Just to be a pedant, the non-cyclists involved were all prosecuted together and at the same time as Armstrong. Some of them (e.g. Bruyneel) chose to contest the charges, which then went to arbitration at a later date. But there was only one investigation.

Fair point. I will amend accordingly, but i don''t think it alter the thrust of what i was saying. I still think Hird will ultimately be prosecuted. i suspect ASADA's lack of action on that front has a lot to do with them waiting for all legal action between the parties to cease, just the same as Workcover is waiting.

Fair point. I will amend accordingly, but i don''t think it alter the thrust of what i was saying. I still think Hird will ultimately be prosecuted. i suspect ASADA's lack of action on that front has a lot to do with them waiting for all legal action between the parties to cease, just the same as Workcover is waiting.

Hey Dees2014

You've probably already stated in this thread, but I can't remember where, but are you close to the people at ASADA?

Cheers.

Technically incorrect.

Section 7.1 Anti-Doping policy (ASC) States that the standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Somewhere in between the two it would seem.

yes..youre right ET but that which RM alludes to is also fairly close to it .

The essence is that the evidence satisfies the Tribunal.

the Anti doping policy extract is but a homage to its originator in the WADA code , that being ( homage in so much as all signatory codes will fall in line with the WADA code )

3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has

occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an antidoping

rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of

the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability

but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or

other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish

specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability, except as provided

in Articles 10.4 and 10.6 where the Athlete must satisfy a higher burden of proof.

heres the referenced articles:

10.4 Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances

Where an Athlete or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his or her body or

came into his or her Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the

Athlete’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of

Ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced with the following: ( I'll leave off this bit...goes of for a while )

10.6 Aggravating Circumstances Which May Increase the Period of Ineligibility

If the Anti-Doping Organization establishes in an individual case involving an anti-doping rule violation

other than violations under Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) and 2.8 (Administration or

Attempted Administration) that aggravating circumstances are present which justify the imposition of a period of

Ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, then the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable shall be

increased up to a maximum of four (4) years unless the Athlete or other Person can prove to the comfortable

satisfaction of the hearing panel that he or she did not knowingly commit the anti-doping rule violation.

An Athlete or other Person can avoid the application of this Article by admitting the anti-doping rule violation as

asserted promptly after being confronted with the antidoping rule violation by an Anti-Doping Organization.

Apologise for the long windedness of that but its the Code !!

Elements to take out of it are ( to me )

Only need to satisfy the hearing panel. The pivot is actually Balance of Probability , and it's beholding upon the athlete to PROVE what he purports as the event and not for the Tribunal to prove its allegation. This I think is something glossed over or deliberately ignored or obfuscated by many of the essendon fan club. The ATHLETE has to show what happened as they would have it. If they can not then they will be stamped guilty immediately.

Further WADA does not like it, not one iota , when athletes or teams or anyone in between decide to take the route that Essendon has. hence the provision for "Aggravated Circumstances"

it would not surprise me a bit if should the Tribunals finding be anything less than 2 years that this will get ugly beyond anything imagined to date.

But the thing , the essential thing to always remember about this is the ATHLETE has to provide proof, to a level of probability that what is alleged did not happen.

good luck with that ...lol

What continues to worry me about this whole fiasco is the difficulty involved in identifying the individuals who got each injection.

I have no doubt that ASADA has sufficient evidence to comfortably satisfy the tribunal that at least 30 syringes of a banned substance were emptied into the veins of a group of 34 Essendon players - but whether or not they can establish that all 34 got an injection and that not one syringe was lost or damaged is another matter.

If even just one syringe went astray the defence lawyers will have a ball arguing first one player , and then another ....and then another ... and etc,....... was the (un) lucky one to miss out!!

Surely the difficulty in this case lies in attaching dosages to particular individuals. Hird and his co-conspirators destroyed the trail to individuals long ago - which is why Worksafe should be queued up to prosecute the club regardless of the Tribunal's final decision!

I have wondered about that as well hoopla.

If the Australian Olympic team had a large quantity of an illegal drug on the premises but no record of who had taken it could you find all the individual athletes guilty? Could WADA disqualify the whole team?

Little piece in the Hun.

Apparently the wife of a central figure in the Bombers situation, told a fellow passenger on a plane, that the ASADA case presented to the AFL Tribunal was strong and that they are in trouble.

Just realized that?

...........

But the thing , the essential thing to always remember about this is the ATHLETE has to provide proof, to a level of probability that what is alleged did not happen.

good luck with that ...lol

Shame about all those missing records.

I cannot wait to see the face on all those smart arzed Essendon fans when the guillotine drops. I can see the blood draining from their faces as they realize the world of pain, then the recriminations will really start to fly. Mr Hird may be off overseas again, he won't be a very popular man in Australia. Schadenfreude I love it.

Perhaps we could have a contest for the best EFC song commiserating their downfall.

I think I will go for "Schadenfreude" to the tune of Edelweiss

Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude

Every morning you beat me

Banned from sight, mean and tight

You look happy to beat me

Penalties and fines, bans and restrictions

The pain will go on forever

Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude

The pox on Hirdy forever

Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude

Every season you beat me

Bombers are banned, fined and damned

Everyone seems happy to beat us

Banned from sight, mean and tight

The pain will go on forever

Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude

The pox on Hirdy forever.

Little piece in the Hun.

Apparently the wife of a central figure in the Bombers situation, told a fellow passenger on a plane, that the ASADA case presented to the AFL Tribunal was strong and that they are in trouble.

Just realized that?

The reality bus can be a terrifying sight when it first appears on your horizon ...

The reality bus can be a terrifying sight when it first appears on your horizon ...

R&B the reality bus is not on the horizon, it has just crashed through the stop sign.

I have wondered about that as well hoopla.

If the Australian Olympic team had a large quantity of an illegal drug on the premises but no record of who had taken it could you find all the individual athletes guilty? Could WADA disqualify the whole team?

This case is 'breaking ground" for WADA.. its the first instance of a team rorting wholesale. My prediction.. watch for a determined rewrite of the code once this fiasco is over.

R&B the reality bus is not on the horizon, it has just crashed through the stop sign.

True. But those with myopic hubris probably don't even realise there is a road there ....

This gave me a laugh - especially the last line.

From Titus O'Reilly

Essendon Football Club: Casual vacancies available

The Essendon Football Club currently has approximately 20 vacancies for the position of ‘AFL footballer’.

This is an exciting opportunity for anyone who has ever dreamed of playing at the highest-level but couldn’t because they were terrible at football.

The ideal candidate must be somewhat in shape and have the necessary skills to match it with St Kilda, GWS and Melbourne (not a huge ask).

This once in a lifetime opportunity will see you play on the hallowed turf of Etihad Stadium, Spotless Stadium and Morwell Recreational Reserve.

Prior experience in the VFL, WAFL, SANFL or Auskick will be looked upon favourably.

Uniforms, meals and legal fees will be provided but the successful candidates must provide their own boots.

A willingness to work with James Hird is a must.

Please, no ASADA employees or Cale Mortons

IT'S COMING !!!

Hey Dees2014

You've probably already stated in this thread, but I can't remember where, but are you close to the people at ASADA?

Cheers.

More WADA than ASADA

IT'S COMING !!!

Is that a real Train or Thomas bb?

Is that a real Train or Thomas bb?

you ask as though Thomas isnt a train !! lol

you ask as though Thomas isnt a train !! lol

I thought Thomas was derailed after the MFC episode.

IT'S COMING !!!

And the Essendon board thought they could see light at the end of the tunnel.

And the Essendon board thought they could see light at the end of the tunnel.

they HAVE seen the light.....and it scares the F*#K out of them !!

I have wondered about that as well hoopla.

If the Australian Olympic team had a large quantity of an illegal drug on the premises but no record of who had taken it could you find all the individual athletes guilty? Could WADA disqualify the whole team?

Difference being though its one Olympic team its actually a congregation of specific sub-teams defined by events. These have their own entourage , coaches support etc. All of the one Olympic team are not under the one tutelage etc even though there's one chef de mission its a different thing to the One entity that is the EFC where all things are ruled by one.

Difference being though its one Olympic team its actually a congregation of specific sub-teams defined by events. These have their own entourage , coaches support etc. All of the one Olympic team are not under the one tutelage etc even though there's one chef de mission its a different thing to the One entity that is the EFC where all things are ruled by one.

And where does a fish rot from?

And it sure stinks at Essendon.

Difference being though its one Olympic team its actually a congregation of specific sub-teams defined by events. These have their own entourage , coaches support etc. All of the one Olympic team are not under the one tutelage etc even though there's one chef de mission its a different thing to the One entity that is the EFC where all things are ruled by one.

I don't see it that way. There are sub-teams in both i.e swimmers, gymnasts, track and field versus backline, midfield, forwards.

Surely they are one entity The Australian Olympic team.

Were the EFC ruled by one? I assume you mean Hird? He certainly wasn't ruling, there was Bomber Thompson, a board and Tania ruling over him

I don't see it that way. There are sub-teams in both i.e swimmers, gymnasts, track and field versus backline, midfield, forwards.

Surely they are one entity The Australian Olympic team.

Were the EFC ruled by one? I assume you mean Hird? He certainly wasn't ruling, there was Bomber Thompson, a board and Tania ruling over him

Whilst you are right in saying that the all athletes come under the Australian Olympic Team Banner I think common sense would prevail and there would be recognition that the Olympic Team is a completely different structure than a football club. The Olympic team is like an umbrella company with many independent self run companies under it. A football club is a completely different kettle of fish ( rotten stinky fish).

Little piece in the Hun.

Apparently the wife of a central figure in the Bombers situation, told a fellow passenger on a plane, that the ASADA case presented to the AFL Tribunal was strong and that they are in trouble.

Just realized that?

Reliable source.

I don't see it that way. There are sub-teams in both i.e swimmers, gymnasts, track and field versus backline, midfield, forwards.

Surely they are one entity The Australian Olympic team.

Were the EFC ruled by one? I assume you mean Hird? He certainly wasn't ruling, there was Bomber Thompson, a board and Tania ruling over him

In the same way they are all just one AFL !!

The coach of the swimming...( and then there are more than one ) has no say in the shot-putter nor the hurdler etc.

Hird is and still is ruling.....has them by the short and curlies id say

I would at least like to hear the AFL mulling over ideas to suspend Essendon from the competition.

One club is not bigger than the game, it might be time to think about cutting Essendon loose.