On 24/11/2014 at 23:34, willmoy said:

Were the Essendon Players paid in some way, either remuneration or perk, to agree to participate in this experiment?

This could go in some way to explain silence, non compliance and social situation....

Would have thought would be increased performance.

As mentioned by a previous poster, the muscle mass and strength gained from peptides doesn't just go away. The players will get a lasting benefit, likely beyond the time span of any sanctions.

Don't be surprised if AFL try to tie-in E/Dopes punishment and "lost" 2013 season in an effort to water down player penalties!!

Could give ASADA/WADA an excuse not to challenge if light sanctions applied . . "a just result, everybody's happy, back to business!"

We may just find out how good a salesman is our Gil.

  On 25/11/2014 at 00:47, deefrag said:

Don't be surprised if AFL try to tie-in E/Dopes punishment and "lost" 2013 season in an effort to water down player penalties!!

Could give ASADA/WADA an excuse not to challenge if light sanctions applied . . "a just result, everybody's happy, back to business!"

We may just find out how good a salesman is our Gil.

WADA dont look for excuses NOT to challenge....They look for reasons TO challenge !!

Not sure they went in hard enough with head over the ball on this one!

WADA Statement on NRL Sanctions

WADA has decided not to appeal the sanction imposed by ASADA on 12 National Rugby League (NRL) players for breaches of the NRL anti-doping rules.

WADA’s decision is based upon the following facts evidenced by full examination of the case files:

a.The players accepted that they committed breaches of the anti-doping rules.

b. The accepted breaches carry a potential sanction of two years.

c. Consideration of all relevant facts in respect of the breaches shows that the players raised a defence of “no significant fault”. The sanctions were reduced by 50% pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code rules. This defence is sustainable and acceptable.

d. The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives). It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.

WADA has determined that full scrutiny of the file revealed that the number of delays were directly the result of the lack of activity or decision by either ASADA or the Australian government. In particular WADA notes that:

i. Nothing was done by ASADA to advance the matter following the completion of the ASADA investigation in November 2013 for many months.

ii. The Australian government decided, for reasons it considered appropriate, to appoint a retired judge (Downes) to review the ASADA files. It took some months for Downes to complete his task in early April 2014.

iii. There is no explanation for the continued inaction from ASADA following the receipt of the Downes report in April 2014 until steps were formally taken by ASADA in August 2014.

WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way.

Let's hope we don't see this last paragraph repeated in a ref to E/Dopers!

Something i've been pondering in respect to all of this is to do with the relative uniqueness of this situation.

This is a Team wide, team instigated offence. The scale and duration of this arent something that WADA or any of its branches have had to deal with previously. Then theres the shadow of the political intervention. If WADA are determined to claim sovereignty in these matters then you'd imagine they will want to go strong on this one. This is a chance to put it up in lights wor all the world to take note of !!! "Team Sports beware, we'll get you too"

To tackle the individual transgressor isnt so much a task, but to take on the herd ( ) is a whole different thing as has proven the case taking far more time and resources than really available.

If there was an opportunity for WADA to fire off a warning flare to the sporting globe then this is it. It can't really afford to let essendon off with any thing tiggy touch. It will need heads on platters.

It will send THE message to all and sundry " IF YOU DO IT, WE WILL COME "

If they squib it, the lid will lift off Pandoras Box and all hell will let loose.

Im sure Bombers see it as Essendon on trial but in reality from a world perspective its WADA themselves who are called to task here with many an interested coach /team/organisation casting their watch down our way. The world couldnt care less about some obscure competitions delinquents, but they will be interested to see who wins this stoush. WADA knows this only too well.

No one will dispute the EFC has much at stake here, but WADA has more. WADA can't afford to blink here.

  On 25/11/2014 at 01:39, beelzebub said:

Something i've been pondering in respect to all of this is to do with the relative uniqueness of this situation.

This is a Team wide, team instigated offence. The scale and duration of this arent something that WADA or any of its branches have had to deal with previously. Then theres the shadow of the political intervention. If WADA are determined to claim sovereignty in these matters then you'd imagine they will want to go strong on this one. This is a chance to put it up in lights wor all the world to take note of !!! "Team Sports beware, we'll get you too"

To tackle the individual transgressor isnt so much a task, but to take on the herd ( ) is a whole different thing as has proven the case taking far more time and resources than really available.

If there was an opportunity for WADA to fire off a warning flare to the sporting globe then this is it. It can't really afford to let essendon off with any thing tiggy touch. It will need heads on platters.

It will send THE message to all and sundry " IF YOU DO IT, WE WILL COME "

If they squib it, the lid will lift off Pandoras Box and all hell will let loose.

Im sure Bombers see it as Essendon on trial but in reality from a world perspective its WADA themselves who are called to task here with many an interested coach /team/organisation casting their watch down our way. The world couldnt care less about some obscure competitions delinquents, but they will be interested to see who wins this stoush. WADA knows this only too well.

No one will dispute the EFC has much at stake here, but WADA has more. WADA can't afford to blink here.

Surely they have had 'team' sports such as the Chinese swim team...

They let Cronulla off with a slap on the wrist.

The Cronulla/EFC sagas have highlighted to WADA/ASADA the need to broaden the culpability to club officials. They don't have the protocols or legislation at this point to back up the necessary sanctions.

At the moment the players will be subject to potential sanctions but culpable officials are not going to be hit by ASADA/WADA

  On 25/11/2014 at 02:00, jnrmac said:

Surely they have had 'team' sports such as the Chinese swim team...

That was in 1992-3.

WADA was set up in 1999.

  On 25/11/2014 at 02:04, Qwerty30 said:

That was in 1992-3.

WADA was set up in 1999.

Fair enough...

Seems like yesterday,....

  On 24/11/2014 at 16:26, robbiefrom13 said:

the AFL doesn't like 'the ramifications" - and that would be a bigger issue for the AFL than their not liking systematic drug cheating in the league, or Essendon's pursuit of loopholes when caught?

If "the ramifications" (spell it out: = loss of money) is a bigger issue than drugs in sport, then the AFL thinks like Little and the turd (and like them, assumes the football public will endorse such values). Ramification of this? The AFL makes the scale of Essendon's corruption of the game seem so much smaller by comparison. But their clear message to us - "Get with the programme, naives - this is the Twenty-first Century! On with the show!..."

Although the AFL will bring down the initial penalty, if WADA doesn't like it they will appeal to CAS and likely get it over turned. I agree the AFL would love to have this whole mess go away, but it won't happen. There are greater international forces at work fortunately.

  On 25/11/2014 at 02:32, jnrmac said:

Fair enough...

Seems like yesterday,....

Agree. It does. I can remember the trapezoid backs of the Chinese female swimmers which paid homage to the bulked up East German swimmers of the 1970s.

the afl will give essendon the minimum punishment that wont result in asada taking it to the CAS.

ie itll have to be enough to satisfy ASADA to the point that they dont appeal - but itll be the minimum they can get away with.

id say the players will get 12 months - 6 and you can guarantee appeals.

  On 25/11/2014 at 06:03, biggestred said:

the afl will give essendon the minimum punishment that wont result in asada taking it to the CAS.

ie itll have to be enough to satisfy ASADA to the point that they dont appeal - but itll be the minimum they can get away with.

id say the players will get 12 months - 6 and you can guarantee appeals.

ASADA don't take it to CAS - WADA do, and they are far more likely to be independent. This is far too important for them to relent.

  On 25/11/2014 at 06:03, biggestred said:

the afl will give essendon the minimum punishment that wont result in asada taking it to the CAS.

ie itll have to be enough to satisfy ASADA to the point that they dont appeal - but itll be the minimum they can get away with.

id say the players will get 12 months - 6 and you can guarantee appeals.

Whether it's WADA or ASADA I think your assessment is right of the target of the AFLs punishment. It's in no ones interest bar the ambulance chasers to prolong this saga. And FWIW I don't think the players will get more than six months

It's inconceivable that the AFL will arrive at penalty for the 34 players unaware of ASADA/ WADAs expectations and requirements. It does not serve the interest of either organisation to be anything than pragmatic and sensible abou

The relative softness of the Cronulla decision will look incongruous if they go in boots and all on EFC for what is in essence the same offence. And it will look ridiculous that the persons who were responsible for this appalling program and have deviously sought to debase and derail the progress of this investigation will walk away untouched by ASADA.

I'm curious.

What exactly was the "Cronulla decision"?

No way is it the same as Cronulla. That went for 2 weeks. There were records they stopped almost before they started and there was full co operation and admissions. Plus WADA accepted there had been unacceptable delays by ASADA but that was because they put aside while they threw all resources at Essendon. None of that applies to Essendon. In fact mostly the opposite

I'm thinking for some reason Cronulla to Essendon is similar to "Slipper to Nuremberg"

  On 25/11/2014 at 07:30, Whispering_Jack said:

I'm curious.

What exactly was the "Cronulla decision"?

Patrick Smith - "The Cronulla players received 12-month suspensions backdated to November last year, which meant they missed the last three games of the home-and-away season. It was a deal cut by the NRL executive and ASADA and, begrudgingly it seems, ticked off by WADA, the world anti-doping body."

'

  On 25/11/2014 at 07:30, Whispering_Jack said:

I'm curious.

What exactly was the "Cronulla decision"?

wrong

  On 25/11/2014 at 10:09, It said:

No way is it the same as Cronulla. That went for 2 weeks. There were records they stopped almost before they started and there was full co operation and admissions. Plus WADA accepted there had been unacceptable delays by ASADA but that was because they put aside while they threw all resources at Essendon. None of that applies to Essendon. In fact mostly the opposite

The Cronulla program went for 4 weeks

Who has said the Essendon is the same as the Cronulla decision? It certainly isnt.

However, notwithstanding that the difference between the two situations, the Cronulla outcome showed that the ASADA/WADA were prepared to deal with the ruling sports body. There is no way that the extent of the Cronulla concessions would apply to EFC but its plausible that there would be some recognition of the attributes of the matter and have the punishment reduced a net six months. And I would not be surprised if the AFL and ASADA/WADA worked to some broad understanding in reaching that decision.

  On 25/11/2014 at 07:30, Whispering_Jack said:

I'm curious.

What exactly was the "Cronulla decision"?

I've looked into it pretty extensively, but the details are scarce due to ASADA's privacy rules. Even the exact number of players issued with SCNs was not specified. It appears to have been 17, but the names were not published.

It seems that only 12 of the 17 were offered deals and all accepted them, so avoiding a tribunal hearing. Their names were published. No reason has been given why the other 5 players weren't offered deals, but it was probably because they had retired or are/were playing OS. I read one report that those 5 were issued with infraction notices recently. The names of these 5 players have not been made public.

Roy Masters also reported that Dank was employed by Cronulla for 11 weeks, but there's no record of him being paid. Similarly there was no invoice or receipt for the purchase of the supplements - CJC-1295 and GHRP-6.

At least 3 players are suing Cronulla, Dank, Shane Flanagan, and the Head Trainer. Another two are suing Cronulla. More lawsuits are expected. Obviously the players are risking $millions in legal fees should they lose.

All of the above was gleaned from the 'net, mainly Roy Masters in the SMH. I'm happy to be corrected.

  On 24/11/2014 at 19:48, Whispering_Jack said:

Quite.

There is no doubt that records were kept and were either destroyed or removed from Essendon's possession.

And while the coaching, medical and fitness staff must all be brought to account for this, the players are not without blame either for their part in this scandal. They have been the recipients of substantial amounts of information about the AFL's anti doping code and are aware of their responsibilities about what goes into their bodies. The evidence in the forthcoming tribunal will determine whether they are guilty of any breaches of that code and determine any sanctions.

If found guilty, the interesting question will be whether they should benefit from the time elapsed between the beginning of the programme and the imposition of any penalty. I believe they should not because the delays have been brought about through the conduct of the club and officials including the issue of not being able to produce the records and then the subsequent Federal Court litigation.

Incredibly, some of the major players in all this remain in control of the board, the senior coach and the medical officer. That's what really boggles the mind.

It does. Either the ESSENDON board thinks it is above any semblance of good governance (certainly major players in an organisation guilty of this sort of behaviour would have been shown the door long ago by any board I have had anything to do with), or there is something more to it. You in the past WJ have suggested Hird remains at the EFC for now as they work out his severance arrangements. It seems to be a long process, and the fact Little had the nerve to say publicly last week how fantastically the current EFC board has performed over the last few years just beggars belief. They really do live in an unreality. Alternatively, as I have suggested on here in the past there is more too it than meets the eye, and Hird has something over them all.

Personally, I think there is a strong case of neglect of Director's Duties here, and we might just get to that after ASADA/WADA , CASA, the various national and international courts, and Worksafe have done their things. There is still a very long way to go in this.

Qwerty, you have agenda

  On 25/11/2014 at 10:27, Qwerty30 said:

Patrick Smith - "The Cronulla players received 12-month suspensions backdated to November last year, which meant they missed the last three games of the home-and-away season. It was a deal cut by the NRL executive and ASADA and, begrudgingly it seems, ticked off by WADA, the world anti-doping body."

'

Glad to see you've done some research before answering my query and confirming that the term "Cronulla decision" is a complete misnomer. What you referred to was a number of deals cut by ASADA with players from various clubs who were involved in the doping programme in place at Cronulla in 2011, many no longer involved at that club.

The sanctions were based on the co-operation of the NRL, the clubs involved and those players admitting guilt and they were ultimately given 12 month suspensions backdated to the conclusion of ASADA's report on the NRL (November, 2013) because of delays incurred by ASADA based on issues related to its general review into the gathering of evidence in anti-doping cases. The result was that some NRL players not involved in finals campaigns effectively received suspensions of three matches.

Unlike the AFL case, the Cronulla doping programme was detected early and then immediately stopped by the club doctor. The Essendon programme is said to have lasted 12 months, involved waiver forms, thousands of injections, conveniently lost/missing records, delays, obfuscation and legal action by the club after an investigation that concluded in May, 2014. The matter has not been resolved by a plea bargain and is going to a tribunal hearing. Therefore, if the players are found guilty as charged, the "Essendon decision" should not be treated as analogous to the outcome of what happened at Cronulla.

My likely result if the players are found guilty is anything between half a season to a full season and even that would not be consistent with some of the harsher penalties meted out to athletes around the world who also claimed to have been "duped" by unscrupulous coaches and support people.

I also think your characterisation of those seeking harsh penalties as "ambulance chasers" is over the top. These people aren't arguing harsh penalties because they stand to gain a financial reward themselves (which is what ambulance chasers are all about) and while I agree with your sentiments about what should be the ultimate fate of the Bomber officials involved and the Essendon board on governance issues, you sound like something of an ambulance chaser yourself by your apparent definition in terms of those people.

Immediately stopped by the Cronulla club doctor.....

At some stage wrote a strongly worded letter, Essendon club doctor.