THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[Dees2014 2,377]

If the article is wrong why has roy not been sued for defaming Mcdevitt.

Haven't you noticed, public officials of integrity almost never sue journalists - they would spent all their time in court otherwise. They let their actions do the talking, and there will be no bigger action than what is coming for Esendon, the AFL and Hird..

Edited February 15, 2015 by Dees2014

[Red and Bluebeard 2,083]

Best post I've seen so far from an Essendon fan on this:

"The Wada code was designed to catch Athletes in Olympic sports so giving an Athlete a 2 year ban won't really destroy them when they only compete once every 4 years."

Makes me shake my head, and wonder if the id of this person should be "Sits on brains"

[Dees2014 2,377]

2014.. appreciate your posts but like a lot of things being too close might blur perspective.

Reality. ASADA under manned and resource poor in Oz. A unique transgression occurs with significant global repercussions. 1st outing ( Cronulla ) result major f up.

Smacked botty and told not to repeat. Wada well aware of what the EFC debacle means.

Talk what you will..and its interesting but Wada got rolled by inadequate local branch.

Read my last post where this is explained. It is not a case of being to close to it, it is a case of the two issues not only being very different but were handled very differently both by the sporting bodies and the clubs, let alone the litigious, sociopathic essendon coach.

I might also add just because WADA criticises their local affiliate, it does not make the whole process null and void. There are various versions of intervention by WADA, including criticising decisions, but not taking them to CAS, criticising them and taking them to CAS, and waving them through without comment.

Oh and by the way, WADA cannot get rolled by a local branch. They have ultimate power, it is just in the Cronulla case they chose not to use it, for reasons I explained in my previous post.

[jnrmac 20,052]

You've said a number of times that if the AFL go easy in terms of sentencing ASADA and then WADA will appeal and enforce longer ones. However that view is contradicted by the decision by WADA to tick off the penalties for Cronulla, penalties that were very light (six months i think). Whilst they admitted guilt and cooperated 6 months for use of banned drugs is pretty light by any measure, particularly given they will hardly miss a game.

It is worth noting that the Cronulla players were less able to argue they were duped as they did not go to the lengths ess players did to get assurances what they were being administered was legal. As i understand it the standard penalty is 2 years, halved for cooperation and admitting guilt. Its only 12 months (and by extension 6 for cooperation ect) if they successfully argue they were duped.

Read the media release from WADA about the Cronulla situation. They weren't happy with the result but chose not to appeal it because the delay was the fault of ASADA. Totes different from Ess where the delays are being caused by Ess. Its also a systematic widespread attemtpt to use drugs.

They are cooked.

[beelzebub 23,312]

Read my last post where this is explained. It is not a case of being to close to it, it is a case of the two issues not only being very different but were handled very differently both by the sporting bodies and the clubs, let alone the litigious, sociopathic essendon coach.

I might also add just because WADA criticises their local affiliate, it does not make the whole process null and void. There are various versions of intervention by WADA, including criticising decisions, but not taking them to CAS, criticising them and taking them to CAS, and waving them through without comment.

Oh and by the way, WADA cannot get rolled by a local branch. They have ultimate power, it is just in the Cronulla case they chose not to use it, for reasons I explained in my previous post.

mate in all seriousness. Think about what has actually happened. You're starting to spin worse than the other lot.

I know the instances are different. But as to what transpired its irrelevant in so dar as Asada buggered up re Cronulla and have been warned not to do like with Essendon. Just stand back and look.

Edited February 15, 2015 by beelzebub

[bing181 9,193]

We are extremely lucky we have people of such integrity in the governance of drug taking in sport. It could easily be different (think soccer, athletics, cycling, cricket) where there is nothing like that level of integrity. I think we should be applauding them rather than questioning their motives.

Interesting that the President of Athletics Australia is David Grace QC - currently defending the Essendon players. Conflict of interest for someone who should be a flag-carrier for clean sport?

You also missed tennis in that little list IMHO! - though I do think it's changing for those sports, soccer excepted.

What will really sound a wake-up call in regards to the AFL won't be so much the suspensions, it will be when sponsors start dropping off.

[Dees2014 2,377]

mate in all seriousness. Think about what has actually happened. You're starting to spin worse than the other lot.

I know the instances are different. But as to what transpired its irrelevant in so dar as Asada buggered up re Cronulla and have been warned not to do like with Essendon. Just stand back and look.

mate in all seriousness. Think about what has actually happened. You're starting to spin worse than the other lot.

I know the instances are different. But as to what transpired its irrelevant in so dar as Asada buggered up re Cronulla and have been warned not to do like with Essendon. Just stand back and look.

Fine, let's agree to disagree. I think you and I would agree that by far the most important issue is that the more serious transgression at Essendon is properly dealt with and the guilty parties are appropriately punished. What is done is done with Cronulla. Hird and his crew are far more serious, and should be treated accordingly, which I believe they will be. Let's see what happens....

Edited February 15, 2015 by Dees2014

[What 18,810]

http://www.northweststar.com.au/story/2655842/mcdevitts-mission-will-have-afl-concerned/?cs=12

"McDevitt's mission to Montreal is partly to repair relations with WADA, which departed from its usual protocol to criticise Australia and make strident commentary on the Cronulla case."

Thats great to hear.

Essendope are going to cop it even harder now.

[jnrmac 20,052]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/wada-rules-out-appealing-cronulla-sharks-sanctions-but-hits-out-at-asada-20140930-10o9p1.html

WADA blasts ASADA over Cronulla.....

[beelzebub 23,312]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/wada-rules-out-appealing-cronulla-sharks-sanctions-but-hits-out-at-asada-20140930-10o9p1.html

WADA blasts ASADA over Cronulla.....

thanks jnr

Some seem to think theres a backswell of feelings against ASADA/WADA here but theres not. Theres simply a preparedness on the part of some to be realistic enough to realise that it all hasnt been plain sailing.

No one, not having any knowledge , even if cursory , would suggest that the situations of Cronulla and Essendon are alike bar save for one thing. It was up to ASADA to implement the World policy locally and quite frankly unless your too blinkered to be clear, then ASADA stuffed it.

Those who want to see Essendon brought to task for their wrong-doings are hoping they've ( ASADA) learnt and have got their ducks in a row this time.

I do think though that what was the Sharks Leniency will become the Bombers armageddon.

[John Crow Batty 8,860]

WJ pointed out a while ago that a possible reason why Eddie had a problem with commenting about the Essendon was because he held a position on the board of one of David Evans' companies.

Yes, Eddie wears a lot of hats. It can be hard to tell when he opens his mouth or zips it up totally to work out which one or more he happens to be wearing at the time.

Edited February 15, 2015 by america de cali

[rjay 24,825]

thanks jnr

Some seem to think theres a backswell of feelings against ASADA/WADA here but theres not. Theres simply a preparedness on the part of some to be realistic enough to realise that it all hasnt been plain sailing.

No one, not having any knowledge , even if cursory , would suggest that the situations of Cronulla and Essendon are alike bar save for one thing. It was up to ASADA to implement the World policy locally and quite frankly unless your too blinkered to be clear, then ASADA stuffed it.

Those who want to see Essendon brought to task for their wrong-doings are hoping they've ( ASADA) learnt and have got their ducks in a row this time.

I do think though that what was the Sharks Leniency will become the Bombers armageddon.

'BB', this is all well and good but as many have stated if they come down light on Essendon WADA will step in. The history of Cronulla says they don't always do this.

Can someone give me a logical reason why WADA let this go through and didn't appeal, given they didn't seem happy with the result? or are they playing politics here and outwardly canning the ASADA performance and inwardly happy with how it panned out?

[daisycutter 29,600]

slightly off topic, but for those bummer fans who keep carping about never failing a blood/urine test

the total tests the afl do in one whole year is less than the number of listed players

(and it seems that a small number of targeted players have had more than their share)

but <1 test / player / year is ridiculous if you are genuinely try to eliminate drugs in the sport

[beelzebub 23,312]

'BB', this is all well and good but as many have stated if they come down light on Essendon WADA will step in. The history of Cronulla says they don't always do this.

Can someone give me a logical reason why WADA let this go through and didn't appeal, given they didn't seem happy with the result? or are they playing politics here and outwardly canning the ASADA performance and inwardly happy with how it panned out?

I think theres substance to the sort that it was very much ASADA's own dithering and such that caused the delays in the case of Cronulla. . This is t the case with Essendon as its been pretty much a resistance war with them.

[sue 9,096]

'....

Can someone give me a logical reason why WADA let this go through and didn't appeal, given they didn't seem happy with the result? or are they playing politics here and outwardly canning the ASADA performance and inwardly happy with how it panned out?

Most likely they were unhappy, but not unhappy enough to think it worth the fuss of appealing etc. So rather than saying nothing, they put a shot across ASADA's bows. Most likely they were more strident in private.

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

I think theres substance to the sort that it was very much ASADA's own dithering and such that caused the delays in the case of Cronulla. . This is t the case with Essendon as its been pretty much a resistance war with them.

I recall that part of the delay was due to legislative changes by government which would clearly not be the fault of the athlete and a reasonable justification for part the the backdating.

[binman 42,497]

I recall that part of the delay was due to legislative changes by government which would clearly not be the fault of the athlete and a reasonable justification for part the the backdating.

I don't have an issue with the penalties being backdated and to be honest good luck to the sharks players, they've received a benefit from a preparedness to a deal. I also have no doubt that the deal was such a good one because ASADA needed to clear the decks to be able to deal with EFC.

What i find curious in terms of WADAs choice to accept the penalties is that their issue with ASDA seemed to be the time it took them to do the deal not the penalty itself. The implication is 12 months with a reduction to 3 for time served (so to speak) is a reasonable penalty.

That assumes that WADA accept the idea the players were duped (because that is the only way a penalty can be only 12 months ban - a penalty that can be halved if the players cooperate and admit guilt, which the sharks did), which given the threshold that has been floated (eg being administered a drug in surgery) seems strange.

This is relevant for EFC on two fronts. Firstly if the Sharks could argue they were duped the EFC should have no problems arguing the same thing, in fact it seems to be accepted that this argument will stand up. This means that the maximum the EFC players could cop is 12 months. Given they have not cooperated they won't get any reduction off that however by the time the season starts they will have already served 6-7 months of that time. It will ruin this season but not next.

The second thing is that if WADA accept the argument that the Sharks players were duped (and by extension EFC players) they are perhaps more a paper tiger than steely lion when it comes to ensuring appropriate penalties are handed out - their tough talk over cronulla notwithstanding.

Edited February 16, 2015 by binman

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

slightly off topic, but for those bummer fans who keep carping about never failing a blood/urine test

the total tests the afl do in one whole year is less than the number of listed players

(and it seems that a small number of targeted players have had more than their share)

but <1 test / player / year is ridiculous if you are genuinely try to eliminate drugs in the sport

Agree entirely (indeed it's probably considerably worse than ridiculous). But before any EFC apologists draw any conclusions about tests they'd need to know the manner in which these are conducted, what they test for, how likely TB4 or its effects would show up etc.

And how do they know that ASADA, since discovering the PEDs that were purchased/supplied/probably used, hasn't been back to stored samples and had these retested for specific substances?

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

This thread is great reading for those like I who have not followed the process closely and who are unfamiliar with the WADA/ASADA power and process. Thankyou for the read, it certainly sounds like EFC and most importantly Hird are f......ked. Hird is a total disgrace, how he can look at himself in the mirror every morning is beyond me. His AFL and business careers should be ended as a result of this debacle. Certainly people in business will think twice before dealing with someone who clearly has such low integrity.

I am sure this must be discussed somewhere in this thread, but what is the timing for an outcome to this horrible affair?

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

This thread is great reading for those like I who have not followed the process closely and who are unfamiliar with the WADA/ASADA power and process. Thankyou for the read, it certainly sounds like EFC and most importantly Hird are f......ked. Hird is a total disgrace, how he can look at himself in the mirror every morning is beyond me. His AFL and business careers should be ended as a result of this debacle. Certainly people in business will think twice before dealing with someone who clearly has such low integrity.

I am sure this must be discussed somewhere in this thread, but what is the timing for an outcome to this horrible affair?

GNF they aren't necessarily F....ked. ASADA still have to prove to "the reasonable satisfaction.." of the tribunal that the players were administered TB4. We can all theorise on this but it is a legal threshold and if they don't have enough conclusive evidence then the players will get off. It certainly isn't a sure thing.

IMHO the fact that they didn't keep records and can't prove what they were given should lean the standard of proof very heavily on to the Bummers not ASADA but that's evidently not how it works. It means that because of this ASADA have to build a case on circumstantial evidence not on black and white evidence that proves they took it. EG positive blood tests. I hope that it will allow the tribunal to give ASADA's circumstantial evidence greater weight than it would if the Bummers had kept records. It is the lack of their records that has caused this whole situation. If they had the proof of what they took and it was legal none of this would be happening.

I suspect there will be a few changes to the legislation made after this all settles. For instance I believe once you have proof that an athlete took a substance the burden of proof should be on the athlete to prove it wasn't banned. If they don't have proof then they should get a mandatory 2yrs. In this case it's possible they will all get off because there were no records. I also think they will probably amend the legislation to give ASADA greater powers to force people like Charters and Alavie to give evidence at the tribunal so that their ability to not give evidence as happened here won't happen again. It also looks like they should amend the legislation to make it absolutely clear that they can carry on an investigation using the Sporting bodies powers to collect evidence like they did here. The Fed Court has said that but if it is made clear in the legislation it will end any future court cases like Hirds.

[Grand New Flag 3,227]

GNF they aren't necessarily F....ked. ASADA still have to prove to "the reasonable satisfaction.." of the tribunal that the players were administered TB4. We can all theorise on this but it is a legal threshold and if they don't have enough conclusive evidence then the players will get off. It certainly isn't a sure thing.

IMHO the fact that they didn't keep records and can't prove what they were given should lean the standard of proof very heavily on to the Bummers not ASADA but that's evidently not how it works. It means that because of this ASADA have to build a case on circumstantial evidence not on black and white evidence that proves they took it. EG positive blood tests. I hope that it will allow the tribunal to give ASADA's circumstantial evidence greater weight than it would if the Bummers had kept records. It is the lack of their records that has caused this whole situation. If they had the proof of what they took and it was legal none of this would be happening.

I suspect there will be a few changes to the legislation made after this all settles. For instance I believe once you have proof that an athlete took a substance the burden of proof should be on the athlete to prove it wasn't banned. If they don't have proof then they should get a mandatory 2yrs. In this case it's possible they will all get off because there were no records. I also think they will probably amend the legislation to give ASADA greater powers to force people like Charters and Alavie to give evidence at the tribunal so that their ability to not give evidence as happened here won't happen again. It also looks like they should amend the legislation to make it absolutely clear that they can carry on an investigation using the Sporting bodies powers to collect evidence like they did here. The Fed Court has said that but if it is made clear in the legislation it will end any future court cases like Hirds.

Thanks IT,

Surely the idea that EFC did not keep records or have lost the records of what their players were taking and when they were being administered is not plausible and thus an admission of guilt. The system will come across as seriously and critically corrupted if EFC and Hird are found "not guilty" due to "no records". It makes me even more angry at what Hird has done to his players, his club and our game.

[sue 9,096]

Getting off because there were no records is a recipe for mass cheating everywhere for anyone with a match on standby (or these days, a large magnet). The world of sport cannot condone that.

[beelzebub 23,312]

Actually...and I know its splitting hairs but the reality is its the PLAYERS who must do any proving and not ASADA.

I..e ASADA will present the case to substantiate the claims that culminated in the notices being issued.

Essentially ASADA will show what they have determined is the path of events. Its then beholding upon the accused to proved otherwise to a satisfactory ( or comfortable ) standard to the tribunal.

Its up to the players. They MUST prove a different history than the one suggested by the accusations. This might prove impossible if there are no corroborating documents and records to do such.

Tough !!!

edit

They thought having NO RECORDS was their out........its actually their undoing !! I like the juicy irony of that.

Edited February 16, 2015 by beelzebub

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

Thanks IT,

Surely the idea that EFC did not keep records or have lost the records of what their players were taking and when they were being administered is not plausible and thus an admission of guilt. The system will come across as seriously and critically corrupted if EFC and Hird are found "not guilty" due to "no records". It makes me even more angry at what Hird has done to his players, his club and our game.

Agree with this sentiment but for some reason the onus is on ASADA to prove to "the reasonable satisfaction" of the tribunal that they took TB4. So if their evidence fails this test then they get off. I don't want to even think about the footy and sports world reaction if that happens. As for f'ing Hird, Little and Essendon, it will be unbearable. I will be turning off all AFL coverage other than Dees for some time. Even then I'm sure the conversations will be in everything. This forum will go for another 100 pages.

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

Actually...and I know its splitting hairs but the reality is its the PLAYERS who must do any proving and not ASADA.

I..e ASADA will present the case to substantiate the claims that culminated in the notices being issued.

Essentially ASADA will show what they have determined is the path of events. Its then beholding upon the accused to proved otherwise to a satisfactory ( or comfortable ) standard to the tribunal.

Its up to the players. They MUST prove a different history than the one suggested by the accusations. This might prove impossible if there are no corroborating documents and records to do such.

Tough !!!

edit

They thought having NO RECORDS was their out........its actually their undoing !! I like the juicy irony of that.

BB I really and truly wish you were right but as I understand it, ASADA have to provide enough positive evidence to satisfy the onus of proof of "reasonable satisfaction". The players just have to discredit the evidence (which is all circumstantial) enough that they raise enough questions so that it fails the "reasonable satisfaction" test which is a higher test than the usual civil burden of "balance of probabilities".