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

[bing181 9,191]

I will have a look at the code but I think I read on this site that the burdon of proof for ASADA/WADA matters is less then most criminal or civil matters. They only need to to pass a reaonable test to prove the elements and there is no need to prove intent and that is why I have that opinion.

They still need to prove intent, and the burden of proof for an infringement still remains with ASADA:

"… the burden of proof for establishing an anti-doping rule violation remains with ASADA. The Code states that:

The Anti-Doping Organisation shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organisation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction ofthe hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the …. violations specified in the Code, which are established by non-analytical means (i.e. other than a drug test), ASADA is required to establish intent on the behalf of the athlete or support person in order to demonstrate that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/asaaab2013545/memo_3.html

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

They still need to prove intent, and the burden of proof for an infringement still remains with ASADA:

" the burden of proof for establishing an anti-doping rule violation remains with ASADA. The Code states that:

The Anti-Doping Organisation shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organisation has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction ofthe hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made.

This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the . violations specified in the Code, which are established by non-analytical means (i.e. other than a drug test), ASADA is required to establish intent on the behalf of the athlete or support person in order to demonstrate that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/asaaab2013545/memo_3.html

Thanks Bing. Proving Intent is always a problem and may be the saviour of the players although the consent forms may be a problem. I still reckon that the three points I isted above can be proven with the published information but if you add intent to any of those then the odds of infractions being issued go down.

Its funny how reading and hearng the professional media coverage of this issue over the last year has provided little information other than sensationalist headlines and spin to justfy that headline. I have got more information reading this forum than anything provided by any media outlet.

[Freddy Fuschia 730]

The standard required for proving intent isn't any higher than in any other case and the signing of the waiver forms covers that base.

[Wolfmother 182]

Intent is actually easy with the consent form listing the drugs they planned to take and the fact there was regular injections means its difficult to avoid. Only 8 have admitted to TB4 but the signing of the forms should see a few go with only those who said no to injections (zararkis?) avoiding infractions

If the ordering of a supplement containing a banned substance shows intent surely signing a form with drugs that are banned does as well.

I believe the fact that ASADA is a government organisation and will be under pressure from all angles including the AFL who has been involved the whole time, they won't give infractions to a whole club ie 38 players like they should but maybe 10 (5 players 5 support staff) which still demonstrates they completed the job etc etc but does cripple essendon

[Dees2014 2,377]

Intent is actually easy with the consent form listing the drugs they planned to take and the fact there was regular injections means its difficult to avoid. Only 8 have admitted to TB4 but the signing of the forms should see a few go with only those who said no to injections (zararkis?) avoiding infractions

If the ordering of a supplement containing a banned substance shows intent surely signing a form with drugs that are banned does as well.

I believe the fact that ASADA is a government organisation and will be under pressure from all angles including the AFL who has been involved the whole time, they won't give infractions to a whole club ie 38 players like they should but maybe 10 (5 players 5 support staff) which still demonstrates they completed the job etc etc but does cripple essendon

The crippling of Essendon will come from the fallout of the infraction notices: players suing the club and the AFL; likely court cases; intervention by ACCC (maybe) re have any Director's duties been breached (likely IMHO), Workcover, rulings re what to do about recruitment of additional players for new season and how this would effect current salary cap; Hird's re-in statement (or not).

It will be pain for Essendon for years to come. Hird will never work in the Industry again.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Intent is actually easy with the consent form listing the drugs they planned to take and the fact there was regular injections means its difficult to avoid. Only 8 have admitted to TB4 but the signing of the forms should see a few go with only those who said no to injections (zararkis?) avoiding infractions

If the ordering of a supplement containing a banned substance shows intent surely signing a form with drugs that are banned does as well.

I believe the fact that ASADA is a government organisation and will be under pressure from all angles including the AFL who has been involved the whole time, they won't give infractions to a whole club ie 38 players like they should but maybe 10 (5 players 5 support staff) which still demonstrates they completed the job etc etc but does cripple essendon

The difference with Saad is that he tested positive and intent is not required for that offence.

[sue 9,096]

...

I believe the fact that ASADA is a government organisation and will be under pressure from all angles including the AFL who has been involved the whole time, they won't give infractions to a whole club ie 38 players like they should but maybe 10 (5 players 5 support staff) which still demonstrates they completed the job etc etc but does cripple essendon

If they artificially penalise only handful of players like you suggest they may need to provide clear reasons why those players and not others. Although we will hear the usual 'it is not an excuse that others did it' line that we heard around tanking, surely(?) in the current case it may be grounds for court action rather than just the moral indignation many of us felt about the failure to widen the tanking investigation.

[hardtack 10,505]

If they artificially penalise only handful of players like you suggest they may need to provide clear reasons why those players and not others. Although we will hear the usual 'it is not an excuse that others did it' line that we heard around tanking, surely(?) in the current case it may be grounds for court action rather than just the moral indignation many of us felt about the failure to widen the tanking investigation.

I suppose in effect that makes it "artificial dissemination"?

[deanox 9,891]

Just to clarify a few things here,

a) I don't think they need to prove intent of they can establish within the required burden of proof that players did take substances

b) I understand that "intent" is a separate offence; if they can't prove actual substance use, "intending to use" is just as culpable under the code, and there have been many players at VFL (and second level Rugby league) in the past few years charged with "intent" who have paid to import illegal substances with the intent to use them.

[old dee 23,682]

11 months later and still no charges against anyone!

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Just to clarify a few things here,

a) I don't think they need to prove intent of they can establish within the required burden of proof that players did take substances

b) I understand that "intent" is a separate offence; if they can't prove actual substance use, "intending to use" is just as culpable under the code, and there have been many players at VFL (and second level Rugby league) in the past few years charged with "intent" who have paid to import illegal substances with the intent to use them.

I have had a look at the code and I dont think intent is requred in a breach of the code

2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.

Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the

Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

The ASADA site states

2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

In addition to testing athletes, ASADA also has the power to investigate the possible use of prohibited substances, drugs, medications or methods in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection. An athlete does not have to have succeeded in using a prohibited substance or method – if there is sufficient evidence that the athlete has attempted to use a prohibited substance or method, they can be sanctioned. It is the athlete’s responsibility to ensure that no prohibited substance, drug or medication enters his or her body. Not knowing that you have taken something is not an excuse

Accordng to the Code the standard of proof is:

The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an antidoping

rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of

the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability

but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

ASADA dont need to establish fault elements, they just need to extablish the physical evidence, ie, 1. that the use or attempted use occured, 2. that the athelete was the person who used or attmpted to use and 3. that the substance was prohibited and/or that the methd was prohibited. Once that is established to the satisfaction of the hearing panel, end of story

[Sir Why You Little 36,891]

Wow, attempted use is an offence in the ASADA Charter.

Was not aware of that.

Essendrug must all go if that is the case...

Maybe this is why Corcoran walked..

[Return to Glory 8,411]

11 months later and still no charges against anyone!

I think that's the main point. Almost a year and except for not letting them play a final series they were I'll equipped to play, nothing of a real punitive nature has occurred. Oh,I forgot. Hird has been paid 1 million bucks up front to do nothing. He can also attend some conferences for his betterment. Wow, he's certainly been taught a lesson. Oversee a systematic program of illegal doping, earn some cash for zilch and come back for finals.

In the cold light of day, the AFL has been bent over whilst Andy D looks to protect his own reputation IMO.

[deanox 9,891]

WYL, this is why I'm sure a lot of the players will go as well.

Attempted Use is such an open term that I think many in the media etc. have not picked up on it. How is it defined? I'm not sure, but I know that players who purchase substances are charged with 'attempted use', even if they never receive the drugs. I would think that signing a consent form detailing a substance and a regime could easily constitute 'attempted use'. But not sure that has ever been tested before.

[Sir Why You Little 36,891]

WYL, this is why I'm sure a lot of the players will go as well.

Attempted Use is such an open term that I think many in the media etc. have not picked up on it. How is it defined? I'm not sure, but I know that players who purchase substances are charged with 'attempted use', even if they never receive the drugs. I would think that signing a consent form detailing a substance and a regime could easily constitute 'attempted use'. But not sure that has ever been tested before.

Yes it has always intriuged me that the Casey players case has not been more front and centre in the media.

Lees got the full penalty without taking anything. But he purchased with intent....

I know the AFL and TV Networks want this to all go away because it is going to cost a lot of revenue...but it can't.

A large number of people are going to get 2 year bans.

If it doesn't happen the sport will have zero cred.

[Return to Glory 8,411]

Bombers are about to be hit by the biggest wet lettuce of all time.

[Wolfmother 182]

The difference with Saad is that he tested positive and intent is not required for that offence.

Bedraggled, I was referring to Lee,who I believe the cases are closer linked as no positive tests were recorded. Lee purchased an illegal substance and would of admitted in an interview he planned to use it = 18 month ban

[Wolfmother 182]

If they artificially penalise only handful of players like you suggest they may need to provide clear reasons why those players and not others. Although we will hear the usual 'it is not an excuse that others did it' line that we heard around tanking, surely(?) in the current case it may be grounds for court action rather than just the moral indignation many of us felt about the failure to widen the tanking investigation.

Although I agree I not discussing other clubs more essendon, a form with your signature stating illegal substances to be injected and those substances purchased by your club would IMO show intent to use even if the actual injection time dates arent on a register(it that's available that's further proof) but that's no more proof than Lee had.

I wonder if ASADA will only charge the 8 that admitted TB4 rather than the 38 that have consented to have it and use the line there was not enough evidence line

[Whispering_Jack 29,686]

Bedraggled, I was referring to Lee,who I believe the cases are closer linked as no positive tests were recorded. Lee purchased an illegal substance and would of admitted in an interview he planned to use it = 18 month ban

I think you mean Wade Lees formerly of the Casey Scorpions who was charged with importing a banned substance. Unfortunately for him, it was an open and shut case and it would have been a costly exercise going to CAS for a reduction in the severity of the penalty.

[Wolfmother 182]

The crippling of Essendon will come from the fallout of the infraction notices: players suing the club and the AFL; likely court cases; intervention by ACCC (maybe) re have any Director's duties been breached (likely IMHO), Workcover, rulings re what to do about recruitment of additional players for new season and how this would effect current salary cap; Hird's re-in statement (or not).

It will be pain for Essendon for years to come. Hird will never work in the Industry again.

I have no doubt this will happen.

For those thinking the time it has taken shows nothing has happened IMO are in for a shock. if you issue an infraction notice you need to be able to prove your case.The level of this investigation would take years especially as it involves so many people/offenders. Due to the high profile it would be cross checked by ten people before the other side gets a chance to rip it apart.

[Wolfmother 182]

I think you mean Wade Lees formerly of the Casey Scorpions who was charged with importing a banned substance. Unfortunately for him, it was an open and shut case and it would have been a costly exercise going to CAS for a reduction in the severity of the penalty.

Yes WJ I means lees

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/drug-ban-served-wade-lees-plots-vfl-return-with-frankston-dolphins/story-fngnvoeu-1226764481916

It's a bit confusing as it says in the article suspension for importing a banned substanced and in the article in states he was charged for attempted use doping violation which I believe is the actual charge and the other is a journalist wording but Iaybe wrong

It's interesting to note that the investigation took 8 months before he was charged and the whole process two years and that's one person one substance

[monoccular 17,407]

Lucky James Hird had no awareness of this whatsoever........

but, as he said publicly when this story broke, he will accept full responsibility LOL (=lies out loud) :-)))))

[monoccular 17,407]

11 months later and still no charges against anyone!

A professional colleague often says "do you want the right answer, or the quick answer?"

[Cards13 9,117]

Bombers are about to be hit by the biggest wet lettuce of all time.

Details RTG or just a guess?

[bing181 9,191]

I believe the fact that ASADA is a government organisation and will be under pressure from all angles including the AFL who has been involved the whole time, they won't give infractions to a whole club ie 38 players like they should but maybe 10 (5 players 5 support staff) which still demonstrates they completed the job etc etc but does cripple essendon

Believe as you want, but ASADA don't do deals - except under specific conditions outlined in the WADA code. These mainly centre on coming forward with information, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

If they find that x players have committed infringements, then x players will receive infringement notices.