On 13/10/2016 at 04:51, Satyriconhome said:

Yes the leaders should have   but as for the ASADA statement, were they asked are you taking supplements or illegal supplements, are you being injected with anything, of course the answer would be yes to supplements all players take supplements of some sort, legal ones that is, they have to for their body to withstand the training, so for ASADA to say they answered No is [censored]   what exactly were they asked?

 

 

They are asked to give ASADA a list of everything they take whether they think it is legal or not. They are asked this for their own protection. For example, a player says yes I have had asprin, their test comes back positive for steroids, the player has no idea what is going on as he doesn't take steroids. ASADA go back to this form and look to see what he has taken, as it turns out asprin made a mistake and didn't clean their machinery well enough and some of their asprins contains steroids, bingo, player gets a massive discount (potentially no ban) as they are not at fault.

This is obviously completely made up but it is one of the reasons the players are asked to fill out the forms with EVERYTHING they have taken. Why did not one player mention the injections?

  On 13/10/2016 at 04:51, Satyriconhome said:

Yes the leaders should have   but as for the ASADA statement, were they asked are you taking supplements or illegal supplements, are you being injected with anything, of course the answer would be yes to supplements all players take supplements of some sort, legal ones that is, they have to for their body to withstand the training, so for ASADA to say they answered No is [censored]   what exactly were they asked?

 

 

ah... you are getting it... that was the question they were asked...... are you taking any supplements..... and they answered.............. NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Actually they left the section blank)

Here's the link to the form .... you will find the relevant question in the large white box under Section 3 headed "Information for Analysis"

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_doping_control_form_v6.pdf

Then have a read of the Appeal Court's judgment at paragraphs 161 and 162

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

Sorry Saty but the evidence against them was damning

Edited October 13, 20168 yr by Diamond_Jim

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:11, Diamond_Jim said:

ah... you are getting it... that was the question they were asked...... are you taking any supplements..... and they answered.............. NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's the link to the form .... you will find the relevant question in the large white box under Section 3 headed "Information for Analysis"

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_doping_control_form_v6.pdf

Then have a read of the Appeal Court's judgment at paragraphs 161 and 162

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

Sorry Saty but the evidence against them was damning

wasting your time on saty. he's too obdurate to reason with

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:13, daisycutter said:

wasting your time on saty. he's too obdurate to reason with

Well dc I have to admit I have never seen that word before.

I had to get out the Oxford to check the meaning.

Thank you for increasing my vocabulary.

I think the Court of Appeal decision is required reading for every fan who is interested in this subject.

It is not that long and as far as legal judgements go it is in relatively plain English.

The Court deals with each argument and then dismisses it with unequivocal logic. (They even look at the youth argument.)

 

Heard a good laugh on the radio today....

They are investigating appealing yo the european court of human rights

Not sure how their human rights have been violated but some lawyer is doing donald duck dives into a room of cash

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:20, biggestred said:

Heard a good laugh on the radio today....

They are investigating appealing yo the european court of human rights

Not sure how their human rights have been violated but some lawyer is doing donald duck dives into a room of cash

  On 13/10/2016 at 03:31, ManDee said:

 

ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt slammed the players for failing to know better and for being “complicit in a culture of secrecy and concealment”.

“This unfortunate episode has chronicled the most devastating self-inflicted injury by a sporting club in Australian history,” he said.

“The players had received anti-doping education through the AFL and ASADA, and were well aware that they are personally responsible for all substances that entered their body.

“Unfortunately, despite their education, they agreed to be injected with a number of substances they had little knowledge of, made no enquiries about the substance and kept the injections from their team doctor and ASADA.

“Of 30 ASADA testing missions during the period in question, none of the 18 players tested declared the injections, despite being asked each time whether they had taken any supplements.

“At best, the players did not ask the questions, or the people, they should have. At worst, they were complicit in a culture of secrecy and concealment.”

The CAS decision outlined the failure of the Bombers involved to disclose key pieces of information to investigators, including what “supplements” they believed they had been administered and when and the presence of Stephen Dank at away matches.

Edit:- attribution  - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/essendon/essendon-drugs-saga-players-only-have-themselves-to-blame-says-asada-chief/news-story/33ab716e80b0ab7de1f37572a68bfb46

 

Thanks Mandee.

McDevitt's comments provide the clarity around personal responsibility/accountability. For me, case closed.

In no other sport would we be having this discussion.

 

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:26, daisycutter said:

Come on dc, that's not Donald Duck. Surely you can do better than that.

  On 13/10/2016 at 03:38, daisycutter said:

relevance? they cheated or they didn't. they have been found guilty. of which i am satisfied. canberra had nothing to do with their guilt. 

The relevance is this was to be a cause celebre from day one, for political expediency.  Trot out the heads of the relevant sporting codes, including Demetriou to look even stronger. ASADA didn't have the bottle to prosecute properly; enter WADA.  Demetriou thought it would dissipate as the political cycle turned.

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:39, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Come on dc, that's not Donald Duck. Surely you can do better than that.

Thats my fault for getting my ducks mixed up

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:11, Diamond_Jim said:

ah... you are getting it... that was the question they were asked...... are you taking any supplements..... and they answered.............. NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Actually they left the section blank)

Here's the link to the form .... you will find the relevant question in the large white box under Section 3 headed "Information for Analysis"

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_doping_control_form_v6.pdf

Then have a read of the Appeal Court's judgment at paragraphs 161 and 162

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

Sorry Saty but the evidence against them was damning

Thanks Diamond_Jim. This form is exactly what I've been looking for. If I were an Essendon player I would have argued that I didn't think I had to disclose the injections because I didn't believe they met the definition of "non-prescription medication or supplements" on the basis that I (the player) thought they were vitamins or peptides...which, surely, aren't supplements. But it seems they didn't argue that, so, I have no idea why (a) they didn't complete the form properly and (b) they didn't choose better lawyers who would have thought of this as a cogent argument.

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:37, hemingway said:

Thanks Mandee.

McDevitt's comments provide the clarity around personal responsibility/accountability. For me, case closed.

In no other sport would we be having this discussion.

 

Then why did ASADA fall over with its prosecution of the case?

Edited October 13, 20168 yr by iv'a worn smith

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:17, Diamond_Jim said:

I think the Court of Appeal decision is required reading for every fan who is interested in this subject.

It is not that long and as far as legal judgements go it is in relatively plain English.

The Court deals with each argument and then dismisses it with unequivocal logic. (They even look at the youth argument.)

 

Where can we find it?

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:11, Diamond_Jim said:

ah... you are getting it... that was the question they were asked...... are you taking any supplements..... and they answered.............. NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Actually they left the section blank)

Here's the link to the form .... you will find the relevant question in the large white box under Section 3 headed "Information for Analysis"

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_doping_control_form_v6.pdf

Then have a read of the Appeal Court's judgment at paragraphs 161 and 162

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

Sorry Saty but the evidence against them was damning

Thanks Topaz, only ten pages to go, interesting reading. 

As I have said, the players are guilty, Jobe should give back that medal.

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:51, Chris said:

Where can we find it?

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:51, iv'a worn smith said:

Then why did ASADA fall over with its prosecution of the case?

Simple, the burden of proof was not applied by the AFL Tribunal as precedence would prescribe. 

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:51, iv'a worn smith said:

Then why did ASADA fall over with its prosecution of the case?

They fell over on legal technicalities, they were unable to give all the evidence.

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:54, ManDee said:

They fell over on legal technicalities, they were unable to give all the evidence.

No, they were inept.

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:54, Chris said:

Simple, the burden of proof was not applied by the AFL Tribunal as precedence would prescribe. 

What was the "burden of proof"?

 

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:54, Diamond_Jim said:

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

Thanks, but I thought they meant the findings from the Swiss appeals court, not CAS. 

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:51, iv'a worn smith said:

Then why did ASADA fall over with its prosecution of the case?

Main reason is that the AFL tribunal applied the burden of proof argument in a completely different way to CAS (chain vs string)

To extend that statement:

AFL tribunal looked for proof that what the players were given was Drug X

CAS said Danks ordered it.... Drug X was in the fridge..... players were given drugs.... reasonable to assume it included Drug X

(Simplistic but the AFL Tribunal looked for direct evidence whereas CAS was happy to rely on circumstantial evidence)

Edited October 13, 20168 yr by Diamond_Jim

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:57, iv'a worn smith said:

What was the "burden of proof"?

 

Comfortably satisfied, which is rather fluid in its application. The AFL tribunal had no real experience in applying it to doping cases. Various comments were that it was set way too high to the point is was almost beyond reasonable doubt. CAS stepped in and lowered it back to where it has been used internationally in doping cases and bam, guilty!

  On 13/10/2016 at 05:43, iv'a worn smith said:

The relevance is this was to be a cause celebre from day one, for political expediency.  Trot out the heads of the relevant sporting codes, including Demetriou to look even stronger. ASADA didn't have the bottle to prosecute properly; enter WADA.  Demetriou thought it would dissipate as the political cycle turned.

all that may be true but i fail to see how that is relevant to whether essendon and its players broke the rules on peds in sport. we know the afl is unwilling party to wada over-lordship 

  On 13/10/2016 at 06:00, daisycutter said:

all that may be true but i fail to see how that is relevant to whether essendon and its players broke the rules on peds in sport. we know the afl is unwilling party to wada over-lordship 

What I am saying DC is there are many on here who believe they know all of the facts, pertaining to this case.  No-one on here does know.  My point being that the entire issue had its genesis for entirely the wrong motivating factors.

If the substantive basis of guilt is predicated on the players lying to ASADA about what they did or did not ingest, surely this is a fairly easy basis upon which ASADA could have prosecuted the case, through the agency of the peak sporting body, being the AFL.  Is there not a chasm of a lack of logic in that alone and why does it exist?