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

[beelzebub 22,225]

Simply signing a form does not mean you took anything.

just by way of comparison, simply ordering it does ?

Pretty much the same in the context of things.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

Bob I am surprised that you would think that.

I'm surprised you're surprised. We've discussed this many times and we just differ. But I reckon non MFC supporters see it my way.

We were found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. People think we tanked. OTC tonight listed our penalties under "Tanking". That's what people think we got penalized for just as most think the AFL penalties for Essendon are for drug taking.

We didn't get draft penalties because it wasn't in the AFL interest to further cripple us. The AFL will hand down a penalty to Essendon that is severe but not crippling - as they did to us.

[titan_uranus 22,351]

Is intent an offence?

It's not 'intent', the offence is one of 'attempted use'.

just by way of comparison, simply ordering it does ?

Pretty much the same in the context of things.

It all depends on the consent forms, I think. The more specific they are with regards to which supplement was to be administered, the closer it will be to the Lees situation.

Consenting to a program, or consenting to a range of drugs, or consenting to something else, won't cut it.

Edit: According to ASADA's own website, Lees was charged with possession, not with 'attempted use'. So it's possible that what he did doesn't constitute 'attempted use'.

Edited August 26, 2013 by titan_uranus

[deanox 8,582]

...

Titan, the WADA code covers both "use" and "attempted use" and as far as I can tell it doesn't differentiate on penalties (section 2.2). The notes associated with attempted use state:

***

[Comment to Article 2.2: It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish Presence of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.

***

based on that, witness statements, signed consent forms and purchase receipts could well be enough to establish "attempted use" by the 38 players, and this result in an infraction notice.

Also Section 2.2.2 and it's comment States:

***

2.2.2 The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti- doping rule violation to be committed.

[Comment to Article 2.2.2: Demon- strating the "Attempted Use" of a Prohibited Substance requires proof of intent on the Athletes part.]

***

This sticking point for me: "can you be charged with attempted use of you didn't know a substance was banned?". Ie you intended to use what you thought was a legal substance, you didn't intend to use an illegal substance.

I think yes, based on the Wade Lees case where he claimed he didn't know the substance he purchased contained a banned substance. I am not sure, however, if he was only charged with "attempted use" but also with trafficking (because he imported it) and also possession of a banned substance while in competition.

Edit: titan you are a step ahead of me! apparently we on a very similar page even though we have slightly differing views.

[titan_uranus 22,351]

This sticking point for me: "can you be charged with attempted use of you didn't know a substance was banned?". Ie you intended to use what you thought was a legal substance, you didn't intend to use an illegal substance.

I think yes, based on the Wade Lees case where he claimed he didn't know the substance he purchased contained a banned substance. I am not sure, however, if he was only charged with "attempted use" but also with trafficking (because he imported it) and also possession of a banned substance while in competition.

Edit: titan you are a step ahead of me! apparently we on a very similar page even though we have slightly differing views.

I'm fairly confident you can be charged with attempted use of something even if you didn't know it was banned. It's lumped in with use, and you can definitely be charged with use of a banned substance regardless of knowledge.

I think the Lees thing has got us all confused, since he doesn't appear to have been charged with attempted use. So, what Lees did may well not be enough to be 'attempted use', which in turn may mean that what the Essendon players did isn't enough.

[deanox 8,582]

A quick search indicated that some athletes have been charged, and banned, for attempted use in similar situations to Lees. *Jake Law and Mitchell Spackmen were both charged with attempted use only, not possession, when they imported substances.

I couldn't see anything in the past two years on the ASADA website that looking anything like this current case, although I imagine it is pretty unique.

Edited August 26, 2013 by deanox

[PJ_12345 1,098]

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.

How about looking at it from a more holistic approach:

A number of players signed consent forms to participate, and did participate, in a performance program where a significant amount of players were given varying banned substances where neither the players nor the administrators of the program can differentiate who where given what banned substances.

It's a players responsibility to control what enters their body (something which ASADA expresses in person to every club, and all players, before every season)

On that basis if the players who participated in this illegal program cannot verify what entered into their bodies then they have failed at their main responsibility, should be assumed to have to have taken a banned substance and held accountable.

[deanox 8,582]

What I guess is, we won't know until it happens.

I know how I would personally interpret it, and that would be the hard line. Drugs in sport is something to be discouraged, and the hard line is the way to go, particularly if you think you have a case.

I can understand how someone might think there isn't enough information currently available publicly to push ahead.

We won't know until ASADA make a decision. The one thing we know is that they haven't made a decision yet.

Edited August 26, 2013 by deanox

[Whispering_Jack 27,970]

I'm surprised you're surprised. We've discussed this many times and we just differ. But I reckon non MFC supporters see it my way.

We were found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. People think we tanked. OTC tonight listed our penalties under "Tanking". That's what people think we got penalized for just as most think the AFL penalties for Essendon are for drug taking.

We didn't get draft penalties because it wasn't in the AFL interest to further cripple us. The AFL will hand down a penalty to Essendon that is severe but not crippling - as they did to us.

Also relevant in our case was the fact that whatever we were doing in 2009 had not only been described by the AFL CEO as not tanking but he also gave it his imprimatur and endorsement in a Caroline Wilson article. To have found the club guilty of tanking would have been an embarrassment to Demetriou personally so they came up with something that was an embarrassment to the AFL.

I have no love for Essendon or Hird over this scandal but I do love the way they're fighting tooth and nail to get the best deal even though ultimately they will succumb to Vlad.

[dpositive 1,547]

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed

The conversation of divergent views has shown how complex this issue is

I am probably now more confused but certainly more intruiged and far more cautious in proffering any uninformed opinion

Still happy to offer scurrilous or provocative comment. Unfortunately not clever enough to provide intentional humour quickly enough

[DemonFrog 1,347]

My bet is there will be an agreement between Messendon and the AFL in 2213.

Not need to rush as the lawyers are on $400 per hour and they need a second holiday home in London.

[old55 21,297]

Also relevant in our case was the fact that whatever we were doing in 2009 had not only been described by the AFL CEO as not tanking but he also gave it his imprimatur and endorsement in a Caroline Wilson article. To have found the club guilty of tanking would have been an embarrassment to Demetriou personally so they came up with something that was an embarrassment to the AFL.

I have no love for Essendon or Hird over this scandal but I do love the way they're fighting tooth and nail to get the best deal even though ultimately they will succumb to Vlad.

Something similar is happening here. One of the reasons the AFL want to avoid this going to court is that Demetriou's and McLaughlin's advice to Essendon prior to them self-reporting may be revealed and may be more than embarrassing. It's some dirty tactics by the Hird camp - the relationship with the AFL is permanently broken

[old55 21,297]

Hird is 99% innocent but Thompson is only 80% innocent apparently.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Hird is 99% innocent but Thompson is only 80% innocent apparently.

Do we allow Messendon Supporters on in this web site?

[QueensBirthday 186]

Do we allow Messendon Supporters on in this web site?

Without the tongue firmly planted in the cheek, I can see how you got that?

It'd be easy to be taken seriously in the current climate. Journo's have sunk to new depths in their fight for "THE CAUSE". It's amazing how many sh!te opinions can go to print.

[beelzebub 22,225]

Hird is 99% innocent but Thompson is only 80% innocent apparently.

havent you heard 55, there are some just a little pregnant and a little bit dead !!

[Whispering_Jack 27,970]

Something similar is happening here. One of the reasons the AFL want to avoid this going to court is that Demetriou's and McLaughlin's advice to Essendon prior to them self-reporting may be revealed and may be more than embarrassing. It's some dirty tactics by the Hird camp - the relationship with the AFL is permanently broken

Yes and that's what I get from reading the Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court Writ filed on behalf of Hird last week. It's one of the reasons why I wonder about Vlad being involved in the current set of negotiations and why I'm comforted by the fact that WADA and the ACC have the capacity to override anything that happens in the long run.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

havent you heard 55, there are some just a little pregnant and a little bit dead !!

BRILLENT!

Why did we not see this before?

All the MFC players are pregnant and a little bit dead!

No wonder our team is so crap.

[Gorgoroth 12,319]

Hird is 99% innocent but Thompson is only 80% innocent apparently.

That's easily done, their charges would be quite different.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'm surprised you're surprised. We've discussed this many times and we just differ. But I reckon non MFC supporters see it my way.

We were found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. People think we tanked. OTC tonight listed our penalties under "Tanking". That's what people think we got penalized for just as most think the AFL penalties for Essendon are for drug taking.

We didn't get draft penalties because it wasn't in the AFL interest to further cripple us. The AFL will hand down a penalty to Essendon that is severe but not crippling - as they did to us.

Agree. Even if ASADA find no reason to impose penalty, the football world and public believe ( and with good reason) that Essendon tried to skirt the system and breach the standards of the game. The same judgment and distrust of Essendon applies to MFC.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Agree. Even if ASADA find no reason to impose penalty, the football world and public believe ( and with good reason) that Essendon tried to skirt the system and breach the standards of the game. The same judgment and distrust of Essendon applies to MFC.

Really?

Can I have just 0.5 kg of what ever you are on as I would make a fortune?

You are comparing the MFC to Drug Cheats WTF!

[old55 21,297]

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

Essendon FC ordered, were supplied with, stored on-site and paid for PEDs - Thymosin Beta-4 and Hexarelin (there's no doubt in my mind that's the substances redacted in the AFL charge sheet - look at the alphabetic order). Apparently they don't have records of which substances were given to which players so on that basis individual players may escape penalty - but surely that doubles the penalty the FC should suffer?

[dee-luded 2,958]

I will say this, if us, Carlton and Adelaide lost draft picks for salary cap cheating, and Essendon don't lose at least 2-3 years of draft picks for DRUG cheating, the AFL should be ashamed of themselves.

I'd rather Essendon play finals, knowing they won't make it far anyway, than watch them continue to develop their club via the draft.

We all know that draft penalties are the things that hurt the club most, and take the longest to recover from. A fine is not an issue for such a rich club, neither is taking away one or two finals games. They should pay for years to come for putting their players and the AFL in jeopardy, and then kicking up a stink, tainting the entire competition and the 2013 season with their garbage.

They tried to get a massive leg over the rest of the Comp', & now it should be seen, that they pay the antidote to that. Draft sanctions & points wiped this year, & a points penalty for them to kickoff next year.

at the moment they are holding the AFL & the competition to ransom, holding its welfare as a hostage. the must be shot down.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

I'm comforted by the fact that WADA and the ACC have the capacity to override anything that happens in the long run.

Is that right? My understanding, and I confess to not following the detail of this, is that the AFL will apply penalties to Essendon for failure of Governance and I would have thought WADA and ASADA have no jurisdiction over this.

I'm of the belief that Essendon didn't intend to provide their players with dangerous or banned drugs. If they were supplied then it was because there was a rogue element there. But the failure to care for your players in the AFL environment where the players defer and trust the club so strongly is shameful.

BTW, 55 makes some terrific points.

[daisycutter 28,508]

I'm of the belief that Essendon didn't intend to provide their players with dangerous or banned drugs. If they were supplied then it was because there was a rogue element there. But the failure to care for your players in the AFL environment where the players defer and trust the club so strongly is shameful.

it doesn't really matter what you believe bob in terms of fairness

what matters is wada's rules and how they enforce them

they are quite clear on player responsibility whether you think it fair or not

their rules tend to be very rigid and inflexible (and this is/should be understood by all athletes who come under the wada umbrella)