THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[daisycutter 29,600]

Whilst it is not a court of law the burden of proof falls on ASADA where there is no positive test, despite what BB maintains.

BB you asked for evidence and i haven't had time yet to find it. Just put a big comment up with links but stuffed up and navigated off the page and lost it all (annoying). Anyway this google page has tones of articles clarifying this issue.

Page 2 includes a thread from Richard Ings twitter feed that addresses this very issue. he is adamant that ASADA has the burden of proof to establish players took TB4 not the other way around.

Comments on the thread note that Sam Lane appears to be confused about this issue and that perhaps this is because at the show cause stage the burden of proof does indeed fall on the players. But not at the tribunal stage. link here

don't know why you are replying to me binman. i didn't make any comment about burden of proof lying on either side

i just rebutted the "100% sure" requirement for guilty

so here we go again

‘guilt’ is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but only on ‘balance of probabilities

[PaulRB 6,328]

When does it end? Soon? Please.

[biggestred 4,991]

NO.

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

Read rule 2: 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Read and understand what is said. Use or attempted use ....

Read rule 7: 7. Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method

Read and understand what is said. Trafficking or attempted trafficking...

Read rule 8: 8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

Read and understand what is said. Administration or attempted administration......

Go to the ADADA site and read it.

Essendon are guilty.

yes, unless essendon can say, Sorry ASADA youve made a mistake we actually ordered X, not TB4 and here is the proof.

edit: im not saying they can. im saying that unless they have an epic smoking gun proving their innocence then they are more gone than lance.

Edited February 23, 2015 by biggestred

[ManDee 7,124]

yes, unless essendon can say, Sorry ASADA youve made a mistake we actually ordered X, not TB4 and here is the proof.

Do you believe in fairies?

Edit:- I think with all the spin doctoring coming out of Essendon that we may have head about this before now. If some story does come out now showing their innocence I shall personally apologise to tinkerbell and the tooth fairy.

Edited February 23, 2015 by ManDee

[biggestred 4,991]

Do you believe in fairies?

baaaaahahahahahaha

[sue 9,096]

Binman I think you are wrong as the above posts have explained. However as someone who believes at least the senior players knew what they were doing, I am concerned that they could get off because they didn't actually order any prohibited stuff themselves. The chain of evidence appears to show EFC ordered all this stuff and the club's intent in doing so is clear. The VFL(?) player who merely ordered but didn't even take a banned substance was clobbered. No blood test was needed for him but there was no doubt he ordered it, presumably with intent to take it.

Will individual Essendon players successfully argue that unlike him, they did not order anything and therefore they attempted nothing and that they innocently assumed the injections were kosher? Sure, the players are responsible for what they put in their bodies, but if no one "knows" what was put in, we have a strong case for tar and feathering Hird and his mates, but perhaps a loophole for the players. I hope I am wrong.

Edited February 23, 2015 by sue

[beelzebub 23,312]

Maybe its time to remind some of the what we're talking about here regards what constitutes a "naughty"

Banned VFL player Wade Lees warns ASADA will look to hit Essendon for six

Here we have a guy who suggests he only attempted to get a supplement and wasnt actually aware of any banned ingredients. Maybe he did, maybe he didnt but he never actually took ANYTHING.....and still got 18 months thankyou very much !! Essendon have admitted a program of supplements , just want us to believe in the easter Bunny and such about what it was. It wasnt a once off. Id was systemic. It wasnt a player, or two, it was the better part of the whole list. it wasnt approved by its own medical dept it was clandestine ( that ought to raise a flag on its own )

They didnt come willingly or cleanly to the table they fought tooth and nail to get off on a technicality ( and still do )

They admit no guilt, show no remorse and seemingly couldnt really give a rats about anything let alone the health of its guinea pigs and have obvious contempt for the League

So lets keep this in mind:

Scale of the offense, repeated nature of the offense as well as the culpability of it all.

You dont obfuscate and hide amongst the shadows if youve done nothing untoward.

If they had done nothing wrong it ought to be the easiest thing to show such.

quack quack QUACK !!

[sue 9,096]

Maybe its time to remind some of the what we're talking about here regards what constitutes a "naughty"

Banned VFL player Wade Lees warns ASADA will look to hit Essendon for six

Here we have a guy who suggests he only attempted to get a supplement and wasnt actually aware of any banned ingredients. Maybe he did, maybe he didnt but he never actually took ANYTHING.....and still got 18 months thankyou very much !! Essendon have admitted a program of supplements , just want us to believe in the easter Bunny and such about what it was. It wasnt a once off. Id was systemic. It wasnt a player, or two, it was the better part of the whole list. it wasnt approved by its own medical dept it was clandestine ( that ought to raise a flag on its own )

They didnt come willingly or cleanly to the table they fought tooth and nail to get off on a technicality ( and still do )

They admit no guilt, show no remorse and seemingly couldnt really give a rats about anything let alone the health of its guinea pigs and have obvious contempt for the League

So lets keep this in mind:

Scale of the offense, repeated nature of the offense as well as the culpability of it all.

You dont obfuscate and hide amongst the shadows if youve done nothing untoward.

If they had done nothing wrong it ought to be the easiest thing to show such.

quack quack QUACK !!

Everything you say is true. However a lot of your usage of the word 'they' applies to Hird and the club, not the players. As someone who is as outraged by the whole situation as you are, I'd be interested in your response to my post #1981.

[beelzebub 23,312]

Sue..its , for me I acknowledge, not a stretch to include the players. They signed waivers.They indicated Thymosin ( amongst other things ) The rule still says all things stop with the athlete. If ASADA can put TB4 at the club and noone can provide anything substantial to suggest ( indeed prove ) another supplement was injected then they are cooked.

there is NO benefit of a doubt here. Thats where so many are misunderstanding the situation. EFC, Hird, the players CAN NOT hide behind a veil of " we dont know" ASADA are pretty sure they do.

Whilst the burden of substantiation may lay at ASADAS feet the ONUS is well and truly upon the players ultimately ( as they are the ones to be banned ) to show they took something else. No one is arguing they took something after all.

[ManDee 7,124]

From ASADA http://www.asada.gov.au/substances/supplements.html

Assess the risk

The risk of doping through the use of supplements is real. Prior to using any supplement, an athlete should ask themselves:

• Is it legal?

Is it safe?

Is it effective (in improving performance)?

Is it necessary?

If you are in doubt about the first two questions, the product should not be used. The third and fourth questions are intended to help the athlete consider what potential benefit, if any, the supplement may offer.

Despite the claims made by supplement manufacturers that their products are safe and free of substances prohibited in sport, it is not possible to offer an absolute guarantee to athletes. It is for this reason ASADA and WADA do not endorse supplement products or offer advice to athletes about which supplement to take. There have been cases where both Australian and international athletes have been sanctioned after they have used supplements that they thought were safe, but were actually contaminated with prohibited substances.

If an athlete chooses to use supplements, they should weigh up the risks and make an informed decision.

What athletes need to do?

Athletes need to be aware under the World Anti-Doping Code they are ultimately responsible for any prohibited substance found in their body. Athletes should understand the risk of supplement use and make every attempt to minimise those risks.

How substances come to be prohibited

For a substance or method to be prohibited, it must meet two of the following three conditions:

1. The substance or method has the potential to enhance, or does enhance performance in sport.

The substance or method has the potential to risk the athlete’s health.

WADA has determined that the substance or method violates the spirit of sport.

The full definitions of reasons why methods and substances are prohibited (along with the rest of the World Anti-Doping Code) can be found on WADA’s website.

Every athlete is responsible for the substances that enter their body. Athletes are also responsible for any method they undertake.

ASADA can help athletes and their support personnel check substances they may have to take, as well as find out more about banned substances and methods.

[FireOath 290]

The onus is definitely on the players. Especially when there were a few that said no.

[jnrmac 20,052]

Is Neeldy driving that??

[beelzebub 23,312]

Is Neeldy driving that??

Im sure there's a few lining up

[Dees2014 2,377]

I was at a BBQ with a mate who is close to the case and he says its a 50/50 call as to the players getting off or convicted.

Apparently the Essendon lawyers aren't disputing the legality of the drug Thymosin, everyone is pretty convinced the players got the illegal stuff. What they are arguing is the pathway of the drug to Essendon and wether they are completely satisfied that even though it is pretty clear Essendon were trying to inject the players with the bad Thymosin because of the complex pathway from China and the people involved and their less than convincing reputations are we completely positive that the players were given that drug.

Further he said that Hird's reputation has taken an absolute battering and nobody regards him as acting with any moral compass at all throughout the whole saga. Text messages that haven't come out yet are damning.

He also suggested the reason Hird wasn't sacked around their B&F night was because they were going to sack him because of his appeal and legally Hird could have sued for wrongful dismissal or some legal point. If they just had of sacked him and stated it wasn't really anything to do with the court case, new start etc, they could have and should have already got rid of him.

I find it impossible to understand how your contact, if he is indeed a legal one, could say it is still 50/50 whether ESSENDON will get off, when he says there is no dispute about whether they took "bad" thymosin and that Hirds reputation has been totally trashed including incriminating emails. I must say this information is in line with mine from people inside the case. The difference is that mine, principally from inside WADA, see Essendon and Hird as being doomed. For them, it is a question of what the sentence will be, rather than if they will be convicted.

[binman 42,497]

Binman I think you are wrong as the above posts have explained. However as someone who believes at least the senior players knew what they were doing, I am concerned that they could get off because they didn't actually order any prohibited stuff themselves. The chain of evidence appears to show EFC ordered all this stuff and the club's intent in doing so is clear. The VFL(?) player who merely ordered but didn't even take a banned substance was clobbered. No blood test was needed for him but there was no doubt he ordered it, presumably with intent to take it.

Will individual Essendon players successfully argue that unlike him, they did not order anything and therefore they attempted nothing and that they innocently assumed the injections were kosher? Sure, the players are responsible for what they put in their bodies, but if no one "knows" what was put in, we have a strong case for tar and feathering Hird and his mates, but perhaps a loophole for the players. I hope I am wrong.

Sue good points well made. My main point is that it is simply not the slam dunk Bb and others make out. Asada will have a hard task getting a guilty verdict

[ManDee 7,124]

Binman I think you are wrong as the above posts have explained. However as someone who believes at least the senior players knew what they were doing, I am concerned that they could get off because they didn't actually order any prohibited stuff themselves. The chain of evidence appears to show EFC ordered all this stuff and the club's intent in doing so is clear. The VFL(?) player who merely ordered but didn't even take a banned substance was clobbered. No blood test was needed for him but there was no doubt he ordered it, presumably with intent to take it.

Will individual Essendon players successfully argue that unlike him, they did not order anything and therefore they attempted nothing and that they innocently assumed the injections were kosher? Sure, the players are responsible for what they put in their bodies, but if no one "knows" what was put in, we have a strong case for tar and feathering Hird and his mates, but perhaps a loophole for the players. I hope I am wrong.

Sue, I didn't know the gun was loaded when I aimed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger. Would that be a successful defence against manslaughter?

I didn't know that the hundreds of injections were loaded!

I do not believe for one moment that not one player thought the program was suspect. Not one player contacted ASADA to clarify what they were taking was OK. Not one player contacted their manager to clarify what they were taking was OK. Are you suggesting a Jonestown situation where they all did as they were told.

What about the eight that did not take part? Why? Or did they do due diligence?

Edit: What I am suggesting is that the players knew that the program was risky but they did it anyway, they were probably told that they would get away with it.

Edited February 23, 2015 by ManDee

[jnrmac 20,052]

Binman I think you are wrong as the above posts have explained. However as someone who believes at least the senior players knew what they were doing, I am concerned that they could get off because they didn't actually order any prohibited stuff themselves. The chain of evidence appears to show EFC ordered all this stuff and the club's intent in doing so is clear. The VFL(?) player who merely ordered but didn't even take a banned substance was clobbered. No blood test was needed for him but there was no doubt he ordered it, presumably with intent to take it.

Will individual Essendon players successfully argue that unlike him, they did not order anything and therefore they attempted nothing and that they innocently assumed the injections were kosher? Sure, the players are responsible for what they put in their bodies, but if no one "knows" what was put in, we have a strong case for tar and feathering Hird and his mates, but perhaps a loophole for the players. I hope I am wrong.

Sue

Reverse the onus and imagine whether an effective doping code could work that way. And for the argument's sake replace EFC with the East german athletics team circa 1972.

1. Get a dodgy doctor

2. order dodgy drugs

3. create a high performance supplements program

4. Have the players sign waivers

5. When discovered say that 'we did everything by the book'. Our highly respected doctor told us that it was all above board.

6. track team wins lots of gold medals, dodgy doctor is rewarded handsomely with a villa in an exotic location and lots of cash, proud country parades its medals.

7. Doctor banned for life but country keeps all its gold medals as do the athletes

You simply cannot have a drugs policy that works that way. That s why it has been repeated so many times here. PLAYERS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT GOES IN THEIR BODY.

It is the only way it can work if you want to have an effective drugs policy.

Essendon are cooked,

Edited February 23, 2015 by jnrmac

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

Sue..its , for me I acknowledge, not a stretch to include the players. They signed waivers.They indicated Thymosin ( amongst other things ) The rule still says all things stop with the athlete. If ASADA can put TB4 at the club and noone can provide anything substantial to suggest ( indeed prove ) another supplement was injected then they are cooked.

there is NO benefit of a doubt here. Thats where so many are misunderstanding the situation. EFC, Hird, the players CAN NOT hide behind a veil of " we dont know" ASADA are pretty sure they do.

Whilst the burden of substantiation may lay at ASADAS feet the ONUS is well and truly upon the players ultimately ( as they are the ones to be banned ) to show they took something else. No one is arguing they took something after all.

BB you and I agree on the preferred outcome but I have to disagree with this analysis. The players do not have any onus to prove anything. They can sit in the tribunal and say absolutely nothing and get off. ASADA have to prove that the evidence they have is enough to satisfy the burden of proof of comfortable satisfaction which is a higher burden than the normal civil burden of the balance of probabilities. The only evidence they have of TB4 is from some purported invoices and oral evidence of Charters and Alavi who aren't giving any evidence at the Tribunal and so can't be cross examined etc. ASADA's ability to prove the veracity of any of the documents is enormously weakened because they are not giving evidence and so can't be cross examined etc.

I assume you like me and most others only have the information on the evidence from what we are reading in the papers. I'd be careful about relying on what the papers say or you could end up with a nasty surprise. This isn't nearly as straight forward as you make out and you are wrong about the burden of proof. Be prepared for them getting off just as much as going down. I hope they go down but according to posts about several people who have info from insiders the feeling from inside is that its only a 50/50 they'll go down.

[binman 42,497]

Wj we need your help

[sue 9,096]

Sue..its , for me I acknowledge, not a stretch to include the players. They signed waivers.They indicated Thymosin ( amongst other things ) The rule still says all things stop with the athlete. If ASADA can put TB4 at the club and noone can provide anything substantial to suggest ( indeed prove ) another supplement was injected then they are cooked.

there is NO benefit of a doubt here. Thats where so many are misunderstanding the situation. EFC, Hird, the players CAN NOT hide behind a veil of " we dont know" ASADA are pretty sure they do.

Whilst the burden of substantiation may lay at ASADAS feet the ONUS is well and truly upon the players ultimately ( as they are the ones to be banned ) to show they took something else. No one is arguing they took something after all.

Unfortunately I fear the players may be able to hide behind 'we didn't know'. What if they say they were lied to as to what was being injected. Can they reasonably be expected to read the label on every vial no matter how often and systematic. What if the label is misleading.

I agree that these loopholes are weak, but I fear they are there.

The onus is definitely on the players. Especially when there were a few that said no.

Yes, the onus is on the players. But being lied to is almost as good a defense as being comatose when you are injected with a banned substance.

Just because a few said 'no' doesn't help much unless they gave evidence of better reasons for saying no than they don't like needles.

[beelzebub 23,312]

Sue.. I dont see how they can. Its drummed into them TO know. They are by extension signatories to the WADA code. Theres nowhere to run, its not permitted. No excuses.

it take all of about 30 secs t get to the relevant page on the ASADA look up to understand whether or not they should have allowed themselves to be jabbed.

Its up to them ( the player ) to ask. if they dont , they're culpable.

Were the players lied to Sue ? Seems to me many knew there was something dodgy and just went along.

[beelzebub 23,312]

BB you and I agree on the preferred outcome but I have to disagree with this analysis. The players do not have any onus to prove anything.

sorry thats wrong

edit

I'll rephrase. As I understand it I believe you are wrong in this comment

Edited February 23, 2015 by beelzebub

[binman 42,497]

The onus is simply not on the players. I think I'll believe the former CEO of Masada rather than random DL posters. Or a sports lawyerhttp://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-has-its-work-cut-out-for-it-in-proving-a-case-against-essendon-players-20131220-2zqr9.html

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

sorry thats wrong

I wish you were right.

[old dee 23,704]

Wow 80 pages of the same things we have been discussing for 18 months.

My biggest fear is this saga has at least another 80 pages to go.