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

[beelzebub 23,379]

I see Hird is taking separate legal action against ASADA.

Oh Jimmy can you look any worse?

probably....it aint over yet !!!!!!

[dees189227 12,394]

Damian Barrett ‏@barrettdamian 1h

And so a day after 34 of his players received their bad news, James Hird bobs up again. And again makes it all about him

Like this tweet from damo.

[whatwhat say what 22,775]

Little said his club had agreed not to challenge the investigation process when it self-reported, but now that show-cause notices had been issued, it felt "honour-bound to challenge".

as per wj's brilliant hearing.

what a farce. i cannot see this ending well.

[beelzebub 23,379]

I dont think theres any set depth to which Hird wouldnt sink. I dont say that just as a spiteful observation but he as one , if not THE major player really in all of this he seems incredibly self serving.

All those hits took its toll didnt they Jimmy.

[demoniac 1,333]

At least the penny has dropped for the players that their interests are not the same as those of the club and they have retained a separate legal team.

[Whispering_Jack 30,198]

Similarly, Essendon players might be entitled to a reduction in their suspension if they have been lied to by the club, but if they still had drugs in their system, they shouldn't get off entirely in relation to all the other teams and players in the AFL who weren't enhancing performance by illegal doping. (I guess there's no medal to take off Essendon.)

Good point Mauriesy and I suspect that Essendon, in its haste to take the matter to the Federal Court (the decision to go there was surely made well in advance of the actual issuing of the notices) failed to appreciate the fact that McDevitt was making it clear to all and sundry that there were discounts available to players under certain circumstances. There could be a perfect opportunity to control or limit the damage but by taking on ASADA, it's likely to become an opportunity missed. Hopefully, those advising the players are smart enough to think independently of the club's interests and advise their clients of all of the possibilities available to them.

[beelzebub 23,379]

At least the penny has dropped for the players that their interests are not the same as those of the club and they have retained a separate legal team.

have they...?

a source?link ?

[demoniac 1,333]

Look, there was the case of a Belarusian shotputter named Nadzeya Ostapchuk who won gold at the 2012 London Olympics. She was later disqualified from the medal for testing positive for a banned substance. She was tested twice, before and after she had finished first. Both samples indicated the presence of the anabolic agent metenolone. She received a one-year ban after her coach, Alexander Yefimov, admitted to spiking her coffee with metenolone without her knowledge after being worried about her performance, stating that he thought the drug would be clear before the tests were administered.

That is total "innocence" on the part of the athlete, but she lost the gold medal on the basis that it was unfair to the rest of the competitors that they were beaten by someone whose performance was still drug-enhanced. She did get a 50% time reduction because of the circumstances. There is advice in the WADA Athlete Guide for athletes to 'consult doctors and sports medicine experts' about substance administration, so if their own advisers are corrupt there is some leniency but not total absolution.

Similarly, Essendon players might be entitled to a reduction in their suspension if they have been lied to by the club, but if they still had drugs in their system, they shouldn't get off entirely in relation to all the other teams and players in the AFL who weren't enhancing performance by illegal doping. (I guess there's no medal to take off Essendon.)

Maybe Paul Little will take retrospective legal action on her behalf!

[demoniac 1,333]

have they...?

a source?link ?

...in one of the Hun articles today.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

In terms of the guilt of the players there are clear arguable defences open to them, to either reduce the penalty or avoid a penalty altogether. Those defences are fair, especially in light of any charge being laid against a player without evidence of the drug having ever been in their system. Circumstantial evidence cases are that much harder.

That aside, the club is doing them no favours with the continued arrogance, delusion, denial and egotism. James Hird is a disgrace and has damaged the name of the AFL in general. The rest of them aren't any better. The club deserves any and all punishment it gets (and that includes losing its players, though I sympathise with the players and hope they are able to access the defences).

Look, there was the case of a Belarusian shotputter named Nadzeya Ostapchuk who won gold at the 2012 London Olympics. She was later disqualified from the medal for testing positive for a banned substance. She was tested twice, before and after she had finished first. Both samples indicated the presence of the anabolic agent metenolone. She received a one-year ban after her coach, Alexander Yefimov, admitted to spiking her coffee with metenolone without her knowledge after being worried about her performance, stating that he thought the drug would be clear before the tests were administered.

That is total "innocence" on the part of the athlete, but she lost the gold medal on the basis that it was unfair to the rest of the competitors that they were beaten by someone whose performance was still drug-enhanced. She did get a 50% time reduction because of the circumstances. There is advice in the WADA Athlete Guide for athletes to 'consult doctors and sports medicine experts' about substance administration, so if their own advisers are corrupt there is some leniency but not total absolution.

Similarly, Essendon players might be entitled to a reduction in their suspension if they have been lied to by the club, but if they still had drugs in their system, they shouldn't get off entirely in relation to all the other teams and players in the AFL who weren't enhancing performance by illegal doping. (I guess there's no medal to take off Essendon.)

You're right about the policy.

However, ASADA has no evidence at all of any player having any banned substance in their system at any time. The cases against the 34 players are all 100% circumstantial. So it's a very different situation from the start.

[monoccular 17,432]

Damian Barrett ‏@barrettdamian 1h

And so a day after 34 of his players received their bad news, James Hird bobs up again. And again makes it all about him

Like this tweet from damo.

Self centered to the very end. "I am more important than the club, or the players". Just shut up and enjoy your "punishment" in Paris !

Look, there was the case of a Belarusian shotputter named Nadzeya Ostapchuk who won gold at the 2012 London Olympics. She was later disqualified from the medal for testing positive for a banned substance. She was tested twice, before and after she had finished first. Both samples indicated the presence of the anabolic agent metenolone. She received a one-year ban after her coach, Alexander Yefimov, admitted to spiking her coffee with metenolone without her knowledge after being worried about her performance, stating that he thought the drug would be clear before the tests were administered.

That is total "innocence" on the part of the athlete, but she lost the gold medal on the basis that it was unfair to the rest of the competitors that they were beaten by someone whose performance was still drug-enhanced. She did get a 50% time reduction because of the circumstances. There is advice in the WADA Athlete Guide for athletes to 'consult doctors and sports medicine experts' about substance administration, so if their own advisers are corrupt there is some leniency but not total absolution.

Similarly, Essendon players might be entitled to a reduction in their suspension if they have been lied to by the club, but if they still had drugs in their system, they shouldn't get off entirely in relation to all the other teams and players in the AFL who weren't enhancing performance by illegal doping. (I guess there's no medal to take off Essendon.)

...though one of their senior players does.

[rjay 24,940]

Good point Mauriesy and I suspect that Essendon, in its haste to take the matter to the Federal Court (the decision to go there was surely made well in advance of the actual issuing of the notices) failed to appreciate the fact that McDevitt was making it clear to all and sundry that there were discounts available to players under certain circumstances. There could be a perfect opportunity to control or limit the damage but by taking on ASADA, it's likely to become an opportunity missed. Hopefully, those advising the players are smart enough to think independently of the club's interests and advise their clients of all of the possibilities available to them.

It seems to me that McDevitt is fishing for a break in ranks and really the players do need to take advice on this. The club cannot be trusted to work in their best interests.

[Whispering_Jack 30,198]

Bang, bang Maxwell's Silver Hammer ...

Dank's stunning admission

[biggestred 5,103]

In Shanghai, Charter alleges a company called Gio Biochem Ltd sold him the raw ingredients to make TB4. Charter has given ASADA the texts he alleges he sent to Dank several weeks after his return to Melbourne, including a message that inquired ''which peptides do you need next?''

The reply listed ''Thymosin Beta 4'' and one other banned peptide. A short time later, Charter sent a text to South Yarra compounding chemist Nima Alavi, stating, ''Hi Mate. Thymosin – 20 x 5ml vials. Steve's request.''

[Whispering_Jack 30,198]

His current place of residence might be Paris, France but it took James Albert Hird no time at all to instruct his legal representatives to file an action against ASADA in the Federal Court of Australia challenging the validity of its investigation into his club's doping programme -

Hird takes own legal action against ASADA

Hird claims that he is joining the Bombers in taking the action because he has " ... always believed that no Essendon player has taken performance enhancing drugs or broken ASADA, WADA or AFL laws.

"I want the players' names to be cleared and want our supporters of the footy club to be proud of our great club."

The action contemplated would, of course, prove no such thing because it attacks not the substance of any allegation that his players ingested banned drugs but the process by which the investigating body arrived at that conclusion. This is indeed strange coming from someone whose initial reaction was that he took full responsibility for what took place and who wanted the truth to come out.

That's exactly why he and his club co-operated with the joint investigation and why his club chairman told a press conference they had agreed not to challenge its authority.

If Essendon and Hird succeed in this action therefore, the players names will not be cleared in the court of public opinion but will be remembered by most for eternity as "drug cheats".

Essendon, Hird, the players and their advisers need to contemplate this over the coming days, weeks and months as this all unravels. The exercise is going to be costly in terms of dollars but in many other ways, not the least of which will be the psychological toll on these people.

Meanwhile ASADA has every reason to be confident of the outcome because the argument about a lack of proper process in the conduct of its investigation lacks merit.

ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt:

The way I read it and the independent legal advice I've had on it, (the Act) always contemplated a co-regulatory regime between ASADA and the relevant sporting body.

[Whispering_Jack 30,198]

At least the Bombers will not be alone because according to this article from a journalist named Wilson and labelled "opinion" they are about to be joined by an NRL club - The Sharks will be thrown into disarray when 17 receive their show cause notices from ASADA.

The Sharks don't appear to have a bulging war chest with which to mount legal proceedings and I understand they could be rendered bankrupt as a result of what's about to take place.

It's not good for Australian football codes anywhere so hopefully, and I say this without a great deal of confidence, our Socceroos can give us a bit of a boost over the coming few hours.

[DemonOX 8,791]

Damian Barrett ‏@barrettdamian 1h

And so a day after 34 of his players received their bad news, James Hird bobs up again. And again makes it all about him

Like this tweet from damo.

I wouldn't care what this parasite wrote I will NEVER like it.

He is a parasite of the lowest order.

[DemonOX 8,791]

In terms of the guilt of the players there are clear arguable defences open to them, to either reduce the penalty or avoid a penalty altogether. Those defences are fair, especially in light of any charge being laid against a player without evidence of the drug having ever been in their system. Circumstantial evidence cases are that much harder.

That aside, the club is doing them no favours with the continued arrogance, delusion, denial and egotism. James Hird is a disgrace and has damaged the name of the AFL in general. The rest of them aren't any better. The club deserves any and all punishment it gets (and that includes losing its players, though I sympathise with the players and hope they are able to access the defences).

You're right about the policy.

However, ASADA has no evidence at all of any player having any banned substance in their system at any time. The cases against the 34 players are all 100% circumstantial. So it's a very different situation from the start.

I think I heard on SEN that when ASADA issue notices that they have about 80-90% chance of making them "stick" so to speak.

Basically IMO they don't issue notices unless they are sure they can see it through.

It doesn't look good with that sort of record.

Edited June 13, 2014 by DemonOX

[old dee 23,792]

I think I heard on SEN that when ASADA issue notices that they have about 80-90% chance of making them "stick" so to speak.

It doesn't look good with that sort of record.

That leaves the bombers 10 - 20 % chance, not bad from where they started.

I still think the wet tram ticket will be the final out come

Edited June 13, 2014 by old dee

[old dee 23,792]

I wouldn't care what this parasite wrote I will NEVER like it.

He is a parasite of the lowest order.

In spite of your dislike his comment is 100% accurate

[DemonOX 8,791]

In spite of your dislike his comment is 100% accurate

But I simply cannot bring myself to admit it and never will od.

Listening to him or reading what he has written is like someone running your finger nails down a black board.

It irritates the bejesus out of me.

Edited June 13, 2014 by DemonOX

[rumpole 515]

However, ASADA has no evidence at all of any player having any banned substance in their system at any time. The cases against the 34 players are all 100% circumstantial. So it's a very different situation from the start.

Quite right. Not a single shred of evidence whatsoever if you ignore the several thousands of documents, some of them over 100 pages, including statements and records of hundreds of interviews, some of them lasting up to 9 hours and statutory declarations from witnesses including chemists, nurses, club officials, the players themselves, waiver documents, receipts, SMS's and lots more accumulated over 16 months of investigation ... nothing ... nada ... zilch ...

[old dee 23,792]

But I simply cannot bring myself to admit it and never will od.

if i say it will you agree?

[DemonOX 8,791]

if i say it will you agree?

Ah no cause u r just copying that numb nut.

If u had written it of your own accord that's a different story od.

Appreciate your effort though.

Edited June 13, 2014 by DemonOX

[old dee 23,792]

Ah no cause u r just copying that numb nut.

If u had written it of your own accord that's a different story od.

Appreciate your effort though.

Wrote this last night does this make you feel better

"I see Hird is taking separate legal action against ASADA.

Oh Jimmy can you look any worse?"