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.

God will punish them!

Yes it will be after they die, but keep that thought and wear a knowing smile!

  On 01/04/2015 at 22:53, ManDee said:

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.

I should have rephased - when it is a one off player going outside the club - then it is the players responsibility. When it a systematic program like at Essendon - it should be both club and player who have the responsibility to prove innocence - you well may be right that the players are duped. Both club and player should have clear understanding ( and records) of what was taken, how much and by whom. I am with you though - the harshest of harsh penalties should be handed to the club.

  On 01/04/2015 at 22:45, old dee said:

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.

probably right - but bad law needs to be changed.

Rule one - duty of care dictates that sportmen either individually or if it is a club program - both club and sportsmen - need to keep clear and accurate records of what is being taken, how much and when.

Rule two - in absence of records - where strong circumstantial evidence exists (ie - player(s) admitting they took stuff) - guilty until proven innocent

its not hard

  On 01/04/2015 at 22:58, nutbean said:

I should have rephased - when it is a one off player going outside the club - then it is the players responsibility. When it a systematic program like at Essendon - it should be both club and player who have the responsibility to prove innocence - you well may be right that the players are duped. Both club and player should have clear understanding ( and records) of what was taken, how much and by whom. I am with you though - the harshest of harsh penalties should be handed to the club.

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.

  On 01/04/2015 at 22:58, nutbean said:

I should have rephased - when it is a one off player going outside the club - then it is the players responsibility. When it a systematic program like at Essendon - it should be both club and player who have the responsibility to prove innocence - you well may be right that the players are duped. Both club and player should have clear understanding ( and records) of what was taken, how much and by whom. I am with you though - the harshest of harsh penalties should be handed to the club.

I agree, unfortunately that is not how the rules are written and it should be.

Complete records of doses, dates, drugs, supplements, observations on a player by player basis should be up to date and complete. In the absence of those records guilt is presumed and innocence needs to be proven.

Edit: We were all thinking the same thoughts and typing at the same time. Spooky.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:28, binman said:

Honestly bb you talk some a grade tosh. Intent? The players? Are you saying they had intent to take a banned substance. Not efc, not hird,not dank - the players. It is accepted the players had no clue what they were taking. They signed forms saying nothing was against code. Where was their intent? Lees (not his doctor, ciach, parent) attempted to import a banned substance to use. That's intent.

if they had NO CLUE they are just as damned as if they did.

It maaters not whether they knew it waz banned only that they intended to use it.. and that it WAS banned.

Their ignorance stupidity or arrogance is not the issue.

"Sorry your honor I didnt know the gun was loaded!"

.....But you did mean to pull the trigger ?

"Well, yes"

  On 01/04/2015 at 22:28, biggestred said:

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.

Intelligence should never be confused with logic.

  On 01/04/2015 at 22:27, ManDee said:

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.

Only 30% of sportspeople convicted by WADA/ASADA have actually had a positive test. Strong circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in a CAS court, and they have on numerous occasions upheld appeals on exactly those grounds.

I suspect you are pointing the finger at me when you talk about conspiracy theorists. I do not believe there was a conspiracy as such. What I do believe is that the AFL implemented the tried and true bureaucratic method of getting the result that they wanted by appointing people to the tribunal who agreed with them. Abbott uses it all the time in Canberra: think Winshuttle (a known climate denier) enquiry into the clean energy quotas, Wilson's (ex IPA DIRECTOR) appointment as human rights commissioner. If you appoint people who agree with you, you almost always get the result you want.

To that extent the AFL manufactured the result.

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:16, beelzebub said:

if they had NO CLUE they are just as damned as if they did.

It maaters not whether they knew it waz banned only that they intended to use it.. and that it WAS banned.

Their ignorance stupidity or arrogance is not the issue.

"Sorry your honor I didnt know the gun was loaded!"

.....But you did mean to pull the trigger ?

"Well, yes"

Beeb, you know my feelings on all this but ask the question. Did the players attempt to take a banned substance or did the club attempt to give it to them? I think it entirely possible that the players did not attempt to take a banned substance. I am completely satisfied that the club attempted to administer banned substances.

With a positive test the players are guilty. This may still happen as testing improves.

Wade Lees attempted to import that is very different to players at Essendon who have argued ignorance. (very well I might add). The club clearly attempted to use PED's furthermore they most likely have tampered with the records.

If the club told the players they were administering TB4 then the players would be guilty of attempting to use PED's

I just cannot understand the no records. Dank can't be trusted but he has said in an interview that at the time of his dismissal the records were on the clubs intranet (whilst not completely up to date). The AFL after tipping off Essendon and then having Essendon self report apparently seized all the computers at the EFC and had them forensically analysed by deloites. Surely something had to have turned up there. It would be easy for Dank to keep a detailed record and just leave off anything they were injecting that was banned But for nothing to turn up on any of the computers seized by the AFL is very odd. Are the AFL sitting on the information?

if there no records and players have been administersd with unknown substances, why isnt anyone in jail yet?

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:29, ManDee said:

Beeb, you know my feelings on all this but ask the question. Did the players attempt to take a banned substance or did the club attempt to give it to them? I think it entirely possible that the players did not attempt to take a banned substance. I am completely satisfied that the club attempted to administer banned substances.

With a positive test the players are guilty. This may still happen as testing improves.

Wade Lees attempted to import that is very different to players at Essendon who have argued ignorance. (very well I might add). The club clearly attempted to use PED's furthermore they most likely have tampered with the records.

If the club told the players they were administering TB4 then the players would be guilty of attempting to use PED's

I know what your saying.

Ppl , for mine are confusing the idea of "intending to take a banned substance( knowingly)" with "intending to take a substance that turns out to be banned"

I can see from the front they are different. Thing is the Code doesnt care. If its taken and its banned then you're penalised. Theres acknowledgement for this and adjusting of penalties but there's a penalty none the less.

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:31, Wrecker45 said:

I just cannot understand the no records. Dank can't be trusted but he has said in an interview that at the time of his dismissal the records were on the clubs intranet (whilst not completely up to date). The AFL after tipping off Essendon and then having Essendon self report apparently seized all the computers at the EFC and had them forensically analysed by deloites. Surely something had to have turned up there. It would be easy for Dank to keep a detailed record and just leave off anything they were injecting that was banned But for nothing to turn up on any of the computers seized by the AFL is very odd. Are the AFL sitting on the information?

But maybe someone took the dodgy computers home or just removed the dodgy hard drives and put others in...lots of ways to skin a cat!

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:27, Dees2014 said:

Only 30% of sportspeople convicted by WADA/ASADA have actually had a positive test. Strong circumstantial evidence is enough to convict in a CAS court, and they have on numerous occasions upheld appeals on exactly those grounds.

I suspect you are pointing the finger at me when you talk about conspiracy theorists. I do not believe there was a conspiracy as such. What I do believe is that the AFL implemented the tried and true bureaucratic method of getting the result that they wanted by appointing people to the tribunal who agreed with them. Abbott uses it all the time in Canberra: think Winshuttle (a known climate denier) enquiry into the clean energy quotas, Wilson's (ex IPA DIRECTOR) appointment as human rights commissioner. If you appoint people who agree with you, you almost always get the result you want.

To that extent the AFL manufactured the result.

Sorry, I had to laugh. Only a conspiracy theorist would suspect the finger was being pointed at them. Or perhaps a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

No Dees2014 it was not pointed at you. You have made some valid points, I don't agree with all of them though.

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:43, Lucifer said:

But maybe someone took the dodgy computers home or just removed the dodgy hard drives and put others in...lots of ways to skin a cat!

Yeah but it was supposed to be on the intranet.

  On 01/04/2015 at 12:42, biggestred said:

The moral of the story is that if you get your coach/club to employ some dodgy guys to import your drugs from china and dont test the substance in a lab and get them to tell you its something else you can dope as much as you like.

That would appear to be the result.

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:27, Dees2014 said:

To that extent the AFL manufactured the result.

I now suspect this has been entirely engineered

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:47, Wrecker45 said:

Yeah but it was supposed to be on the intranet.

Maybe, but you can't chose to believe what Dank says about this then not believe him about other things.

Is he a reliable source?

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:47, Wrecker45 said:

Yeah but it was supposed to be on the intranet.

according to dank.............since when has dank become the paragon of truth

we all know there must have been records...........but that's about all we know........full stop

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:38, beelzebub said:

I know what your saying.

Ppl , for mine are confusing the idea of "intending to take a banned substance( knowingly)" with "intending to take a substance that turns out to be banned"

I can see from the front they are different. Thing is the Code doesnt care. If its taken and its banned then you're penalised. Theres acknowledgement for this and adjusting of penalties but there's a penalty none the less.

There is a third option Beeb, taking a substance that you are told is legal that may not be legal. No intent to take an illegal substance exists here. A positive test is the only way to be guilty in this scenario. IMO

Quote

  Quote

In response to Mr McDevitt's comments, an Essendon spokesman said the AFL had forensic accounting firm Deloitte seize every computer hard drive and other records at the club as soon as it revealed it had reported its supplements program to the anti-doping authority in February 2013.

So what records were seized if there were no records of the program?

What supplements program was reported to the AFL?

Every club/Athlete wants to know the structure of this program so they can skirt protocols.

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:59, ManDee said:

There is a third option Beeb, taking a substance that you are told is legal that may not be legal. No intent to take an illegal substance exists here. A positive test is the only way to be guilty in this scenario. IMO

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.

  On 01/04/2015 at 23:16, beelzebub said:

if they had NO CLUE they are just as damned as if they did.

It maaters not whether they knew it waz banned only that they intended to use it.. and that it WAS banned.

Their ignorance stupidity or arrogance is not the issue.

"Sorry your honor I didnt know the gun was loaded!"

.....But you did mean to pull the trigger ?

"Well, yes"

Are you serious. I mean really. You have been so blinkered on this topic that you seem not to be able to understand how illogical much of what you say about it is.

The players intended to take supplements they had been assured - in writng - was not banned. So their intention was to accept being administered with drugs they had be told were ok. But no you say this doesn't matter because they intended to use banned dug (evn if ignorant of this). Really?

Ok for the sake of the argument lets accept this. The tribunal found that there is insufficient evidence to prove they took a banned substance. They were found not guilty of taking one - how on earth could they found guilty of intent to use one. Sheesh

Bin

Doesnt matter WHAT they thought

Its what they did.( or intended)

Thats what the Code deals with.

The players intent was to be better, faster, stronger and quicker. They were for a while. So they knew.

They also knew that they weren't getting it from eating ice cream.

Somebody would have instilled this into their minds.