they are not.

My example is not moot. Sure it may deter some players from cheating to know their coach etc will be penalised. But you can also imagine someone hired by a dishonest club to be responsible for the policy and be the fall guy if the drug program is ever exposed. Pay people enough and there'd be a conga line of applicants for the post.

I think it is possible to feel sympathy for the Bombers players, hate Hird/Reid etc but still feel the players have to be penalised.

Without these rules a dishonest player can get away without penalties by having a scapegoat coach/adviser. Once players know they have a way of avoiding penalties, some will do it and the many of the rest will feel forced to follow. Then we will have lots of sportsmen endangering their health, not just a few Bombers.

You have not addressed this last point in any post I've read. If you have, please point me to it.

[Slartibartfast 17,663]

BB, no you haven't directly said that, but I think it is clear that that is your attitude. You dismiss as legal bulldust the rules and give preference to your emotions about the players being screwed. But the rules are designed as WJ has said to have a deterrent to discourage players from hiding behind coaches and playing innocent when they are not.

My example is not moot. Sure it may deter some players from cheating to know their coach etc will be penalised. But you can also imagine someone hired by a dishonest club to be responsible for the policy and be the fall guy if the drug program is ever exposed. Pay people enough and there'd be a conga line of applicants for the post.

I think it is possible to feel sympathy for the Bombers players, hate Hird/Reid etc but still feel the players have to be penalised.

Without these rules a dishonest player can get away without penalties by having a scapegoat coach/adviser. Once players know they have a way of avoiding penalties, some will do it and the many of the rest will feel forced to follow. Then we will have lots of sportsmen endangering their health, not just a few Bombers.

You have not addressed this last point in any post I've read. If you have, please point me to it.

Firstly I don't want to give any player a way "out" if they knowingly take drugs. Your previous examples seemed to imply at best a "wink wink" situation where the player knew they were taking drugs but weren't "told". I've no sympathy for this situation.

Secondly I think the players should get off "in equity". I think the law as it's framed doesn't address or was not framed to address situations where players were "duped" in a group situation. If I'm wrong then I think it's very poor law.

Thirdly the framing of laws never stops the dishonest and players who cheat should never feel they have a way out. To me it all comes down to the word "knowingly".

Canberra Demon dismisses the pain killer example I've given above. But if a player can be rubbed out for unknowingly taking a banned drug after making reasonably enquiry of professional people (medical staff/performance staff in this instance) then something is wrong. I think people/players have every right to rely on professional advice. We do in business and life. If the professional dupes the person I can't see how they are responsible and they shouldn't be punished. Many here argue that the Essendon players "should have suspected". That's fine, that's their position and I accept it. But I don't agree.

Interestingly many of those willing to apply the "should have suspected" rule don't seem to me to have applied the same philosophy to the tanking investigation. I think knowingly or unknowingly many let their tribal instincts in footy cloud their view and if it was MFC and not EFC the views expressed would perhaps be significantly different.

[jazza 1,323]

never in the history of the game has a club held 6 meetings for parents before.

i find it tragic whats happened,but bottom line .

guilty your honour.

this whole episode is just ,put the blame onto somebody else.

legalities are for university trained smart alecs to make money from.

rules are made to keep the average in line.

guilty as charged,players,coaching staff,and all penaties accepted.

no more excuses.

i want action and i want it on april 17th

[sue 9,146]

Firstly I don't want to give any player a way "out" if they knowingly take drugs. Your previous examples seemed to imply at best a "wink wink" situation where the player knew they were taking drugs but weren't "told". I've no sympathy for this situation.

Secondly I think the players should get off "in equity". I think the law as it's framed doesn't address or was not framed to address situations where players were "duped" in a group situation. If I'm wrong then I think it's very poor law.

Thirdly the framing of laws never stops the dishonest and players who cheat should never feel they have a way out. To me it all comes down to the word "knowingly".

Canberra Demon dismisses the pain killer example I've given above. But if a player can be rubbed out for unknowingly taking a banned drug after making reasonably enquiry of professional people (medical staff/performance staff in this instance) then something is wrong. I think people/players have every right to rely on professional advice. We do in business and life. If the professional dupes the person I can't see how they are responsible and they shouldn't be punished. Many here argue that the Essendon players "should have suspected". That's fine, that's their position and I accept it. But I don't agree.

Interestingly many of those willing to apply the "should have suspected" rule don't seem to me to have applied the same philosophy to the tanking investigation. I think knowingly or unknowingly many let their tribal instincts in footy cloud their view and if it was MFC and not EFC the views expressed would perhaps be significantly different.

I know you wouldn't approve of a 'wink wink' situation. But your approval or otherwise is not in question. The issue is that if the rules allow dishonest players to think they can avoid penalties by some scheme to shift the blame, then they will do it with or without the connivance of their club. And they will then force more honest players to follow them or come last. Net result, drugs rife in sport and young people risking their log-term health for immediate glory.

I would agree with you that if players can prove conclusively that they were duped and that they had made a thorough and sincere effort to establish that what they were taking was legal, then penalties would be inappropriate. But this is difficult to establish without risking the deterrence effect.

In any case, I think you are in a small minority if you think the Essendon players could conclusively prove that they were duped and that they had made a thorough and sincere effort to establish that what they were taking was legal. They might say they were duped, but there is no way they could claim the latter.

Edit to add: The issue of 'should have suspected' in the tanking saga is totally different. I don't many of us didn't suspect we were tanking. We argued about the vagueness of what tanking was, or just thought the rules promoted doing it and others had done it without penalty etc.

[Slartibartfast 17,663]

The issue is that if the rules allow dishonest players to think they can avoid penalties by some scheme to shift the blame, then they will do it with or without the connivance of their club. And they will then force more honest players to follow them or come last.

Well perhaps the major difference in your stance and mine is that I think the onus of proof is on the authorities. I also think it should be a defence if the person can show they sort and received advice from the appropriate professional.

If the rules/laws that exist at the moment mean that Danks, Hird, Reid walk free and the players are penalized then I won't think justice is done and the law will indeed be an ass.

I accept you don't agree.

[rumpole 522]

Well perhaps the major difference in your stance and mine is that I think the onus of proof is on the authorities. I also think it should be a defence if the person can show they sort and received advice from the appropriate professional.

If the rules/laws that exist at the moment mean that Danks, Hird, Reid walk free and the players are penalized then I won't think justice is done and the law will indeed be an ass.

I accept you don't agree.

The onus of proof is with the authorities. In doping cases it's not as strict as in criminal cases or even in normal civil matters but the case still needs to be proved. That which you consider a "defence" (i.e reliance on professionals) is unsustainable because, as we've seen, there is no shortage of rogue professionals in the world.

[sue 9,146]

The onus of proof is with the authorities. In doping cases it's not as strict as in criminal cases or even in normal civil matters but the case still needs to be proved. That which you consider a "defence" (i.e reliance on professionals) is unsustainable because, as we've seen, there is no shortage of rogue professionals in the world.

or players willing to hide behind them. With the consequences I have mentioned.

BB I agree with your last statement. It will be outrageous if the people behind the program at Essendon don't get hammered and the players are penalised. Where we will have to agree to differ is that I think the players, if guilty, just have to be penalised to some extent for the integrity of the anti=drug regime. But the Hirds & co should be penalised far far more severely.

[hardtack 10,654]

Richard Ings(?) just tweeted:

• Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 15m

  Make no mistake this has Judge Downes all over it. Remember he is running this show now on the ASADA end. He will act on credible questions

• Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 17m

  Exclusive report by Danny Weidler. Dank complains his disclosure notice was leaked. By whom to whom? 2/3

• Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 18m

  CH9 report that Dank has (finally) received a disclosure notice from ASADA to answer questions relating to "34 violations". 1/3

[Sir Why You Little 37,190]

Here we go. This is rhe real stuff.

34 violations. More than i thought.

[hardtack 10,654]

On Waffle360 they are saying the HUN just reported that all 34 violations relate to Essendon and none to Cronulla... queue The Doors...