If you're referring to me as 'swallowing the Essendon/AFL line', you're again wrong. I couldn't care less what happens to Essendon. If they broke rules they deserved to be punished. I'm merely referring to my knowledge of the Code and how these things work to establish what the real framework here is. As such, statements like 'WADA will just come over the top and ban them' encourage me to correct them.

Again, your point about the conduct unbecoming penalties being different to the doping penalties is correct. However, as I have said, when the AFL decides what to do about penalising Essendon, if it chooses to, it will note the fact that it has already handed out the penalties that the Code permits, and there is simply no way to ignore the fact that they've already stripped Essendon of points, which is the primary punishment for a team.

The first paragraph I agree with. That's essentially the point I've been making. Daisycutter referred to article 11.2 which allows the AFL to punish a team if more than two of its players are found guilty of doping offences, and I have since been discussing the scope for Essendon to be punished.

At no stage have I said that has any bearing on the potential infraction notices to be handed to Essendon players. That is a completely different issue. However, as I said earlier, I believe there are legitimate cases to be made under the mitigation provisions of the Code (specifically, 10.4 and 10.5.2) that will assist the players in their attempts to reduce their bans (if they get them) from the 2 year standard.

The point of the backdating provision is to prevent unfairness to athletes who break a rule but have to wait for a finding to be handed down against them. The idea being that if the doping body is competent, it gets it all done as soon as possible and the ban starts as soon as possible. Where the doping body takes an unfairly long time to get the investigation done, that can have unfair consequences on players who have to wait to start their ban (especially relevant when you're considering bans starting at the start of the off-season, vs bans which start at the start of the season proper). In this case, ASADA's had new powers since August but are yet to use them. The longer it takes them to finish this investigation in light of the new powers they've been conferred, the longer the unnecessary delay for the players. Thus, they may be able to get their ban backdated to start, say, from around now, or even earlier, if it's viewed as reasonable that ASADA should have wrapped things up by now. That's what I was getting at.

I'm not delusional, I'm merely applying the Code as it exists. If you don't like it because you don't like Essendon and you want to see them go down, there's not a lot I can do about that. The Code is what the Code is. I maintain that 10.4 and 10.5.2 are open to Essendon players on the current state of the Code (10.4 is harder to make out, but 10.5.2 is very likely to apply, which gets the period down to one year). There are also the major issue of ASADA needing to find enough evidence to satisfy the standard of proof, which is being glossed over in the debate. Dank may help solve that, but that remains to be seen.

Interestingly, after exchanging detailed posts for several days now on these Issues, we seem to be pretty close to agreement. It is interesting the way the written word can sometimes lead to misinterpretation and nit picking . I am as guilty of it as you.

Just one point. I am not against Essendon. I know several former and current staff at Essendon and they are as appalled as anyone about what has happened. I feel for them, and particularly the players who I think are largely the innocent victims in this. I have no sympathy though for the Hird regime who I think were bending the rules to gain an advantage, and therefore the force of the general law, AFL rules, and the WADA code should be applied rigorously to them. The guilty and innocent will suffer equally at Essendon , and indirectly the whole of the Aussie Rules community, which penalizes all of us.

What I find reprehensible is the way Hird and his cronies, and the new executive regime at Essendon, have continually tried to mislead their players, their parents, the media in an effort to batt away this annoyance. Hubris at its worst. And the real cost to Essendon is the longer they are in denial, the worse the ultimate penalties will be.

Finally, I disagree with you about the length of time these investigations take and what implications that might have on the ultimate sanctions. USADA took five years to finally land Armstrong, but when they did he was completely exposed. Without that thorough 5 year investigation, he might be Governor of Texas by now, instead of being an international outcast.

I understand Essendon was discussed at length at the recent WADA meeting in South Africa, and is now seen as a case study on how to take on wealthy, intrenched local football codes of all kinds.

The world in watching. WADA/ASADA will not be allowed to drop the ball.

.....knit picking . I am as guilty of it as you..........

I am a pedant ...... probably nit picking, but I believe the expression is nit picking (sans k).

I am a pedant ...... probably nit picking, but I believe the expression is nit picking (sans k).

"HEY USHER....This blokes got nits..."

I am a pedant ...... probably nit picking, but I believe the expression is nit picking (sans k).

Thanks Mono. I bow to your superior editing. I should be more thorough.

I don't think it makes any difference to the point I was making though. Do you?

Thanks Mono. I bow to your superior editing. I should be more thorough.

I don't think it makes any difference to the point I was making though. Do you?

Not in any way - as I stated, proudly, I am a pedant.

Interestingly, after exchanging detailed posts for several days now on these Issues, we seem to be pretty close to agreement. It is interesting the way the written word can sometimes lead to misinterpretation and nit picking . I am as guilty of it as you.

Just one point. I am not against Essendon. I know several former and current staff at Essendon and they are as appalled as anyone about what has happened. I feel for them, and particularly the players who I think are largely the innocent victims in this. I have no sympathy though for the Hird regime who I think were bending the rules to gain an advantage, and therefore the force of the general law, AFL rules, and the WADA code should be applied rigorously to them. The guilty and innocent will suffer equally at Essendon , and indirectly the whole of the Aussie Rules community, which penalizes all of us.

What I find reprehensible is the way Hird and his cronies, and the new executive regime at Essendon, have continually tried to mislead their players, their parents, the media in an effort to batt away this annoyance. Hubris at its worst. And the real cost to Essendon is the longer they are in denial, the worse the ultimate penalties will be.

Finally, I disagree with you about the length of time these investigations take and what implications that might have on the ultimate sanctions. USADA took five years to finally land Armstrong, but when they did he was completely exposed. Without that thorough 5 year investigation, he might be Governor of Texas by now, instead of being an international outcast.

I understand Essendon was discussed at length at the recent WADA meeting in South Africa, and is now seen as a case study on how to take on wealthy, intrenched local football codes of all kinds.

The world in watching. WADA/ASADA will not be allowed to drop the ball.

I think we just had the lines of communication crossed a bit, since we do seem to agree on a lot.

Something that hasn't been discussed much is article 2.8 of the Code, which makes it an offence to administer (or attempt to administer) a prohibited substance (as well as aiding, abetting, covering up, or complicity in administration). There is going to be scope for that to apply to Hird and Dank, maybe Robinson, Reid and Thompson too. Though I'm not as familiar with 2.8.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare this investigation to the USADA one, where the practices were years in the making and thus took a lot longer to uncover. This is, from all reports, one program in one year (though I guess the length of the investigation could mean otherwise). I don't disagree with ASADA being diligent, but there has not yet been any reason given for why they haven't used their compulsion powers on Dank, and that kind of delay could work in the players' favour.

I propose the following:

That Messendon are somewhat misinterpreting or at least muddying the waters in regard to the situation that they are in.

Melrose Place are attempting spin, They think this will affect things. Its delicious in a way

I think we just had the lines of communication crossed a bit, since we do seem to agree on a lot.

Something that hasn't been discussed much is article 2.8 of the Code, which makes it an offence to administer (or attempt to administer) a prohibited substance (as well as aiding, abetting, covering up, or complicity in administration). There is going to be scope for that to apply to Hird and Dank, maybe Robinson, Reid and Thompson too. Though I'm not as familiar with 2.8.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare this investigation to the USADA one, where the practices were years in the making and thus took a lot longer to uncover. This is, from all reports, one program in one year (though I guess the length of the investigation could mean otherwise). I don't disagree with ASADA being diligent, but there has not yet been any reason given for why they haven't used their compulsion powers on Dank, and that kind of delay could work in the players' favour.

My understanding is that they can compulsorily require him to talk to them, the penalty for not complying of which is $5000 per day. Clearly he has not yet complied. I understand they have tried to talk to him, but not sure whether they have compulsorily required him to. If they have he will have to pay the fine.

What is interesting is to speculate on why he is not talking. Has he got a great big secret to hide which will incriminate him, or as you point out by stringing it out it actually helps Essendon and the players. After everything that has happened, he may want to ingratiate himself to them, although personally i dont see what advantage he would get by doing so.The other explanation maybe is that ASADA may want to talk to Dank once they have interviewed everyone else. After all he is the common link across a number of AFL Clubs, and of course NFL clubs.

My understanding is that they can compulsorily require him to talk to them, the penalty for not complying of which is $5000 per day. Clearly he has not yet complied. I understand they have tried to talk to him, but not sure whether they have compulsorily required him to. If they have he will have to pay the fine.

What is interesting is to speculate on why he is not talking. Has he got a great big secret to hide which will incriminate him, or as you point out by stringing it out it actually helps Essendon and the players. After everything that has happened, he may want to ingratiate himself to them, although personally i dont see what advantage he would get by doing so.The other explanation maybe is that ASADA may want to talk to Dank once they have interviewed everyone else. After all he is the common link across a number of AFL Clubs, and of course NFL clubs.

I haven't heard anything about them asking him to interview, the reports have all been that ASADA hasn't yet done that.

If the media doesn't know everything, it may well be that he's refusing to talk on the grounds that talking would lead to self-incrimination, which under the Act is a way of getting out of talking. So it may be that they've asked, he's refused on that grounds, and that's that. But there would be a lot ASADA could specifically demand out of him that wouldn't be self-incriminatory that he couldn't refuse, and he won't have infinite funds to continue paying $5,000 per day he refuses.

My guess is they haven't done it yet because they're not ready to talk to him, and they're experiencing delays in sorting everything else out first.

My understanding is that they can compulsorily require him to talk to them, the penalty for not complying of which is $5000 per day. Clearly he has not yet complied. I understand they have tried to talk to him, but not sure whether they have compulsorily required him to. If they have he will have to pay the fine.

What is interesting is to speculate on why he is not talking. Has he got a great big secret to hide which will incriminate him, or as you point out by stringing it out it actually helps Essendon and the players. After everything that has happened, he may want to ingratiate himself to them, although personally i dont see what advantage he would get by doing so.The other explanation maybe is that ASADA may want to talk to Dank once they have interviewed everyone else. After all he is the common link across a number of AFL Clubs, and of course NFL clubs.

Dank's resistance to speaking with ASADA may have nothing to do with the AFL and everything to do with the NRL (or vice versa, of course). Or nothing to do with either of these codes but something else he may have been involved in.

I can only imagine that Danks would be deferring any moment about when he has to take an oath!!

He's a bit like a fly in a closed room; hard to pin down.,.......but eventually you get to swat him !!

I think we just had the lines of communication crossed a bit, since we do seem to agree on a lot.

Something that hasn't been discussed much is article 2.8 of the Code, which makes it an offence to administer (or attempt to administer) a prohibited substance (as well as aiding, abetting, covering up, or complicity in administration). There is going to be scope for that to apply to Hird and Dank, maybe Robinson, Reid and Thompson too. Though I'm not as familiar with 2.8.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare this investigation to the USADA one, where the practices were years in the making and thus took a lot longer to uncover. This is, from all reports, one program in one year (though I guess the length of the investigation could mean otherwise). I don't disagree with ASADA being diligent, but there has not yet been any reason given for why they haven't used their compulsion powers on Dank, and that kind of delay could work in the players' favour.

Thanks t-u and D2014

both of you have contributed to an engaging discussion which while maybe not providing the ultimate decision has certainly assisted my understanding. All done without serious rancour or personal swipes (unlike many discussions on other issues)

I appreciate the time you have and are taking in presenting the information you have I will look forward to following the proceedings and your erudite comments on them.

Thanks t-u and D2014

both of you have contributed to an engaging discussion which while maybe not providing the ultimate decision has certainly assisted my understanding. All done without serious rancour or personal swipes (unlike many discussions on other issues)

I appreciate the time you have and are taking in presenting the information you have I will look forward to following the proceedings and your erudite comments on them.

That all good and all, but when do we get to put the boots into MessyDrugs?

Now that would be much better to watch then reruns of the 2013 AFL season!

Edited November 20, 201311 yr by TheBigFrog

That all goo and all, but when do we get to put the boots into MessyDrugs?

Now that would be much better to watch then reruns of the 2013 AFL season!

Unfortunately TBF "we" cant put the boots in but must watch from the sidelines.

Unfortunately TBF "we" cant put the boots in but must watch from the sidelines.

Pity I just wait to see them suffer.

As drugs in sport is such a no no to me.

We know that the doping investigation isn't tied to any particular date for determination but one would have expected a greater level of urgency given the dramatic announcements when the news broke back in February. It's now December and with no final ASADA report and no interview of Stephen Dank in sight, the issue of infraction notices looks likely to be on hold until the new year. This slow play by doping authorities seems to be a world wide phenomenon - Wada's waffling is threatening the very credibility of athletics.

We know that the doping investigation isn't tied to any particular date for determination but one would have expected a greater level of urgency given the dramatic announcements when the news broke back in February. It's now December and with no final ASADA report and no interview of Stephen Dank in sight, the issue of infraction notices looks likely to be on hold until the new year. This slow play by doping authorities seems to be a world wide phenomenon - Wada's waffling is threatening the very credibility of athletics.

WJ, yes you are right, the sporting bodies world-wide complain about the pace of investigation by local WADA affiliates. I think it is largely a matter of resources and local laws. In the AFL/NRL cases, the legislation had to be changed in order for ASADA to get the powers to gather the evidence. They also needed to be given additional resources which is not easy in these straightened times. We are talking about public bodies here. If the AFL was solely responsible for the investigation, I have no doubt that, being a private body, they would have thrown resources at it because for every month this drags on it increases the uncertainty around their competition and its long term viability.

Personally, I'm glad they are taking their time to do it thoroughly. If they came out with a half baked judgement, Essendon and the AFL (and the NRL) would tie it up in the courts for years. They need to develop a water-tight case BEFORE they pronounce on the consequences. it would not surprise me if we didn't get a pronouncement until 2015.

The implications for all concerned in this are just too serious all round. We will just have to be patient and trust them to get it right.

It is frequently claimed that Dank has not yet been interviewed by ASADA. What is the evidence for that? Is it merely based on the assumption that if he had been, it would be public?

It is frequently claimed that Dank has not yet been interviewed by ASADA. What is the evidence for that? Is it merely based on the assumption that if he had been, it would be public?

Yep

Dons' hierarchy hasn't learnt lessons of sports scandals

Ain't that the truth?

Those who by nature fly too high , too close to the sun are bound to be burnt and fall hard.

So be it

Dons' hierarchy hasn't learnt lessons of sports scandals

Ain't that the truth?

Is this surprising after all this is the Club who extended their coaches contract after he received a 12 months suspension.

saad 18 months

saad 18 months

I admit I don't know a lot about the Saad case, but was the evidence against him stronger than against the Bummers? If not, it doesn't bode well for them.