THE DRUG SCANDAL: AFL TRIBUNAL DECIDES

[ManDee 7,162]

in reality its the same as my second option.

The code only provides to mitigate in that instance.

The only avenue for no penalty (supposedly is you're Unconcious and unaware of being given anything.

My reading of the rules is different.

What you are saying is correct for a positive test.

If there is no positive test a different rule applies. Intent to take a prohibited substance.... And it would appear that is how the players have received no penalty. They cannot prove that the players intended to take a prohibited substance.

I hope subsequent testing does find them guilty.

[deefrag 277]

Last step in the "chain": get yourself a Lawyer who happens to be president of Athletics Australia.

No drugs in Athletics are there? Well er not many convictions anyway!

Strange and twisted is this world of sport!!

Athletics Australia president David Grace QC warned over role on Essendon legal team

A QC fighting to derail the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s campaign against Essendon has worked with the doping agency to uphold drugs violations in separate cases.

David Grace has been warned his role on the Bombers’ legal team threatens to undermine his position as president of Athletics Australia.

ASADA confirmed it worked alongside Mr Grace in his capacity as both AA president and in his legal role with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Earlier this year, sprinter Josh Ross was pursued by ASADA and AA, with Mr Grace at its helm, after he missed three drug tests within 18 months.

Critics have suggested Mr Grace’s dual roles could present a conflict of interest.

“This is a man who should be trying to eliminate drug cheats from sport, yet is part of a legal team trying to find any loophole it can to avoid drug charges,” a source said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/athletics-australia-president-david-grace-qc-warned-over-role-on-essendon-legal-team/story-fni5f6kv-1226964243086

http://www.runnerstribe.com/article/23609-David-Grace-QC-unanimously-appointed-as-new-Aths-Aus-President

Edited April 2, 2015 by deefrag

[binman 43,137]

Bin

Doesnt matter WHAT they thought

Its what they did.( or intended)

Thats what the Code deals with.

Yes exactly. And they were found not guilty of using banned drugs. Not guilty.

You obviously believe they did use a banned drug but that is completely irrelevant to your argument. How could they be charged with intent to use a banned drug when they've been cleared of using it?

[beelzebub 23,380]

My reading of the rules is different.

What you are saying is correct for a positive test.

If there is no positive test a different rule applies. Intent to take a prohibited substance.... And it would appear that is how the players have received no penalty. They cannot prove that the players intended to take a prohibited substance.

I hope subsequent testing does find them guilty.

youre rifht...but need to keep going.

Theres no requirement that they knew it to be prohibited. Only that it is and they intended to use it. Their actual knowledge of it being banned isnt required to satisfy the transgression.

They can be ignorant, (or even duped ). What a user ( or intended user ) knows in this instance mat only go to mitigation.

If a player either 1) hasnt gathered the knowledge or 2) given false assurance doesnt absolve them.

Its incumbent upon them TO know and to verify.

[What 18,810]

Yes exactly. And they were found not guilty of using banned drugs. Not guilty.

no they werent

The judges may not have been 'comfortably satisfied' that TB4 made it into their bodies, but the players cant be considered not guilty, especially with the case ongoing and their blood samples on ice for the next decade

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

For the whole regime to work, if players are duped, they must have to prove they were duped, not the other way around. Otherwise there is a big loophole.

Of course, since you can't be duped unless someone duped you, part of the proof would require testifying against those who duped you which makes an interesting situation.

Yep. This is from the paper WJ referred to earlier.

… in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions, it was stated that ‘throughout the web of English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt’. There are exceptions to this, however, and the evidential burden, for instance, rests with the accused if he or she raises the defence of provocation, duress, self-defence, automatism, honest or reasonable mistake. (Davies 2012: 2)

So it's not just an issue for sports tribunals.

[ManDee 7,162]

Yes exactly. And they were found not guilty of using banned drugs. Not guilty.

You obviously believe they did use a banned drug but that is completely irrelevant to your argument. How could they be charged with intent to use a banned drug when they've been cleared of using it?

Easily. If the players new that the drugs that they intended to use were banned or should have known they were banned they are guilty whether they used them or not.

For instance a document is found where the players were told that they would be taking TB4 and they signed it.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Yes exactly. And they were found not guilty of using banned drugs. Not guilty.

You obviously believe they did use a banned drug but that is completely irrelevant to your argument. How could they be charged with intent to use a banned drug when they've been cleared of using it?

you put a cart before the horse then disregard the horse.

Strangely thats exactly what the 3 wise ones chose to do.

There are separate elements to this.

The club sought to procure tb4 as that is all Dank dealt with ( as a varietal)

Players signed on to use Thymosin...amongst a swag of things.

ergo...whether they meant to or not the intent ( understood or not ) was to use , even if inadvertently. ..a banned drug.

The code doesnt need you to take it. This whole argument and focus on 'taking is erroneous. That is another issue. .related undoubtedly.

Edited April 2, 2015 by beelzebub

[ManDee 7,162]

youre rifht...but need to keep going.

Theres no requirement that they knew it to be prohibited. Only that it is and they intended to use it. Their actual knowledge of it being banned isnt required to satisfy the transgression.

They can be ignorant, (or even duped ). What a user ( or intended user ) knows in this instance mat only go to mitigation.

If a player either 1) hasnt gathered the knowledge or 2) given false assurance doesnt absolve them.

Its incumbent upon them TO know and to verify.

Got to love an active discussion without personal insults.

Yes, "Theres no requirement that they knew it to be prohibited. Only that it is and they intended to use it"

But that ignores the possibility that they were told one drug (legal) and given another (illegal drug). In that case they did not intend to use a prohibited drug. They intended to use a legal drug. Then it falls to a positive test, If positive they are guilty under a different rule.

[dpositive 1,668]

So glad that the winner of the 2012 AFL Brownlow Medal, who admitted that he took some drugs as part of a pharmacological experiment, (reported by his own clubs internal investigator) is glad to move on now having been exonerated as there were no records. His performance was obviously not enhanced because of any program he participated in because there is no record of such a program. What a pity. This is exactly the sort of performance enhancement that drives improvement at all levels

[beelzebub 23,380]

Got to love an active discussion without personal insults.

Yes, "Theres no requirement that they knew it to be prohibited. Only that it is and they intended to use it"

But that ignores the possibility that they were told one drug (legal) and given another (illegal drug). In that case they did not intend to use a prohibited drug. They intended to use a legal drug. Then it falls to a positive test, If positive they are guilty under a different rule.

actually it doesnt.

Wada deals with this by mitigation.

[Redleg 40,974]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

[ManDee 7,162]

actually it doesnt.

Wada deals with this by mitigation.

Sorry Beeb I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

[ManDee 7,162]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players. GUILTY

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4. NOT RELEVANT - INTENT = GUILTY

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it. NOT RELEVANT - NO TEST EXISTS FOR TB4 IN ATHLETES

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players. RELEVANT TO THE PLAYERS NOT TO DANK

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug. CORRECT

END of story. NOT BY A LONG SHOT

Edited April 2, 2015 by ManDee

[binman 43,137]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

But red we know that they did, we just know it. We don't need evidence. We can can come to the conclusion they are guilty based on the information that is in the media - yes the same media we slam for being selective and full of agendas and mouthpieces for the EFC camp and the AFL, but sstill we know. We don't need a month of deliberations. We don't really need any reliable info. The players are guilty and this is one big AFL conspiracy......

Edited April 2, 2015 by binman

[beelzebub 23,380]

Sorry Beeb I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

wada considers how you may or may not have understood or known what you took as to application of penalty.

It doesnt excuse the taking of it.

Issues.

Was there an intent to take something

Was it taken

Was it known what was taken ( and or how known...or not )

The not knowing of drugs status wont wash. If a player took something through misdirection Wada will consider that, possibly mitigate the applied penalty but its still an infraction none the less

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

Not questioning any of this Mr Leg but where are these findings reported? Has a full judgement been leaked and summarised somewhere?

[Chris 2,892]

Hi All,

Have been lurking for a long time but the discussion around intent has got me log on and put in my two cents worth.

I think people are looking at intent too individualistically. There is too much separation put between what the club wanted to do and what the players wanted to do.

I view it like this.

The players signed on to go along with what the club were doing, with the stipulation that nothing was banned. The form they signed in a poor attempt to do this included one banned substance (AOD) and an ambiguous substance that may have been banned (Thymosin). The players simply trusted the club and Dank that these things were not banned.

By not following up with appropriate due diligence (checking with ASADA is the only option), the players have not actually shown any reasonable or responsible steps to ensure what they were being given was not banned. This shows a clear intent to do as the club wants, with no personal responsibility. It follows then that if the club intended to use banned substance (Dank is part of the club), then so did the players by association. The only way they could counter that would be for the players to have done their own checks of every substance mentioned.

[hardtack 10,555]

But red we know that they did, we just know it. We don't need evidence. We can can come to the conclusion they are guilty based on the information that is in the media - yes the same media we slam for being selective and full of agendas and mouthpieces for the EFC camp and the AFL, but sstill we know. We don't need a month of deliberations. We don't really need any reliable info. The players are guilty and this is one big AFL conspiracy......

It's the "vibe".

[ManDee 7,162]

wada considers how you may or may not have understood or known what you took as to application of penalty.

It doesnt excuse the taking of it.

Issues.

Was there an intent to take something

Was it taken

Was it known what was taken ( and or how known...or not )

The not knowing of drugs status wont wash. If a player took something through misdirection Wada will consider that, possibly mitigate the applied penalty but its still an infraction none the less

So in the EFC players case.

There is no evidence that any PED's were taken.

Was there an intent to take a PED by the players? Not proven.

Were PED's taken. Not proven

Was it known what was taken. Not proven.

The not knowing aspect is where I think we differ. You say "If a player took something through misdirection Wada will consider that, possibly mitigate the applied penalty but its still an infraction none the less"

But that assumes that proof exists that the players actually took a PED. If that proof does not exist we cannot go on to the next step of mitigation, it is not required. No proof is exactly that.

That is how we end up at the intent to take PED's and that has also not been proven.

A clever ploy by the EFC legal team to keep it at AFL tribunal level. WADA need to pursue the club. They may get the players at the same time.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

I hope this clarifies the decision for some who don't seem to understand.

The Tribunal found that Charters and Dank intended to import and inject TB4 into the players.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, YES NONE, that could be accepted by the Tribunal, that what was imported was in fact actually TB4.

It was never tested and no player has been tested positive to it.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that what Dank received, he used on the players.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that any player INTENDED to use a banned drug.

END of story.

IMHO I think the issue is clouded unless and until we can see the reasons for the decision in detail. As WJ and you have said earlier, they seems to be doubt (and hence no comfortable satisfaction) about exactly what was imported, and exactly what was injected into the players. But this gets back to the lack of records, doesn't it? If we could see exactly what was injected, and where it came from, that would at least clear up the TB4 issue.

There remains the issue about player intentions, which seems to pivot on what they were told by Dank, Robinson and Hird, and perhaps more importantly, why they were doing it.

If nothing else, this and the more recent drug-related issues have shown that the AFL needs to get a lot more serious about drug tests for players.

[deefrag 277]

"THUNDER THIGHS" WATSON

Did anyone mention in evidence the noticable and much remarked upon increase in size/musculature of players achieved during the "program"?

I am guessing it was explained away by Mr Grace QC as a "mutual collective growth spurt" caused by genes and weet-bix!

[ManDee 7,162]

Hi All,

Have been lurking for a long time but the discussion around intent has got me log on and put in my two cents worth.

I think people are looking at intent too individualistically. There is too much separation put between what the club wanted to do and what the players wanted to do.

I view it like this.

The players signed on to go along with what the club were doing, with the stipulation that nothing was banned. The form they signed in a poor attempt to do this included one banned substance (AOD) and an ambiguous substance that may have been banned (Thymosin). The players simply trusted the club and Dank that these things were not banned.

By not following up with appropriate due diligence (checking with ASADA is the only option), the players have not actually shown any reasonable or responsible steps to ensure what they were being given was not banned. This shows a clear intent to do as the club wants, with no personal responsibility. It follows then that if the club intended to use banned substance (Dank is part of the club), then so did the players by association. The only way they could counter that would be for the players to have done their own checks of every substance mentioned.

Welcome Chris.

AOD's illegality was ambiguous at the time it was used by EFC. It was decided that ADADA would not continue with AOD charges as a result.

If the club lied to the players about what was being given to them they could hardly check to see if it were legal.

I am sure the club set out to cheat. I am not sure the players knew, I think that is how the program was intended to work.

The club becomes more guilty as the players are exonerated.

Edit: Too many words.

Edited April 2, 2015 by ManDee

[sue 9,107]

Leaving aside the issue of the required level of burden of proof/sufficient evidence, it is clear that the club, if not the players, was up to no good. I think we all believe that. No?

Does anyone seriously believe (I mean gut feeling, not evidence-based) that absolutely every player was duped, none at all smelled a rat given the circumstances that are acknowledged to be true by EFC in Ziggy's report?

I do, but then I was told that by the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Oh, OK., I'll control my anger at what this wretched team has done to my game. I'll put the probability that was the case at 20%.

[Chris 2,892]

Welcome Chris.

AOD's illegality was ambiguous at the time it was used by EFC. It was decided that ADADA would not continue with AOD charges as a result.

If the club lied to the players about what was being given to them they could hardly check to see if it were legal.

I am sure the club set out to cheat. I am not sure the players knew, I think that is how the program was intended to work.

The club becomes more guilty as the players are exonerated.

Edit: Too many words.

I agree with your point re AOD and there being a mix up, however, if the players had checked it would have come up as banned on the ASADA website.

The issue of the club giving players stuff they haven't told them about again comes back to the players responsibilities. If the players actually took responsibility and checked every substance, and signed for each substance then they may be able to claim no intent, and then sue the club for all it's worth, but they would still be guilty. Not doing this has left the players open and from the outside looks like a hatchet job at trying to make the players look innocent. If they were truly innocent then they would have taken their own responsibilities seriously.