THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[faultydet 7,593]

nah, not at all. This saga has clearly exposed a flaw in the WADA code around record-keeping. If EFC get away with cheating because of a lack of records, and the WADA code isn't able to counter that, then that's a travesty and needs to be fixed. The thing is, these things need to be codified, not just hopefully achieved by a different interpretation of the same rules. If WADAs code does turn out to be inadequate then it needs to be fixed, and they too need to be held accountable.

There are other examples I can give, and happy to do so when I have time.

Basically, ASADA have screwed the pooch here. And it's not entirely their fault by any means. They were underfunded and under-resourced and pretty much never had a chance. This whole dirty episode is a watershed moment to improve anti-doping. You'll never get it perfect, but it needs to be better than it is currently.

But held accountable for what, and how?

The media sycophant campaign against ASADA only achieved one thing, and that was to make your favorite bloke more determined to nail you. Public opinion isnt on essendons side. Quite the opposite.

Agree with under funded and under resourced. But thats what you do when you dont really want to catch anyone cheating. What I dont get, is the vitriol directed towards Ben McDevitt. I think (obviously from the outside) that he did a bloody magnificent job given his limited resources and power.

3 entities have a lot to answer for.

The AFL, for aiding the cover up - absolutely bloody disgusting

The Australian sporting press, who have given ridiculously biased support for essendon throughout this fiasco

And the AFLPA, who have sided with the money, rather than tear down the ceiling at the Hanger, demanding to know what its members were injected with.

Its understandable that essendon members will want them to get away with this, and "change the WADA code" after the horse has bolted. Im not going to criticise you for that. What I cant abide, is the misdirected vitriol, at EVERYONE, except the cretin who instigated the drug regime, gold boy Turd. He simply must be banished for life, if a guilty verdict is handed down.

And yes, i will admit that I would be delighted to have a guilty finding, based on nothing more than what I see as a correct interpretation of the supposed evidence.

By the way, thanks for the replies, without the spin

Sorry for my spelling

Edited May 25, 2015 by faultydet

[beelzebub 22,229]

whilst being the best option we have currently, the WADA code is flawed in a number of key ways

before you throw brickbats consider its possibly Essendons conduct which is the "flawed"

The code is fine.

It just doesn't really suit to get nicked does it.

[John Crow Batty 8,266]

Another Essendon supporter on here? Must be part of an orchestrated campaign to spread Hird Reich propaganda. Won't get too much sympathy here.

[Uncle Fester 2,835]

Another Essendon supporter on here? Must be part of an orchestrated campaign to spread Hird Reich propaganda. Won't get too much sympathy here.

I'd understand it if we were the CAS judges, but buying my vote isn't going to change anything. Maybe this forum has more power than we realised.

[What 18,810]

Another Essendon supporter on here? Must be part of an orchestrated campaign to spread Hird Reich propaganda. Won't get too much sympathy here.

Its very weird. Would be like one of us posting on a Bombers forum to tell everyone we didn't tank and the rules should be changed cos we got caught.

[jnrmac 19,088]

I dont get it............Little said they didn't know what the players took but he did know it wasn't illegal.

Can't it just all go away now? Hmmm?

Lance?

[DemonFrog 1,347]

I dont get it............Little said they didn't know what the players took but he did know it wasn't illegal.

Can't it just all go away now? Hmmm?

Lance?

Not to mention that there is evidence that information had been destroyed.

Would this happen if the information would prove the Clubs innocence?

Don't tell me Lance Armstrong is the next Director of High performance at the Essendon FC?

Edited May 25, 2015 by DemonFrog

[dpositive 1,552]

My concern is that under the AFL system he would never had been caught even though he was a massive drug cheat. It does not matter if you love or hate him as a sport person. Once he had taken illegal substance he needed to be appropriately punished.

Armstrong was never found guilty by UCI (or however they are who run Tour De France) they denied doping in their sport initially, the tested a few scapegoats who were suspended then finally the American Cycling Federation after serious lobbying from Armstrongs sponsors sick of paying out to a drug cheat involved Landis and other American cyclists to blow it apart. Even after Lance admitted it took further time before he was stripped of TDFvictories therby saving the sponsors lots of money.

UCI knew what was going on but thought they andTDF was bigger than sport. As more cyclists moved from track,Olympics to road, the drug culture in pro road teams was bound to be tested.

AFLis UCIEQUIVALENT

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Armstrong was never found guilty by UCI (or however they are who run Tour De France) they denied doping in their sport initially, the tested a few scapegoats who were suspended then finally the American Cycling Federation after serious lobbying from Armstrongs sponsors sick of paying out to a drug cheat involved Landis and other American cyclists to blow it apart. Even after Lance admitted it took further time before he was stripped of TDFvictories therby saving the sponsors lots of money.

UCI knew what was going on but thought they andTDF was bigger than sport. As more cyclists moved from track,Olympics to road, the drug culture in pro road teams was bound to be tested.

AFLis UCIEQUIVALENT

Thanks for this information DP.

But my comment was based on the very high level of comfortable satisfaction the AFL tribunal required before a guilty verdict would be considered.

It was commented in the media that if the AFL's level of comfortable satisfaction was imposed in the Lance Armstrong case, he would have been found not guilty.

[bing181 8,175]

Armstrong was never found guilty by UCI (or however they are who run Tour De France) ...

Woah ...

First of all, UCI is the umbrella organisation for cycling - ALL cycling, including track, cross etc. etc. - they don't run any events. The Tour de France is run by Amaury Sport, ASO, a private organisation and sports promoter.

Then, it's not for UCI to prosecute drug cases in cycling, it's for the national doping bodies in the countries where the cyclists concerned are registered. UCI have no say in who gets prosecuted, or the prosecutions themselves - any more than AFL have input into what ASADA are doing.

UCI's role in doping cases is to enforce the penalties handed down by the relevant bodies (as they did in the Armstrong case), and/or to monitor and where necessary, appeal the decisions to CAS (as they did in the Contador case).

Moving on ...

It wasn't the American Cycling Federation who prosecuted Armstrong. Firstly, because there's no such body, the national body for cycling in the US is USA Cycling (much like Cycling Australia here), and secondly because, as with the UCI, the national admin bodies don't prosecute doping cases, the national doping agencies do. ASADA in Australia, and in America, for Armstrong, USADA.

You're not any closer with the rest of your post either. For example, none of the cyclists prosecuted along with Armstrong (ever) tested positive - thus, there were no positive tests as the basis for the charges for anyone charged in the Armstrong case. Leipheimer, Hincapie etc. were charged on the basis of confessions (the guns to their heads being the testimonies they had previously given under oath to Federal Prosecutors), while Landis (and Hamilton) were not charged in the Armstrong case, they were (only) witnesses.

etc. etc.

[deefrag 277]

Woah ...

First of all, UCI is the umbrella organisation for cycling - ALL cycling, including track, cross etc. etc. - they don't run any events. The Tour de France is run by Amaury Sport, ASO, a private organisation and sports promoter.

Then, it's not for UCI to prosecute drug cases in cycling, it's for the national doping bodies in the countries where the cyclists concerned are registered. UCI have no say in who gets prosecuted, or the prosecutions themselves - any more than AFL have input into what ASADA are doing.

UCI's role in doping cases is to enforce the penalties handed down by the relevant bodies (as they did in the Armstrong case), and/or to monitor and where necessary, appeal the decisions to CAS (as they did in the Contador case).

Moving on ...

It wasn't the American Cycling Federation who prosecuted Armstrong. Firstly, because there's no such body, the national body for cycling in the US is USA Cycling (much like Cycling Australia here), and secondly because, as with the UCI, the national admin bodies don't prosecute doping cases, the national doping agencies do. ASADA in Australia, and in America, for Armstrong, USADA.

You're not any closer with the rest of your post either. For example, none of the cyclists prosecuted along with Armstrong (ever) tested positive - thus, there were no positive tests as the basis for the charges for anyone charged in the Armstrong case. Leipheimer, Hincapie etc. were charged on the basis of confessions (the guns to their heads being the testimonies they had previously given under oath to Federal Prosecutors), while Landis (and Hamilton) were not charged in the Armstrong case, they were (only) witnesses.

etc. etc.

My "take home" from dpos was that the WADA don't trust UCI or the AFL . . . can't imagine why!

A damning report published on Monday shows how cycling’s world governing body, the UCI, colluded with Lance Armstrong from 1999 to 2009 to circumvent accusations he doped and to cement his status as the pre-eminent personality in the sport.

The report reads: “There are numerous examples that prove Lance Armstrong benefited from a preferential status afforded by the UCI leadership … UCI did not actively seek to corroborate whether allegations of doping against Lance Armstrong were well-founded [but] fell back to a defensive position as if every attack against Lance Armstrong was an attack against cycling and the UCI leadership … there was a tacit exchange of favours between the UCI leadership and Lance Armstrong, and they presented a common front.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/lance-armstrong-uci-colluded-circ-report-cycling

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

It is claimed that Evans relayed the "tip-off" from Demetriou to Hird, ex-Essendon chief executive Ian Robson, club football boss Danny Corcoran and other Essendon officials. The next day, February 5, a meeting between Essendon officials, including Hird, and deputy AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, is described.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demetriou-tipoff-a-key-factor-in-essendon-selfreporting-hird-writ-states-20130822-2sdf5.html

A DELEGATION of senior Essendon players met with AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan last week in the countdown to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal's decision on whether they will face suspensions.

Captain Jobe Watson and fellow leaders Brendon Goddard and David Myers represented the Essendon players at the private meeting with McLachlan, which was held at the CEO's home.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-03/senior-bombers-players-meet-with-afl-ceo-gillon-mclachlan-as-antidoping-verdict-approaches

What vexed the Tribunal apparently came down to this: Those involved thought they were buying, distributing, compounding and dispensing Thymosin Beta-4 (or ‘TB4’). However, the Tribunal could not be satisfied the substance was, in fact, TB4.

Specifically, it is reported that the Tribunal comfortably accepted:

• Shane Charter bought what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to chemist Nima Alavi;
• Mr Alavi believed he then compounded TB4;
• Mr Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Stephen Dank;
• Correspondence between Mr Alavi and Mr Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;
• Mr Alavi’s lab technician compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank;

Further, experts agreed the substance in Mr Alavi’s possession then delivered to Mr Dank was not Thymousin A1 (as subsequently claimed).

Required to prove this circumstantial case were the following matters:

• TB4 was procured from sources in China; and
• TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and
• Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player.

The Tribunal reportedly did not consider ©. This is because it was not comfortably satisfied by (a) and (b). For the Tribunal, belief did not translate into fact.

What then was the substance administered to each player?

Circumstantial cases rely on inference. Here, the Tribunal faced a fork in the road.

The Tribunal could have inferred that because:

• the substance was not Thymousin A1; and
• it was satisfied the key protagonists involved in administering the product to players all thought they were using the prohibited substance TB4,

then the substance was – to their comfortable satisfaction – TB4.

Instead, rather than turning left, the Tribunal turned right, onto the road where belief does not offer sufficient proof.

Presumably, the only sufficient proof would have been scientific proof.

http://sociallitigator.com/2015/04/03/a-question-of-proof-might-an-asada-appeal-have-legs/

etc. etc.

[Chris 2,892]

Specifically, it is reported that the Tribunal comfortably accepted:

• Shane Charter bought what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to chemist Nima Alavi;
• Mr Alavi believed he then compounded TB4;
• Mr Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Stephen Dank;
• Correspondence between Mr Alavi and Mr Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;
• Mr Alavi’s lab technician compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank;

The tribunal accepted the Players legal position that the tests done on the substance were not conclusive and showed the substance could be TB4 or TB500, which is also banned. This allowed the tribunal to say they were not satisfied it was TB4 as there was another plausible explanation, one that contradicted the thoughts of the people who ordered, manufactured, and compounded the substance. Baffling!

[Whispering_Jack 28,010]

Readers are reminded that trolls are not welcome on this site.

Whilst we have no problem whatsoever with supporters of opposition clubs who debate rationally, we're going to have to deliver an uppercut to one who breaches that policy.

Apologies, but our policy is no different to the one that applies on other supporter sites and we've had one complaint too many about this.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

The tribunal accepted the Players legal position that the tests done on the substance were not conclusive and showed the substance could be TB4 or TB500, which is also banned. This allowed the tribunal to say they were not satisfied it was TB4 as there was another plausible explanation, one that contradicted the thoughts of the people who ordered, manufactured, and compounded the substance. Baffling!

This is what really gets my goat up. Their explanation is just crazy, it's so unreasonable.

Everyone in the chain thought it was TB4. The tribunal even put that in their findings.

How they then say "oh we can't be sure what was actually in the vials" is just silly. I take drugs from a pharmacist, but I don't know what's actually in there is what it says on the box. How could I? But I take it at the prescribed dosage and prescribed timetable, and I get the result the doctor said I would.

But it might have been something else! Give me a break.

Standard of proof required was set unreasonably high.

[jnrmac 19,088]

Thanks for this information DP.

But my comment was based on the very high level of comfortable satisfaction the AFL tribunal required before a guilty verdict would be considered.

It was commented in the media that if the AFL's level of comfortable satisfaction was imposed in the Lance Armstrong case, he would have been found not guilty.

The who WADA appeal will focus on the comfortable level of satisfaction as they believe the AFL tribunal applied it wrongly

Watch this space.

[dpositive 1,552]

Woah ...

First of all, UCI is the umbrella organisation for cycling - ALL cycling, including track, cross etc. etc. - they don't run any events. The Tour de France is run by Amaury Sport, ASO, a private organisation and sports promoter.

Then, it's not for UCI to prosecute drug cases in cycling, it's for the national doping bodies in the countries where the cyclists concerned are registered. UCI have no say in who gets prosecuted, or the prosecutions themselves - any more than AFL have input into what ASADA are doing.

UCI's role in doping cases is to enforce the penalties handed down by the relevant bodies (as they did in the Armstrong case), and/or to monitor and where necessary, appeal the decisions to CAS (as they did in the Contador case).

Moving on ...

It wasn't the American Cycling Federation who prosecuted Armstrong. Firstly, because there's no such body, the national body for cycling in the US is USA Cycling (much like Cycling Australia here), and secondly because, as with the UCI, the national admin bodies don't prosecute doping cases, the national doping agencies do. ASADA in Australia, and in America, for Armstrong, USADA.

You're not any closer with the rest of your post either. For example, none of the cyclists prosecuted along with Armstrong (ever) tested positive - thus, there were no positive tests as the basis for the charges for anyone charged in the Armstrong case. Leipheimer, Hincapie etc. were charged on the basis of confessions (the guns to their heads being the testimonies they had previously given under oath to Federal Prosecutors), while Landis (and Hamilton) were not charged in the Armstrong case, they were (only) witnesses.

etc. etc.

Whoops

Thanks bing

Not setting out to deliberately deceive

Just an obviously incorrect memory of a program which outlined the Armstrong case indicating that the Tour De France people did not want to identify doping and it took international involvement to push it along. Maybe I have that wrong too.

You do seem to have a good knowledge of the processes so I better go and revise mine

I am just so irate that the EFC has undertaken an obviously suspect process and have thought that they could get away with it and the AFL seems to have sanctioned their behaviour. These actions have the effect of diminishing sporting accomplishment in my mind..

[dpositive 1,552]

My "take home" from dpos was that the WADA don't trust UCI or the AFL . . . can't imagine why!

A damning report published on Monday shows how cycling’s world governing body, the UCI, colluded with Lance Armstrong from 1999 to 2009 to circumvent accusations he doped and to cement his status as the pre-eminent personality in the sport.

The report reads: “There are numerous examples that prove Lance Armstrong benefited from a preferential status afforded by the UCI leadership … UCI did not actively seek to corroborate whether allegations of doping against Lance Armstrong were well-founded [but] fell back to a defensive position as if every attack against Lance Armstrong was an attack against cycling and the UCI leadership … there was a tacit exchange of favours between the UCI leadership and Lance Armstrong, and they presented a common front.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/lance-armstrong-uci-colluded-circ-report-cycling

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

It is claimed that Evans relayed the "tip-off" from Demetriou to Hird, ex-Essendon chief executive Ian Robson, club football boss Danny Corcoran and other Essendon officials. The next day, February 5, a meeting between Essendon officials, including Hird, and deputy AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan, is described.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demetriou-tipoff-a-key-factor-in-essendon-selfreporting-hird-writ-states-20130822-2sdf5.html

A DELEGATION of senior Essendon players met with AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan last week in the countdown to the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal's decision on whether they will face suspensions.

Captain Jobe Watson and fellow leaders Brendon Goddard and David Myers represented the Essendon players at the private meeting with McLachlan, which was held at the CEO's home.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-03/senior-bombers-players-meet-with-afl-ceo-gillon-mclachlan-as-antidoping-verdict-approaches

What vexed the Tribunal apparently came down to this: Those involved thought they were buying, distributing, compounding and dispensing Thymosin Beta-4 (or ‘TB4’). However, the Tribunal could not be satisfied the substance was, in fact, TB4.

Specifically, it is reported that the Tribunal comfortably accepted:

• Shane Charter bought what he believed to be TB4 and arranged to have it sent to chemist Nima Alavi;
• Mr Alavi believed he then compounded TB4;
• Mr Alavi dispensed 26 vials of a substance he believed to be TB4 to Stephen Dank;
• Correspondence between Mr Alavi and Mr Dank regarding “thymosin” refers to TB4;
• Mr Alavi’s lab technician compounded 15 vials of a substance she believed to be TB4 for Mr Dank;

Further, experts agreed the substance in Mr Alavi’s possession then delivered to Mr Dank was not Thymousin A1 (as subsequently claimed).

Required to prove this circumstantial case were the following matters:

• TB4 was procured from sources in China; and
• TB4 was obtained by Mr Alavi, compounded and provided to Mr Dank in his capacity as Sports Scientist at Essendon; and
• Mr Dank administered TB4 to each Player.

The Tribunal reportedly did not consider ©. This is because it was not comfortably satisfied by (a) and (b). For the Tribunal, belief did not translate into fact.

What then was the substance administered to each player?

Circumstantial cases rely on inference. Here, the Tribunal faced a fork in the road.

The Tribunal could have inferred that because:

• the substance was not Thymousin A1; and
• it was satisfied the key protagonists involved in administering the product to players all thought they were using the prohibited substance TB4,

then the substance was – to their comfortable satisfaction – TB4.

Instead, rather than turning left, the Tribunal turned right, onto the road where belief does not offer sufficient proof.

Presumably, the only sufficient proof would have been scientific proof.

http://sociallitigator.com/2015/04/03/a-question-of-proof-might-an-asada-appeal-have-legs/

etc. etc.

YEah thanks DFrag that was sort of where my poorly presented case sprang from. All unproven and wrong but its ok coz I lost the paperwork.

[What 18,810]

Readers are reminded that trolls are not welcome on this site.

Whilst we have no problem whatsoever with supporters of opposition clubs who debate rationally, we're going to have to deliver an uppercut to one who breaches that policy.

Apologies, but our policy is no different to the one that applies on other supporter sites and we've had one complaint too many about this.

And nothing of value was lost

[Chris 2,892]

Readers are reminded that trolls are not welcome on this site.

Whilst we have no problem whatsoever with supporters of opposition clubs who debate rationally, we're going to have to deliver an uppercut to one who breaches that policy.

Apologies, but our policy is no different to the one that applies on other supporter sites and we've had one complaint too many about this.

Please excuse my ignorance, his four published posts seem quite rational to me, more so than some of the dees supporters on here. I gather then that this decision was made due to posts that were not published?

[DemonFrog 1,347]

Please excuse my ignorance, his four published posts seem quite rational to me, more so than some of the dees supporters on here. I gather then that this decision was made due to posts that were not published?

Never give an Essendon supporter any opportunity to spread their miss information and Hird worship.

[ManDee 7,091]

Never give an Essendon supporter any opportunity to spread their miss information and Hird worship.

I don't have a problem with the misinformation, to me it shows how foolish they really are. The more they say the worse it gets.

[Chris 2,892]

I don't have a problem with the misinformation, to me it shows how foolish they really are. The more they say the worse it gets.

Agreed, as long as they are civil about the spreading of said information.

[John Crow Batty 8,266]

Does anyone think Bomberblitz would extend the same courtesy to any opposition supporter that tried to offer reasoned opinion in their sty?

[faultydet 7,593]

Does anyone think Bomberblitz would extend the same courtesy to any opposition supporter that tried to offer reasoned opinion in their sty?

Fair call.

I would think it's in the dictionary under, "impossible"

Although, I would say that uppercut at least tried to spread his propaganda in a polite manner. Kudos for that.

Actually, I really would have liked to see him/her expand on the reasoning behind the thoughts.Wonder if he would give me an answer on Blitz? Serious Uppercut, really want to understand the thinking behind your words.

faulty....

my spelling is appalling after a bottle of Johnnie Black. Ran this through spellcheck twice....omg

Edited May 26, 2015 by faultydet

[Chris 2,892]

Does anyone think Bomberblitz would extend the same courtesy to any opposition supporter that tried to offer reasoned opinion in their sty?

Maybe we should rise above that pettiness.