THE ESSENDON 34: ON TRIAL

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

Asada will be taking notes.

[sue 9,106]

Asada will be taking notes.

So will the AFL when they play the Saints on Saturday. If the Saints thrash them, the AFL will be desperately looking for small penalties. If Essendon does well, the 'real' Essendon players may be shaking in their boots.

[What 18,810]

yeah thats it James, keep poking the angry bear named ASADA/WADA.

Somehow he seems to be getting stupider instead of evolving and learning. Amazing really.

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

Disgusting the league has not clarified the provisional suspension situation too the public instead allowing essendon to treat the process likea joke and ignore it altogether.

[bing181 9,238]

Olympic athletes do compete at other meets.

There's a difference between Olympic athletes and Olympic sports. World championships happen every year, for example, and in some Olympic sports, the Olympics are not the be all and end all (e.g. cycling, as well as most of the winter sports).

[beelzebub 23,376]

yeah thats it James, keep poking the angry bear named ASADA/WADA.

Somehow he seems to be getting stupider instead of evolving and learning. Amazing really.

not really...Hes considers himself above these mortals

but he is stupid none the less

[whatwhat say what 22,757]

so joe daniher got jabbed when he was under the age of consent?

[daisycutter 29,616]

so joe daniher got jabbed when he was under the age of consent?

you mean penetrated andrew? that dank would stoop at nothing, eh?

[beelzebub 23,376]

so joe daniher got jabbed when he was under the age of consent?

shhhhh !!!

lalala la ... la

[Melbman2 226]

Asada will be taking notes.

yeah thats it James, keep poking the angry bear named ASADA/WADA.

Somehow he seems to be getting stupider instead of evolving and learning. Amazing really.

Will ASADA grow a pair or does it only go hard on powerless individuals?

[wretched.sylph 164]

Regarding that whole "line in the sand" thing: if you can see sand, you've crossed it.

10.10 Status During Ineligibility

10.10.1 Prohibition Against Participation During Ineligibility

No Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible may, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by any Signatory, Signatory's member organization, or a club or other member organization of a Signatory's member organization, or in Competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international- or national-level Event organization.

An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility longer than four (4) years may, after completing four (4) years of the period of Ineligibility, participate in local sport events in a sport other than the sport in which the Athlete or other Person committed the anti-doping rule violation, but only so long as the local sport event is not at a level that could otherwise qualify such Athlete or other Person directly or indirectly to compete in (or accumulate points toward) a national championship or International Event.

An Athlete or other Person subject to a period of Ineligibility shall remain subject to Testing.

[Comment to Article 10.10.1: For example, an ineligible Athlete cannot participate in a training camp, exhibition or practice organized by his or her National Federation or a club which is a member of that National Federation. Further, an ineligible Athlete may not compete in a non-Signatory professional league (e.g., the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, etc.), Events organized by a non-Signatory International Event organization or a non-Signatory national-level event organization without triggering the consequences set forth in Article 10.10.2. Sanctions in one sport will also be recognized by other sports (see Article 15.4 Mutual Recognition).]

10.10.2 Violation of the Prohibition of Participation During Ineligibility

Where an Athlete or other Person who has been declared Ineligible violates the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility described in Article 10.10.1, the results of such participation shall be Disqualified and the period of Ineligibility which was originally imposed shall start over again as of the date of the violation. The new period of Ineligibility may be reduced under Article 10.5.2 if the Athlete or other Person establishes he or she bears No Significant Fault or Negligence for violating the prohibition against participation. The determination of whether an Athlete or other Person has violated the prohibition against participation, and whether a reduction under Article 10.5.2 is appropriate, shall be made by the Anti-Doping Organization whose results management led to the imposition of the initial period of Ineligibility.

[Comment to Article 10.10.2: If an Athlete or other Person is alleged to have violated the prohibition against participation during a period of Ineligibility, the Anti-Doping Organization which had results management responsibility for the anti-doping rule violation which resulted in the period of Ineligibility shall determine whether the Athlete or other Person violated the prohibition and, if so, whether the Athlete or other Person has established grounds for a reduction in the restarted period of Ineligibility under Article 10.5.2. Decisions rendered by Anti-Doping Organizations under this Article may be appealed pursuant to Article 13.2. Where an Athlete Support Personnel or other Person substantially assists an Athlete in violating the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility, an Anti-Doping Organization with jurisdiction over such Athlete Support Personnel or other Person may appropriately impose sanctions under its own disciplinary rules for such assistance.]

[The bolded text in 10.10.1's comment is mine, all italics are in the WADA source.]

The players shouldn't even be at the club.

EFC cannot be ignorant of the fact that they are violating the conditions of the Provisional Suspensions. It seems to be yet another pretext to appeal (could be trying to tie things up at AFL-level in order to interfere with WADA's ability to bring the AFL's wet-lettuce punishment to CAS in a timely manner):

13.2 Appeals from Decisions Regarding Anti-Doping Rule Violations, Consequences, and Provisional Suspensions

A decision that an anti-doping rule violation was committed, a decision imposing Consequences for an anti-doping rule violation, or a decision that no anti-doping rule violation was committed; a decision that an anti-doping rule violation proceeding cannot go forward for procedural reasons (including, for example, prescription); a decision under Article 10.10.2 (Violation of the Prohibition of Participation during Ineligibility); a decision that an Anti-Doping Organization lacks jurisdiction to rule on an alleged anti-doping rule violation or its Consequences; a decision by an Anti-Doping Organization not to bring forward an Adverse Analytical Finding or an Atypical Finding as an anti-doping rule violation, or a decision not to go forward with an anti-doping rule violation after an investigation under Article 7.4; and a decision to impose a Provisional Suspension as a result of a Provisional Hearing or in violation of Article 7.5, may be appealed exclusively as provided in this Article 13.2.

[Comment to Article 13.1.1: Where a decision has been rendered before the final stage of an Anti-Doping Organization's process (e.g., a first hearing) and no party elects to appeal that decision to the next level of the Anti-Doping Organization's process (e.g., the Managing Board), then WADA may bypass the remaining steps in the Anti-Doping Organization's internal process and appeal directly to CAS.]

SS 13.2.2-3 are also interesting and relevant (but lengthy).

Essendon are playing a very dangerous game, i wonder if they know it's for keeps?

[CBDees 3,167]

Disgusting the league has not clarified the provisional suspension situation too the public instead allowing essendon to treat the process likea joke and ignore it altogether.

How are they provisionally suspended? They are all training! (Saad)

[CBDees 3,167]

Regarding that whole "line in the sand" thing: if you can see sand, you've crossed it. [The bolded text in 10.10.1's comment is mine, all italics are in the WADA source.] The players shouldn't even be at the club.EFC cannot be ignorant of the fact that they are violating the conditions of the Provisional Suspensions. It seems to be yet another pretext to appeal (could be trying to tie things up at AFL-level in order to interfere with WADA's ability to bring the AFL's wet-lettuce punishment to CAS in a timely manner): SS 13.2.2-3 are also interesting and relevant (but lengthy).Essendon are playing a very dangerous game, i wonder if they know it's for keeps?

Organization vs organisation! How can a rule with American spelling have any currency in OZ? Edited March 6, 2015 by CBDees

[bing181 9,238]

The players shouldn't even be at the club.

They're only provisionally suspended. The sections you quoted are for when they're fully suspended and ineligible, which only happens after they're found guilty.

For the moment, the only real restriction is that they can't compete, but as it's the off-season, it hasn't had much visible impact.

[beelzebub 23,376]

Will ASADA grow a pair or does it only go hard on powerless individuals?

me thinks we'll soon find out !!

[CBDees 3,167]

They're only provisionally suspended. The sections you quoted are for when they're fully suspended and ineligible, which only happens after they're found guilty.

For the moment, the only real restriction is that they can't compete, but as it's the off-season, it hasn't had much visible impact.

It would follow from this that, as the ' provisional' suspension is in effect a "Clayton's Suspension", any penalty cannot include this time as it is not a bona fide penalty (viz. no backdating)!

[Deecisive 1,709]

Hopefully this will come to a final resolution, but I think we all know the suspension that essendon gets will be greatly watered down to keep the ALF on side. this crap of suspending a team for 6 months back dated is rubbish, how do you suspend players for games they have already played and the off season is beyond my limited brain to comprehend where is the punishment. years of farce and foolishness. if the players are guilty then how can the coach team doctor etc still able to keep their jobs.

[jnrmac 20,065]

Hopefully this will come to a final resolution, but I think we all know the suspension that essendon gets will be greatly watered down to keep the ALF on side. this crap of suspending a team for 6 months back dated is rubbish, how do you suspend players for games they have already played and the off season is beyond my limited brain to comprehend where is the punishment. years of farce and foolishness. if the players are guilty then how can the coach team doctor etc still able to keep their jobs.

WADA were furious with the Cronulla backdating and gave their explanation as to why they wouldn't challenge it. I see no way at all they will back off on Ess as its Ess that have consistently caused delay after delay.

Its the only thing that gives me comfort that the AFL can't do a sweetheart deal and get away with it as they have done forever.

[old dee 23,791]

Is there anyone out there who thinks that the AFL is not looking for a soft penalty for the EFC?
After letting yesterday's game go ahead they are convicted by their actions.
Wet tram tickets are on the way.

Edited March 7, 2015 by old dee

[What 18,810]

I see a lot of people complaining, but have you written to WADA/ASADA to let them know?

No point talking about it in here, you have to let the powers that be know you're fed up with Essendon and the AFL.

[daisycutter 29,616]

I see a lot of people complaining, but have you written to WADA/ASADA to let them know?

No point talking about it in here, you have to let the powers that be know you're fed up with Essendon and the AFL.

thanks hoges

[What 18,810]

thanks hoges

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

[biggestred 5,088]

Anyone watching?

[Ted Lasso 19,518]

Yeah, bombers look okay saints look very average

[sue 9,106]

Saints taking over by a large margin as game goes on. AFL rushing to the drawer labelled 'soft penalty ideas'.