THE DRUG SCANDAL: AFL TRIBUNAL DECIDES

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

That's what was supposed to be the case here as well (with the Tribunal) - the decision to not include the Alavi/Charters evidence, or not give it much weight seems at odds with that.

Agree ('supposed to be'). It will be interesting to see what weight was or was not given to what if the judgement is ever made fully public ... But the implications of CAS's capacity also to treat evidence in whatever manner they see fit presumably throws everything wide open again if WADA appeals.

[chookrat 4,268]

Aren't you a lawyer WJ?

Not having the evidence to prove your case isn't a 'technicality'. It's simply losing the case.

Have a read of Jake Niall's article today: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-essendon-verdict-the-inside-story-of-the-antidoping-tribunal-hearing-20150331-1mc2nb.html

You can see the significant problems ASADA had, and were always going to have, in making their case without positive tests. It's not a 'technicality' that got the players off, it's a lack of proof to the required standard.

I also quite like the irony of the vast majority on here putting their heads in the sand on the result - it couldn't possibly be that ASADA didn't have the evidence, it has to be a conspiracy! The AFL rigged it! The Murdoch press is rigging it! It's all rigged I tell you! Heads in the sand, ignoring the very real and far more believable possibility that ASADA simply didn't get the job done, doing the exact thing that they bagged Essendon for doing regarding its failure to take proper care.

Titus - I think the outcry on DL is because it is unambiguous that the EFC ran an injection regime with strong circumstantial evidence pointing to doping. The technicality is in the burden of proof and that unsworn statements do not carry the same weight as sworn statements. The tribunal in no way exonerated the players, it merely highlighted a breakdown in chain of custody of TB4 btw dank and the players.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

That is the thing that most people here fail to understand. The precedence with WADA and CAS has already been firmly set, and that precedence will find ESSENDON and their players firmly guilty. There have been numerous far less serious cases go through CAS than this, and have come out the other side as guilty. This will be no different. But don't expect any change from the AFL appeals tribunal, the AFL has them firmly under control. It will need to get to CAS for there to be any change.

People' especially EFC supporters, don't understand how WADA works. They think it's all over.

[old dee 23,873]

People' especially EFC supporters, don't understand how WADA works. They think it's all over.

It is!

Only chest beating left

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

Essendon mate assures me that Dank Avavi and Charters cannot be touched by WADA because they do not work in the football industry

Can someone clarify this for me??

[What 18,810]

Essendon mate assures me that Dank Avavi and Charters cannot be touched by WADA because they do not work in the football industry

Can someone clarify this for me??

Pretty sure that the CAS can compel anyone to be questioned whether they work in sport or not

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

Pretty sure that the CAS can compel anyone to be questioned whether they work in sport or not

Million $ question!!!

[Chris 2,892]

Essendon mate assures me that Dank Avavi and Charters cannot be touched by WADA because they do not work in the football industry

Can someone clarify this for me??

It depends what you mean by touched? If you are talking about anything but ban them from sport then no they can't. But they can ban them from working in sport again.

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

It depends what you mean by touched? If you are talking about anything but ban them from sport then no they can't. But they can ban them from working in sport again.

No i mean supbeona them under oath Chris

Do you know what the score is?

[Chris 2,892]

No i mean supbeona them under oath Chris

Do you know what the score is?

Would hope for he sake of clarity that they could but have no idea.

Last I saw the score the Tigers had come back from a long way and were within a goal.

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

Would hope for he sake of clarity that they could but have no idea.

Last I saw the score the Tigers had come back from a long way and were within a goal.

Yes early calls are fraught with danger!!!!

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

Good luck with that one Mr. Dank.

I don't think he is the sharpest tool in the shed, and I don't think he seriously wants his day in court. It is presumably a standard response to McDevitt's statements, and he probably thinks that the threat of legal action is both enough to shut him up and the opening of negotiations for settlement. I suspect (and hope) that he is wrong on both counts.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

Great discussion guys, have a great Easter.

Agreed. By far the best discussion of the issues I have seen. Have a great Easter all.

[What 18,810]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...supplements-saga/story-fndv8gad-1227289779367

WORKSAFE Victoria is closing in on Essendon and the AFL over the club’s “pharmacologically experimental” supplements program.

The authority is seeking to interview the 34 past and present Essendon players cleared of doping by an AFL tribunal on Tuesday.

Letters inviting the players to meet with WorkSafe investigators were distributed this week.

[chookrat 4,268]

I think WADA has to get serious about this case. It seems to me that EFC bumbled their way to this point. I'm not referring to their legal and PR tactics, but to what happened earlier so that the AFL Tribunal, kosher or not, could come up with this decision. Other codes around the world could look at this case and systematically do what Essendon did probably more by luck than 'good' management. WADA can't allow that.

Sue - I actually think the EFC embarked on a deliberate 'black ops' campaign with safeguards in case they were caught. Supporting this;

1. Waiver forms identifying Thymodilin which protects players and also allows them to think the program is above board.

2. Tests organised by Dank to check markers for PEDS.

3. Lack of records for a $700k+ program indicating the club hierarchy knew (who approved the purchase orders?) but wanted it kept at arms length in case anything went wrong.

I also remember reading an article which mentioned how the EFC hierarchy were meeting Dank and Carter to find holes in ASADAs case.

Hopefully WADA can rewrite the script and tell the EFC that the circumstantial evidence provides 'comfortable satisfaction' that PEDS were taken and unless the players can demonstrate otherwise they are gone. This forces the players to go after the EFC (to prove their innocence or that they were duped) and the EFC to go after Dank and Carter, unless they are complicit, in which case they go down.

It is a sham that the AFL tribunal has not used its discretion to interpret the evidence in a way that puts the onus on the EFC to produce evidence of what the players took, especially given the club had access to Dank and Carter but never asked for Danks records. Instead they used the meeting to find holes inASADAs case at the same time that Paddy Rider and his partner had a newborn baby and the constant fear that the injection regime may cause side effects.

The directors and senior personnel involved in this should end up in Jail.

[biggestred 5,145]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...supplements-saga/story-fndv8gad-1227289779367

WORKSAFE Victoria is closing in on Essendon and the AFL over the clubs pharmacologically experimental supplements program.

The authority is seeking to interview the 34 past and present Essendon players cleared of doping by an AFL tribunal on Tuesday.

Letters inviting the players to meet with WorkSafe investigators were distributed this week.

Not before time too.

[Macca 17,041]

It's far from being over ... ASADA and/or WADA can appeal (I'm expecting WADA to appeal to the CAS in Switzerland)

And ...

Ex-Bomber Hal Hunter steps up supplements case against Essendon

"This program exposed players, including the plaintiff, to significant risks to their health, safety and general wellbeing, as well as the risk of using prohibited substances," Constantinou's affidavit says.

"Senior members of the Essendon Football Club may have been involved in or should have been aware of the supplements program."Lawyers for the AFL and Essendon will have 13 days to respond to Hunter's claim.

It is believed the managers of other disgruntled former Essendon players have expressed interest in joining Hunter's action.

Essendon and the AFL could be investigated by WorkSafe Victoria over supplements saga

WORKSAFE Victoria is closing in on Essendon and the AFL over the club’s “pharmacologically experimental” supplements program.

Up to six former Bombers are exploring damages claims against Essendon and the AFL.

Edit: HH has already posted the WORKSAFE story (above)

Edited April 2, 2015 by Macca

[Whispering_Jack 30,708]

On quotes and things, Jack, I'd be interested in what you think about this (from the Davies paper):

"CAS has also made it clear that ‘oth the initial arbitration panel (as with the initial decision maker) and the appeal arbitration panel are not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform themselves in such manner as the arbitrators think fit’." (2012: 6)

Well, the AFL Tribunal clearly thought otherwise.

[bing181 9,330]

1. Waiver forms identifying Thymodilin which protects players and also allows them to think the program is above board.

Waiver forms mention Thymosin, not Thymomodlin. There is no such substance as Thymodilin. Even "Thymosin" is ambiguous as it could cover a range of substances, though the Tribunal accepted it wasn't Thymosin Alpha 1.

[rjay 25,113]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/es...supplements-saga/story-fndv8gad-1227289779367

WORKSAFE Victoria is closing in on Essendon and the AFL over the club’s “pharmacologically experimental” supplements program.

The authority is seeking to interview the 34 past and present Essendon players cleared of doping by an AFL tribunal on Tuesday.

Letters inviting the players to meet with WorkSafe investigators were distributed this week.

Nice of them to invite the players...

[Deecisive 1,709]

This is not going away for several years at least, players will continue to queue up to sue Essendon as their football careers end and as they start to find things wrong with themselves, which could possibly be as a result of their experimental testing. Each court case will bring out more data and make it easier for the next. The only way Essendon can try to bottle this up is by paying out each player as he attempts to sue so that they don't go back to court and they don't have to put Danks, Charters, Hird and others on the witness stand.

[titan_uranus 25,046]

Perhaps people should look at the WADA Code, the ASADA Code and the AFL antidoping policies and look at the legislation involved.

All of these things were established to catch drug cheats. Lack of intent only helps if you had no conscious intent to have a substance ingested into the system. The only case in the history of the current anti doping regime in which it was found an athlete didn't have intent to ingest a substance which later turned out to be illegal was one where the athlete was operated on while unconscious.

Throughout this saga, it has been stressed time and again that athletes are responsible for the substances that go inside their bodies. These athletes signed waiver forms showing they intended to take a raft of substances including thymosin. The question is whether the evidence proferred by ASADA was sufficient to lead to a ruling on the basis of comfortable satisfaction in accordance with the AFL's Code and whether the Tribunal correctly ruled it could not come to a decision on the comfortable satisfaction standard because of the absence of sworn statements from Dank, Charter and/or Alavi?

It's also relevant to the offence of 'attempted use'. In the note under Article 2.2 the WADA Code says the following:

Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method requires proof of intent on the Athlete’s part.

It follows that if you don't intend to use the banned substance, you can't have attempted to use it.

This makes sense policy-wise. The purpose of the Use/Attempted Use offence is to catch people who don't test positive. It's the fall back - if you don't get a test but you can show they used it, or failing that, that they tried to use it, then you can still get them, but that's all it's there for. Wade Lees intended to use the substance he was done for. The intent was non-contentious. For the Essendon players there is no evidence they intended to use TB4 aside, potentially, from the waiver forms. No surprise then that no charge was laid for Attempted Use.

I think you'll find that a lot more than that was put to the Tribunal.

They took the easy way out.

You have no grounds to be saying this. You're just frustrated.

The Tribunal took a perfectly acceptable way out. It wasn't some 'easy' way out.

You're focusing heavily on the 'comfortable satisfaction' phrase and your perception that the Tribunal misapplied it. You haven't seen the reasons so you can't actually know they misapplied it, but regardless, what is the exact problem as you see it? The article you quoted only serves to show that the standard lies between the civil and criminal standards. Therefore, it's not enough to say it's more likely than not that the drug was TB4. ASADA had to go beyond that. On what we know so far, which isn't the whole story, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Tribunal not being prepared to say it was more than simply 'likely' that it was TB4, and I really don't think you have adequate grounds to say otherwise yet.

Titus - I think the outcry on DL is because it is unambiguous that the EFC ran an injection regime with strong circumstantial evidence pointing to doping. The technicality is in the burden of proof and that unsworn statements do not carry the same weight as sworn statements. The tribunal in no way exonerated the players, it merely highlighted a breakdown in chain of custody of TB4 btw dank and the players.

I have no disagreement with that, but the target of this frustration is EFC. ASADA didn't charge Essendon, it charged the players. Accordingly, the issue is whether the players did something wrong, not the club. The players don't need to be 'exonerated' as they are innocent unless and until proven guilty. They weren't proven guilty, so they remain innocent. That means nothing as against Essendon though, who will forever remain culpable, no matter what happens from here.

[bing181 9,330]

Wade Lees intended to use the substance he was done for. The intent was non-contentious. For the Essendon players there is no evidence they intended to use TB4 aside, potentially, from the waiver forms. No surprise then that no charge was laid for Attempted Use.

Woah ... Hang on a minute:

Wade Lees attempted to use "a product". He didn't intend to use a banned substance. Identical to the players. They intended to use "a product" (whatever they were being injected with). They didn't intend to use a banned substance.

In both cases, ASADA's position was that the product was or contained a banned substance. Only difference was that in the Lees' case, ASADA had the product and could verify the constituents.

Also, getting into a really narrow definition of intent here that just doesn't apply in terms of the WADA code - this is very different from a criminal court and a case for attempted armed robbery or attempted GBH.

If you turn up to Dank's office at the appointed time to be injected with something that unbeknown to you is illegal, that's intent (you stepped into the office, intending to be injected). But even if you don't make it to that appointment because your car breaks down on the way, that's also intent (because you intended to have that injection). If ASADA intercept Dank's car as he drove into the Essendon car park with an Esky full of TB4 and a diary full of appointments with players for injections, that's intent (on the part of both the players and Dank.) If you place an on-line order for TB4 or CJC (http://www.maximpeptide.com/peptides/) but your shipment gets lost in the post, that's intent. If you place an on-line order for "GoFast" that is advertised as containing no illegal substances, but which ASADA stop at the border and discover is shot through with banned amphetamines, that's also intent.

You don't have to intend to take a banned substance. You just have to intend to carry out a course of action that would result in banned products entering your system - knowingly or not.

Though also not sure of its relevance here because the Essendon players did have injections, it's not just an intention to have those injections. Thus, there was no charge for attempted use because they actually used - unlike Wade Lees. No-one disputes the fact that the players were injected (with something).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but not sure why this is posing a problem for people.

[bing181 9,330]

The players don't need to be 'exonerated' as they are innocent unless and until proven guilty. They weren't proven guilty, so they remain innocent.

That's not how it works.

There's a presumption of innocence until your case is decided. At that stage, you can't be "not guilty", because there hasn't been a ruling on your guilt. Subsequently, once there has been a ruling, you're proved to be either guilty or not guilty.

You aren't proved innocent.

Or, as sharper minds than mine have put it ...

"The presumption of innocence is actually a misnomer. It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence."

The players have been found not guilty. They haven't been found innocent.

(FWIW, I accept that they're not guilty. I also accept the tribunal's verdict.)

[Dees2014 2,377]

I think WADA has to get serious about this case. It seems to me that EFC bumbled their way to this point. I'm not referring to their legal and PR tactics, but to what happened earlier so that the AFL Tribunal, kosher or not, could come up with this decision. Other codes around the world could look at this case and systematically do what Essendon did probably more by luck than 'good' management. WADA can't allow that.

Let's be crystal clear about this. WADA has been intimately involved in this case from the beginning. It is significant that McDevitt at his press conference made a point of saying he had a lengthy telephone conference with them on Tuesday night following the bringing down of the initial verdict. This presumably was not to talk about the weather! My guess is that WADA and ASADA have had a long term strategy worked out for sometime and the moves in the last day or so are just the initial skirmishes in that strategy. I have said for sometime this will eventually go to CAS, and it will. WADA is the only organisation which can take it there.