THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[Henrietta Lumbago 331]

I just had more than a few drink with 2 Essendon supporters, it was a bit awkward talking about the bombers and quickly changed subject, I didn't want to ruin the vibe at the party.

[Dees2014 2,377]

Essendon neither complied nor co-operated, and that must irritate ASADA/WADA. Not just the infractions, but the unrepentant and aggrievedly names-calling attitude of "leave us alone, ok?"

What would happen I wonder if ASADA/WADA got to the point of recognising that a governing body such as the AFL has an increasingly similar attitude?

It does appear that the laws about drugs in sport mainly target rogue individuals, not endemic abuse on the scale of Essendon's. Where a whole sport is under management that is not particularly affronted by drug cheating, and wishes to be left alone for business as usual, what must ASADA/WADA do? What sanctions exist - and what power to impose them? I'm talking about law-breaking on the scale of Gandhi's civil disobedience or Islamic State's disregard for the norms of a civilised social contract. Shameless and self-righteous and widespread. Police have to walk away...

And, in such a scenario of top-down tolerance of drug-cheating, the governing body tut-tutting publicly but colluding privately, running the place with a mix of self-licensing multi-national-style non-accountability and pie-night indulgence of misbehaviour, what would "clean" clubs in that sport have to do? What would sports-lovers opposed to drug-cheating do?

First, the target has been the players, when actually the real problem was the club. But what if the underlying problem is not even the club, but the League?

Well we should always remember that the WADA code is a voluntary code to which sporting bodies and their clubs sign up, as well as Olympic athletes. They do this because they would be treated as pariahs if they did not, which would be seen as tantamount to condoning drug cheating.

WADA has various sanctions to enforce their code right down to life bans such as happened to Lance Armstrong. The interesting thing about Essendon is they are the only professional sporting team in a major code to my knowledge that have been caught systematically cheating on an industrial scale.

My understanding is that this is taken very very seriously by WADA simply because it was so extensive in scope and over such a long period of time. WADA simply cannot afford to let it be passed off as trivial and impose light sentences. It would send entirely the wrong signals to world sport and prompt copy cat behaviours far beyond the confines of the AFL.

I have no doubt WADA see this as a test case and will ensure the harshest penalties are imposed. It will not be pretty.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Dees2014

[Wolfmother 182]

I think the penalties including this myth of six months sentences is being pushed by the media in an attempt to influence the decision. The main reason for thinking it will be six months is because ASADA has already offer a no significant fault deal (which essendon rejected) so that reduces it to 12 months and six month discount for co operation in interviews.

I think that with the deal off the table there won't be an offer of no significant fault but even of there is then 12 months is the minimum as the additional six months is for providing assistance to an investigation not answering questions in an interview. The assistance must be of a level

That results in evidence against people in the program etc.

So in reality they may get 12 months but I think 2 years is most likely

Won't the [censored] hit the dan when that happens just before the season starts ?

[Wolfmother 182]

I think the penalties including this myth of six months sentences is being pushed by the media in an attempt to influence the decision. The main reason for thinking it will be six months is because ASADA has already offer a no significant fault deal (which essendon rejected) so that reduces it to 12 months and six month discount for co operation in interviews.

I think that with the deal off the table there won't be an offer of no significant fault but even of there is then 12 months is the minimum as the additional six months is for providing assistance to an investigation not answering questions in an interview. The assistance must be of a level

That results in evidence against people in the program etc.

So in reality they may get 12 months but I think 2 years is most likely

Won't the [censored] hit the dan when that happens just before the season starts ?

[whatwhat say what 22,783]

i still think afl tribunal - who ultimately determine the length of bands - will hand down a 12 month ban, backdated to the last time the players played (mid-september, with the exception of watson and fletcher), reduced to 6 months through 'no significant fault'. wada will then come in with a big 'nuh uh, not even', and it'll head off to the cas for yet more rigmarole.

in the end the players will miss the entire 2015 season, not eligible until mid-april 2016, mean it's effectively a 24 month ban, reduced to 18 months through 'no significant fault'.

the best thing the afl tribunal could be is hand down a quick finding of 12 month ban, eliminating them from the entirety of the 2015 season.

won't happen tho.

[Ted Lasso 19,521]

Any less than 2 year bans and the club is in for a big hit imo

[beelzebub 23,380]

What the AFL might not quite understand ( or does and ignores) is that it too is on 'trial' sts.

The Dil and his mates still think that they're the big kahunas in town.

They're in for a rude awakening.

[jnrmac 20,104]

Was re-reading some of the charge sheets from the AFL about EFC bringing the code into disrepute. Some interesting statements:

19. On 5 August 2011 Hird was interviewed by an officer of ASADA and an officer of the AFL Integrity Unit in relation to his recent informal inquiry of an ASADA representative as to whether any AFL clubs were using peptides. During that meeting Hird was informed by the AFL’s Manager Integrity Services that peptides were a serious risk to the integrity of the AFL, in the same category as steroids and HGH and implored Hird to report to the AFL if he came across any information relating to peptides. Corcoran and Hamilton were both present at the meeting. The club were forewarned of going down the path of peptides.

20. On 22 August 2011 Robinson sent to Hird the results of a clinical trial from University of New South Wales on the pathway of the effectiveness of a supplement known as Lactaway. The paper was co-authored by Dank. Dank writing his own paper on the effectiveness of a drug. He has no qualifications in this area.

21. On 23 August 2011 Hird received from Benita Lalor (Lalor), the Club’s then Performance Dietitian and Recovery Coordinator, her appraisal of Lactaway. Ms Lalor’s appraisal included statements that suggested that there was no meaningful proof of beneficial effects, no data on the side effects/long term use of Lactaway in elite athletes and potentially relevant warnings that its use may cause additional muscle damage. A club employee whose job it was to investigate such matters nailed it. The club had 23 soft tissue injuries in 2011.

22. Less than three minutes after receiving this information from Lalor, Hird forwarded her email to Corcoran with the comment: “This is what we are dealing with.” So Hird, having been told to stay away from peptides, and informed that this particular drug was untried and untested preferred to push ahead, sideline the club appointed Performance Dietician, preferred in the pursuit of his 'cutting edge' program to follow the path of a quack that had written his own paper and formed his own conclusions.

23. Later on 23 August 2011 Corcoran emailed a reply to Hird stating “Jim – unfortunately they know everything and can’t learn any more! Time to move on! ...” Corcoran was also on the Hird Kool-aid and actively tries to circumvent the club appointed specialist. I assume she was interviewed by ASADa and would be very interesting to see what she had to say.

But Hird says he has been wronged and there is a vendetta and conspiracy against him and the club. He is living in bubble world. The ASADA evidence must paint a devastating picture of deliberate and calculated circumvention of the rules as well as the deliberate and calculated circumvention of the club protocols and experts.

The evidence took 3-4 weeks to present and compiled hundreds of pages. Has been reviewed by eminent judges and WADA prosecutors. EFC are cooked.

[M_9 2,082]

i still think afl tribunal - who ultimately determine the length of bands - will hand down a 12 month ban, backdated to the last time the players played (mid-september, with the exception of watson and fletcher), reduced to 6 months through 'no significant fault'. ...

won't happen tho.

After reading the AFL Anti-doping code 'the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility' (Sect. 14.7). The date mooted for the decision is March 18th. The exception is if the players were offered and accepted Provisional suspension, which we understand did happen. I doubt that that offer was made before the IN's were issued (Nov 2014). They can claim credit for the time they suspended themselves.

No Significant Fault can cut a sanction by 50%. I doubt that the players could offer 'Substantial Assistance' which would entitle them to a further discount.

I reckon 2 years, discounted to 12 months, and backdated to last Nov. They'll miss all season 2015 IMO.

[beelzebub 23,380]

After reading the AFL Anti-doping code 'the period of Ineligibility shall start on the date of the hearing decision providing for Ineligibility' (Sect. 14.7). The date mooted for the decision is March 18th. The exception is if the players were offered and accepted Provisional suspension, which we understand did happen. I doubt that that offer was made before the IN's were issued (Nov 2014). They can claim credit for the time they suspended themselves.

No Significant Fault can cut a sanction by 50%. I doubt that the players could offer 'Substantial Assistance' which would entitle them to a further discount.

I reckon 2 years, discounted to 12 months, and backdated to last Nov. They'll miss all season 2015 IMO.

I do seriously question the legitimacy of any discount for supposed "no significant fault"

If it was a once off event you might be inclined to give it weight. But this was systemic.. They HAD to know this was a bit iffy!!

I think , personally it will be 2 years, time back to IN issue being discounted . JMHO

[Macca 17,004]

Well we should always remember that the WADA code is a voluntary code to which sporting bodies and their clubs sign up, as well as Olympic athletes. They do this because they would be treated as pariahs if they did not, which would be seen as tantamount to condoning drug cheating.

WADA has various sanctions to enforce their code right down to life bans such as happened to Lance Armstrong. The interesting thing about Essendon is they are the only professional sporting team in a major code to my knowledge that have been caught systematically cheating on an industrial scale.

My understanding is that this is taken very very seriously by WADA simply because it was so extensive in scope and over such a long period of time. WADA simply cannot afford to let it be passed off as trivial and impose light sentences. It would send entirely the wrong signals to world sport and prompt copy cat behaviours far beyond the confines of the AFL.

I have no doubt WADA see this as a test case and will ensure the harshest penalties are imposed. It will not be pretty.

It should also be remembered that certain sports (and their governing bodies) have a much, much watered down agreement with WADA ... soccer (FIFA), NFL, NHL, MLB & the NBA have varying degrees of testing procedures and none of them come close to the agreement that the AFL has with ASASA/WADA.

Why? Because they don't have too ... the aforementioned sporting bodies and sports don't get pushed around easily and it's in their own best interests to not be at all transparent.

We never hear much about soccer players do we? This leads people to believe that the sport is clean - which is nonsense. NHL & the NBA fly under the radar too but it's because the governing bodies of those sports aren't really trying to catch drug cheats (in my opinion they're not trying much at all as their testing standards are virtually negligent)

We all now know about the steroid era in baseball but it's still quite easy for a baseball player to take PED'S and get away with it. In the NFL, 38 players got done for drug use last season alone (the suspensions averaged out at about 4 games) You'd think this would be big news but the Americans just turn a blind eye when it suits them (we do this too when it suits us)

Suspensions for drug use in the NFL (both recreational & PED'S - some drugs are both of course)

Oddly enough, cycling and track & field are seen as the dirtiest sports yet in those sports, the testing procedures are the harshest - what does that tell people? It tells me that athletes cheat the whole world over but whether they get caught or not depends on whether the sporting bodies want to catch them.

As always, big money is at stake.

[Dees2014 2,377]

i still think afl tribunal - who ultimately determine the length of bands - will hand down a 12 month ban, backdated to the last time the players played (mid-september, with the exception of watson and fletcher), reduced to 6 months through 'no significant fault'. wada will then come in with a big 'nuh uh, not even', and it'll head off to the cas for yet more rigmarole.

in the end the players will miss the entire 2015 season, not eligible until mid-april 2016, mean it's effectively a 24 month ban, reduced to 18 months through 'no significant fault'.

the best thing the afl tribunal could be is hand down a quick finding of 12 month ban, eliminating them from the entirety of the 2015 season.

won't happen tho.

Actually the AFL tribunal hand down the initial bans but if WADA think them inadequate they will appeal to CAS and CAS hand out the sentences. This in my view is the most likely outcome. The AFL, and Essendon, can't escape, however much both of them would like to.

[Macca 17,004]

Forgot to add that even though the AFL's agreement with Wada/Asada carries the same sort of penalties as cycling and track & field (and the rest of the olympic sports (?), the testing standards are vastly different.

Where as the olympic sports and cycling can do blood tests on their athletes on a weekly basis, in the AFL, it's still quite possible for a player to go through a whole year (or years) and not be tested. Most are just urine tests as well.

"Blood passports" seems to be the current 'World's best practice' but the AFL are a long, long way away from that ... they'll rattle off the 700 or 1500 tests a year bit but it sounds a lot more impressive than it actually is.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Macca..you were on the right track inferring some sports dont want to know.

Has been my opinion for some time the AFL is of such type.

[Dees2014 2,377]

It should also be remembered that certain sports (and their governing bodies) have a much, much watered down agreement with WADA ... soccer (FIFA), NFL, NHL, MLB & the NBA have varying degrees of testing procedures and none of them come close to the agreement that the AFL has with ASASA/WADA.

Why? Because they don't have too ... the aforementioned sporting bodies and sports don't get pushed around easily and it's in their own best interests to not be at all transparent.

We never hear much about soccer players do we? This leads people to believe that the sport is clean - which is nonsense. NHL & the NBA fly under the radar too but it's because the governing bodies of those sports aren't really trying to catch drug cheats (in my opinion they're not trying much at all as their testing standards are virtually negligent)

We all now know about the steroid era in baseball but it's still quite easy for a baseball player to take PED'S and get away with it. In the NFL, 38 players got done for drug use last season alone (the suspensions averaged out at about 4 games) You'd think this would be big news but the Americans just turn a blind eye when it suits them (we do this too when it suits us)

Suspensions for drug use in the NFL (both recreational & PED'S - some drugs are both of course)

Oddly enough, cycling and track & field are seen as the dirtiest sports yet in those sports, the testing procedures are the harshest - what does that tell people? It tells me that athletes cheat the whole world over but whether they get caught or not depends on whether the sporting bodies want to catch them.

As always, big money is at stake.

There is a big difference between the NFL and Essendon. As I understand it the NFL infractions were across the code as a whole - not one club. This might of course indicate the NFL has a much more disciplined testing regime than the AFL. In Essendon's case it was one club systematically trying to cheat. From WADA's perspective this is a radically different situation, and far far more serious.

[jnrmac 20,104]

It should also be remembered that certain sports (and their governing bodies) have a much, much watered down agreement with WADA ... soccer (FIFA), NFL, NHL, MLB & the NBA have varying degrees of testing procedures and none of them come close to the agreement that the AFL has with ASASA/WADA.

Why? Because they don't have too ... the aforementioned sporting bodies and sports don't get pushed around easily and it's in their own best interests to not be at all transparent.

We never hear much about soccer players do we? This leads people to believe that the sport is clean - which is nonsense. NHL & the NBA fly under the radar too but it's because the governing bodies of those sports aren't really trying to catch drug cheats (in my opinion they're not trying much at all as their testing standards are virtually negligent)

We all now know about the steroid era in baseball but it's still quite easy for a baseball player to take PED'S and get away with it. In the NFL, 38 players got done for drug use last season alone (the suspensions averaged out at about 4 games) You'd think this would be big news but the Americans just turn a blind eye when it suits them (we do this too when it suits us)

Suspensions for drug use in the NFL (both recreational & PED'S - some drugs are both of course)

Oddly enough, cycling and track & field are seen as the dirtiest sports yet in those sports, the testing procedures are the harshest - what does that tell people? It tells me that athletes cheat the whole world over but whether they get caught or not depends on whether the sporting bodies want to catch them.

As always, big money is at stake.

The AFL despite their riches still get massive amounts of money from the state and federal governments for ground re-developments, junior programmes etc etc. Because of this they were 'forced' into accepting the govt's insistence that they sign up to the WADA code or lose further funding. The AFL was dragged kicking and screaming.

Face it. No sporting code wants their brand tarnished and so will go for whatever the lowest level of commitment is so as to get the lowest number of breaches possible. Unfortunately for the AFL and the clubs they are now realising what signing up actually means. Wouldn't surprise to see this get watered down considerably after the EFC debacle is finally sorted. c2018......

Edited March 9, 2015 by jnrmac

[Macca 17,004]

Macca..you were on the right track inferring some sports dont want to know.

Has been my opinion for some time the AFL is of such type.

And it's been that way for a long time ... for instance, cycling was out of control and the measures that are now in place are in many ways fixing the sport - they had to act though.

It's my belief that other sports are also 'out of control' but because we can't readily see things clearly, those sports get off the hook.

I prefer to label sports clean (ish) if those sports are doing their best to catch the cheats ... therefore I see soccer as a very questionable sport with regards PED's (closely followed by the NBA & the NHL) I also therefore see cycling and the olympic sports as the cleanest because of their efforts to catch the cheats.

Most see things from an opposite perspective.

The AFL sits somewhere in the middle

There is a big difference between the NFL and Essendon. As I understand it the NFL infractions were across the code as a whole - not one club. This might of course indicate the NFL has a much more disciplined testing regime than the AFL. In Essendon's case it was one club systematically trying to cheat. From WADA's perspective this is a radically different situation, and far far more serious.

I'm not arguing your points Dees2014 ... in fact, I mostly agree with what you've got to say about Essendon. I'm simply broadening the argument and adding some context to the whole subject.

Worldwide, PED use in sport is at an all time high (in my opinion) Essendon are more a symptom of a larger problem rather than being one of the root causes - that doesn't mean they're any less guilty of course.

There's a lot we don't know and that's because of the lack of transparency - I'm specifically talking about PED use on a worldwide basis.

Re the NFL ... PED use is almost certainly completely out of control in that sport - there are a lot of players who slip through the net - the 38 who got caught is probably just the tip of the iceberg. And 4 weeks? Not much of a deterrent is it? Also, the testing standards are low in the NFL yet they still catch numerous cheats. Across a lot of sports, it's just a mess.

By the way, I take a keen interest in the NFL and watch a lot of the games - go figure.

.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Macca

[Slartibartfast 17,336]

The AFL despite their riches still get massive amounts of money from the state and federal governments for ground re-developments, junior programmes etc etc. Because of this they were 'forced' into accepting the govt's insistence that they sign up to the WADA code or lose further funding. The AFL was dragged kicking and screaming.

Face it. No sporting code wants their brand tarnished and so will go for whatever the lowest level of commitment is. Unfortunately for the AFL and the clubs they are now realising what signing up actually means. Wouldn't surprise to see this get watered down considerably after the EFC debacle is finally sorted. c2018......

Is that right? I thought that the AFL drugs policy that extends to recreational drugs and the three strikes system was "best practice". Do all other sporting bodies adhere to similar drug policies. If the AFL is best practice how does this sit with "the AFL kicking and screaming"?

[beelzebub 23,380]

If the AFL was to match its rhetoric with a matching drugs testing regime I might believe their words.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Bob...a lot of sports dont have this non sensical 3 strikes krap !! You're caught you're nicked. 3 strikes just gives them an out and makes sure naughty lads are playing longer.

[Macca 17,004]

For a number of years many of us were saying that we didn't want sport to become "A battle of the chemists" (or suchlike) We're already at that point in my opinion.

For instance ... Peptides (or 'secretagogues' as is the supposed correct term) quickly became the new wonder PED's but ... they were already in widespread use before the public generally knew about them. Again, just an opinion but who's to say they weren't? Peptides (secretagogues) have been on the banned Wada list since at least 2008.

There isn't a major sport that hasn't been touched by PED's - those sports that don't readily catch drug cheats usually have at least a couple of things in common ... a 'soft' agreement with Wada and negligent testing standards. Or, they've cleaned up their act.

Again, the AFL sits somewhere in the middle - tough penalties because of the agreement with Wada but the testing standards are poor (in my opinion) As for recreational drugs (which can also be performance enhancing) - the testing standards are again poor and the penalty systems in place are highly questionable.

Edit: clarification re peptides/secretagogues

Edited March 9, 2015 by Macca

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Is that right? I thought that the AFL drugs policy that extends to recreational drugs and the three strikes system was "best practice". Do all other sporting bodies adhere to similar drug policies. If the AFL is best practice how does this sit with "the AFL kicking and screaming"?

4th post.

[old dee 23,800]

Is the big day Friday 13th ?

[jnrmac 20,104]

Is that right? I thought that the AFL drugs policy that extends to recreational drugs and the three strikes system was "best practice". Do all other sporting bodies adhere to similar drug policies. If the AFL is best practice how does this sit with "the AFL kicking and screaming"?

My recollection is that the AFL point blank refused to join WADA saying our 3 strikes policy strokes the best balance between rehab and deterrence blah blah blah then the Fed Govt came down and said Australia will be a laughing stock etc etc..

AFL agrees to sign up to drug code PM - Tuesday, 19 July , 2005 18:35:00 Reporter: Lyn Bell, ABC

TANYA NOLAN: After much pushing and prodding the Australian Football League has agreed to sign up to the world anti-doping agency's drug code.

Cricket Australia and the Australian Rugby League both committed to the policy three weeks ago, leaving the AFL as the only major sporting code in the country refusing to sign the document.

The back-flip though has been welcomed by the Federal Sports Minister, Senator Rod Kemp.

But the AFL Players Association says it still has some concerns with aspects of the WADA drug code.

From Melbourne, Lynn Bell reports.

LYNN BELL: By refusing to sign the World Anti-Doping Agency's drug code, the AFL stood to miss out on $3-million in government funding each year.

But this afternoon the Federal Sports Minister Rod Kemp announced the AFL has had a change of heart.

ROD KEMP: I'm pleased to announce that the AFL have indicated to me at the meeting this morning that they would become WADA code compliant by the 1st of November this year, and this of course brings them into line with two other major sports – cricket and rugby league.

LYNN BELL: The AFL's Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou met with the Sports Minister this morning and emerged from the meeting with very little to say about the AFL's back-flip.

ANDREW DEMTRIOU: And I just would endorse Senator Kemp's comments and, as you would appreciate, we'll consult with all our stakeholders. I've got nothing further to add.

LYNN BELL: The main difference between the World Anti-Doping Agency's drug code and the one currently used by the AFL is the penalty for players found using illicit drugs like cannabis.

The AFL's code allows anyone who tests positive to cannabis once or twice to receive confidential counseling and treatment.

Under the WADA code a player testing positive to cannabis once can be banned for a year and the second positive test can attract a two-year ban.

Edited March 9, 2015 by jnrmac

[Macca 17,004]

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/contact-us

Let WADA know how you feel.and put pressure on them to smash Essendon and the AFl to pieces. The more the merrier.

Yeah, but if I did that I'd be obliged to put pressure on them about a myriad of other sports.

It would be a rather long email HH - reams of pages long - book length in fact ... I've long moved past Essendon and am looking at things from a much broader perspective. That doesn't mean I'm soft on the Bombers either.

Actually, given their resources and power, Wada do about as well as they can do. Are they there to set the standards on how certain sports catch their drug cheats? Or, are they there to deal with the ones that do get caught?

It's a mighty big ask either way ... and, Wada are often ridiculed unfairly (mainly because they can be seen as a sitting duck)