Thanks. Good article.

Ouch. Would WADA do that by pressuring IOC and other such bodies?

I was wondering what steps WADA could take when a sporting body thumbed its nose at its penalties.

The court of public opinion is the only fall back IMO RR

It is my belief that if the AFL said go forth and multiple there is not a lot they could do about it.

Thanks. Good article.

Ouch. Would WADA do that by pressuring IOC and other such bodies?

I was wondering what steps WADA could take when a sporting body thumbed its nose at its penalties.

well it can ban olympic team from competition

Edited August 26, 201311 yr by jazza

i heard it was currently contemplating banning jamaica from next olympics

The court of public opinion is the only fall back IMO RR

It is my belief that if the AFL said go forth and multiple there is not a lot they could do about it.

I agree.

They could appeal and take to court or push the Government to pull funding, but I really think that their power is based on public opinion.

So they better be careful how they act and how quickly they get their job done.

i heard it was currently contemplating banning jamaica from next olympics

your not allowed to post that comment until we get to page 65

your not allowed to post that comment until we get to page 65

God forbid jazza

From the document http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf

If the supplement is recommended then a letter of informed consent will be produced and given to the player to sign prior to the first administration of the supplement, the player will have a right of refusal and also be able to refuse the supplement at any point in the future. As part of this informed consent the player will also be made aware that it is our competitive advantage and in being so that they are not permitted to speak about our supplement program outside of [Reid], [Hird], [Robinson] and … Dank.

It sounds to me as if they weren't even permitted to speak about it with each other, let alone players from other clubs.

It has been made quite clear that it is entirely the athlete's responsibility to ensure they do not take banned substances. But Essendon players couldn't independently verify that the supplements the club wanted to give them were legal under WADA because they weren't allowed to talk to anyone about them. The only option open to them was to entirely refuse to be part of the program. And Hird wonders what the problem is?

Really I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Essendon players in this saga and that is in inverse proportion to Essendon management.

Edited August 26, 201311 yr by Fifty-5

so no Messendon players have ever hird of the internet ?

wow

Do WADA actually ban the players from competition or is that the role of the governing body that has signed up to the WADA protocols?

Was offline but I think we now have answer.

When we talk about innocent AFL players, I wonder how we contrast that with 14-16 year old chinese swimmers, who are given supplements by their team doctors. These kids, mainly girls, are taught not to question authority. They don't answer back or speak up. They are different to properly AFL instructed AFL players, who are 18 and older and asked to have multiple injections, of varying substances, in the stomach.

We have no hesitation in labelling the chinese swimmers as cheats, for doing as they were told by their officials.

Double standards anyone?

so no Messendon players have ever hird of the internet ?

wow

I have said for a long time bb that being able to play football does not make you a rocket scientist.

Perhaps Hird banned it !

When we talk about innocent AFL players, I wonder how we contrast that with 14-16 year old chinese swimmers, who are given supplements by their team doctors. These kids, mainly girls, are taught not to question authority. They don't answer back or speak up. They are different to properly AFL instructed AFL players, who are 18 and older and asked to have multiple injections, of varying substances, in the stomach.

We have no hesitation in labelling the chinese swimmers as cheats, for doing as they were told by their officials.

Double standards anyone?

The queue starts in Napier street redleg

The queue starts in Napier street redleg

And stretches to AFL house in the Docklands.

The queue starts in Napier street redleg

And stretches to AFL house in the Docklands.

maybe they can use the cue to pass the famous AOD is clear letter by hand to AFL house

I'm sure the AFL are doing everything in their power to ensure the players get off. Their own self interest is paramount in all of this because they want Essendon in the competition in 2014 and beyond in order to meet theit TV rights and sponsor obligations.

However, Clause 62, 67 & 68 of the "Notice of Charges" should be a sticking point.

(62) On January 18 2012 the Essendon FC was charged by Como for 7 vials of Hexarelin and 26 vials of Thymosin at a total cost of $9,860.

(67) On 8 February 2012, at a meeting with players at the Club, Dank introduced four substance that were purportedly approved for use in accordance with the Protocol: namely AOD-9604, Thymosin, Colostrum and Tribulus.

(68) Following that meeting 38 players signed "Patient Information Informed Consent" forms in relation to these four substances. In relation to these substnces 38 players agreed to.

(a) one AOD-9604 injection per week for the season

(b) one Thymosin injection per week for six weeks and then once per month

© two Colostrum daily and

(d) one Tribulus Forte daily

If the dosages on the "Patient Info Form" were administered the playing group would receive more than 1,500 injections of AOD-9694 and Thymosin.

In my lay opinion, unless Essendon can produce the vials unopened the onus of proof should be with Essendon and the players to prove that they were not injected with these banned or "not approved for human use" substances.

If there is no documented information to support their assertions then infraction notices should be given to players.

It seems pretty clear to me that these 38 players did receive some or all of these substances as per their signed "Patient Consent/Info" form.

In my lay opinion, unless Essendon can produce the vials unopened the onus of proof should be with Essendon and the players to prove that they were not injected with these banned or "not approved for human use" substances.

If there is no documented information to support their assertions then infraction notices should be given to players.

It seems pretty clear to me that these 38 players did receive some or all of these substances as per their signed "Patient Consent/Info" form.

The onus of proof should always be on ASADA. Essendon should only have to defend claims against it if ASADA has sufficient evidence.

In order to charge players ASADA will have to know which players were administered drugs, and which drugs those were. If they can only say 'well, we believe some players took some things', that's not good enough.

Nice work Theo.

The onus of proof should always be on ASADA. Essendon should only have to defend claims against it if ASADA has sufficient evidence.

In order to charge players ASADA will have to know which players were administered drugs, and which drugs those were. If they can only say 'well, we believe some players took some things', that's not good enough.

In those circumstances can ASADA/WADA impose some sanction on the club?

The onus of proof should always be on ASADA. Essendon should only have to defend claims against it if ASADA has sufficient evidence.

In order to charge players ASADA will have to know which players were administered drugs, and which drugs those were. If they can only say 'well, we believe some players took some things', that's not good enough.

I don't know how many times this has to be covered titan, but you are completely wrong!

Under WADA code, onus is on Essendon to conclusively prove they didn't and refute the sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Essendon can't say that 'the dog ate my database' and get away with it. At the moment that's why they're being charged with Governance, because they are hiding the juicy stuff.

The onus of proof should always be on ASADA. Essendon should only have to defend claims against it if ASADA has sufficient evidence.

In order to charge players ASADA will have to know which players were administered drugs, and which drugs those were. If they can only say 'well, we believe some players took some things', that's not good enough.

Tell that to Lance Armstrong, he'll be happy with that news.

I don't know how many times this has to be covered titan, but you are completely wrong!

Under WADA code, onus is on Essendon to conclusively prove they didn't and refute the sufficient circumstantial evidence.

Essendon can't say that 'the dog ate my database' and get away with it. At the moment that's why they're being charged with Governance, because they are hiding the juicy stuff.

Not sure what you've read on this, but you're wrong.

WADA Code 3.1 - 'The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.'

The organisation in this case is ASADA. As such, ASADA has the burden of establishing there was a violation. 3.1 goes on to say that the standard required is greater than the balance of probabilities, which means it's not enough that ASADA thinks it's more likely than not that an Essendon player committed a violation, it has to be greater than that (though the legal specificity over exactly what is required is a grey area, ripe for picking by a court IMO).

At any rate - ASADA has the burden. If they don't have enough information, they can't charge a player.

Tell that to Lance Armstrong, he'll be happy with that news.

Completely irrelevant to what I was saying. In Armstrong's case, the evidence was all personally against him. In Essendon's case, it appears that ASADA doesn't have enough evidence to be able to say to the sufficient standard under WADA r 3.1 which players took which substances. At best, they only know that some players took some substances.

Totally different.

Not sure what you've read on this, but you're wrong.

WADA Code 3.1 - 'The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred.'

The organisation in this case is ASADA. As such, ASADA has the burden of establishing there was a violation. 3.1 goes on to say that the standard required is greater than the balance of probabilities, which means it's not enough that ASADA thinks it's more likely than not that an Essendon player committed a violation, it has to be greater than that (though the legal specificity over exactly what is required is a grey area, ripe for picking by a court IMO).

At any rate - ASADA has the burden. If they don't have enough information, they can't charge a player.

Completely irrelevant to what I was saying. In Armstrong's case, the evidence was all personally against him. In Essendon's case, it appears that ASADA doesn't have enough evidence to be able to say to the sufficient standard under WADA r 3.1 which players took which substances. At best, they only know that some players took some substances.

Totally different.

T_U, since you seem to be across the rules, what about the question I rasied at the bottom of the last page. Can ASADA impose penalties on a club (via the AFL) if they can't identify individual players?

The court of public opinion is the only fall back IMO RR

It is my belief that if the AFL said go forth and multiple there is not a lot they could do about it.

It's pretty powerful as the events of the past week have shown.

I would have thought WADAs coercive influence in Australia with the Fed Govt and there ability to shame and humiliate Australia internationally as a drug crusading nation.

The AFL would have to risk that its anti drug stance will have absolutely no integrity and be in tatters. It's hard for the AFL to breach player welfare and community standards. It's got damage written all over it for the AFL if they flout WADA.

T_U, since you seem to be across the rules, what about the question I rasied at the bottom of the last page. Can ASADA impose penalties on a club (via the AFL) if they can't identify individual players?

Yes. If two or more players from the one club have been charged under the WADA anti doping rules then the club can be subject to specific penalties.

Yes. If two or more players from the one club have been charged under the WADA anti doping rules then the club can be subject to specific penalties.

So if they can't finger at least 2 players (or coaches?) individually, then the club can't be penalised?