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.

RR, is that in the Code? I can't see that anywhere.

Sue, as far as I can see, the club could be liable under r 2.8, which sets out an offence of, essentially, 'administration or attempted administration' to any athlete in competition of any prohibited substance.

11.2 Consequences for Team Sports

If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport

are found to have committed an anti-doping rule

violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the

Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the

team (e.g., loss of points, Disqualification from a

Competition or Event, or other sanction) in addition to

any Consequences imposed upon the individual

Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation.

...

(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

...

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

...

given that "intent" to use a banned PED is sufficient to be banned, is a signed consent form that names the substances not sufficient to prove intent?

If there is a question regarding whether these substances were injected it would be a simple question to each player "did you receive any injections immediately after signing this form?" If the answer is yes it's pretty clear cut to me unfortunately.

I'm not sure to what extent onus of proof is required under the ASADA act, given that players have been convicted without positive tests previously it appears that strong circumstantial evidence is sufficient.

edit: sorry had been covered.

But additionally, I think instead of trying to prove individuals took substances, I suspect ASADA will come down on all who signed forms and received injections based on balance of probabilities is that they received banned substances given what they signed.

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.

I'm not sure of the full legal ramifications, and someone who better understands politics and legalities may better comment but the AFL has signed to the WADA code, and so had the Australian government.

If the AFL thumbs it's nose at WADA I would expect the Australian government would need to cut ties with the AFL lest WADA revoke Australia's membership or accreditation or whatever it is WADA provide.

That could be significant funding cuts for both elite and grass roots football.

I've just watched it again. I think what he is trying to say is that he signed a form and was given something, and his understanding from the form and what was said to him is that the substance was AOD.

I guess on the one hand you can read it as him saying 'at the time, I thought it was AOD', but whether that is sufficient to constituted 'attempting to use a prohibited substance' will remain to be seen. But I think you're right in that he's saying that he signed the form and took the substance under the belief it was AOD, which he believed to be legal.

Thanks for reviewing!

Either way will be interested to see how it is interpreted and of it comes back to bite him.

On the subject of the Bombers' penalty I think that if they lose their points it would be inappropriate for the ninth team to be the automatic replacement (especially if that happens to be Carlton).

I mean how does everybody think Richmond would feel if, after finishing 9th so many times? You have to feel for them having to play a final against the team that finished 9th and possibly losing!

In the interests of fairness. I propose the vacant place in the final 8 should be decided in the Australian way - by a lottery or some sort of coin toss allowing any of the teams from the bottom ten teams to get in.

On the subject of the Bombers' penalty I think that if they lose their points it would be inappropriate for the ninth team to be the automatic replacement (especially if that happens to be Carlton).

I mean how does everybody think Richmond would feel if, after finishing 9th so many times? You have to feel for them having to play a final against the team that finished 9th and possibly losing!

In the interests of fairness. I propose the vacant place in the final 8 should be decided in the Australian way - by a lottery or some sort of coin toss allowing any of the teams from the bottom ten teams to get in.

Can we abstain? I can't bear another week.

Can we abstain? I can't bear another week.

Tank the coin toss you reckon?

Can we abstain? I can't bear another week.

Look at it this way. If they accept my solution, it gives us a one in ten chance of making the finals.

Now, if someone told you before the start of the season that we would have a mathematical possibility of making the top eight after round 22, you would have grabbed it.

If we win the lottery do we lose our current draft pick?

We could be the only club to play finals and get a priority pick in the same year.

WJ I just want this season to end. I wanted it over from the 15 min mark of the Messendon game.

Its been yet another exercise in masochism. In fact thats what MFC means Im sure Masochism For Clods !!

In the interests of fairness. I propose the vacant place in the final 8 should be decided in the Australian way - by a lottery or some sort of coin toss allowing any of the teams from the bottom ten teams to get in.

Very droll. But if you believed Essendon's performance was enhanced illegally this year, a better way to do it would be to re-calculate the ladder omitting all games they played in.

(Note the 'If')

given that "intent" to use a banned PED is sufficient to be banned, is a signed consent form that names the substances not sufficient to prove intent?

If there is a question regarding whether these substances were injected it would be a simple question to each player "did you receive any injections immediately after signing this form?" If the answer is yes it's pretty clear cut to me unfortunately.

I'm not sure to what extent onus of proof is required under the ASADA act, given that players have been convicted without positive tests previously it appears that strong circumstantial evidence is sufficient.

edit: sorry had been covered.

But additionally, I think instead of trying to prove individuals took substances, I suspect ASADA will come down on all who signed forms and received injections based on balance of probabilities is that they received banned substances given what they signed.

don't forget wade lees got 2 years for intent.....he never even used the drugs (in the supplement) he imported

so you are right, asada don't have to actually prove consumption

I'm not sure of the full legal ramifications, and someone who better understands politics and legalities may better comment but the AFL has signed to the WADA code, and so had the Australian government.

If the AFL thumbs it's nose at WADA I would expect the Australian government would need to cut ties with the AFL lest WADA revoke Australia's membership or accreditation or whatever it is WADA provide.

That could be significant funding cuts for both elite and grass roots football.

Agree deanox.

Given that both parties have committed to the WADA code, I dont think the Australian Government or international sporting bodies are going to look favourably on the AFL if it went "soft" on code violators.

don't forget wade lees got 2 years for intent.....he never even used the drugs (in the supplement) he imported

so you are right, asada don't have to actually prove consumption

Interesting case that one. Add the Frankston player and i would be surprised if there are soft penalties on the Essendon players if proven to have taken a banned substance.

don't forget wade lees got 2 years for intent.....he never even used the drugs (in the supplement) he imported

so you are right, asada don't have to actually prove consumption

I think with wade lees (may be incorrect) he was actually charged with "importing" a banned substance as well as "intent" to use one.

Will be interesting to see how it gets handled, but I'll be surprised if players don't go down.

The AFL may be pushing for them to get off but I reckon WADA will be pushing harder to hit them with everything because this is such a test case.

On the subject of the Bombers' penalty I think that if they lose their points it would be inappropriate for the ninth team to be the automatic replacement (especially if that happens to be Carlton).

I mean how does everybody think Richmond would feel if, after finishing 9th so many times? You have to feel for them having to play a final against the team that finished 9th and possibly losing!

In the interests of fairness. I propose the vacant place in the final 8 should be decided in the Australian way - by a lottery or some sort of coin toss allowing any of the teams from the bottom ten teams to get in.

Imagine the uproar if the team finishing 9th (and being included in finals) went on to win the GF... The Media would have a field day!

Interesting when Bomber Thompson asked Eddie tonight what is the biggest fine from AFL he said $250k. Blues copped $930k and we copped $500k for getting off the main charge and Crows got $300k.

Media is saying poor Hird looking at 12 months, yet CC got 12 months and he put no one 's health at risk and no drugs were involved.

Seems like you completely ignored what I wrote.

There are two preliminary issues, before we even need to care about whether AOD is banned or what ASADA said or any of that.

The first preliminary question is to determine what substances were administered to players. There is a lack of clarity over this, exacerbated in part by Essendon's failure to keep proper records.

The second preliminary question is to determine which players were injected with which substances. No one player can be charged unless there is evidence he, as distinct from an indeterminate group of players, took something.

Once there is enough evidence to show that a specific player took a specific substance, then the issue of whether the substance is banned or not arises.

For Essendon, there does not appear to be enough evidence to determine what substances were administered, and who received what. That is the issue here. The players appear likely to escape sanction because ASADA doesn't have enough evidence to meet the threshold (they have to go further than just showing it's more likely than not).

I misread it. Apologies

I think with wade lees (may be incorrect) he was actually charged with "importing" a banned substance as well as "intent" to use one.

Will be interesting to see how it gets handled, but I'll be surprised if players don't go down.

The AFL may be pushing for them to get off but I reckon WADA will be pushing harder to hit them with everything because this is such a test case.

personally in a global online marketplace i can't see the difference between buying local or "importing"

it certainly is just another form of intent

a body like the acc might see it different if said substance is banned from public use here, but we are talking about wada/asada, not the acc

wade lees claimed he didn't know the supplement contained a banned substance fwiw

if lees gets 2 years and the bummers get nothing it is plainly an unfair system (if not corrupted)

Interesting when Bomber Thompson asked Eddie tonight what is the biggest fine from AFL he said $250k. Blues copped $930k and we copped $500k for getting off the main charge and Crows got $300k.

Media is saying poor Hird looking at 12 months, yet CC got 12 months and he put no one 's health at risk and no drugs were involved.

Red, youve said it yourself. We're at different ends of town wrt this game

Found this when having a look through the code:

3.2.3 The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Athlete or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Athlete or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.

To me this says "if Essendon and Hird et al at found guilty by the AFL of everything on those charge sheets, then that is irrebuttable evidence of they are charged with wada code violationns."

This may be one of the reasons Hird is so keen to claim violation of natural justice; the AFLs charge sheet insinuates that PEDs were on the premises, that players agreed to be injected with them, and that Hird and Dank (and possibly the others) were the driving force behind administering the whole thing. If the AFL hearing finds these things true, ASADA may be able to slap infraction notices on then on the spot without any further evidence requiring proof.

Note: if ASADA or an infraction notice on Hird, Dank or otherwise, they get a minimum of a 4 year ban.

given that "intent" to use a banned PED is sufficient to be banned, is a signed consent form that names the substances not sufficient to prove intent?

If there is a question regarding whether these substances were injected it would be a simple question to each player "did you receive any injections immediately after signing this form?" If the answer is yes it's pretty clear cut to me unfortunately.

I'm not sure to what extent onus of proof is required under the ASADA act, given that players have been convicted without positive tests previously it appears that strong circumstantial evidence is sufficient.

edit: sorry had been covered.

But additionally, I think instead of trying to prove individuals took substances, I suspect ASADA will come down on all who signed forms and received injections based on balance of probabilities is that they received banned substances given what they signed.

Simply signing a form does not mean you took anything. ASADA will need to have sufficient evidence to back up each instance of a violation it alleges. Simply signing a form saying you consented to doing something doesn't mean you did it.

Given that the standard exceeds balance of probabilities, it means ASADA needs to have a situation where it's stronger than merely just more likely than not. Just a consent form isn't enough, especially if they consented to more than one substance (i.e. which one did they take?). I don't think the consent form + an answer to 'were you then injected with something' answers it. Think of it in the reverse - player X signs a consent form saying what he is taking is some innocent drug, but it turns out to be illegal. WIthout more, do you think he could simply say 'hey, what I was injected with came straight after I signed a form saying it was the innocent drug, so clearly I'm clean!'? I'd be very surprised if ASADA's charges were simply based on the fact that a player signed a form and then was injected with something. They'll need to do better than that.

Simply signing a form does not mean you took anything. ASADA will need to have sufficient evidence to back up each instance of a violation it alleges. Simply signing a form saying you consented to doing something doesn't mean you did it.

Given that the standard exceeds balance of probabilities, it means ASADA needs to have a situation where it's stronger than merely just more likely than not. Just a consent form isn't enough, especially if they consented to more than one substance (i.e. which one did they take?). I don't think the consent form + an answer to 'were you then injected with something' answers it. Think of it in the reverse - player X signs a consent form saying what he is taking is some innocent drug, but it turns out to be illegal. WIthout more, do you think he could simply say 'hey, what I was injected with came straight after I signed a form saying it was the innocent drug, so clearly I'm clean!'? I'd be very surprised if ASADA's charges were simply based on the fact that a player signed a form and then was injected with something. They'll need to do better than that.

Is intent an offence?

Considering the AFL Commission met at 8am today, but reportedly did not hear from Essendon til 2pm, and also were discussing the potential scrapping of the interchange cap proposal, does that mean in the coming days we will probably see a result of our application for a priority pick?

I'd like to think so.

Actually, it probably won't be til after the final round of matches to prevent any manipulation of results.

Even though we are playing the dogs, I think they should be strong favourites, and after Gold Coast's form on the weekend, we could even end up with a wooden spoon.

Interesting days ahead.

Is intent an offence?

When it comes to WADA, it is.