Saying they are not guilty of taking banned substances because there is no positive drug test is like saying we're not guilty of tanking because there was no written direction found.

Please don't confuse my silence to this silly post and others as agreement. I've made my point and I'll move on.

I stand corrected.

He should go - forthwith

He ( Doc Reid ) should not last that long.

He ( Doc Reid ) should not last that long.

I am remind of those words from the movie Redleg

"tell him he is dreamin"

Interesting that anyone would or should argue the law as it pertains to this.

Its actually about RULES as determined by an overseeing organisation which all parties agreed to and some disobeyed and others question the validity.

The rules are the rules. The laws as applicable uphold that they are enforcable.

Theres really nothing to debate.

The naughty ones need to be punished as warned.

Interesting that anyone would or should argue the law as it pertains to this.

Its actually about RULES as determined by an overseeing organisation which all parties agreed to and some disobeyed and others question the validity.

The rules are the rules. The laws as applicable uphold that they are enforcable.

Theres really nothing to debate.

The naughty ones need to be punished as warned.

Good post.

This is really about Rules, not the Law.

These are sporting rules. They can be changed if need be by the relevant governing bodies.

No need to attack the Law, just effect change to the Rules, that allows the Sport to still be properly governed, if that is possible.

Good post.

This is really about Rules, not the Law.

These are sporting rules. They can be changed if need be by the relevant governing bodies.

No need to attack the Law, just effect change to the Rules, that allows the Sport to still be properly governed, if that is possible.

Further to this don't the players sign away there right to the law and agree to the rules, which is overseen by ASADA on behald of WADA, when they become and AFL player?

I'd say banning the Bomber players without a positive drug test is like sentencing someone to hang for murder without a body.

Well, you're wrong here on both counts:

Testing positive for a banned substance is proof that that substance was taken. However, the reverse is not the case for any number of reasons, the main one being the obvious shortcomings of a system that requires testing and consumption to occur more or less simultaneously - not to mention, not all drugs can be tested for.

As for being charged with murder without a body, it's within the law (i.e. legal) and has/does occur:

"… it is clear that the fact of death, like any other fact, can be proved by circumstantial evidence." (Lord Goddard on dismissing the appeal against a death sentence - later commuted - for a murder for which no body was ever found.)

Point 2. I can't remember exactly but isn't there some confusion over whether AOD 9604 was banned?

Only on your part.

Please don't confuse my silence to this silly post and others as agreement. I've made my point and I'll move on.

My bad, after reading some of your posts I thought the use of silly and contrived scenarios was fair game.

I'd say banning the Bomber players without a positive drug test is like sentencing someone to hang for murder without a body.

I'd say that sort of thing happens a lot more often than you might think. Not only that, it happens mostly in those societies where there is a contempt for the law which is effectively what you're advocating when you posit an outcome that ignores the rules that apply here.

We can't ignore the reasons why the anti doping laws exist and how they evolved. Once we understand the "why" and the "how" then it should be clear why the players must receive infraction notices if evidence is produced to show that they ingested prohibited substances.

Player receives multiple injections into his body. Player either doesn't know or fully understand what is being injected other than amino acids or such. Player is assured by scientists that products are legal, but keeps no record as to what is being administered and does none of his own research.

There is at least a sufficient degree of recklessness to have the player sanctioned in these circumstances.

If the player was misled by the scientist into believing that he had taken the legal product X and was duped into taking illegal product Y then that would be a different story.

The WADA code needs to be adhered to with a strict liability or it is a waste of time. If a guilty mind needed to be proven in every case then the code is a toothless tiger and drugs in sport will become rampant.

Well spoken. If players are sanctioned, and I'd be surprised if they are not, they can then take legal action against the EFC, its directors, coaches and medical staff for compensation and damages. While this won't bring back the lost time in the game and reverse future health issues it will hold the club accountable and minimise financial impact. This will also ensure players will ask questions when asked to sin waivers and recieve a large number of injections.

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

This suggests to me that ASADA can now proceed to recommend the issue of infraction notices to players. In the absence of explanations from Dank about the thymosin administered to players, it's reasonable to conclude that Dank gave them the TB4 which is banned. He admitted to this in an interview with Baker and McKenzie of the Age and only withdrew that admission after he was told by his interviewers that TB4 is a prohibited substance. It's reasonable to conclude that this was done as an afterthought to save him from incriminating himself.

I've previously discussed the connection between Dank, the invoices given to Essendon and the TB4. There's lots more but in essence, in the absence of a reasonable explanation from Dank (and he's now blown that opportunity) the circumstantial case against him, the players and a number of officials can be made.

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

ASADA with perfect timeing. Essendon play friday night, the 10 day window to explain to Dank expires today. That gives ASADA all of tomorrow to issue notices (if there are any) to the players. Wouldnt that be a fun start to the season. Walking into the changerooms mentally prepared to take the field and then given a letter from ASADA.

In the absence of explanations from Dank about the thymosin administered to players, it's reasonable to conclude that Dank gave them the TB4 which is banned. He admitted to this in an interview with Baker and McKenzie of the Age and only withdrew that admission after he was told by his interviewers that TB4 is a prohibited substance. It's reasonable to conclude that this was done as an afterthought to save him from incriminating himself.

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

ASADA with perfect timeing. Essendon play friday night, the 10 day window to explain to Dank expires today. That gives ASADA all of tomorrow to issue notices (if there are any) to the players. Wouldnt that be a fun start to the season. Walking into the changerooms mentally prepared to take the field and then given a letter from ASADA.

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'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?

LOL - that's a bit like a "when did you last beat your wife" question

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

On the balance of probabilities.

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?

my comment was a 'tongue in cheek' comment highlighting the timing of the situation.

All of last year was under a cloud for the EFC let alone our players and new even the GC club. My comment was not a "wish for" or indication as to my feelings towards the whole ASADA/EFC/Dank situation. I was lighthartedly trying to bring to the forum the taxing toll this would be to the players and how all of the measures put in place by the players would be brought undone IF that was to occur.

If it was happening to the MFC footballers i would feel the same as i do now. I want this thing to be over with. If there are infraction notices then issue them. If there is 'nothing further to answer' then release the findings. It is a complex issue and it will no doubt will continue to be for the remainder of this season and probably will be for seasons to come.

I never said anything about the fans of the EFC it was an approach from the players.

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

That's why you blokes get the big bucks.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

my comment was a 'tongue in cheek' comment

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