20 minutes ago, Macca said:

They may have changed or tightened the rules but the same basic principles could be applied regardless of when the rules were breached. 

WADA went after that Italian doctor involved in the cycling doping scandal long after he first transgressed. Dank & Hird can still be pursued you'd reckon and if both those 2 can be pursued then why not others? 

There's no cut off point otherwise Armstrong would never have got done.

Not challenging those thoughts 'Macca' just putting some context around my earlier post on support staff:  here is the ASADA document referencing WADA changes at 01/01/15 https://www.asada.gov.au/rules-and-violations/anti-doping-rule-violations

'Complicity' was broadened in its application to support staff to include more people and activties.  My recollection is it was not broad enough pre 01/01/15 to catch EFC staff.  But could easily be wrong. 

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not challenging those thoughts 'Macca' just putting some context around my earlier post on support staff:  here is the ASADA document referencing WADA changes at 01/01/15 https://www.asada.gov.au/rules-and-violations/anti-doping-rule-violations

'Complicity' was broadened in its application to support staff to include more people and activties.  My recollection is it was not broad enough pre 01/01/15 to catch EFC staff.  But could easily be wrong. 

You may be right LH but the consequences of the players being found guilty and rubbed out (if they are found guilty and rubbed out) will be far reaching you'd think.

Let's just say that the above scenario did happen and the players copped decent bans ... we would then expect those in charge at Essendon (at the time) to then start feeling the heat - so where does it all start and finish and who is immune? In the long run it won't just be the players who take the rap (again, if they are found guilty and rubbed out)

Those in positions of responsibility must have known what was going on - we're almost certain that the players went off the premises to the anti-aging clinic to receive these hundreds of injections and the "support staff" could have been more involved than we think ... and if the injections involved PED's then the "naïve" card can't really be played by anyone - who is going to believe them?

I'm looking at all this from a practical viewpoint without any bias or favour.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

You may be right LH but the consequences of the players being found guilty and rubbed out (if they are found guilty and rubbed out) will be far reaching you'd think.

Let's just say that the above scenario did happen and the players copped decent bans ... we would then expect those in charge at Essendon (at the time) to then start feeling the heat - so where does it all start and finish and who is immune? In the long run it won't just be the players who take the rap (again, if they are found guilty and rubbed out)

Those in positions of responsibility must have known what was going on - we're almost certain that the players went off the premises to the anti-aging clinic to receive these hundreds of injections and the "support staff" could have been more involved than we think ... and if the injections involved PED's then the "naïve" card can't really be played by anyone - who is going to believe them?

I'm looking at all this from a practical viewpoint without any bias or favour.

The AFL would have to implement sanctions aginst the staff under those circumstances. Remember that the club has only received sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute and poor record keeping - not dishing out illegal drugs. If the players are found guilty of taking illegal drugs then the club and its directors will also be in the firing line - not the last of which will be by the players looking to sue for loss of reputation, damages, lost income etc etc....

30 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The AFL would have to implement sanctions aginst the staff under those circumstances. Remember that the club has only received sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute and poor record keeping - not dishing out illegal drugs. If the players are found guilty of taking illegal drugs then the club and its directors will also be in the firing line - not the last of which will be by the players looking to sue for loss of reputation, damages, lost income etc etc....

Maybe 'bing181' will know the exact next course the saga will take us if the players are found guilty and cop bans. Or someone else here might know for sure.

I'd be assuming that ASADA could then lay charges against the coaches and other people involved et al and a similar process would be followed. Again, the AFL tribunal could lay penalties if they see fit and if not, WADA could appeal to CAS again. Or it may be a WADA/CAS case straight off ... I stand corrected on all that though.

What we do know is that WADA have gone after coaches and doctors before and there's been some very hefty penalties handed out ... here's the up to date list of those who have received those penalties.

When CAS finds against the players this will lay the table for a lay down misère against  those responsible upstream.

It's  the transgression that keeps  on giving !

4 hours ago, Macca said:

WADA went after that Italian doctor involved in the cycling doping scandal long after he first transgressed. 

If you mean Dr. Ferrari and the Armstrong case, a) WADA wasn't involved b) USADA went after them when they had the evidence. That evidence surfaced on the back of the Federal Enquiry, which (only) started in 2010.

There won't be any new prosecutions.

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

If you mean Dr. Ferrari and the Armstrong case, a) WADA wasn't involved b) USADA went after them when they had the evidence. That evidence surfaced on the back of the Federal Enquiry, which (only) started in 2010.

There won't be any new prosecutions.

So what happens with Hird, Charters, Robinson, Alavi et al?

Surely they'll need to be held to account if the players receive hefty bans*.

 

*Some are suggesting the players will receive hefty bans.

No new prosecution s ?

Don't  bet on it

1 hour ago, Macca said:

What we do know is that WADA have gone after coaches and doctors before and there's been some very hefty penalties handed out ... 

Yes, but not on the back of successful prosecutions of an athlete. To my knowledge - such as it is, I could be wrong - when coaches and support staff are charged, it's at the same time as the athletes - as in the Armstrong case.

If there was evidence to successfully prosecute Hird, or Goodwin, they would have been included originally, as Dank was. The way I see it, the only way they could now be prosecuted (when they weren't before) would be if there was substantial new evidence implicating them. OK, there haven't been any leaks and no-one knows, but I'd be surprised if that was the case.

Also, the support staff who have been charged in other cases, were directly involved in doping offences: purchasing, distributing, administering etc. Once again, I'm not aware of any of those applying to Hird or Goodwin.

IMHO ...

There's  no requirement  for simultaneously  charging players and coaches etc.

This is a unique  situation. It will pan out however  it does.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

I'd be assuming that ASADA could then lay charges against the coaches and other people involved et al and a similar process would be followed.

Only if they have the evidence. If they didn't have it when the initial prosecutions were brought, hard to see how they would have it now.

(sorry, meant to include this in my post above, not trying to take over the thread or get my post count up ...!)

6 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Yes, but not on the back of successful prosecutions of an athlete. To my knowledge - such as it is, I could be wrong - when coaches and support staff are charged, it's at the same time as the athletes - as in the Armstrong case.

If there was evidence to successfully prosecute Hird, or Goodwin, they would have been included originally, as Dank was. The way I see it, the only way they could now be prosecuted (when they weren't before) would be if there was substantial new evidence implicating them. OK, there haven't been any leaks and no-one knows, but I'd be surprised if that was the case.

Also, the support staff who have been charged in other cases, were directly involved in doping offences: purchasing, distributing, administering etc. Once again, I'm not aware of any of those applying to Hird or Goodwin.

IMHO ...

So Hird walks away scot-free if the players cop hefty bans.

Doesn't seem right ... reckon they'll get him somehow. 

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

There's  no requirement  for simultaneously  charging players and coaches etc.

Perhaps not, but then find some examples where athletes and associated support staff were prosecuted at different times (years later) for the same offence.

I don't know of any ... maybe you do.

Its a unique  situation  Bing

It will pan out in its own course.

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

So Hird walks away scot-free if the players cop hefty bans.

Doesn't seem right ... reckon they'll get him somehow. 

It's not just in drugs-in-sport cases that small-fry take the punishment while the ringleaders walk away scot-free. Unfortunately.

FWIW, I think where this has the potential to get nasty for the higher-ups is when banned-players turn on the club and coaches through civil prosecutions.

3 minutes ago, bing181 said:

It's not just in drugs-in-sport cases that small-fry take the punishment while the ringleaders walk away scot-free. Unfortunately.

FWIW, I think where this has the potential to get nasty for the higher-ups is when banned-players turn on the club and coaches through civil prosecutions.

I suppose that comes under the "they'll get him somehow" scenario. 

 

 

Can any of the hystericals out there explain to me why the Mfcs reputation will be tarnished in any way if Jake or Simon end up facing repercussions? 

2 minutes ago, MrReims said:

Can any of the hystericals out there explain to me why the Mfcs reputation will be tarnished in any way if Jake or Simon end up facing repercussions? 

It won't be tarnished, as long as the Sponsorships don't change, but we could be down 2 Employees...One a very important cog. The other not so much

7 hours ago, Jesse Christ said:

You just don't get it, do you, little stuie. It's the principal.

 

6 hours ago, Bossdog said:

ISince when does it become the "Principal".    That's like saying "It's the Vibe"

Nailed it Boss. Not seeing too many actual facts here that form a basis for the panic, just the usual posters that talk loud and say nothing.

 

Also, not sure I'm going to take lessons in "principals" from someone attempting personal insults on the internet in the same sentence.

18 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It won't be tarnished, as long as the Sponsorships don't change, but we could be down 2 Employees...One a very important cog. The other not so much

Please point out some factual information that says Goodwin's job is in danger.

56 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Perhaps not, but then find some examples where athletes and associated support staff were prosecuted at different times (years later) for the same offence.

I don't know of any ... maybe you do.

Good luck fishing for facts in this thread Bing!

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

If you mean Dr. Ferrari and the Armstrong case, a) WADA wasn't involved b) USADA went after them when they had the evidence. That evidence surfaced on the back of the Federal Enquiry, which (only) started in 2010.

There won't be any new prosecutions.

 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

No new prosecution s ?

Don't  bet on it

Here's a perfect example of how this thread is going.

Actual facts followed by panicked opinion.

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Please point out some factual information that says Goodwin's job is in danger.

What point it out to you?

As nothing has actually  been brought against  the coaches and support etc by Asada the notion that evidence is restricted  to that brought against  the players is a misnomer. 

Anything relevant  and found can be used. These aren't /won't  be 'de novo' as per the CAS hearing...these will be new from the start.

Bring it 

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

Please point out some factual information that says Goodwin's job is in danger.

 

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What point it out to you?

I'll take that as a "No, I don't have any actual facts.... but the paper said...."