THE DRUG SCANDAL: AFL TRIBUNAL DECIDES

[hells bells 2,023]

Essendon have continued to buy time, every action they have taken has been about delaying the inevitable.

WADA has the last word, and the AFL will not be final arbiter's of the end result - a court will be. Nothing has changed.

Essendon just buy themselves time, as they have done throughout this whole process.

King this has been my gut feel the whole time, by the time and charges and suspensions are given, if WADA decide to appeal, most of the list will have changed and the football will carry on without major interruption.

As you say there is a long game view going on here, it feels like the whole thing's been scripted from the start.

[Whispering_Jack 30,721]

But as you've said previously you have only seen part of the evidence. I would have thought your legal training and logical thought would have led to a position of support for the tribunal who, as Redleg has so clearly pointed out, are honourable men of your profession.

After all Jack, they've seen it all and you haven't. Having said that I accept that when you have read it all (I can't understand how you have the energy) you won't change your view.

I think your apparent anger is misplaced.

But you should be angry, that I agree with.

Not angry Bob - disappointed that the Tribunal took a narrow view of the standard of proof required to make the proper findings. I stated that in my opening post where I referred to a legal paper on comfortable satisfaction and nobody else here has gone close to touching on it. If the players feel exonerated, good for them but I think that whilst they might be elated at getting off the hook, it will soon become clear to then that the decision will not prevent them from being seen in the same light as many of the East German athletes, Chinese swimmers and assorted other athletes who were experimental robots in systems that were set up to beat clean athletes through use of superior scientific technology. Think about Raelene Boyle who was robbed of three Olympic Gold Medals because of this. This is what the anti doping laws were set up to defeat, it's why a certain standard of proof was required and why ultimately, the WADA Code must be the overarching document (and not local sovereign law) to govern such an investigation. It's why I believe that WADA has a duty to all clean athletes (and if the 34 are really "clean, them too) to take this to appeal.

Reading between the lines, I can see the Tribunal coming out with a finding against Dank which it should but which will further complicate the position of the players. They have not been vindicated and if you're a "player person" you should reflect on that.

[Lucifers Hero 40,375]

Ouch!!

Ben McDevitt has revealed his concern that crucial records of the Essendon supplements program may have been "either destroyed or removed". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-chief-reveals-concern-that-essendon-records-may-have-been-destroyed-20150401-1mcthw.html

Finally, someone calls out the elephant-in-the-room!!!!

[Whispering_Jack 30,721]

Ouch!!

Ben McDevitt has revealed his concern that crucial records of the Essendon supplements program may have been "either destroyed or removed". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-chief-reveals-concern-that-essendon-records-may-have-been-destroyed-20150401-1mcthw.html

Finally, someone calls out the elephant-in-the-room!!!!

Not "finally" ... according to the article in the OP, the Tribunal Chairman David Jones said there had been a "deplorable absence of records in the program relating to its administration".

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

Ouch!!

Ben McDevitt has revealed his concern that crucial records of the Essendon supplements program may have been "either destroyed or removed". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-chief-reveals-concern-that-essendon-records-may-have-been-destroyed-20150401-1mcthw.html

Finally, someone calls out the elephant-in-the-room!!!!

This is why Dank must be made to speak....under oath

Makes it hard though when the State Premier says "Time to move on"

ANGRY

[Lucifers Hero 40,375]

Not "finally" ... according to the article in the OP, the Tribunal Chairman David Jones said there had been a "deplorable absence of records in the program relating to its administration".

True. For me, absence of records talks to lack of competency. Stating 'they were either destroyed or removed' talks to willful sabotaging of evidence with the associated dishonesty and cheating (and maybe illegality).

I hadn't seen anyone come out with this 'accusation' and applaud McDevitt for being so blunt and direct.

[Lucifers Hero 40,375]

This is why Dank must be made to speak....under oath

Makes it hard though when the State Premier says "Time to move on"

ANGRY

Lets not forget the State Premier is a staunch Essendon supporter. He is yet to appoint Worksafe's new CEO. The cynic in me says he has waited till after the Tribunal decision

...doesn't bode well for any meaningful outcome for Worksafe investigation.

[Lucifers Hero 40,375]

This is why Dank must be made to speak....under oath

Makes it hard though when the State Premier says "Time to move on"

ANGRY

You have highlighted another flaw in the Tribunal system of hearing anti-doping cases. Witnesses are not required to give evidence under oath. Makes me wonder whether even if Charter et al had appeared before the Tribunal if it would have made any difference, as evidence not under oath can always be labelled as 'unreliable'.

It is another reason why WADA need to take this to CAS where witnesses can be subpoenaed and where they are required to give evidence under oath.

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

Lets not forget the State Premier is a staunch Essendon supporter.

He is yet to appoint that body's new CEO. The cynic in me says he has waited till after the Tribunal decision...doesn't bode well for any meaningful outcome for Worksafe investigation.

Yes Lucifer i know Andrews is a Bomber...made me sick when i heard his grab on radio last night

[What 18,810]

Ouch!!

Ben McDevitt has revealed his concern that crucial records of the Essendon supplements program may have been "either destroyed or removed". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/asada-chief-reveals-concern-that-essendon-records-may-have-been-destroyed-20150401-1mcthw.html

Finally, someone calls out the elephant-in-the-room!!!!

I love McDevitt

[Dees2014 2,377]

The default position in all of these sorts of cases ought to be: No records = automatically guilty until proven otherwise. I'm staggered that it's not already, since it's a blindingly obvious tack to take to cover your tracks. As we've just seen to the max!

WADA plays by different rules. No records will not be accepted at CAS. This seems to have been totally lost in all this post tribunal discussion. I think it is significant that the Hird and Essendon publicity machine, since the initially Tribunal findings have come out, have switched their attack to mounting a case against ASADA taking further action as effectively "a further waste of taxpayers' money". They seem to be saying ASADA should not appeal because it will cost money. No mention of whether it is the right thing to do or not. Since when have the authorities taken decisions on prosecutions on the basis it will cost the taxpayers further money? It is always on the basis on whether the culprit on the basis of probabilities has broken the law. That is what ASADA's role is, and fortunately MCDevitt does not seem to be the sort of person who is likely to be cowed by this sort of pressure. He appears to be someone who has seen this all before.

Fortunately also, WADA actions are outside the politically charged atmosphere of Australia where Hird's publicity machine has no effect and judgements at CAS are made from a different set of criteria. It is not a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. At CAS, you actually have to prove your innocence. Without records, and very strong circumstantial evidence of illegal drug taking, they are very unlikely to be given the benefit of the doubt. There are numerous instances where CAS have enforced judgements in very similar circumstances. Innocence has to be proven eg you cannot avoid a drug test by simply not turning up. You get banned. By not keeping records, then claiming innocence, when ASADA has proved that illegal drugs were supplied to Essendon in very large quantities, amounts to the same thing. In CAS's view, IMHO you will get banned also.

I have said all along that I believe ultimately this will be decided by CAS as a result of an appeal by WADA. I note that during Mc Devitt's Press Conference yesterday that he said he is in regular contact with WADA, including a conversation on Tuesday night following the ruling. I have no doubt they are preparing to take this all the way until they get the decision they think is just. This still has a number of steps to go.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Dees2014

[Slartibartfast 17,653]

Not angry Bob - disappointed that the Tribunal took a narrow view of the standard of proof required to make the proper findings. I stated that in my opening post where I referred to a legal paper on comfortable satisfaction and nobody else here has gone close to touching on it. If the players feel exonerated, good for them but I think that whilst they might be elated at getting off the hook, it will soon become clear to then that the decision will not prevent them from being seen in the same light as many of the East German athletes, Chinese swimmers and assorted other athletes who were experimental robots in systems that were set up to beat clean athletes through use of superior scientific technology. Think about Raelene Boyle who was robbed of three Olympic Gold Medals because of this. This is what the anti doping laws were set up to defeat, it's why a certain standard of proof was required and why ultimately, the WADA Code must be the overarching document (and not local sovereign law) to govern such an investigation. It's why I believe that WADA has a duty to all clean athletes (and if the 34 are really "clean, them too) to take this to appeal.

Reading between the lines, I can see the Tribunal coming out with a finding against Dank which it should but which will further complicate the position of the players. They have not been vindicated and if you're a "player person" you should reflect on that.

I'm angry Jack for reasons I've stated above. But if anyone, players included, thinks they weren't given illicit drugs then they live in fairy land. And if anyone feels they were exonerated they are deluded. The whole world knows they cheated and the whole world knows why they got off

I agree, Essendon are like the East Germans and Chinese. Let's hope they don't win anything.

[sue 9,146]

So to avoid being found guilty of intent to take, all a player has to do is sign a form which states that what he will be injected with is kosher, and then never ask "what was I being injected with". All a club has to do is to get the injections done by someone who is outside of their direct control and trust he "keeps" no records.

What the hell - allow the players to ingest and inject whatever they like even if it kills them and their kids. After all this is a free enterprise society, the players need to maximise their income and there is far too much regulation.

[Dees2014 2,377]

True. For me, absence of records talks to lack of competency. Stating 'they were either destroyed or removed' talks to willful sabotaging of evidence with the associated dishonesty and cheating (and maybe illegality).

I hadn't seen anyone come out with this 'accusation' and applaud McDevitt for being so blunt and direct.

But you can bet this issue will be front and centre for ASADA and WADA as they prepare their case for appeal to the Appeals tribunal, and then CAS.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

If you have concerns about what worksafe are doing (or not doing) in regards to Essendon you should write to the Minster responsible, your local member or the premier or all if the above.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

At least essendon have no excuse for being crap now. Hird can't coach and their list looks ordinary. Let's enjoy their mediocre season.

[Damo 3,376]

From the players media release and Hirds apology of sorts, I see:

They know they took PEDs,

They know we (the football public) know,

They know we know that they know.

I take comfortable satisfaction in that.

[ManDee 7,222]

Wade Lees was suspended for the "attempted use of a prohibited substance".

Can someone explain to me why this "attempted" does not apply to Essendon?

I will give it a try Clint by breaking it up.

1 For the players to be found guilty for attempted use you would have to establish that they new what they attempted to take was not approved for use. It is fairly clear that the club through its employees misled the players about the substances used. (I disagree with the outcome but understand the methodology)

2 The club as you rightly question has not to my knowledge been charged with a violation on doping to date. This is a mystery to me but I think the good burghers at ASADA are waiting on a positive outcome from the tribunal against Dank to aid their case against the club. Under rule 8 of the ASADA code (see below) it should be a slam dunk guilty against the club.

I would be staggered if ASADA or WADA do not charge and subsequently rule against the EFC. The delay is interesting. The case against the EFC should be the easiest I would have thought.

As an aside, I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists here. None of us have read the evidence. From what we have read it is clear that the EFC have cheated, but to make a case against the players without positive tests or knowledge that they knew what they were taking is difficult. You would have to establish that they attempted to take banned substances and I am not sure that that could be proven. (I do think that they did take banned substances probably without their knowledge)

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

Edit:Written before reading last two pages, sorry if going over old ground.

Edited April 1, 2015 by ManDee

[biggestred 5,147]

So pathetic to see Essendon supporters on Twitter with their #sackmcdevitt hashtag

I actually feel sorry for them, its clear their brains arent fully developed

But heres the thing. I have a mate who is one of the smartest guys i know. Highly intelligent. Manages a branch of a business. Normally spot on with this sort of thing.

And he reckons asada should be disbanded and they are a disgrace. Weird.

[nutbean 8,838]

The default position in all of these sorts of cases ought to be: No records = automatically guilty until proven otherwise. I'm staggered that it's not already, since it's a blindingly obvious tack to take to cover your tracks. As we've just seen to the max!

basically 34 people dead but they can't find the murder weapon...

[GM11 782]

I'm angry Jack for reasons I've stated above. But if anyone, players included, thinks they weren't given illicit drugs then they live in fairy land. And if anyone feels they were exonerated they are deluded. The whole world knows they cheated and the whole world knows why they got off

I agree, Essendon are like the East Germans and Chinese. Let's hope they don't win anything.

Sums up exactly how I feel, Bob. Essendon FC will always equal 'cheat' to me.

[nutbean 8,838]

No records kept. ( more accurately - no records could be produced)

Key witnesses refusing to testify

This is one area where if there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence then the test should be guilty until proven innocent.

All sportsmen are well aware of the requirements around the taking of any medicines/drugs/supplements

We know the players took something - not disputed.

Normal practice is to keep accurate records about what was taken by whom and when

Unless the players can prove they didn't take anything illegal - guilty.

Edited April 1, 2015 by nutbean

[old dee 23,873]

Oh please guys it is all over it was never going to be any different.

There was never any proof of who took what or when.

Yes we all know what happened but as is quite often the case in matters of law knowing is one thing proving it is another.

Only breast beating left by Asada and Wada.

[nutbean 8,838]

I know Dank has been unreliable throughout this whole saga but he has categorically said that the records were on the intranet up until his dismissal. These things can't just disappear there are forensic IT guys that can recover it. I can't understand why this hasn't been investigated further.

The forensic IT guys that can recover data are the same forensic IT guys that can make data disappear forever.

[ManDee 7,222]

No records kept. ( more accurately - no records could be produced)

Key witnesses refusing to testify

This is one area where if there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence then the test should be guilty until proven innocent.

All sportsmen are well aware of the requirements around the taking of any medicines/drugs/supplements

We know the players took something - not disputed.

Normal practice is to keep accurate records about what was taken by whom and when

Unless the players can prove they didn't take anything illegal - guilty.

Nut, I think we need to move our attention to the practices of the club.

It is possible that the players were given illegal PED's without their permission or knowledge. If we accept the AFL Tribunal judgement then I think it clear that the club is still guilty under Rule 8 of the anti doping code. (see above)

The club clearly attempted to administer PED's.

Perhaps we should concentrate our vitriol on the EFC as they were the architects of the program and subsequent cover up. The EFC should be banished from sport.