THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[ManDee 7,343]

I'm not disputing the thrust of this post, but was the ability to check via the ASADA website available to the players in 2012?

I checked early 2013 and it was available then. At that time I checked AOD9604 as that was the peptide most talked about, and there was plenty of info about peptides and illegal use with links to WADA and prohibited lists. Of note, reference was made to approved supplements and if a supplement was not listed it was NOT approved for use.

Edit: Punctuation.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

As posted earlier by various people (perhaps even me, don't have time to check back ...) the "no fault" one-year reduction is on the basis of a requirement that's very hard to meet. You basically have to be unconscious.

Hard to see it sticking in this case, especially as the players didn't even bother to check that everything was above board.

They will have a hard time proving that. Proving that they probably make better decisions when unconscious may be significantly easier ...

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

bing, re the "unconscious" bit i think you are confusing determination of guilt with sentence discounting

the "unconscious" defense is relevant in getting a not guilty finding

as regards getting a 12 month discount after being guilty the no significant fault claim doesn't need a state of unconsciousness to succeed

Bing can correct me here but as I understand it you've got this the wrong way round. If it is established you have taken an illegal substance whether you were conscious of it or not you are automatically guilty. If you can prove you were unconscious and I don't know what this requires then you can have your 2yr sentence reduced by 12mths. Many people on here have pointed out the ways they could have checked over a long period of time so I can't see how they would get away with the unconscious defence. Some have argued including even if they asked Doc Reid and he said it was legal. I'm not so sure about this.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,071]

Bing can correct me here but as I understand it you've got this the wrong way round. If it is established you have taken an illegal substance whether you were conscious of it or not you are automatically guilty. If you can prove you were unconscious and I don't know what this requires then you can have your 2yr sentence reduced by 12mths. Many people on here have pointed out the ways they could have checked over a long period of time so I can't see how they would get away with the unconscious defence. Some have argued including even if they asked Doc Reid and he said it was legal. I'm not so sure about this.

I suspect the only way they could use the 'unconscious" defence (or equivalent) would be to say they were told they were being injected with one substance (known to be legal, such as Thymomodulin) when in fact they were injected with another (such as Thymosin B, or whatever the illegal one is called). Whether this happened or not, I have no idea.

[beelzebub 23,390]

ASADA ....so player *&^%$ , what were you doing whist getting your jabs ?

PLAYER ........ what do you mean , doing ?

ASADA. Were you watching the procedure, paying attention ?

PLAYER....am a bit squeamish........was Facebooking

ASADA... Are you known for Facebooking when not awake ?

PLAYER ... What are ya....an idiot or something ?

ASADA... Dont think that would be us....

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,071]

ASADA ....so player *&^%$ , what were you doing whist getting your jabs ?

PLAYER ........ what do you mean , doing ?

ASADA. Were you watching the procedure, paying attention ?

PLAYER....am a bit squeamish........was Facebooking

ASADA... Are you known for Facebooking when not awake ?

PLAYER ... What are ya....an idiot or something ?

ASADA... Dont think that would be us....

Hey, BB. Was this in response to my post? If so, if you've ever had an injection at the doctors, have you ever seen the label of the vial you're injection has come from? Could you read what it said?

Don't let movies and TV programs fool you. Basically all chemical solutions are clear. And I suspect any labels would be in small print making it quite difficult to read what it said. If, indeed, there were any labels. (And if there weren't any labels, surely that should get some alarm bells ringing.)

[beelzebub 23,390]

La D

It was essentially in reply to the notion of being Unconcious. They plainly weren't.

As to the other. Ive invariably had to read 2 sheets of paper and sign numerous locations. Yes most stuff is clear...but even I can read.

And being notoriously suss about much, ask

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,071]

Here's an excellent summary published by the law firm DLA Piper of the legal stoush. It doesn't discuss the merits of ASADA's case, just the legal dispute between Hird and ASADA and the Federal Court's findings.

[daisycutter 29,909]

Hey, BB. Was this in response to my post? If so, if you've ever had an injection at the doctors, have you ever seen the label of the vial you're injection has come from? Could you read what it said?

Don't let movies and TV programs fool you. Basically all chemical solutions are clear. And I suspect any labels would be in small print making it quite difficult to read what it said. If, indeed, there were any labels. (And if there weren't any labels, surely that should get some alarm bells ringing.)

don't forget ldvc that people who go to the doctor for an injection have not signed onto and been educated by the wada code

i would expect (given wada's strict rules) that they would ask the person injecting exactly what they were being injected with each time before accepting

i agree they probably wouldn't go as far as to say show me the label on the bottle

anyway, surely you must find it strange that all 34 didn't do more checking esp given the wada education they were given and then turn around and claim they were not sure now what they were injected with.

not one!

could they have been lied to and deceived? possibly. did they demonstrate at least the minimum amount of responsibility to do due personal diligence? unlikely

[ManDee 7,343]

don't forget ldvc that people who go to the doctor for an injection have not signed onto and been educated by the wada code

i would expect (given wada's strict rules) that they would ask the person injecting exactly what they were being injected with each time before accepting

i agree they probably wouldn't go as far as to say show me the label on the bottle

anyway, surely you must find it strange that all 34 didn't do more checking esp given the wada education they were given and then turn around and claim they were not sure now what they were injected with.

not one!

could they have been lied to and deceived? possibly. did they demonstrate at least the minimum amount of responsibility to do due personal diligence? unlikely

At some levels I hope they were lied to and deceived. This adds to the guilt of the club.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,071]

At some levels I hope they were lied to and deceived. This adds to the guilt of the club.

While I agree, it is possible the club was also deceived. Nevertheless, the club should still be accountable for what the contractors it engaged might have done.

[beelzebub 23,390]

While I agree, it is possible the club was also deceived. Nevertheless, the club should still be accountable for what the contractors it engaged might have done.

Yeah......nah

They wanted the "good stuff"

Just the act of trying to procure it is a no-no....almost irregardless of what they got, if that was an argument.

They were very naughty any which way it goes.As you rightly say. They are accountable.

[ManDee 7,343]

While I agree, it is possible the club was also deceived. Nevertheless, the club should still be accountable for what the contractors it engaged might have done.

If I engage staff that systematically breaks the law and I have no system in place to ensure ethical & legal practices are maintained, I am ultimately responsible.

If my staff makes mistakes, I pay for the rectification.

If my systems do not monitor that staff follow procedures and problems arise I am still responsible.

If I discover my staff have made an error, I notify the affected person/company and discuss rectification immediately.

EFC have a lesson or two to learn in ethics and legal responsibility. Or they chose to cheat and lie and the lessons would be wasted. Either way they are guilty.

[daisycutter 29,909]

While I agree, it is possible the club was also deceived. Nevertheless, the club should still be accountable for what the contractors it engaged might have done.

my understanding is that dank and robinson were not contractors but employees. therefore they represent the club

calling them contractors just seems a tactic by the club to distance itself and deflect blame

[Crompton's the man 660]

In law, contractors must bring all their own tools and equipment, not use the employer's

Which to me invites the question as to what tools and equipment they supplied to engage in their paid activities

[jnrmac 20,302]

not only that mandee,

but no player manager inquired

no member of the FD inquired

that's a heap more people than just the 34 players

Because it was all black ops.... dib dib dob dob... can't tell a soul....

[jnrmac 20,302]

my understanding is that dank and robinson were not contractors but employees. therefore they represent the club

calling them contractors just seems a tactic by the club to distance itself and deflect blame

Definitely employees. The AFL sanctions were partly for not going through normal protocols when employing staff...

[Dees2014 2,377]

While I agree, it is possible the club was also deceived. Nevertheless, the club should still be accountable for what the contractors it engaged might have done.

All evidence so far suggests that not only did Hird know what dank was doing he was its major sponsor and advocate. If you don't belive me have a look at what we know of the email trail. The club was not deceived, and it was not the foot soldiers who were the guilty parties here, it went to the top, but I suspect not to President David Evans.

Hird cannot now hide behind a Nuremberg style defence "we did not know". He knew, and he was an active player in the strategy to cheat.

[jnrmac 20,302]

If CBA employs a guy as a planner who is unqualified or does dodgy stuff it is the staff and management that get pinged. The Management can't say "we trusted this guy to do the right thing and we were deceived". This is no different and they can't say Dank deceived us and get away with it. They are cooked.

[daisycutter 29,909]

If CBA employs a guy as a planner who is unqualified or does dodgy stuff it is the staff and management that get pinged. The Management can't say "we trusted this guy to do the right thing and we were deceived". This is no different and they can't say Dank deceived us and get away with it. They are cooked.

at the moment though, neither the club nor its (current) employees are on trial

only dank is (apart from the players)

if the players/dank are found guilty we don't know whether asada will issue infraction notices against any club officials

has this been discussed publicly?

[bing181 9,436]

Bing can correct me here but as I understand it you've got this the wrong way round. If it is established you have taken an illegal substance whether you were conscious of it or not you are automatically guilty. If you can prove you were unconscious and I don't know what this requires then you can have your 2yr sentence reduced by 12mths. Many people on here have pointed out the ways they could have checked over a long period of time so I can't see how they would get away with the unconscious defence. Some have argued including even if they asked Doc Reid and he said it was legal. I'm not so sure about this.

Yes, as I understand it.

I don't have time to dig up the info again, but there are papers out there analysing cases where athletes were able to establish "no significant fault", and it's a very high bar. Being unconscious, or not in a state/position to make any kind of informed decision in regards to what's going on is one example. A quick search turned up this, where basically, being sabotaged without your knowledge by a competitor gave a "no significant fault" outcome, but being administered by your own doctor without your knowledge didn't.

This in relation to "no significant fault":

"The commentary to the Code gives an example of where this section may apply; in the case where ‘despite all due care he or she was sabotaged by a competitor.’

The commentary also gives examples of where the ineligibility period will not be reduced: sabotage by someone within the athlete’s entourage, administration by the athlete’s physician without the athlete’s knowledge and mislabelled or contaminated supplements."

And concludes:

"An athlete hoping to prove that they were not at fault or negligent and have their ineligibility period eliminated has a truly arduous task before them."

... equally noted, it's a little easier - but still very difficult - to establish "no significant fault".

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1328&context=blr

[bing181 9,436]

bing, re the "unconscious" bit i think you are confusing determination of guilt with sentence discounting

the "unconscious" defense is relevant in getting a not guilty finding

as regards getting a 12 month discount after being guilty the no significant fault claim doesn't need a state of unconsciousness to succeed

Sorry .. working backwards through the thread.

Re the above. Believe you're wrong. 12 month discount for no significant fault needs a lot (lot!) more than "I cleared it with the physio" or "the doc told me it was OK". I cited some examples above.

Also, if you're found with a banned substance in your system, you're guilty. However it got there. You may get a reduced, or even no penalty, but you're still guilty.

Mick Rogers tested positive for Clenbuterol after (accidentally) eating contaminated meat in China. He was able to establish that, and didn't receive a suspension (though he did serve 6 months of provisional suspension from racing). However, for the race where he tested positive, he was still disqualified - even though he was cleared of deliberately doping.

[daisycutter 29,909]

Sorry .. working backwards through the thread.

Re the above. Believe you're wrong. 12 month discount for no significant fault needs a lot (lot!) more than "I cleared it with the physio" or "the doc told me it was OK". I cited some examples above.

Also, if you're found with a banned substance in your system, you're guilty. However it got there. You may get a reduced, or even no penalty, but you're still guilty.

Mick Rogers tested positive for Clenbuterol after (accidentally) eating contaminated meat in China. He was able to establish that, and didn't receive a suspension (though he did serve 6 months of provisional suspension from racing). However, for the race where he tested positive, he was still disqualified - even though he was cleared of deliberately doping.

ok, thanks bing

seems i equated not guilty with no fault (ie guilty but no penalty) i.e. the "unconscious" defense

and agreed the no significant fault is for a 12mth reduction, and is still difficult to claim, though cronulla were lucky

[Biffen 12,949]

The deceptocons can never defeat the Autobots.

Perceptor needs time to work it out.

We can only hope megatron will be eliminated from the galaxy.

[jnrmac 20,302]

at the moment though, neither the club nor its (current) employees are on trial

only dank is (apart from the players)

if the players/dank are found guilty we don't know whether asada will issue infraction notices against any club officials

has this been discussed publicly?

They surely have to be if INs are implemented.

The AFL sanctioned EFC for governance issues, not illegal drugs, The club, its management and its directors must all be in the firing line let alone being sued by players whose careers have been severely stuffed up and in some cases finished. Then there is worksafe Victoria...

Hird himself said his position would be untenable if INs were issued......