a case of cos and effect.

Salad days, eh? But I am sure someone gave them a dressing down.

As you said, she failed a drug test. They know what she took. The Essendon players didn't. They don't know what they took.

Intent doesn't come into it in the Essendon case.

Usually a waiver form handballs responsibility onto the person signing it. eg. Signing a waiver form when go-karting puts the responsibility of injury with the person who signs the form.

If there are waiver forms. Depending on what the wording on the forms were, eg "Essendon FC is not responsible for any outcomes (outcomes used loosely) that may arise from the the use of this drug (could be legal or illegal)".

If the Essendon player has not queried ASADA on whether said drug is illegal, and later said drug is found to be illegal. Doesn't signing the waiver from constitute intent.

Dank to sue (or so he says), should be interesting:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-02/stephen-dank-to-sue-asada-chief-ben-mcdevitt-reports/6368224

If people are hung up on intent, think about this.

What did the Essendon players intend to do? Take a supplement.

What was their belief? That it was legal.

Which supplement were they to take? The one that Dank was going to give them.

What was that? Who the hell knows?

What testing was done on the substance received by Dank to properly identify it? None that we know of.

Did he give them that substance? Who the hell knows ( other than Dank who is not talking)?

Where is the proof of intent to knowingly take a banned substance then?

We got away with it to.

The mix up is simple. The ACC asked ASADA if it was banned, ASADA said no because it wasn't specifically banned. ASADA forgot to mention that it was prohibited under the S0 catch all clause. The ACC took this to mean it was fine for athletes, as they would, and published that it wasn't banned. Because this was published, and the reference would go to ASADA, it provided a viable out for using it. Due to this ASADA chose not to pursue the case.

Thanx Chris

Wonder if it would have been easier for ASADA to argue over a few words in the ACC report and nail em for AOD rather than trying to prove TB4 by chain of custody ect.

Also, if Dank used AOD at Essendon during 2012 and the ACC report surfaced early 2013 (after the supplement program had been stopped) on what infomation/authority

did Dank rely for his sense of immunity when openly administering it to 34 players?

Dank to sue (or so he says), should be interesting:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-02/stephen-dank-to-sue-asada-chief-ben-mcdevitt-reports/6368224

I wonder if he realises that means someone can get him into the box ?

it should

But it doesn't, unless you have absolute proof of the substance to be taken, as they did in the Lees case.

This is where the Essendon players should have contacted ASADA and queried the legality of the substance. By this simple correspondence they have showed that their intent was not to take the drug.

They have questioned whether the drug is OK, hence the attempt is not there, or the intent is lessened.

I am enjoying this conversation.

If the club did a power point display for the players showing correspondence saying that the supplements that they planned on using were all OK and the players did a check and found Thymosin (for example) was OK it would give credence to the lack of intent to use illegal PED's. Most if not all clubs use supplements, do you think the players check if they are OK? I know that they should but do they?

Essendon knew that they were cheating so they would not contact ASADA. Hird inquired with the AFL about peptides and was told to steer clear of them. He ignored that advice.

How could the players ask ASADA about the legality of a drug if they were not told what it was and had been shown documents (I presume) to say the program was OK?

As you said, she failed a drug test. They know what she took. The Essendon players didn't. They don't know what they took.

Intent doesn't come into it in the Essendon case.

Precisely.

But it doesn't, unless you have absolute proof of the substance to be taken, as they did in the Lees case.

we have both ends...just saying

If people are hung up on intent, think about this.

What did the Essendon players intend to do? Take a supplement.

What was their belief? That it was legal.

Which supplement were they to take? The one that Dank was going to give them.

What was that? Who the hell knows?

What testing was done on the substance received by Dank to properly identify it? None that we know of.

Did he give them that substance? Who the hell knows ( other than Dank who is not talking)?

Where is the proof of intent to knowingly take a banned substance then?

Good points, Redleg. But what about the waiver forms? Wouldn't they be relevant to the first few points above?

If people are hung up on intent, think about this.

What did the Essendon players intend to do? Take a supplement.

What was their belief? That it was legal.

Which supplement were they to take? The one that Dank was going to give them.

What was that? Who the hell knows?

What testing was done on the substance received by Dank to properly identify it? None that we know of.

Did he give them that substance? Who the hell knows ( other than Dank who is not talking)?

Where is the proof of intent to knowingly take a banned substance then?

Whatever it takes??????

If people are hung up on intent, think about this.

What did the Essendon players intend to do? Take a supplement.

What was their belief? That it was legal.

Which supplement were they to take? The one that Dank was going to give them.

What was that? Who the hell knows?

What testing was done on the substance received by Dank to properly identify it? None that we know of.

Did he give them that substance? Who the hell knows ( other than Dank who is not talking)?

Where is the proof of intent to knowingly take a banned substance then?

The fact that they intended to take a supplement (used loosely) supplied by Dank without going through the right avenues to make sure that the supplement (used loosely) was not illegal.

If they had asked ASADA whether said supplement is illegal. It shows ASADA that the athlete has changed their intent to use the supplement by querying its legality.

But it doesn't, unless you have absolute proof of the substance to be taken, as they did in the Lees case.

So how do you stop players and clubs cheating if they just arrange their affairs like EFC did (or didn't)?

we have both ends...just saying

I understand, just stick to the right end, or instead of your goal, you might find a behind.

As you said, she failed a drug test. They know what she took. The Essendon players didn't. They don't know what they took.

Intent doesn't come into it in the Essendon case.

Wrong way around. Intent does come into a case where there is a positive test. If there is no positive test, then intent can be used to ban someone.

If people are hung up on intent, think about this.

What did the Essendon players intend to do? Take a supplement.

What was their belief? That it was legal.

Which supplement were they to take? The one that Dank was going to give them.

What was that? Who the hell knows?

What testing was done on the substance received by Dank to properly identify it? None that we know of.

Did he give them that substance? Who the hell knows ( other than Dank who is not talking)?

Where is the proof of intent to knowingly take a banned substance then?

When you suddenly gain huge amounts of muscle and don't even question the legality.

If it happened to me, I'd pique my interest enough to ask a few questions.

So how do you stop players and clubs cheating if they just arrange their affairs like EFC did (or didn't)?

As McDevitt said in this case, it is bloody difficult.

That is why they are so strong on positive tests.

Wrong way around. Intent does come into a case where there is a positive test. If there is no positive test, then intent can be used to ban someone.

Incorrect. Intent is only relevant if you can prove what was intended to be taken was illegal.

Usually a waiver form handballs responsibility onto the person signing it. eg. Signing a waiver form when go-karting puts the responsibility of injury with the person who signs the form.

If there are waiver forms. Depending on what the wording on the forms were, eg "Essendon FC is not responsible for any outcomes (outcomes used loosely) that may arise from the the use of this drug (could be legal or illegal)".

If the Essendon player has not queried ASADA on whether said drug is illegal, and later said drug is found to be illegal. Doesn't signing the waiver from constitute intent.

I have not read the waiver.

You cannot sign away your legal rights.

If the waiver mentions legal drugs and you are given illegal drugs that does not show intent on the part of the player.

Edit: By intent I mean in the context of intent to use illegal PED"s

I am enjoying this conversation.

If the club did a power point display for the players showing correspondence saying that the supplements that they planned on using were all OK and the players did a check and found Thymosin (for example) was OK it would give credence to the lack of intent to use illegal PED's. Most if not all clubs use supplements, do you think the players check if they are OK? I know that they should but do they?

Essendon knew that they were cheating so they would not contact ASADA. Hird inquired with the AFL about peptides and was told to steer clear of them. He ignored that advice.

How could the players ask ASADA about the legality of a drug if they were not told what it was and had been shown documents (I presume) to say the program was OK?

Your first paragraph is indicating that the players assume that the club is right. It comes back to not trusting anyone. Assumptions are very dangerous.

Who's to say that the EFC (which they probably did) fabricated this said document to fool the players.

Then the players have to have direct correspondence with ASADA, could as easily be an e-mail (paper trail), querying the evidence and documentation the EFC supplied to them.

If people are hung up on intent, think about this.

What did the Essendon players intend to do? Take a supplement.

What was their belief? That it was legal.

Which supplement were they to take? The one that Dank was going to give them.

What was that? Who the hell knows?

What testing was done on the substance received by Dank to properly identify it? None that we know of.

Did he give them that substance? Who the hell knows ( other than Dank who is not talking)?

Where is the proof of intent to knowingly take a banned substance then?

It isn't intent to knowingly taking a banned substance. It is intent to take a banned substance. To me the players intended to follow the clubs program, and as such defer their own intent to that of the program, which begs the question, did the program intend to use banned drugs?

Thanx Chris

Wonder if it would have been easier for ASADA to argue over a few words in the ACC report and nail em for AOD rather than trying to prove TB4 by chain of custody ect.

Also, if Dank used AOD at Essendon during 2012 and the ACC report surfaced early 2013 (after the supplement program had been stopped) on what infomation/authority

did Dank rely for his sense of immunity when openly administering it to 34 players?

Good question! Only thought is he asked the same question of ASADA and got the same incomplete answer.

I have not read the waiver.

You cannot sign away your legal rights.

If the waiver mentions legal drugs and you are given illegal drugs that does not show intent on the part of the player.

Edit: By intent I mean in the context of intent to use illegal PED"s

This is a really good discussion

I haven't read the waiver either.

But generally waivers are set up to prevent companies from getting sued from obvious risks. eg. Sorry for the go-karting metaphor. The waiver form at go-karting is not signing rights away as such. But says that you understand the risk in the activity and if you get injured from this activity you can't sue us because you have accepted the risks.

In the Essendon case, (if i was EFC) it wouldn't be written "legal drug" or "illegal drug" I would have written the name of the drug (whether how accurate the name was). Then it would be the responsibility of the player to find out from ASADA whether the drug is illegal or, in the Thymosin case, we require more information before we can say whether this drug is acceptable for use.

So by signing the waiver form without doing the research with ASADA, the player have said they understand the risks involved with this supplement program, and take responsibility of future consequences.

But it doesn't, unless you have absolute proof of the substance to be taken, as they did in the Lees case.

Lees didn't take anything, he didn't even receive the substance as customs took it. He had no positive test, had never been in contact with a banned drug, but was banned as it was proven that he intended to take a banned drug.