It just keeps rollin' along - Doctors, supplement industry figures among 13 people compelled by ASADA to give evidence

  On 05/02/2014 at 10:26, DemonFrog said:

... and if someone was given a substance while they were having an operation and it was not performance enhance and was given for their well being, its a no brain to me they should be forgiven.

If it's on the prohibited list, WADA rules are pretty clear on when/what/how there might be mitigating circumstances, and the answer is pretty much "never". One of the main reasons WADA came into existence was to harmonise penalties internationally and across different sporting codes, and as a result, "leniency" is not a word that figures largely in the WADA regulations.

when asada get around to issuing notices, they wont be "6 months because you cooperated" notices, they will be "2 years because you wasted our time with misinformation" notices.

I mean, "uncooperative witnesses and misinformation".

280 interviews and 120,000 documents.......

and people want them to hurry up.

  On 05/02/2014 at 11:30, biggestred said:

when asada get around to issuing notices, they wont be "6 months because you cooperated" notices, they will be "2 years because you wasted our time with misinformation" notices.

I mean, "uncooperative witnesses and misinformation".

280 interviews and 120,000 documents.......

and people want them to hurry up.

The people who want ASADA to hurry up either have a vested interest in the failure of the investigation to come up with sanctions against wrongdoers, have an axe to grind against the organisation or both.

The majority of that first category in Victoria are people connected with Essendon or who have an interest in ensuring that the club doesn't lose players from the issue of infraction notices while the second category includes those whose reasons range from political to professional.

One of the main critics of ASADA these days is its former chairman Richard Ings. His concerns appear to do with the way ASADA has been operating and he's also been a critic of the fact that a year after the big announcement of our big sporting disgrace there's little to show for it. In other words, the announcement shouldn't have been made 12 months ago and that ASADA should have kept its powder dry until infraction notices were ready to be issued.

I don't agree with that - the news was going to come out anyway. There's no doubt there have been mistakes (e.g getting into bed with the AFL) but in the end - and I think there is still some time to go - players from two codes will be banned from their respective sports. Regrettably, that now looks like happening in midseason and will play havoc with the two competitions which is clearly not ideal for either the AFL or the NRL.

  On 04/02/2014 at 20:00, Dr John Dee said:

I'm more intrigued by Hardie's "ambition of becoming the archetype of life within communism." Can you register a Trabant in Victoria?

According to the old joke, you are probably better off registering a windscreen wiper ... :-)

A delay in dispensing infractions to mid season may not be ideal for the AFL but the competition will go on. And another written off season for the bombers won't cause too much grief beyond their supporter base and the Murdoch press.

if infraction notices are issued mid season and the bombers cant play a game - if I was a club and I was hosting them at the G id be seeking compensation.

otherwise, tough luck. I wonder what the rules are for forfeiting games in the afl? 4 points and a 10 goal win?

  On 05/02/2014 at 12:25, biggestred said:

if infraction notices are issued mid season and the bombers cant play a game - if I was a club and I was hosting them at the G id be seeking compensation.

otherwise, tough luck. I wonder what the rules are for forfeiting games in the afl? 4 points and a 10 goal win?

We should have done our percentage a favour in 2013 and forfeited games then LOL

Can a case be made that the Essendon Football Club has brought the game into disrepute by actively flaunting their disregard for the AFL's decision on their undocumented performance enhancing medication of players?

Marketing based on the fact that they were pulled up for systematic breaches of every conceivable good and fair practice is about as low as it gets, no?

  On 05/02/2014 at 08:14, Whispering_Jack said:

Since breach of the confidentiality would have laid him open to potential criminal charges, either alternative would have been disastrous, let alone looked bad.

Probably being picky, but wouldn't he be sued? How is breach of confidentiality a criminal charge?

  On 05/02/2014 at 14:21, Ingeniokinetikey said:

Probably being picky, but wouldn't he be sued? How is breach of confidentiality a criminal charge?

The information related to a federal criminal investigation carried out by the ACC.

There is no doubt alot of pressure on ASADA by all vested interests including all AFL/NRL fans.

I think they are damned no matter when they resolve in due course. I note that the Press on the eve of the 12 months since the announcement are now starting to turn up the media burners.

Like any Government body ASADA will be under scrutiny for its actions (just ask the ABC!!).

Inge has allegedly said that ASADA should have kept its paint dry 12 months ago. I thought this whole issue broke when the Fed Govt/ACC jointly announced the outcomes of the ACC investigation into illegal drugs and criminal elements in sport. After such a fanfare, the Government compelled ASADA to act. It had no choice but to move on the Governments direction.

The AFL/NRL investigation was two tsunamis at once for the resource stricken ASADA that is not equipped or funded for one such investigation let alone two. The decision to joint investigate with the AFL was based on the fact the AFL had ready resources ASADA didnt. It brought forward issues of conflict of process for both parties

No doubt mistakes have been made along the way and the media will "forensically" review this.

However, the outcomes of ASADA investigation should be based on the evidence available. While we dont know the full stock of evidence it has, there are indications that the medical records dont exist.

There is a possibility that the lack of evidence may result in no infraction notices issued. Essendon will feel vindicated, the non EFC football public will have its expectations of justice dashed and ASADA will be roasted for their performance. As ASADA commenced their work under the previous Government, ASADA should not expect any public support/protection from Abbott.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/does-a-private-email-between-asada-and-stephen-dank-suggest-the-bombers-might-have-no-case-to-answer-20140205-321vd.html

I don't understand this article.

  On 05/02/2014 at 20:23, 45HG said:

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/does-a-private-email-between-asada-and-stephen-dank-suggest-the-bombers-might-have-no-case-to-answer-20140205-321vd.html

I don't understand this article.

I don't think Roy does either, seems to be writing for the sake of it here.

  On 05/02/2014 at 20:29, rjay said:

I don't think Roy does either, seems to be writing for the sake of it here.

There's enough ambiguity there to mean a number of different things but its surprising that someone like Roy Masters would find it newsworthy.

The real new news for me was an article yesterday that revealed that ASADA only had one person left in the Melbourne office. That revealed the under resourcing of the organisation. The fact a retired Judge has been brought in suggests to me that they are getting ready to go and want the Judge to ensure legal compliance with any action or methods they employ.

It makes it very clear why this has been a slow process.

Obviously the Melbourne office is getting support from elsewhere and that would be slowing down the whole investigation.

I don't know what the end result will be, but Essendon and its players should still be very worried. This is not about time but rather accuracy.

  On 05/02/2014 at 20:46, Redleg said:

The real new news for me was an article yesterday that revealed that ASADA only had one person left in the Melbourne office. That revealed the under resourcing of the organisation. The fact a retired Judge has been brought in suggests to me that they are getting ready to go and want the Judge to ensure legal compliance with any action or methods they employ.

It makes it very clear why this has been a slow process.

Obviously the Melbourne office is getting support from elsewhere and that would be slowing down the whole investigation.

I don't know what the end result will be, but Essendon and its players should still be very worried. This is not about time but rather accuracy.

Absolutely ... and Richard Ings also gets it right when he says ...

  Quote

@ringsau: If there is "misinformation" in the public domain it is there because ASADA is losing the PR battle to those it is investigating.

.

However, this is all about an investigation and not public perception and we need to remember this fact.

The Murdoch press referring to ASADA as "The secretive agency...." is typical of their axe-grinding on almost any issue.

The main secret I'd like ASADA to reveal is, if they are so underfunded as it appears, why weren't they given a bigger budget once it was clear that 2 major codes needed investigating simultaneously.

  On 05/02/2014 at 18:58, Rhino Richards said:

1/However, the outcomes of ASADA investigation should be based on the evidence available. While we dont know the full stock of evidence it has, there are indications that the medical records dont exist.

2/There is a possibility that the lack of evidence may result in no infraction notices issued. Essendon will feel vindicated, the non EFC football public will have its expectations of justice dashed and ASADA will be roasted for their performance. As ASADA commenced their work under the previous Government, ASADA should not expect any public support/protection from Abbott.

1/what other outcomes besides "based on evidence" would you suggest?

2/[there is a possibility a lack of evidence will result in no infractions] "really" no chit sherlock

3/asada shouldnt expect to be protected because they have run a investigation based on "evidence"

A 3rd NRL player is suing Cronulla and has included Dank as well. Cronulla may well struggle to survive this.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/broderick-wright-to-sue-cronulla-over-supplements-20140205-321sp.html

  On 05/02/2014 at 21:29, sue said:

The Murdoch press referring to ASADA as "The secretive agency...." is typical of their axe-grinding on almost any issue.

The main secret I'd like ASADA to reveal is, if they are so underfunded as it appears, why weren't they given a bigger budget once it was clear that 2 major codes needed investigating simultaneously.

There is a great irony on claims by Murdoch media companies that other organizations are secretive, lacking integrity or are biased.

The funding issue has been caught up in an election year and there is a huge budget deficit at hand.

In addition the fallout on the ASADA outcomes could be explosive and damaging. Given that Abbott inherited The ASADA invstigation as WIP from Labor, they will not put themselves in the potential firing line for any fall out, findings or failings.

This is an issue that is not easily politically managed or controlled.

  On 06/02/2014 at 00:03, Rhino Richards said:

There is a great irony on claims by Murdoch media companies that other organizations are secretive, lacking integrity or are biased.

The funding issue has been caught up in an election year and there is a huge budget deficit at hand.

In addition the fallout on the ASADA outcomes could be explosive and damaging. Given that Abbott inherited The ASADA invstigation as WIP from Labor, they will not put themselves in the potential firing line for any fall out, findings or failings.

This is an issue that is not easily politically managed or controlled.

I agree RR

The Murdock Media and Integrity seem strange in the same sentence.

  On 06/02/2014 at 00:07, old dee said:

I agree RR

The Murdock Media and Integrity seem strange in the same sentence.

When an individual or organisation have the word "integrity" mentioned in the same sentence no matter the context it usually means it/him/her mostly don't have any. The word is superfluous to persons or organisations of genuine integrity because their integrity does not need questioning.

  On 06/02/2014 at 02:40, america de cali said:

When an individual or organisation have the word "integrity" mentioned in the same sentence no matter the context it usually means it/him/her mostly don't have any. The word is superfluous to persons or organisations of genuine integrity because their integrity does not need questioning.

That sounds logical.

  On 06/02/2014 at 02:40, america de cali said:

When an individual or organisation have the word "integrity" mentioned in the same sentence no matter the context it usually means it/him/her mostly don't have any. The word is superfluous to persons or organisations of genuine integrity because their integrity does not need questioning.

Well done. It's especially the case when the word has "lack of" in front of it.

Unfortunately, persons or organisations of genuine integrity are sometimes subjected to unreasonable and unsubstantiated attacks in the public domain.