Exactly.

Why on earth would asada hand over their evidence to the very people they want to prosecute?

France deserves Hird, should send all of Essendon over there. Bunch of flogalogs.

What did the French ever do to deserve that? (apart from nuclear tests in the pacific, Napoleon, and imprisoning Matthew Flinders) :-)

I just read robbo's article on the essendon players mother who rang up triple m. This is probably the worst written piece of garbage I have ever read. Robbo strongly hints that she is a fake and the afl might be behind it as public support dropped for the bombers after that interview. This article isn't even big footy worthy. It only make sense if hird had written this article himself. I don't mind robbo but on any essendon matter he should excuse himself as his bias cannot be contained.

Exactly.

Why on earth would asada hand over their evidence to the very people they want to prosecute?

To try and get the right answer. But not many here are interested in that.

A disgraceful article

My mind is blown

How the hell that rubbish can go to print ... wow.

Robinson is an absolutely disgusting piece of human filth

One could also speculate that the mother now understands that if she speaks out again it could mean curtains for her son's career which is likely since the identity of the player is widely known and he's right down in the food chain at Bomberland.

One could also speculate that the mother now understands that if she speaks out again it could mean curtains for her son's career which is likely since the identity of the player is widely known and he's right down in the food chain at Bomberland.

If the player is down the food chain and his identity well known.

Then mum may as well come out publicly and shut robbo and the bombers up.Her so may have half a chance then.

Because atm hes got no chance of survival.

To try and get the right answer. But not many here are interested in that.

Actually, getting the desired answer is the best outcome but many are not interested in the fact that ASADA needs to properly follow the principles outlined for it in relation to the issue of Show-Cause notices and it may not be able to do so until it has received the appropriate legal advice. Given the tendency of one or two parties to litigate the issues involved here which aren't helping anyone arrive at the right answer, I think ASADA is following the correct course. But some here are not interested in that.

Bob...you want the players off scott free. I want them to follow the rules and be accountable not only to ASADA but their peers; all the other athletes that DO do the right thing.

One could also speculate that the mother now understands that if she speaks out again it could mean curtains for her son's career which is likely since the identity of the player is widely known and he's right down in the food chain at Bomberland.

not too widely known here I suspect

Bob...you want the players off scott free.

No, I want the right answer. If the players knew they were taking banned drugs I want them out for more than 6 months. If they didn't take banned drugs I want them to be found not guilty. If they did and didn't know then a judgement has to be made taking into account the circumstances. There are very few who know what happened. Certainly nobody here does.

The players are being asked to take a ban not knowing the evidence against them and they have no idea if they took a banned drug or not (unless they were complicit in which case they should be banned for a significant period).

As for wanting the "desired" outcome, I suppose there are plenty of those.

Bob...you want the players off scott free. I want them to follow the rules and be accountable not only to ASADA but their peers; all the other athletes that DO do the right thing.

Yes. If they're innocent, prove it by handing over the records of what the players actually took

If they fail to do this and get off on a technicality, it sets a terrible precedent for younger sportsmen and women and puts us right up there with East Germany and china.

Technicality? Jeez. If you get enough slimy lawyers (present company excepted, of course) onto any piece of legislation they can find a loophole somewhere.

Bob..its simple. Under the rules players must KNOW what they are taking or be penalised.They cant assume nor only give lip service to this understanding.

Infractions aren't handed out willy nilly.

We will just differ Bob.

Essendon portray ASADA like a big kid who is out to get them, when really ASADA are they only ones who have cared about the players

Bob..its simple. Under the rules players must KNOW what they are taking or be penalised.They cant assume nor only give lip service to this understanding.

Infractions aren't handed out willy nilly.

We will just differ Bob.

Players being given injections of anything is a huge step beyond maybe having someone dope their drinks. A huge step.

Surely it is way way overdue that any injection, be it anti-inflammatory (like cortisone), or even local anaesthetic for injury management or for suturing, be documented just as it is (or at least should be) in any medical practice.

Were a GP or other medical practitioner to inject a patient with anything at all and not record it in name and dosage would be seen by AHPRA and their Medical Board as a serious act of malpractice which could result in a period of suspension or even deregistration.

For a club to countenance players being injected with anything at all without full documentation of name and dose is at very very least, grossly irresponsible and a total failure in governance; in my mind it borders on criminal.

It certainly dwarfs into minute insignificance the "bringing the game into disrepute" that an offhand joke regarding a practice colloquially (but not defined or specifically outlawed by the AFL) known as "tanking" was seen to have done, and should at very least result in a quantum leap in monetary penalties, and in suspensions for those involved NB in this case the head coach.

Bob..its simple. Under the rules players must KNOW what they are taking or be penalised.They cant assume nor only give lip service to this understanding.

Infractions aren't handed out willy nilly.

We will just differ Bob.

I'd usually agree with your sentiments, but in this case ASADA finds themselves politically exposed because of the slowness of their process. Irrespective of the facts, ASADA may well feel obliged to issue the 'show cause' letters as to drop the case before doing so would embarrass ASADA. In other words, it is possible in this case that ASADA has insufficient evidence and might have dropped the case if it was June 2013, but 12 months later, they might be proceeding for the wrong reasons. Of course, they might also have sufficient evidence and the 'show cause' letters are perfectly appropriate in the circumstances.

Or they may be proceeding for the right reasons and because now is when they can.

Surely it is way way overdue that any injection, be it anti-inflammatory (like cortisone), or even local anaesthetic for injury management or for suturing, be documented just as it is (or at least should be) in any medical practice.

For a club to countenance players being injected with anything at all without full documentation of name and dose is at very very least, grossly irresponsible and a total failure in governance; in my mind it borders on criminal.

I agree with this. I would argue that the rule should be similar to that for drink driving in Victoria, whereby if you refuse a breath test you are penalized for the refusal and as i understand it for all intents and purposes considered to have failed a breath test.

Leaving aside the smoke screen of the legal challenge to the legality of the investigation ASADA believes it has evidence that on the balance of probabilities Essendon players were administered a prohibited drug. If Essendon are unable to prove they weren't because they failed to keep proper records (or put their faith in Dank who was an employee) then bad luck in my book.

And i agree a failure to keep such records (if indeed they did they fail to keep such records) borders on criminal.

While i'm discussing this subject, it frustrates me no end that some people (eg Yobbo) imply that that the decision not to charge the players for use of AOD 964 is some sort of vindication for the Essendon. Prohibited or not the club still administered a drug that has not been tested for human use (and was sufficiently borderline to seek clarification from ASADA) and did so gain an edge on its competitors.

I'd usually agree with your sentiments, but in this case ASADA finds themselves politically exposed because of the slowness of their process. Irrespective of the facts, ASADA may well feel obliged to issue the 'show cause' letters as to drop the case before doing so would embarrass ASADA. In other words, it is possible in this case that ASADA has insufficient evidence and might have dropped the case if it was June 2013, but 12 months later, they might be proceeding for the wrong reasons. Of course, they might also have sufficient evidence and the 'show cause' letters are perfectly appropriate in the circumstances.

If asada were OBLIGED to do something to avoid embarrassment,AOD would have been shot at the bombers to give asada some easy out option.

No, I want the right answer. If the players knew they were taking banned drugs I want them out for more than 6 months. If they didn't take banned drugs I want them to be found not guilty. If they did and didn't know then a judgement has to be made taking into account the circumstances. There are very few who know what happened. Certainly nobody here does.

The players are being asked to take a ban not knowing the evidence against them and they have no idea if they took a banned drug or not (unless they were complicit in which case they should be banned for a significant period).

As for wanting the "desired" outcome, I suppose there are plenty of those.

Good post Bob - it is quite possible that the players don't know what they were given so the evidence may influence the the players response. Not so much on the strength of ASADA's legal case but its ability to uncover what the players took.

I feel for the players caught in a situation where they were quite probably betrayed and where they are faced with a difficult decision where the clubs, playing group and players interest may not align.

No, I want the right answer. If the players knew they were taking banned drugs I want them out for more than 6 months. If they didn't take banned drugs I want them to be found not guilty. If they did and didn't know then a judgement has to be made taking into account the circumstances. There are very few who know what happened. Certainly nobody here does.

The players are being asked to take a ban not knowing the evidence against them and they have no idea if they took a banned drug or not (unless they were complicit in which case they should be banned for a significant period).

As for wanting the "desired" outcome, I suppose there are plenty of those.

It's really quite irrelevant whether they knew or not. They should have known. And they should have been concerned about 'secret programs' on the 'cutting edge' involving many thousands of injections in a clinic across the road without supervision from the club doctor etc etc. I am not buying the poor players line. Maybe one or two of the juniors but the rest, they should have known better.

Wouldn't be the same bleating about the 'poor players' if it was the Chinese swim team at the Olympics. WADA couldn't really care about Essendon or the AFL except for the fact they want big scalps as a deterrent.

No, I want the right answer. If the players knew they were taking banned drugs I want them out for more than 6 months. If they didn't take banned drugs I want them to be found not guilty. If they did and didn't know then a judgement has to be made taking into account the circumstances. There are very few who know what happened. Certainly nobody here does.

The players are being asked to take a ban not knowing the evidence against them and they have no idea if they took a banned drug or not (unless they were complicit in which case they should be banned for a significant period).

As for wanting the "desired" outcome, I suppose there are plenty of those.

What we do know is that the players placed themselves in a VERY vulnerable situation to improve their performance.

My experience with injections is that I have them done with a medical professional who shows me the label which includes the name of the drug and the expiry date and it goes down on my medical record. As a professional athlete bound by a drug code it is staggering that this approach was not taken.

I accept the greyness around the issue, the pressure to do the team thing and have empathy for the players but they sought to gain an edge in performance over their rivals and took a number of careless risks to do so. They are now paying the price for those risks and if they can't tell what they have put into their bodies they have some responsibility for that.

Zero chance that Judge Downes would have ticked off on ASADA's case and all the evidence it if it wasn't watertight

Essendon are cooked

Lets enjoy the pain thats about to come for those scumbags

Judge Downes might have "ticked off on ASADA's case" but I'm not aware that he was the decision maker who set the 'show cause' process in motion. From my understanding (admittedly based on media stories) his role appears to have been to advise ASADA if it's investigation process was sound. That's not the same thing as deciding whether as a result of that investigation there is sufficient evidence to proceed to take action against any players.

.....

While i'm discussing this subject, it frustrates me no end that some people (eg Yobbo) imply that that the decision not to charge the players for use of AOD 964 is some sort of vindication for the Essendon. Prohibited or not the club still administered a drug that has not been tested for human use (and was sufficiently borderline to seek clarification from ASADA) and did so gain an edge on its competitors.

Isn't using an unapproved drug also an offence in itself under WADA?

No, I want the right answer. If the players knew they were taking banned drugs I want them out for more than 6 months. If they didn't take banned drugs I want them to be found not guilty. If they did and didn't know then a judgement has to be made taking into account the circumstances. There are very few who know what happened. Certainly nobody here does.

The players are being asked to take a ban not knowing the evidence against them and they have no idea if they took a banned drug or not (unless they were complicit in which case they should be banned for a significant period).

As for wanting the "desired" outcome, I suppose there are plenty of those.

BB, I agree with you but I think you have a mistake in there.

The players aren't currently being asked to take a ban. TASADA has alleged they took TB4 and the players have asked to provide their side of the story. The show cause notice is not the ban, nor is it a request to be banned.

The Essendon players should respond similar to what you have just said:

I don't believe I took a banned substance, and have no evidence to suggest I did. When asked to take part in a supplement program, I undertook due dilligence by going straight to my club doctor as we are taught by ASADA and the AFL. I am not qualified to understand medical or scientific jargon, so my club doctor, on my behalf, checked the legality of all supplements and produced a form listed those supplements stating they were WADA compliant. I then agreed to only be given WADA compliant substances.

It is then up to ASADA to decide if they should be placed on the register of findings, and at that point the AFL selects an appropriate punishment, which, when considering the evidence and the show cause notice, could be as little as 6 months according to WADA rules IF they are satisfied that criteria are met.

At that point, if an infraction notice and penalty is applied, the players have an opportunity to fight the bans based on evidence.

Note: the italics section will change from player to player. Some will say "I certainly was not injected with that drug" while some will say, "I do not know what I was injected with". This is based on what they told ASADA during the interviews.

Where a lot of arguments ...or 'takes on things" get murky is that irrespective of any advice given to anyone. If someone took something on the NO-NO list of WADA then you get pinged. Argue all you like thats the rules that are agreed to by the codes and by extrapolation the players.

Athletes have been pinged for doing things they werent even aware of let alone signing up for an "experiment'