Just now, CBDees said:

I guess the one redeeming aspect as far as the MFC's interest in the proceedings is the fact that the eight persons (admin, coaching etc) in item 11) of the 34 page charge sheet did not include Goodwin. I cannot see why WADA would run the risk of weakening their case by expanding it to include anybody else (apart from the players) at this stage.

Its an interesting observation  you make and may well suggest  Goody will sneak through.  Many won't

27 minutes ago, Chris said:

I take it then that you have no reply to the facts I put forward and that the players did have intent and that that is backed by precedent. 

Not at all. I simply don't accept what you put forward as fact.  Certainly not evidence which can be relied upon. 

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Not at all. I simply don't accept what you put forward as fact.  Certainly not evidence which can be relied upon. 

Which bit is not a fact? 

That the players have been found to take a banned substance.

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

Not at all. I simply don't accept what you put forward as fact.  Certainly not evidence which can be relied upon. 

there is no doubt iva, without positive doping tests the evidence is circumstantial

i think the evidence is compelling and fits within wada's comfortable satisfaction criteria

you obviously demand a higher standard of proof and seem to be also swayed by sympathy towards the players which i think is more a question of punishment rather than of guilt.

we'll have to agree to disagree

5 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

That the players have been found to take a banned substance.

If you re read what I said you may find that I never actually said they have been found to have taken banned substances. Any other facts that aren't facts that I actually said?

OK, i give in.  WADA will throw the book at 'em.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

OK, i give in.  WADA will throw the book at 'em.

 

 

 

First bit is not necessary    it's all good here.    Right about the latter though 

Quote

An inherent problem of artificially determining what is legal and illegal PESM is that it neglects the fact that health, enhancement substances and therapies are  not divided by a fixed boundary between acceptable and unacceptable, legal and illegal usages, but that such practices appear on a changing social  continuum. Moreover, the determination of  what is considered illegal  PESM  and  included  on  WADA’s prohibited list lacks transparency in terms of its underlying scientific rationale. What this means is that for the athletes and their advising coaches to navigate safely the WADA Code requires knowledge of pharmacological and physiological science, and an artificial reasoning and understanding of the rules (or laws).The rule of law is a system in which certain universal principles are upheld. One such principle is that the laws are clear, publicised, stable and just, are applied evenly,and  protect  fundamental  rights.  Laws  should  also  be  known  to  everyone  so  that everyone can comply.The WADA prohibited lists include various legal “catchall” provisions that often lack clarity (Gibbs & Koh, 2013). Moreover, rules and scientific evidence have also been inconsistently applied (Henne, Koh, & McDermott, 2013; Koh, 2013.See also use of alternative therapies containing IGF-­1 in Vijay Singh v. PGA Tour Inc. and therapeutic use exemption of testosterone and propranolol in Barron v. PGA Tour Inc.).

While WADA’s mandate stipulates transparency, education and the protection of athletes’ well being, at best, its communications have been inefficient (Koh, Holmes, Adair, & James, 2013). At worst, athletes may perceive that the WADA policy process is there  to  deliberately entrap athletes (see CCES & Swimming Natation Canada (SNC) v. Shulga; SDRCC DT 13-­019).

Another principle in the rule of law is that the system should also be such that the authority or power is distributed in a manner that ensures that no  single organisational body has the practical ability to exercise unchecked  power.  However, under current anti-­doping processes, national anti-­doping organisations (NADOs) are responsible for educating and advising athletes on anti­‐doping rules while also investigating and prosecuting them under the strict liability  provisions  of  the  WADA Code. This creates an inherent conflict of interest and a concentration of power.In Australia the power has been given to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority(ASADA).

 

15 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

OK, i give in.  WADA will throw the book at 'em.

 

 

 

somehow i (personally) don't think so. more a gut feeling though

but given the structure of their own punishment rules i'm not sure they have too much room to move within

of course this assumes they find for guilt. i think they will, but i'm not as confident as some others

Quote

World Anti-Doping Agency boss David Howman believes the primary culprits in the Essendon drug scandal are the support staff who oversaw the injection program rather than the 34 footballers his organisation will next month bring before the Court

Anybody see the get-out clause here?

4 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Anybody see the get-out clause here?

so the player's are secondary culprits

i'd agree with that

but culprits are still culprits and wada obviously agrees or they wouldn't be going to cas

can you see that?

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

so the player's are secondary culprits

i'd agree with that

but culprits are still culprits and wada obviously agrees or they wouldn't be going to cas

can you see that?

more the point you cant get the primaries without first establishing the secondaries...

can we all see that ??   

1 hour ago, iv'a worn smith said:

That the players have been found to take a banned substance.

They don't have to be found to have taken a banned substance. They don't even have to be found to have intended to take a banned substance.

Google: Wade Lees

I don't believe that there's anything in either the WADA code or precedence that supports the argument(s) you're putting forward.

42 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Anybody see the get-out clause here?

No.

It doesn't absolve the players of anything under the WADA code.

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

No one needs to prove use.  The WADA code emanates from the idea of 'intent"

Not even. I would say it emanates from the idea of "responsibility".

Showing that you didn't intend to take a banned substance isn't enough. You have to show that you did everything you could to ensure that you didn't take a banned substance.

24 minutes ago, bing181 said:

They don't have to be found to have taken a banned substance. They don't even have to be found to have intended to take a banned substance.

Google: Wade Lees

I don't believe that there's anything in either the WADA code or precedence that supports the argument(s) you're putting forward.

I don't think there is. The Code, is a very misunderstood and misinterpreted tomb.

Don't forget who's spilling the beans?

I find it quite fascinating that the Windy Hill mob have , it seems. finally learnt to shut the ...up. 

They seem to have muzzled their rent boys  lest they utter something to agitate  CAS.

Wasn't that long ago  Littleman couldn't help himself. Must have gotten very real all of a sudden.

Bet they didn't see that coming....not really !!

On 7 December 2015 at 9:08 PM, faultydet said:

 

 

 

My quote function isn't working, it picks up the wrong comment so this is in reply to Iva above about the role of WADA and legal principals. 

The process for the classification of drugs is clear and is judged by a selection of highly qualified scientists. 

The process to know what is banned is also simple and protects the athletes. All they have to do is check online and if ambiguous then check with ASADA. In both cases they provide a receipt of the ruling on a drug and that covers you as an athlete. If an EFC player had checked Thymosin they would have been directed to contact ASADA and told TB4 is banned. If they got contrary advice they would have the receipt and be in the clear. No one has produced a receipt to our knowledge, that again indicates a dereliction of duties for the players and staff. 

quoting is perilous atm.   just check your cache...clear it possibly

 

back to...

 

I actually found that article  as linked by Iva quite interesting...thanks Iva

As a lay person though something jumped out at me. Given the "Rule of Law" overtones I think the article missed a rather salient point.

There are rules of law, and there are rules of Sport..even so far as the Laws of Sport.  These are often 'proprietary" in nature and not as per common laws. 

i.e Those running sport get to set the rules. You play that sport....you better abide by them. That in and of itself is an implied contract I would have thought. Happy to be educated

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

quoting is perilous atm.   just check your cache...clear it possibly

 

back to...

 

I actually found that article  as linked by Iva quite interesting...thats Iva

As a lay person though something jumped out at me. Give teh "Rule of Law" overtones I think the article missed a rather salient point.

There are rules of law, and there are rules of Sport..eve so far as the Laws of Sport.  These are often 'proprietary" in nature and not as per common laws. 

i.e Those running sport get to set the rules. You play that sport....you better abide by them. That in and of itself is an implied contract I would have thought. Happy to be educated

It worked this time! Am on a phone now and it didn't work on a PC earlier either. Probably just a bug in the nice new system. 

57 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I find it quite fascinating that the Windy Hill mob have , it seems. finally learnt to shut the ...up. 

They seem to have muzzled their rent boys  lest they utter something to agitate  CAS.

Wasn't that long ago  Littleman couldn't help himself. Must have gotten very real all of a sudden.

Bet they didn't see that coming....not really !!

Probably has something to do with them not being allowed into the hearing....

....funny how the leaks have dried up.

29 minutes ago, rjay said:

Probably has something to do with them not being allowed into the hearing....

....funny how the leaks have dried up.

That's never stopped them inventing propaganda.

32 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

That's never stopped them inventing propaganda.

True...