On 24/02/2015 at 07:16, beelzebub said:

Please note..ASADA dont backdate as such. The media has invented this notion of backdating and run with it.

what WADA/ASADA does do is take note of any provisional suspensions served and take that OFF the overall period of ban. its a similar effect but I repeat there is NO backdating

This part of the process ticks me off the most. I just don't understand the logic of allowing the ban period to commence from the date of the Infraction Notices and yet allow them to continue to train etc with no impact from the IN's yet this time is taken off their ban period. This will mean an effective reduction in their ban of 4 months, assuming they are found guilty and the decision is handed down mid March.

  On 24/02/2015 at 07:47, It said:

This part of the process ticks me off the most. I just don't understand the logic of allowing the ban period to commence from the date of the Infraction Notices and yet allow them to continue to train etc with no impact from the IN's yet this time is taken off their ban period. This will mean an effective reduction in their ban of 4 months, assuming they are found guilty and the decision is handed down mid March.

nor do I ...its rubbish

I seriously think its part a nd parcel of the unique situation.

Nearly all current focus is as to an individual and this is why his occurrence is so unique...and so important

I think 2014 will concur that once the dust settles on all of this WADA will publish a major re-write.

WADA have been caught with pants down, little and Co know this and have tries to leverage it. .....to no avail . thats luck really

edit

I.T...keep in mind theres no reason why the ban wont be 2 years !!

Just think. There is some poor little USB stick sitting somewhere crying his eyes out just waiting to go to Confession

  On 24/02/2015 at 07:53, beelzebub said:

nor do I ...its rubbish

I seriously think its part a nd parcel of the unique situation.

Nearly all current focus is as to an individual and this is why his occurrence is so unique...and so important

I think 2014 will concur that once the dust settles on all of this WADA will publish a major re-write.

WADA have been caught with pants down, little and Co know this and have tries to leverage it. .....to no avail . thats luck really

edit

I.T...keep in mind theres no reason why the ban wont be 2 years !!

afaiu cronulla players got some back dating because asada admitted they were slow processing the investigations

  On 24/02/2015 at 07:53, beelzebub said:

nor do I ...its rubbish

I seriously think its part a nd parcel of the unique situation.

Nearly all current focus is as to an individual and this is why his occurrence is so unique...and so important

I think 2014 will concur that once the dust settles on all of this WADA will publish a major re-write.

WADA have been caught with pants down, little and Co know this and have tries to leverage it. .....to no avail . thats luck really

edit

I.T...keep in mind theres no reason why the ban wont be 2 years !!

That's yet another bizarre part of this process. Once the Decision is handed down. Say mid March. Then they have to schedule a whole other Penalty hearing and I assume have ASADA and the players make representations about the appropriate penalty. Then they will go away and deliberate again and come back with the penalties. No idea how long that process will take.

They really do need to go away and rethink the whole process. It is ridiculously duplicated and drawn out. First you have an investigation. Then you have a review of all evidence and if enough issue Show Cause Notices. Then you have a hearing at the ADVTA or whatever it's called. Then they make a recommendation. Then that is sent to the AFL legal officer who reviews the whole thing and then makes his decision on whether it should be taken further. If he does decide that it then goes to the Tribunal who do their whole thing. Then it goes on to a whole other hearing for the Penalty. Crazy.

  On 23/02/2015 at 06:26, beelzebub said:

Is it that hard either.

No one disputes the players were injected with something, never been in question.

Essendon cant show any supply of an approved substance having been sought and purchased. Essendon cant show a supplements schedule that would match a benign substance. ASADA CAN portray a protocol for a banned substance and a pathway to the club , indeed actions by the club and or its agents to procure.

essendon actually have to show to the comfort of the Tribunal they they did INDEED use something else , that this is what it is/was , and this is proof of how and when. i.e records/ invoices etc

So far it seems ASADA have a mountain of circumstantial evidence and can tie it together with many and detailed messaging between the main culprits.

Essendon keep moving the goalposts in some hope to confuse people. The tribunal wont be had by this incredulous toying .

Yep and it ain't just TB4 either.

  On 23/02/2015 at 06:56, sue said:

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.

The consent forms will show intent.

  On 24/02/2015 at 08:36, It said:

That's yet another bizarre part of this process. Once the Decision is handed down. Say mid March. Then they have to schedule a whole other Penalty hearing and I assume have ASADA and the players make representations about the appropriate penalty. Then they will go away and deliberate again and come back with the penalties. No idea how long that process will take.

They really do need to go away and rethink the whole process. It is ridiculously duplicated and drawn out. First you have an investigation. Then you have a review of all evidence and if enough issue Show Cause Notices. Then you have a hearing at the ADVTA or whatever it's called. Then they make a recommendation. Then that is sent to the AFL legal officer who reviews the whole thing and then makes his decision on whether it should be taken further. If he does decide that it then goes to the Tribunal who do their whole thing. Then it goes on to a whole other hearing for the Penalty. Crazy.

well as long as they are suspended i hope the deliberations on penalties take at least 6 months

  On 24/02/2015 at 07:47, It said:

This part of the process ticks me off the most. I just don't understand the logic of allowing the ban period to commence from the date of the Infraction Notices and yet allow them to continue to train etc with no impact from the IN's yet this time is taken off their ban period. This will mean an effective reduction in their ban of 4 months, assuming they are found guilty and the decision is handed down mid March.

I guess the logic of training is that if you are an athletics runner they can't ban you from running, But they could ban you from training camps, official training get togethers (AIS) etc. So banning a team from training doesn't equate. But I understand Ahmed Saad wasn't allowed to train. Nor was Wade Lees.

  On 24/02/2015 at 09:01, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yep and it ain't just TB4 either.

err excuse me? Do you know something we don't?

As far as has been published this is all about TB4. There is nothing else.

  On 24/02/2015 at 06:00, Sir Paul Roos said:

http://www.sen.com.au/news/a-short-sharp-ban-is-the-most-appealing-outcome

I disagree strongly, the situation is simple, if this club has cheated than it needs to man up and cop what's coming to it, they have fought the investigation ever step of the way, Robbo and his media team have carried out a media campaign trying to discredit and paint ASADA as the big bad wolf and Essendon as innocent victims.

The league needs to be very strong on the fact that Illegal or performance enhancing drug use is unacceptable under any circumstances and cannot go soft on anyone for it, much less this club who has appealed the legality of the investigation once, while it's coach has twice.

If they are found guilty is important that the punishment is not reflective of what is best for the EFC, or for the League in terms of getting them back on the field ASAP, it needs to send a message, and i suspect ASADA and WADA are hell bent on making sure that happens.

"Might James Hird survive such an outcome? That’d be the Bombers’ call, but he might be thought to have paid a sufficient price already."

Was this meant to say, "... but he might be thought to have been paid a sufficient price already."?

  On 24/02/2015 at 09:39, jnrmac said:

err excuse me? Do you know something we don't?

As far as has been published this is all about TB4. There is nothing else.

Jnr..

Go look up the original AFL naughty charges !!

  On 24/02/2015 at 10:00, The Reverend said:

"Might James Hird survive such an outcome? That’d be the Bombers’ call, but he might be thought to have paid a sufficient price already."

Was this meant to say, "... but he might be thought to have been paid a sufficient price already."?

so tbe obvious penance is yet to come ???

  On 24/02/2015 at 09:38, jnrmac said:

I guess the logic of training is that if you are an athletics runner they can't ban you from running, But they could ban you from training camps, official training get togethers (AIS) etc. So banning a team from training doesn't equate. But I understand Ahmed Saad wasn't allowed to train. Nor was Wade Lees.

Saad and Lees were banned from all official training (and using club facilities etc. etc.) once they were banned - which will be the case with the Essendon players if they're banned. On the other hand, even if banned, nothing to stop them organising to get together every other afternoon on the local oval, it just can't be through any AFL structure or affiliated organisation.

Provisionally banned only stops you from competing. I'm not sure how it works in other sports, some athletes seem to keep training with their club etc., while others don't.

Also, the point to remember, is the a ban is for a time period, not for a number of matches or competitions, which is where a perception of variability creeps in.

  On 23/02/2015 at 10:20, It said:

This is a fair point to a point. The fact that the retired Fed Crt Judge Downes and the US architect of the whole WADA code support ASADA's view that they have enough evidence certainly would indicate that the players are going to have to do more than just sit on their hands. But they still only have to get the Tribunal to decide that ASADA's evidence fails the comfortable satisfaction standard. They don't have to prove what they took was not illegal. To me this makes a nonsense of the whole proceedings and I hope that one outcome of this case is that the Government legislates so that in future the onus is on athletes to prove what they took was legal.

All the ADRVP have to decide is whether there is enough of a question to require a Tribunal hearing. This is a long way below the much higher standard of proof and much greater legal forensic examination of a Tribunal, so of itself it doesn't indicate the likely success of ASADA's case.

The fact Essendon cannot produce records of what was administered when is not only fanciful considering the degree to which these players are monitored these days but should result in a guilty outcome regardless of any other factors.

  On 24/02/2015 at 10:30, beelzebub said:

Jnr..

Go look up the original AFL naughty charges !!

Thx. But my understanding is that the other things were all dealt with in the AFLs sanctions. The court cases are about one thing only TB4. AD9604 et al are now irrelevant.

  On 24/02/2015 at 20:53, jnrmac said:

Thx. But my understanding is that the other things were all dealt with in the AFLs sanctions. The court cases are about one thing only TB4. AD9604 et al are now irrelevant.

From:- http://theconversation.com/frankenfooty-essendons-mixed-bag-of-supplements-17323

Unproven drugs, not a scientific approach

Here is a short list of the drugs allegedly given to the players from the 34 page Notice of Charges (page 24-25):

• actovegin
• unspecified amino acids
• unspecified multi-vitamins
• AOD-9604 creams
• AOD-9604 injections
• cerebrolysin
• colostrum
• REDACTED (it’s blanked out in the charge list)
• lactaway
• lube-all-plus
• melatonin
• melanotan II
• TA-65
• thymosin beta 4
• traumeel
• tribulus

For more interesting articles see :- http://theconversation.com/au/topics/essendon

lube-all-plus............................................hmmmm

Extract from notice of charges:-

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/EssendonFC-notice-of-charges.pdf

90. Hooper states that 34 Essendon players were injected with an Amino Acid compound sourced by Patient A from a Chemist in Mexico. The identity and integrity of the commodity was inferred by Hooper from labelling without independent or professional verification. Additionally, the Amino Acid appears to have been in storage at HyperMED for a considerable time prior to its use. 91. Save for the above, Hooper does not know the content or source of the amino acids he injected into the players at HyperMed.

Anyone that has not read the notice of charges should do so, particularly if you support lenient penalties.

  On 24/02/2015 at 21:13, ManDee said:

From:- http://theconversation.com/frankenfooty-essendons-mixed-bag-of-supplements-17323

Unproven drugs, not a scientific approach

Here is a short list of the drugs allegedly given to the players from the 34 page Notice of Charges (page 24-25):

• actovegin
• unspecified amino acids
• unspecified multi-vitamins
• AOD-9604 creams
• AOD-9604 injections
• cerebrolysin
• colostrum
• REDACTED (it’s blanked out in the charge list)
• lactaway
• lube-all-plus
• melatonin
• melanotan II
• TA-65
• thymosin beta 4
• traumeel
• tribulus

For more interesting articles see :- http://theconversation.com/au/topics/essendon

But aren't these the AFL charges that they have been penalised for?

ASADA only mention 1 substance as far as I am aware. TB4. Everything rolls on proving to whatever satisfaction they require under the legislation, that the players took TB4.

  On 24/02/2015 at 21:28, daisycutter said:

lube-all-plus............................................hmmmm

Hird did place his players "over a barrell"!!

  On 24/02/2015 at 21:58, jnrmac said:

But aren't these the AFL charges that they have been penalised for?

ASADA only mention 1 substance as far as I am aware. TB4. Everything rolls on proving to whatever satisfaction they require under the legislation, that the players took TB4.

only charges from the afl thus far have been to do with governance issues.

  On 24/02/2015 at 22:04, deefrag said:

Hird did place his players "over a barrell"!!

Are you sure?

  On 24/02/2015 at 21:58, jnrmac said:

But aren't these the AFL charges that they have been penalised for?

ASADA only mention 1 substance as far as I am aware. TB4. Everything rolls on proving to whatever satisfaction they require under the legislation, that the players took TB4.

From:- http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-hird-charged-with-bringing-game-into-disrepute-20130813-2rtye.html

The AFL has charged Bombers coach James Hird, doctor Bruce Reid, football boss Danny Corcoran, assistant coach Mark Thompson and the Essendon Football Club with bringing the game into disrepute over the club's supplements program.

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon announced the charges on Tuesday night. A hearing before the AFL Commission will be held on Monday August 26.

"They have all been charged with conduct that is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the Australian Football League, or bringing the game of football into disrepute contrary to AFL rule 1.6," Dillon said.

Note: No charges were laid by the AFL about performance enhancing drugs, that is ASADA's bailiwick.

  On 24/02/2015 at 21:58, jnrmac said:

But aren't these the AFL charges that they have been penalised for?

ASADA only mention 1 substance as far as I am aware. TB4. Everything rolls on proving to whatever satisfaction they require under the legislation, that the players took TB4.

No need to prove that they took anything, only that they attempted to take a prohibited substance.