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

[Whispering_Jack 30,015]

On the balance of probabilities.

No, no, no ...

It's been discussed on this thread a number of times.

This is the WADA Code:

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof.

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body 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. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

(Comment) This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely

applied by courts and tribunals in doping cases. See, for example, the CAS decision in N., J., Y., W. v. FINA, CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions.

Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.

Rules then follow which relate to the contesting of analysis by anti doping agencies

[jabberwocky 2,301]

That's why you blokes get the big bucks.

Kinda partly right though, I'll discount my fee.

[jnrmac 20,058]

Dank draws a blank - Dank ignores ASADA request for explanation story

Once the notices go out, perhaps Worksafe might become interested and come in to assist the players.

I have said this before but I am still staggered they have done nothing. John Fahey says he is flabberghasted they haven't begun an investigation as well.

If they do begin an investigation almost 2 yrs after the events took place its equally scandalous. As is 'outsourcing' their investigation to ASADA.if that is how it turns out...

[monoccular 17,419]

In all of this is a conviction based on "reasonable probability" or "beyond reasonable doubt"?

No, no, no ...

It's been discussed on this thread a number of times.

This is the WADA Code:

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof.

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body 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. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

(Comment) This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely

applied by courts and tribunals in doping cases. See, for example, the CAS decision in N., J., Y., W. v. FINA, CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions.

Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.

Rules then follow which relate to the contesting of analysis by anti doping agencies

Sounds as if the standards are somewhat between the civil "balance of probabilities" and the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt".

Hadn't seen it set out previously, but it looks pretty clear.

[ManDee 7,134]

Point 1. It's not personal other than I look at situations and seek the "right" outcome. If these players are banned I think it's wrong. I'm not arguing the law.

Point 2. I can't remember exactly but isn't there some confusion over whether AOD 9604 was banned? I thought Essendon supposedly had a letter or communication saying it was ok. And what did the club tell them? I don't think you know. I'd think it most likely they said the drugs were ok.

Point 3. You've got no idea what the players wanted unless they have all confided in you. Yes they wanted to gain a competitive edge but I don't think that 43 of them were active drug cheats willing to risk their footy careers and reputations.

Anyway I'll leave it again other than to say the players you've mentioned who have said they believed they took those drugs would hardly admit to that if they were cheats and thought the drugs were banned. That doesn't make sense.

I know I'm pretty much one out on this both here and amongst my friends. But I'm not convinced by silly arguments of "it's the law" and "deterrent". I'm even less convinced that the players "knew".

Nobody here has moved me in any way towards the view these players should suffer more than they have. I'm totally comfortable with where I stand.

AOD9604 was not approved for use, therefore banned. Where is the magic letter? Probably shredded with the Docs letter and all records of who took what.

You may well be comfortable with your stance, but I am sure the EFC players are S41t scared, and shaking in their boots.

[Ted Lasso 19,504]

So when do we see some infraction notices being dished out?

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

my comment was a 'tongue in cheek' comment

Sorry, I didn't read it that way. It's certainly an awful situation.

[Slartibartfast 17,257]

No, no, no ...

It's been discussed on this thread a number of times.

This is the WADA Code:

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof.

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body 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. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability.

(Comment) This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely

applied by courts and tribunals in doping cases. See, for example, the CAS decision in N., J., Y., W. v. FINA, CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998

3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions.

Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.

Rules then follow which relate to the contesting of analysis by anti doping agencies

Thanks Jack. Can the findings be challenged in court? Can the standard of proof be challenged in court?

What a hornets nest.

[beelzebub 23,347]

I'm surprised any football fan could take this approach. It will substantially disrupt a football season for the entire competition and ruin what promises to be a very good game.

It does however show where your comments and views are coming from. How would you feel if it was MFC footballers?

I dunno. might change it up a bit....you know..to where the serious factor of all of this ought to be. A tad facetious I agree , but, why namby pamby them ? Why work to their benefit..?

[Soidee 1,496]

Hird and his own cheer squad continue to bleat! Now it's his missus on ABC tonite FFS

Oh did I forget something? Or has Tanya

Hey Tanya - you slag off the AFL culture, remind everyone that your whole life with ah James has been a beneficiary of this culture.

The dumb Essendon members must feel proud that they have paid for the Hird family to live in France all expenses paid.

The hubris of this family is just astonishing.

[daisycutter 29,613]

Tanya Hird is claiming publicly that Dimwit rang Essendon and warned them of the ACC/ASADA interest in them

So what? What point is she trying to make? What has it got to do with Hirds innocence/guilt?

Shouldn't the warning be seen as a friendly action with respect to Essendon? (despite the fact that if true it would not be sensible)

Anyway why threaten Dimwit when the heat is going to come from ASADA?

[dees189227 12,387]

Hird and his own cheer squad continue to bleat! Now it's his missus on ABC tonite FFS

Oh did I forget something? Or has Tanya

Hey Tanya - you slag off the AFL culture, remind everyone that your whole life with ah James has been a beneficiary of this culture.

The dumb Essendon members must feel proud that they have paid for the Hird family to live in France all expenses paid.

The hubris of this family is just astonishing.

Sadly the essendon members are delusional and think he is still god.

Of course Tanya will back her golden boy but he was the one that said at the start he would take full responsibility for what has happened and now he just thinks he is hard done by. Tanya if that was your son that had been injected by god knows what would you still have the same reaction. Shut up and go away.

[Green Demon 822]

Crikey republished this story, written by Martin Hardie, a lecturer in law at Deakin University at Geelong.

Here is the original, on the Deakin website:

http://communities.deakin.edu.au/deakin-speaking/node/608

[biggestred 5,076]

Tanya still doesnt realise that THE ONLY REASON AD would contact essendon was so they would self report SO THEIR PUNISHMENT WOULD BE HALVED.

they get huge discounts for self reporting.

AD was protecting them and they have burned him again and again.

There wont be any protection now....

[biggestred 5,076]

Crikey republished this story, written by Martin Hardie, a lecturer in law at Deakin University at Geelong.

Here is the original, on the Deakin website:

http://communities.deakin.edu.au/deakin-speaking/node/608

except that none of the leaks have come from ASADA. Not one. their process has just kept rolling along and they have ignored all the other crap that has been blowing around in the media.

NOTHING published in a newspaper matters except breaches of privacy - and they were not leaked by ASADA.

[biggestred 5,076]

During the peak of ASADA's investigation into players in the NRL and AFL, several sensitive documents were published in the media last year that related to football clubs Cronulla and Essendon.

It was enough to force Andruska to call in the AFP and Deloitte to go over the organisation with a fine-tooth comb.

"There were media suggestions, and from other quarters, that the organisation was leaking," she told a Senate estimates hearing on Wednesday.

"I brought in Deloitte and the AFP to make examination of any leaks occurring, and there were none. ASADA was not leaking."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/asada-has-completed-its-probe-into-the-afl-and-nrl-says-chief-executive-20140226-33idd.html#ixzz2wVBxbshs

So the AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE say that ASADA has not leaked.

anyone in the media pick up on that?

Robbo? Caro? Bueller?

Edited March 20, 2014 by biggestred

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Crikey republished this story, written by Martin Hardie, a lecturer in law at Deakin University at Geelong.

Here is the original, on the Deakin website:

http://communities.deakin.edu.au/deakin-speaking/node/608

What crap. The real villains this case are those that subjected young men to substances in the pursuit of an unfair advantage over the rest of the competition.

[Satan 2,871]

Crikey republished this story, written by Martin Hardie, a lecturer in law at Deakin University at Geelong.

Here is the original, on the Deakin website:

http://communities.deakin.edu.au/deakin-speaking/node/608

http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/introducing-martin-hardie/

"As well as Martin’s involvement in cycling, Martin has recently been engaged as a consultant by the Essendon AFL Club while it deals with the current ASADA investigation into allegations of illegal doping."

conflict of interest much?

[biggestred 5,076]

hahaha because cycling is SO clean

[Whispering_Jack 30,015]

Thanks Jack. Can the findings be challenged in court? Can the standard of proof be challenged in court?

Your question is music to the ears of many in the legal profession.

Most things can be challenged in a court of some sort but the caveat is that in the first place, it's usually expensive and in the second, if you embark on such a course you would be doing so for strategic reasons or because you really want a successful outcome so you really need to have the grounds to back up your challenge. In this case (and if there is an adverse finding) you might have some redress if you can establish that there were errors in the process followed by ASADA in its investigation but in respect to these matters, the AFL and by extension, the clubs and their constituent players have, by signing on to the WADA Code, abdicated many of their rights under sovereign law and placed themselves in the hands of WADA. This means that the Court of Arbitration in Sport is the ultimate court of appeal in these matters.

If you follow the cases worldwide, courts have generally been reluctant to intervene to override the WADA Code where sporting bodies have agreed to subject themselves to the Code.

The best bet for the players would be for ASADA to decide that it doesn't have a strong enough case to fulfill the standard of proof and therefore not to issue infraction notices. Even then WADA might disagree and go to CAS.

If it were up to me and on the basis of what I've read about the events, I am comfortably satisfied with the conclusion that anti doping violations were committed by a number of players at Essendon. If the powers that be in these matters really wanted to clean up the sport, they would probably look at some other clubs as well but I don't know enough about what happened at Geelong, Melbourne and Gold Coast to really form an opinion one way or the other.

I hope that's sufficiently vague enough to sound like legal advice.

Here's an interesting Federal Court decision as reported in a cycling website - http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/australian-federal-court-upholds-asada-appeal-in-xztt-case

[Whispering_Jack 30,015]

Crikey republished this story, written by Martin Hardie, a lecturer in law at Deakin University at Geelong.

Here is the original, on the Deakin website:

http://communities.deakin.edu.au/deakin-speaking/node/608

We've been there before and it's not surprising that this bloke (said to be a Bomber fan) was a mouthpiece for Essendon:-

What are they smoking at our universities? The right intent

"From what I saw Essendon's program was not illegal and was in fact well documented and controlled."

Get it?

This person who was given some sort of gig by the Bombers reckons their programme was "well documented and controlled". If only they could find those documents :)

[Die Hard Demon 1,224]

Breaking News on SEN (denied by bombers) .. Apparently James Hird sacked by the Bombers this morning.

[Whispering_Jack 30,015]

From the Tanya Hird interview:

"Ms Hird, who describes herself as an assiduous record-keeper".

What a pity she wasn't used to help her husband, the Essendon Football Club and Dank keep a record of what was being injected into his players during 2012. Probably would have saved everybody a whole lot of pain and discomfort as well as saving her the trauma of packing the family suitcases for their trip to Paree ...

[Ted Lasso 19,504]

Breaking News on SEN (denied by bombers) .. Apparently James Hird sacked by the Bombers this morning.

I just saw the club is meeting to discuss James Hird's future, reckon he might be a bit upset with his wife just now.

[rjay 24,917]

I just saw the club is meeting to discuss James Hird's future, reckon he might be a bit upset with his wife just now.

Team Hird...I doubt her decision to talk now would have been a unilateral one.