THE SAGA CONTINUES - WADA APPEALS

[Dees2014 2,377]

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?

I agree with WJ. Anyone who knows anything about trolling knows how destructive it can be to a forum, and Uppercut has a reputation of being reasonable initially then totally destructive as his namesake "SanityPrevails" was. Believe me, we don't need it.

If you don't agree, I suggest you read what he has said about DL and DLers on BF. It has been extremely abusive and irrational -.typical trolling behaviour.

Having said that, I agree it is useful to get rational debate from opposition supporters as we do have on DL from time to time. It adds a useful perspective to what can be biased debate on here, but I don't think that is what we are dealing with here.

[Lance Uppercut 10]

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

I don't think I'm banned yet. And I'm not on Blitz. I generally hate environments where dissenting thought isn't tolerated. (Those guys are cuckoo)

You asked "held accountable how"? I was talking more of WADA. As the custodians of the code it is their responsibility to ensure it isn't broken. And imo this has exposed a flaw. So it's really the same solution opposition supporters keep banging on about, find a way that "losing records" isn't a means to escape penalty for cheating. But it needs to be codified, not just some vague hope that a different body will misapply the current law and somehow come up with a different interpretation.

In my opinion, there should be some way of arriving at a whole new ADRV, which essentially says if you take a substance (non-food) and you can't provide legitimate, credible records if investigated, then you're guilty. The onus of proof is reversed much like it is in the situation of an AAF, which is the correct definition of strict liability (as opposed to the commonly misunderstood application of the term as short hand for the concept of an athlete being responsible for what goes in their body).

For me, that's sensible. I recognise it's a difficult thing - it's far from as simple as saying "no records, banned." I can think of a range of problems with it off the top of my head, but I reckon you could work your way through it with enough stakeholder engagement, and let's face it, it would be no less draconian than other parts of the code.

But that is then in the code, codified, in black and white.

For me, the WADA code has other significant flaws too, particularly pertaining to team sports. I know this will be shouted down as a "Hird PR talking point" or some [censored], but there are clear cases where having a one-size fits all model of anti-doping just doesn't work, particularly regarind team sports.

For example: individual athletes are the employer in the doctor athlete relationship. In a team sport, that's not the case. You have no say. You can't fire the doc. You're only option is to dob in your whole team. You can kind of get why that's a problem for some people.

Also, team sports run to seasons, not on the olympic calendar. Yet the WADA code doesn't take this into account. So you can have bans served almost completely in off-season.

Also, it's just plain whack that the SAME BODY is tasked with a) advising athletes, and b) prosecuting the same athletes. How can that work? Let's say I'm an athlete and I suspect what the doc has given me is dodgy. Can I check with ASADA? Sure, but they'll ban you in a heartbeat. Not much incentive.

There's many other examples. And only one body can be held accountable. WADA.

There's no easy solution. And there's reasons why it's a one size fits all model. But I take real issue with the partisan lines this debate has split into, where EFC supporters are cast as villains for supporting their team - when like it or not there is no firm case against them - yet at least - and opposition supporters who blindly support ASADA and WADA in the same emotional irrational manner they support their own team.

I want my players to face a fair investiation and trial, and whilst acknowledging significant blatant failings with the club, I am unprepared to hang them on skerricks of evidence leaked to the media in a PR war and I'm willing to wait until the end of the process, upon which time I'll accept the umpires decision whatever it may be. Which, it has to be said, is a lot more than a lot of opposition supporters have been willing to concede.

[Lance Uppercut 10]

I agree with WJ. Anyone who knows anything about trolling knows how destructive it can be to a forum, and Uppercut has a reputation of being reasonable initially then totally destructive as his namesake "SanityPrevails" was. Believe me, we don't need it.

If you don't agree, I suggest you read what he has said about DL and DLers on BF. It has been extremely abusive and irrational -.typical trolling behaviour.

Having said that, I agree it is useful to get rational debate from opposition supporters as we do have on DL from time to time. It adds a useful perspective to what can be biased debate on here, but I don't think that is what we are dealing with here.

bit ironic really you making a post like that, when all you're doing is playing the man. I thought maybe you'd have the nuts to actually debate the issue, but you do strike me as a bit of a flat track bully so maybe not

[whatwhat say what 22,909]

What do you think will happen if wada find against the players, lance?

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

The fact they undertook an injection regime of this scale and can't produce records of it should in my opinion mean every person involved should be banned from the AFL.

Banned substances add another layer to what is already a disgusting situation, and I'm yet to hear a single quality argument from anyone associated with Essendon that justifies the actions of the club and certain officials. Until that happens my respect for the club and code is all but lost

[sue 9,126]

For example: individual athletes are the employer in the doctor athlete relationship. In a team sport, that's not the case. You have no say. You can't fire the doc. You're only option is to dob in your whole team. You can kind of get why that's a problem for some people.

Do you have a suggested solution to that?

Personally I think the fear of a single whistle-blower dobbing in the doctor would be an excellent incentive in keeping docs and their employing admins on the straight and narrow.

[Lance Uppercut 10]

What do you think will happen if wada find against the players, lance?

if CAS find against them you mean.

In all honesty I don't know. The code allows for significant flexibility in sentencing. Impossible to say

[Lance Uppercut 10]

The fact they undertook an injection regime of this scale and can't produce records of it should in my opinion mean every person involved should be banned from the AFL.

but that's not what the rules say, is it?

[Lance Uppercut 10]

Do you have a suggested solution to that?

Personally I think the fear of a single whistle-blower dobbing in the doctor would be an excellent incentive in keeping docs and their employing admins on the straight and narrow.

not specifically, no. There may not be one. And it's worth noting it's hardly unique to footballers. AIS athletes, for example, would have zero influence on medical staff.

[faultydet 7,619]

I don't think I'm banned yet. And I'm not on Blitz. I generally hate environments where dissenting thought isn't tolerated. (Those guys are cuckoo)

You asked "held accountable how"? I was talking more of WADA. As the custodians of the code it is their responsibility to ensure it isn't broken. And imo this has exposed a flaw. So it's really the same solution opposition supporters keep banging on about, find a way that "losing records" isn't a means to escape penalty for cheating. But it needs to be codified, not just some vague hope that a different body will misapply the current law and somehow come up with a different interpretation.

Please Lance. The rest of us would say "Correctly Applied", not misapplied. I think this is the area where your guys will come undone.

[deefrag 277]

I don't think I'm banned yet. And I'm not on Blitz. I generally hate environments where dissenting thought isn't tolerated. (Those guys are cuckoo)

You asked "held accountable how"? I was talking more of WADA. As the custodians of the code it is their responsibility to ensure it isn't broken. And imo this has exposed a flaw. So it's really the same solution opposition supporters keep banging on about, find a way that "losing records" isn't a means to escape penalty for cheating. But it needs to be codified, not just some vague hope that a different body will misapply the current law and somehow come up with a different interpretation.

In my opinion, there should be some way of arriving at a whole new ADRV, which essentially says if you take a substance (non-food) and you can't provide legitimate, credible records if investigated, then you're guilty. The onus of proof is reversed much like it is in the situation of an AAF, which is the correct definition of strict liability (as opposed to the commonly misunderstood application of the term as short hand for the concept of an athlete being responsible for what goes in their body).

For me, that's sensible. I recognise it's a difficult thing - it's far from as simple as saying "no records, banned." I can think of a range of problems with it off the top of my head, but I reckon you could work your way through it with enough stakeholder engagement, and let's face it, it would be no less draconian than other parts of the code.

But that is then in the code, codified, in black and white.

For me, the WADA code has other significant flaws too, particularly pertaining to team sports. I know this will be shouted down as a "Hird PR talking point" or some [censored], but there are clear cases where having a one-size fits all model of anti-doping just doesn't work, particularly regarind team sports.

For example: individual athletes are the employer in the doctor athlete relationship. In a team sport, that's not the case. You have no say. You can't fire the doc. You're only option is to dob in your whole team. You can kind of get why that's a problem for some people.

Also, team sports run to seasons, not on the olympic calendar. Yet the WADA code doesn't take this into account. So you can have bans served almost completely in off-season.

Also, it's just plain whack that the SAME BODY is tasked with a) advising athletes, and b) prosecuting the same athletes. How can that work? Let's say I'm an athlete and I suspect what the doc has given me is dodgy. Can I check with ASADA? Sure, but they'll ban you in a heartbeat. Not much incentive.

There's many other examples. And only one body can be held accountable. WADA.

There's no easy solution. And there's reasons why it's a one size fits all model. But I take real issue with the partisan lines this debate has split into, where EFC supporters are cast as villains for supporting their team - when like it or not there is no firm case against them - yet at least - and opposition supporters who blindly support ASADA and WADA in the same emotional irrational manner they support their own team.

I want my players to face a fair investiation and trial, and whilst acknowledging significant blatant failings with the club, I am unprepared to hang them on skerricks of evidence leaked to the media in a PR war and I'm willing to wait until the end of the process, upon which time I'll accept the umpires decision whatever it may be. Which, it has to be said, is a lot more than a lot of opposition supporters have been willing to concede.

" I am unprepared to hang them on skerricks of evidence leaked to the media in a PR war "

I reckon this is where I stop reading your posts!

Adios Amoeba!!

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

Lance, this is bigger than rules, that's what they don't get, technically they may have broken no rules, morally their conduct is close to the worst in the history of Australian sport and embarrassing to the code.

If my kids were subjected to that I'd be fuming

[faultydet 7,619]

I don't think I'm banned yet. And I'm not on Blitz. I generally hate environments where dissenting thought isn't tolerated. (Those guys are cuckoo)

You asked "held accountable how"? I was talking more of WADA. As the custodians of the code it is their responsibility to ensure it isn't broken. And imo this has exposed a flaw. So it's really the same solution opposition supporters keep banging on about, find a way that "losing records" isn't a means to escape penalty for cheating. But it needs to be codified, not just some vague hope that a different body will misapply the current law and somehow come up with a different interpretation.

You are a regular poster on Blitz. Not sure your mates would be welcoming of this comment.

I WAS referring to how do you think WADA should be held accountable. There seems to be a view from Bombers supporters, that after this is all dusted, that WADA/ASADA should be "Re-Invented"

I have no doubt whatsoever that WADA/ASADA will revisit their codes after this is over, but that is not a relevant argument against any prosecution that they pursue in this case. I see this view as a smokescreen. That is unless you are suggesting that it would have been a good thing to see them with more powers before this investigation commenced?

[faultydet 7,619]

Lance, this is bigger than rules, that's what they don't get, technically they may have broken no rules, morally their conduct is close to the worst in the history of Australian sport and embarrassing to the code.

If my kids were subjected to that I'd be fuming

Have to be honest Sir, I couldnt give a stuff about "morals". I only want to see them obliterated if they have actually broken the WADA code.

[whatwhat say what 22,909]

Yep, found guilty by cas I mean.

Do you believe as some do that wada is being deliberately vindictive as a result of Essendon and Hird's delaying tactics?

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

That's where we differ faulty, I'd like to see the young men of the AFL looked after and not treated like test dummies

[faultydet 7,619]

Also, it's just plain whack that the SAME BODY is tasked with a) advising athletes, and b) prosecuting the same athletes. How can that work? Let's say I'm an athlete and I suspect what the doc has given me is dodgy. Can I check with ASADA? Sure, but they'll ban you in a heartbeat. Not much incentive.

Thats the Real Estate agent argument,, and I can see your point, to a point.

Its so so very simple. You check with the drug agency, BEFORE you let people inject you with Turds favoured drugs

[Chris 2,892]

I don't think I'm banned yet. And I'm not on Blitz. I generally hate environments where dissenting thought isn't tolerated. (Those guys are cuckoo)

You asked "held accountable how"? I was talking more of WADA. As the custodians of the code it is their responsibility to ensure it isn't broken. And imo this has exposed a flaw. So it's really the same solution opposition supporters keep banging on about, find a way that "losing records" isn't a means to escape penalty for cheating. But it needs to be codified, not just some vague hope that a different body will misapply the current law and somehow come up with a different interpretation.

In my opinion, there should be some way of arriving at a whole new ADRV, which essentially says if you take a substance (non-food) and you can't provide legitimate, credible records if investigated, then you're guilty. The onus of proof is reversed much like it is in the situation of an AAF, which is the correct definition of strict liability (as opposed to the commonly misunderstood application of the term as short hand for the concept of an athlete being responsible for what goes in their body).

For me, that's sensible. I recognise it's a difficult thing - it's far from as simple as saying "no records, banned." I can think of a range of problems with it off the top of my head, but I reckon you could work your way through it with enough stakeholder engagement, and let's face it, it would be no less draconian than other parts of the code.

But that is then in the code, codified, in black and white.

For me, the WADA code has other significant flaws too, particularly pertaining to team sports. I know this will be shouted down as a "Hird PR talking point" or some [censored], but there are clear cases where having a one-size fits all model of anti-doping just doesn't work, particularly regarind team sports.

For example: individual athletes are the employer in the doctor athlete relationship. In a team sport, that's not the case. You have no say. You can't fire the doc. You're only option is to dob in your whole team. You can kind of get why that's a problem for some people.

Also, team sports run to seasons, not on the olympic calendar. Yet the WADA code doesn't take this into account. So you can have bans served almost completely in off-season.

Also, it's just plain whack that the SAME BODY is tasked with a) advising athletes, and b) prosecuting the same athletes. How can that work? Let's say I'm an athlete and I suspect what the doc has given me is dodgy. Can I check with ASADA? Sure, but they'll ban you in a heartbeat. Not much incentive.

There's many other examples. And only one body can be held accountable. WADA.

There's no easy solution. And there's reasons why it's a one size fits all model. But I take real issue with the partisan lines this debate has split into, where EFC supporters are cast as villains for supporting their team - when like it or not there is no firm case against them - yet at least - and opposition supporters who blindly support ASADA and WADA in the same emotional irrational manner they support their own team.

I want my players to face a fair investiation and trial, and whilst acknowledging significant blatant failings with the club, I am unprepared to hang them on skerricks of evidence leaked to the media in a PR war and I'm willing to wait until the end of the process, upon which time I'll accept the umpires decision whatever it may be. Which, it has to be said, is a lot more than a lot of opposition supporters have been willing to concede.

I don't buy the doctor player relationship issues as with any person wanting to inject you, it is up to you to approve. If AFL clubs don't allow that then that is a massive cultural issue with the AFL, not the WADA code.

You issue around WADA both advising on rules and prosecuting then is really no different to the AFL tribunal, even in doping caseS.

I agree with your comments on record keeping, and as I have posted before, I think this has already happened.

I would remove the AFL from the process and set up an Australian CAS to hear all doping cases nationally.

Your comment around asking ASADA if you have taken something banned is also flawed. If the athlete takes their responsibilities seriously the. They will check before taking something, no matter who says it is OK. If the AFL culture doesn't allow this then the culture needs to change.

I also don't buy the Olympic timeline argument. Is essentially irrelevant as when you are banned you can have no meaningful contact with your club, coach, sport etc. even if in the off season this is a massive consequence.

[faultydet 7,619]

That's where we differ faulty, I'd like to see the young men of the AFL looked after and not treated like test dummies

We are arguing a different point SIR.

I am arguing against the morals of the cover up / destroying of evidence / fighting a case on technicalities.

We are in furious agreement on using people as guinea pigs, but they still had a choice, and they chose to close ranks and keep things hidden, rather than seek the truth. Thats where I lose any sympathy for them.

[Lance Uppercut 10]

You are a regular poster on Blitz. Not sure your mates would be welcoming of this comment.

I WAS referring to how do you think WADA should be held accountable. There seems to be a view from Bombers supporters, that after this is all dusted, that WADA/ASADA should be "Re-Invented"

I have no doubt whatsoever that WADA/ASADA will revisit their codes after this is over, but that is not a relevant argument against any prosecution that they pursue in this case. I see this view as a smokescreen. That is unless you are suggesting that it would have been a good thing to see them with more powers before this investigation commenced?

I haven't posted there since this whole thing began actually. Perhaps one or two posts at most.

I don't think WADA need to be held accountable now. They are a review body who are tasked with exactly this, and I for one have no issue with them exercising that right, even though it's a pain in the arse. You will get EFC supporters complaining about the de novo nature of the trial, and whilst there are signficant problems with that process imo it has to be that way, precisely so local bodies can't "appeal-proof" findings.

So, WADA are merely doing what they are absolutely entitled to do, and I personally have said all along if they think an appeal is needed they should appeal. It's actually good because if they get off again all the conspiracy theorists can STFU. We'll see how it turns out I guess.

[Wilson7 2,688]

I haven't posted there since this whole thing began actually. Perhaps one or two posts at most.

I don't think WADA need to be held accountable now. They are a review body who are tasked with exactly this, and I for one have no issue with them exercising that right, even though it's a pain in the arse. You will get EFC supporters complaining about the de novo nature of the trial, and whilst there are signficant problems with that process imo it has to be that way, precisely so local bodies can't "appeal-proof" findings.

So, WADA are merely doing what they are absolutely entitled to do, and I personally have said all along if they think an appeal is needed they should appeal. It's actually good because if they get off again all the conspiracy theorists can STFU. We'll see how it turns out I guess.

Why the hell do i have to read your crap here as well, stay on bigfooty, FFS lance, broken record

[Lance Uppercut 10]

I don't buy the doctor player relationship issues as with any person wanting to inject you, it is up to you to approve. If AFL clubs don't allow that then that is a massive cultural issue with the AFL, not the WADA code.

You issue around WADA both advising on rules and prosecuting then is really no different to the AFL tribunal, even in doping caseS.

I agree with your comments on record keeping, and as I have posted before, I think this has already happened.

I would remove the AFL from the process and set up an Australian CAS to hear all doping cases nationally.

Your comment around asking ASADA if you have taken something banned is also flawed. If the athlete takes their responsibilities seriously the. They will check before taking something, no matter who says it is OK. If the AFL culture doesn't allow this then the culture needs to change.

I also don't buy the Olympic timeline argument. Is essentially irrelevant as when you are banned you can have no meaningful contact with your club, coach, sport etc. even if in the off season this is a massive consequence.

I agree broadly - you can't allow a doctor to be any kind of excuse - the basic premise behind the athlete alone being responsible is sound, I'm just talking in abstract concepts. I don't have any answers on how to do it better. Sometimes you have to accept the least worst outcome.

I agree on the "Australian CAS". It seems a no-brainer to me. Take it out of the governing bodies hands, if only for the perception it creates. The only issue I can see is cost but hell, compliance must be pretty expensive as it is so surely a redirection of certain funds would solve most of those issues.,

[Lance Uppercut 10]

Why the hell do i have to read your crap here as well, stay on bigfooty, FFS lance, broken record

happy to [censored] off then. But if people are going to talk smack about me and make false accusations then don't have a cry when I defend myself. Cheerio

[faultydet 7,619]

Why the hell do i have to read your crap here as well, stay on bigfooty, FFS lance, broken record

Sorry Neita.

I asked him a question, and he was simply replying.

My fault

[Wilson7 2,688]

happy to [censored] then. But if people are going to talk smack about me and make false accusations then don't have a cry when I defend myself. Cheerio

Not having a cry Lance, just sick and tired of your Hird cheerleading, its more suited to bigfooty.