THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[daisycutter 28,722]

if the delaying tactics was/is to get the players a shorter ultimate penalty then it would seem to be a phyrric victory

the damage done to the players and club due to the delays probably outweighs what could have been achieved with co-operation and no unnecessary delays

by cas decision time it will have been well past 1000 days......and it won't stop with the decision

late news: just heard on 3aw hird/essendon to part ways

[whatwhat say what 20,287]

Hird gone.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

No one will want to coach Bombers with WADA hanging over their head.

If Essendon were smart they would have sacked Hird after the WADA appeal, irrespective of the result.

[Chris 2,892]

Chris, basically I think we are furiously agreement with one proviso.

The Essendon mob are delusional on this. Either they get off (I can tell you it won't happen - WADA believes this is one of the most open and shut case they have dealt with), aor it is a question of how severe the penalties, and that does not mean 2-3 weeks, it means 2 or 4 years.

Their main aim is the perpetrators. Hird, because of his willingness to lie and cheat - and importantly litigate at the drop of a hat, remind them very much of Armstrong, with the same sort of delusional behaviour. As I have said many times on here, they see this as a test case. If they win this, they have a case against the NFL the U.S, which is not currently covered can by the WADA. They see that as the holy grail.

It does not make, I hasten to add, an unfair process - simply one where the behaviour is so outrageous they simply have to act, but in so doing they make a case internationally. WADA will not drop this ball. They see their case as watertight, and as a beacon as to how team sports will be required to operate in future.

In these circumstances, does anyone seriously believe CAS will hand down, if they are found guilty, 2-3 weeks?

The issue with this is that technically any sanction is handed down by the AFL tribunal, although that needs to be approved by WADA/ASADA or they will appeal. The AFl are probably stupid enough to try and call the bluff of WADA again and again we will be back to CAS for a ruling. I think it will probably be 6 or 12 months.

[rjay 24,178]

Chris, basically I think we are furiously agreement with one proviso.

The Essendon mob are delusional on this. Either they get off (I can tell you it won't happen - WADA believes this is one of the most open and shut case they have dealt with), aor it is a question of how severe the penalties, and that does not mean 2-3 weeks, it means 2 or 4 years.

Their main aim is the perpetrators. Hird, because of his willingness to lie and cheat - and importantly litigate at the drop of a hat, remind them very much of Armstrong, with the same sort of delusional behaviour. As I have said many times on here, they see this as a test case. If they win this, they have a case against the NFL the U.S, which is not currently covered can by the WADA. They see that as the holy grail.

It does not make, I hasten to add, an unfair process - simply one where the behaviour is so outrageous they simply have to act, but in so doing they make a case internationally. WADA will not drop this ball. They see their case as watertight, and as a beacon as to how team sports will be required to operate in future.

In these circumstances, does anyone seriously believe CAS will hand down, if they are found guilty, 2-3 weeks?

I would doubt 2 - 3 weeks but also would doubt 2 - 4 years. Some discount will be taken into account though. The case has run on far too long, the fault mainly with EFC & Hird, some the players, some the AFL & some ASADA.

It's the players being held to account here so I would expect this will be looked at as far as time out of the game goes.

Edited August 18, 2015 by rjay

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

No one will want to coach Bombers with WADA hanging over their head.

If Essendon were smart they would have sacked Hird after the WADA appeal, irrespective of the result.

Not sure about that. It's like having a Get Out of Jail Free card for your first couple of years. Everything that goes wrong can be blamed on WADA and, in effect, the previous regime.

[Dees2014 2,377]

The issue with this is that technically any sanction is handed down by the AFL tribunal, although that needs to be approved by WADA/ASADA or they will appeal. The AFl are probably stupid enough to try and call the bluff of WADA again and again we will be back to CAS for a ruling. I think it will probably be 6 or 12 months.

I agree penalties are in the hands of the AFL Tribunal initially at least, but they will be heavily influenced by the findings at CAS and CAS can over rule them, and has frequently if they are inadequate. The basis of the judgement will be critical

[FireOath 290]

Not sure about that. It's like having a Get Out of Jail Free card for your first couple of years. Everything that goes wrong can be blamed on WADA and, in effect, the previous regime.

Hell, it's worked for Roosy.

[Willmoy1947 3,847]

As I think this is quite important can someone say categorically as to whether or not Hird has been sacked or did he resign.

The reason why I think this is crucial, is, because I believe the door is still slightly ajar for a possible return subject to WADA's case being finalised one way or the other.

[Sir Why You Little 35,318]

Hird was pushed no doubt about it.

For Essendrug it is a risk they have decided to take

Hopefully now some inside truths will surface.

Who will talk first?

[beelzebub 22,702]

James .... who ?

[Dees2014 2,377]

Hird was pushed no doubt about it.

For Essendrug it is a risk they have decided to take

Hopefully now some inside truths will surface.

Who will talk first?

They will all talk at CAS - under oath! Now that should be interesting.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

They will all talk at CAS - under oath! Now that should be interesting.

Who do you think will talk? And why do you think so? I would assume that each individual has a right not to incriminate himself so why would anyone talk if it was going to be harmful to their prospects?

[daisycutter 28,722]

Who do you think will talk? And why do you think so? I would assume that each individual has a right not to incriminate himself so why would anyone talk if it was going to be harmful to their prospects?

does the right to not self incriminate apply in non criminal cases?

i presume so, but can anyone clarify

[Dees2014 2,377]

Who do you think will talk? And why do you think so? I would assume that each individual has a right not to incriminate himself so why would anyone talk if it was going to be harmful to their prospects?

According to several legal opinions I have read recently on this, there appears to be a consensus that this time (ie at CAS) the Supreme Court will compell witnesses to testify under oath. You can assume therefore that those witnesses ASADA applied to the Supreme Court to compulsorily testify under oath will be drafted into the witness box this time as apparently the technicality which got them off earlier in the year no longer applies. This mainly relates to Dank, the pharmacists, and those who imported and sold beta4.

Can I suggest this will be like a pack of cards. Presuming these people tell the truth (which usually happens when you will be held in contempt if you don't), it will inevitably involve a number of accusations about others which may get those others to come forward to defend themselves, which may cause other to as well etc etc etc. With the skilled American counsel cross examining, silence or stone-walling would be difficult for anyone, this hopefully will lead to the truth.

Under these circumstances, I can't see how much of the hierarchy at Essendon, the AFL, ASADA, possibly the ACC and even government will not be called. It may not happen so extensively at the players' hearing, but when the non players are charged and this also ends up also at CAS, the whole thing will inevitably open up, and truth will out. Let's hope so anyway.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Dees2014

[CBDees 3,162]

I would doubt 2 - 3 weeks but also would doubt 2 - 4 years. Some discount will be taken into account though. The case has run on far too long, the fault mainly with EFC & Hird, some the players, some the AFL & some ASADA.

It's the players being held to account here so I would expect this will be looked at as far as time out of the game goes.

Why would you discount? It isn't as though any players have actually stood down from matches or had any (self-imposed) penalty! Edited August 19, 2015 by CBDees

[Dees2014 2,377]

Spare Bombers, AFL begs court

For those of you who can't access this - from Chip LeGrand in the Australian at his delusional best:

The AFL has asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport to impose no effective penalty on any footballer found to have taken a banned substance as part of Essend­ons 2012 season supplements program.

In a formal submission to the international arbitration body scheduled to hear the World Anti-Doping Agencys appeal against 34 current and former Essendon players, the AFL argues­ that because of the inord­inate delay in resolving the case, no player found guilty should be suspended for a single match.

The submission by the leagues senior counsel Jeff Gleeson reflects the AFLs view that the players, although least at fault, already have paid a heavy price for what took place inside sports scientist Stephen Danks basement office at Windy Hill. Essendons wretched performances this season, the third overshadowed by the drug scandal­, culminated this week in senior­ coach James Hird quitting.

The AFLs position on penalties emerged amid fresh questions about whether WADA has legal standing to appeal to CAS while charges against Dank are before the AFLs appeals board.

Appeals board chairman Peter OCallaghan QC questioned WADAs jurisdiction to bring the case against the players. The AFL anti-doping code, ratified by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, prohibits WADA going to CAS until all parties have exhausted other ­appeal remedies.

It would seem to follow, or at least there would be a view open, that any appeal by WADA to a body other than an appeal board is incompetent, Mr OCallaghan told a directions hearing for Danks appeal. The fact of the Dank appeal having been lodged precludes, on one view, WADA or indeed any other party from going direct to CAS.

The players legal team is unlikely­ to challenge WADAs jurisdiction as this would probably further delay the case.

However, Mr OCallaghans comments will be read closely by CASs three-man panel selected to hear WADAs appeal in Sydney from November 16.

The AFL appeals board has yet to set a date for Danks appea­l. Under the AFL anti-doping code the case must be heard de novo, meaning ASADA will re-run its entire case again.

An AFL tribunal banned Dank this year for life after uphold­ing 10 doping violations against him, but cleared the players of taking a banned peptide, Thymosin Beta 4. ASADAs case was plagued by a lack of records and reliable documentation.

WADA, in its submission to CAS, says if found guilty the players should be penalised. It also makes clear its principal interest is to overturn what it sees as a dangerous precedent set by the AFL tribunal, rather than holding up players as cheats.

The AFL anti-doping code allows­ for penalties against footballers found guilty of doping to be backdated when there are substantial delays in the process not attributable to the player.

A similar provision was used by ASADA in negotiations with current and former Cronulla footballers accused of being administer­ed with two banned peptides during Danks 2011 involve­ment with the NRL club. Under a deal with a dozen NRL players, a years suspension became, in effect, a three-week ban.

Good try, Chip, but it won't go anywhere. Like anyone breaking the law, you can ask for lenience, but it won't make the offence go away. The sheer naivety of this mob is staggering. Or is it the case of "you can't be shot for trying".

Now the AFL are officially easily the wealthiest sports code in Australia, I guess they now think they can get away with anything.

Thankfully, it is now out of Australian hands, and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.

[biggestred 4,420]

The afl has been protecting essendon from day 1.

It is why asada didnt bother appealing through the afl.

If they were the east german athletic association we would be sitting here calling them corrupt cheats.

[beelzebub 22,702]

The AFL are a joke. They want to be above the rules...well...other's rules at least.

Much of this attitude stems from two points. First. .always first...protect yhe code from anyone elses scrutiny.Second id suggest goes to the original complicity (effectively ) in how it all unfolded.

Just stfu afl and take your medicine.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

If the AFL had their way we would never had heard of any of this except for shadowy rumours. None of it would have seen the light of day and Tird might right now be getting the plaudits he so desperately wanted.

But a mob called the ACC were on the case ...

[sue 8,592]

No surprise here. We see the AFL's attitude to rules every weekend.

[Gorgoroth 12,431]

I love how the media and Essendon bang on about how long it's taken. Yet don't say what caused massive amounts of delays...

Tird and Essendon taking ASADA to court.

F!ogs! All of them.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Hopefully CAS will see right through this.

Just because the delays weren't explicitly caused by the players doesn't mean they weren't caused by parties acting on their behalf. This is why the players weren't part of the legal action questioning the legality of the joint AFL/ASADA investigation. If they were, they would be seen to be agitating the process and backdating wouldn't be possible.

I would hope that CAS would see that, and say something along the lines of Hird and the EFC's action basically had the net effect of delaying proceedings which advantaged the players and therefore it's as if the players acted in this manner themselves.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

I love how the media and Essendon bang on about how long it's taken. Yet don't say what caused massive amounts of delays...

Tird and Essendon taking ASADA to court.

F!ogs! All of them.

Maybe. But don't forget it took ASADA an awful long time to do its investigation first.

[sue 8,592]

Maybe. But don't forget it took ASADA an awful long time to do its investigation first.

True, but we don't know how much of that could be put down to non-cooperation by EFC.