The Australian is reporting that 'St Kilda are adamant they will not be liable to pay the salary of former Essendon player Jake Carlisle'.

Tricky situation. 

Part of me says players not being paid is part of the penalty.  AFL should be no different.  I would hate to see players swooning around France (like their disgraced coach) while suspended.

But part of me thinks livelihoods are at stake: homes, children's education, family health. 

Hopefully, all players are treated the same.  The Saints have upped the ante for the AFL on what they do next re payments!

I suspect the AFL will look for some 'financial engineering' to ensure players get funds, at something like their contract levels while paying lip service to WADA rules.  Leopards don't change their spots! 

 

11 hours ago, biggestred said:

That 12 (12!!!!) Players did not take part is the biggest smoking gun for me.

It clearly says there was the option to opt out.

12 players took responsibility for themselves.

34 didn't. 

Apart from Zaharakis, do we know that these players "opted out"? Isn't it also possible that they were involved in the regime but there was no evidence of them being injected with illegal substances, hence no infraction notices? Given Hal Hunter is one of the 12 listed and he's taking action against the club, it would suggest to me he's an example of one who was injected and therefore didn't "opt out".

FYI:

https://theconversation.com/their-club-failed-them-but-essendon-players-cant-escape-blame-for-doping-ban-53097?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20January%2014%202016%20-%204103&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20January%2014%202016%20-%204103+CID_8f92c080d5db34ed65b7d5ee38e4b11d&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Their%20club%20failed%20them%20but%20Essendon%20players%20cant%20escape%20blame%20for%20doping%20ban

1 hour ago, Dr John Dee said:

Damn right, CBD.

And besides, Article 11.2 of the WADA Code says:

 

'If more than two members of a team in a Team Sport are found to have committed an anti-doping violation during an Event Period, the ruling body of the Event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (e.g. loss of points, Disqualification from a Competition or Event, or other sanction) in addition to any Consequences imposed upon the individual Athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation.'

 

I presume that the penalties already imposed on EFC by the AFL can't be construed as a response to this requirement since the players have only now been officially found to have committed the violations (the fines etc were also penalties imposed before the completion of the ASADA investigation and, in any case, were for 'bringing the game into disrepute' not for doping).

 

What's happened to the AFL's responsibilities under the WADA code?

I find it amusing to read RESPONSIBILITIES and AFL in the same sentence.  

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I find it amusing to read RESPONSIBILITIES and AFL in the same sentence.  

Yeah, sorry. How about 'supposed responsibilities'?

I find it interesting that the Essendon home page advertises its membership drive as "Threads in the Sash" I wonder if WADA had a look and said thanks very much we will go with "Strands in a cable".

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Finally the media publishes the core of CAS's decision!  This article explains it perfectly:http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-essendon-decision--how-could-a-different-decision-emerge-from-the-same-evidence-20160113-gm4q4w.html

Tanner et al have been disingenuous (or haven't read the judgement) at 'being confused' as to how the AFL Tribunal can come to one decision and CAS a different decision.  As I've mentioned in several posts it comes down to the 'strands in a cable' vs the 'links in a chain' approach. 

Extract:

"The links in the chain involved sport scientist Stephen Dank procuring TB-4, it being compounded for Dank, and then Dank administering the TB-4 to the players.  In relation to the first two links, the AFL tribunal found  the evidence was insufficient. Once the chain was broken, the AFL tribunal decided it could not then determine whether Dank administered the peptide and, accordingly, found in favour of the players.

By contrast, WADA adopted the "strand in a cable" approach....Accordingly, WADA set about producing evidence on these "missing links" and attempted to present all the different items of evidence (which constituted 16 separate strands), which alone might have been capable of an innocent explanation, but taken together established guilt to the CAS panel's comfortable satisfaction.

Under the "strand in a cable" analysis, each piece of evidence, or "strand", was not required to bear the entire weight of the standard of proof – because some of the weight could be carried by the other strands.

 Ultimately the CAS panel accepted this more holistic evidentiary approach and focused more on whether there was evidence that Dank handled TB-4 and administered it to the players, rather than when, how and from where he sourced it."

From my reading of the judgement, the 'strands' were things like players: not disclosing supplements to ASADA testers (30 times!), not asking the club doctor, not checking with ASADA/WADA website, consenting to the injection regime, the injection regime being almost identical to that use for TB4, the chemical make up of a supplement was almost identical to that of TB4, it was shown Dank did have TB4 and in quantities he could not have used elsewhere etc etc.

Because the AFL Tribunal could not 'connect the dots' it never even looked at whether Dank administered TB4 to the players!  WADA, didn't try to 'connect the dots'!  Instead opting for the 'strands' approach.  It seems, the AFLPA legal team had not prepared a defense to this approach!  Caught flat footed!

WADA's chief lawyer, Richard Young has successfully used the 'strand in a cable' approach before.  The AFLPA lawyers were given the opportunity by CAS to object to that approach.  Why they didn't absolutely beggars belief!

So the way I read that is the AFL tribunal looked at each piece of evidence separately where as CAS viewed the evidence in totality to come to the conclusion of guilty.

1 minute ago, Cards13 said:

So the way I read that is the AFL tribunal looked at each piece of evidence separately where as CAS viewed the evidence in totality to come to the conclusion of guilty.

The way I read it is that the AFL Tribunal was looking for any excuse to exonerate the players.  I'm just amazed that they didn't give more weight to the fact that the players did not mention the supposedly legal injections when responding to the regular ASADA questionnaires. That screams GUILTY to me even if there was no other evidence.  How are the EFC apologists in the media dealing with that? Ignoring it?

5 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

So the way I read that is the AFL tribunal looked at each piece of evidence separately where as CAS viewed the evidence in totality to come to the conclusion of guilty.

Quite right.  And the AFL Tribunal didn't give any weight to the player behaviour evidence as they could not link Dank getting TB4 to EFC therefore could not link it to the players.  ie the chain broke down. 

The Tribunal thinking process was along the lines of: if we cannot be comfortably satisfied what Dank did with the TB4 he got from Alavi (if it was TB4) there is no reason to look at whether Dank used it on the players therefore players cannot be found guilty.  Note: My paraphrasing and interpretation.

8 minutes ago, sue said:

The way I read it is that the AFL Tribunal was looking for any excuse to exonerate the players.  I'm just amazed that they didn't give more weight to the fact that the players did not mention the supposedly legal injections when responding to the regular ASADA questionnaires. That screams GUILTY to me even if there was no other evidence.  How are the EFC apologists in the media dealing with that? Ignoring it?

Certainly is a vast difference in outcome for the Dons. I wonder what Lance Uppercut thinks of it all. 

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Quite right.  And the AFL Tribunal didn't give any weight to the player behaviour evidence as they could not link Dank getting TB4 to EFC therefore could not link it to the players.  ie the chain broke down. 

The Tribunal thinking process was along the lines of: if we cannot be comfortably satisfied what Dank did with the TB4 he got from Alavi (if it was TB4) there is no reason to look at whether Dank used it on the players therefore players cannot be found guilty.  Note: My paraphrasing and interpretation.

WADA could not tie the how TB got to the Dons but they believed TB was at the Dons and was used. 

2 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

WADA could not tie the how TB got to the Dons but they believed TB was at the Dons and was used. 

Yes to the second part, not quite to the first as WADA did not even try to link how TB4 got to EFC. 

WADA basically said it doesn't matter where or how Dank got the TB4 we believe it was used on the players, they consented and here are the 16 strands of evidence to support this belief.  CAS was comfortably satisfied that players were injected with TB4.  Again, my paraphrasing and interpretation.

11 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes to the second part, not quite to the first as WADA did not even try to link how TB4 got to EFC. 

WADA basically said it doesn't matter where or how Dank got the TB4 we believe it was used on the players, they consented and here are the 16 strands of evidence to support this belief.  CAS was comfortably satisfied that players were injected with TB4.  Again, my paraphrasing and interpretation.

Ok thanks

Not sure if this has been mentioned but the front page of the Hun is dominated by a picture of Hird and tag screaming EXCLUSIVE - James Hird my story. Why we statrded injections. How Dank came to Dons. Demitriou and The AFL

A two part story apparently starting tomorrow. 

Lord give me strength

Just now, binman said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned but the front page of the Hun is dominated by a picture of Hird and tag screaming EXCLUSIVE - James Hird my story. Why we statrded injections. How Dank came to Dons. Demitriou and The AFL

A two part story apparently starting tomorrow. 

Lord give me strength

He is probably going to regurgitate the fluff he has written over the last three years.   

He is probably smarting that his 'bestie' is giving an interview to Tracey Holmes on Sunday.  Will be surprised if he has anything new. 

Just Robbo being Robbo who can't allow himself to be upstaged!

Talking about Robbo, we all know the train he got on when it started rolling. But, I was surprised the other night on AFL 360. Once he had read the findings at how damning it was for the players, his tune changed quite drastically. Especially towards the players about how they were lead down this path that they should have these injections. I think he realises now that it was that everyone (most) had bought into this program and knew what they were doing.

I still think he is a tool though.

2 minutes ago, Barra17 said:

Talking about Robbo, we all know the train he got on when it started rolling. But, I was surprised the other night on AFL 360. Once he had read the findings at how damning it was for the players, his tune changed quite drastically. Especially towards the players about how they were lead down this path that they should have these injections. I think he realises now that it was that everyone (most) had bought into this program and knew what they were doing.

I still think he is a tool though.

I think he occasionly has lucid moments. 

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

So the way I read that is the AFL tribunal looked at each piece of evidence separately where as CAS viewed the evidence in totality to come to the conclusion of guilty.

If you use the links in a chain analagy, once one link is broken the entire argument fails. (this is what the AFL tribunal did with regards burden of proof))

Using the strands in a cable approach says that one strand by itself does not carry all the weight, nor does it being broken destroy the cable. The collective strands are enough to carry the weight of the argument. ie on the balance of probabilities or compfrtable satisfaction. This is what CAS used.

 

10 minutes ago, Barra17 said:

Talking about Robbo, we all know the train he got on when it started rolling. But, I was surprised the other night on AFL 360. Once he had read the findings at how damning it was for the players, his tune changed quite drastically. Especially towards the players about how they were lead down this path that they should have these injections. I think he realises now that it was that everyone (most) had bought into this program and knew what they were doing.

I still think he is a tool though.

You're right about him changing his stance. Remarkable!

How someone, a journalist no less, who should be held up to higher standard of investigation, can just write many articles for so based on "I spoke to Hirdy on the phone" is beyond responsible reporting.

It is doing a disservice to the public and the other responsible, law abiding athletes. This makes those athletes all the better. Give it to Trent and Sam!

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Captain Todd said:

You're right about him changing his stance. Remarkable!

How someone, a journalist no less, who should be held up to higher standard of investigation, can just write many articles for so based on "I spoke to Hirdy on the phone" is beyond responsible reporting.

It is doing a disservice to the public and the other responsible, law abiding athletes. This makes those athletes all the better. Give it to Trent and Sam!

 

 

 

Robbo is just a complete farce of a journalist

Print and TV

43 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

If you use the links in a chain analagy, once one link is broken the entire argument fails. (this is what the AFL tribunal did with regards burden of proof))

Using the strands in a cable approach says that one strand by itself does not carry all the weight, nor does it being broken destroy the cable. The collective strands are enough to carry the weight of the argument. ie on the balance of probabilities or compfrtable satisfaction. This is what CAS used.

 

I might try the strands in the cable approach next time i have an argument with my wife

1 minute ago, binman said:

I might try the strands in the cable approach next time i have an argument with my wife

Please record this so we can see the results.

I assume you will be wearing a fire-proof suit?

53 minutes ago, old dee said:

I think he occasionly has lucid moments. 

Drunks like robbo  refer to them as  moments of  clarity 

51 minutes ago, binman said:

I might try the strands in the cable approach next time i have an argument with my wife

That would surely depend on both you personal preferences for bondage - chains or ropes. 

59 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Drunks like robbo  refer to them as  moments of  clarity 

did you mean "moments of claret"?