ManDee

I am enjoying this conversation. If the club did a power point display for the players showing correspondence saying that the supplements that they planned on using were all OK and the players did a check and found Thymosin (for example) was OK it would give credence to the lack of intent to use illegal PED's. Most if not all clubs use supplements, do you think the players check if they are OK? I know that they should but do they? Essendon knew that they were cheating so they would not contact ASADA. Hird inquired with the AFL about peptides and was told to steer clear of them. He ignored that advice. How could the players ask ASADA about the legality of a drug if they were not told what it was and had been shown documents (I presume) to say the program was OK?

Guilty. Edit; Weightlifter Fails Rule 1. Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample This does not apply to EFC players Essendon players:Rule 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. Requires knowledge that a substance was prohibited.

deanox, what many are failing to do is recognise that no illegal substances have been found in any EFC player. Yes, they are responsible for what they take, but prove what they took. There is no proof. You say that the players could have done a search or call ASADA, why, they were told it was a legal supplements program. If they did a search on Thymosin in 2011/12 as now, it is not illegal. What more could the player do? Ignorance is not a defence against having PED's found in your system correct, but that is not the case. Nothing has been found. Ignorance is a defence against intent, by that I mean if you did not know you were being given illegal substances how could you have intended to use them. I hate it but I get it.

Welcome DIITD. What went into their bodies? Please provide proof source not innuendo. There is no evidence of anything going into their bodies. Edit: That is the problem. Those vials may have been placebo's.

Remember, no positive tests for the players, no proof that they took anything. No proof of intent to take anything illegal. The outcome was predictable given the facts. As I said I still think that they took TB4 and possibly other illegal PED's. Stay angry Chris, hopefully they will be found guilty in the end. Get the EFC first is my feeling. Ban the cheats.

Chris fastest to 5 posts? Today's ASADA site is different to 2011/2012 as is the WADA site. Example AOD9604 I agree that the players should have sought more information. But if a program of misinformation was undertaken by the club you can understand the pressure for the players to go along. Why would you not trust the club? Perhaps some players did have misgivings, who knows? Imagine the club plans a PED program where senior management are kept in the dark (plausible deniability) the players are lied to. All records are destroyed. A legal firewall is placed around key protagonists. Sound familiar, I think it likely that was Essendon's plan from the outset in case the shlt hit the fan. So far it is working.

Damn, I've got pre games nerves already , I will be a basket case by Saturday.

So if Dank has the vials labelled Thymosin, what do the players do? The players are then only guilty if there is a positive test (no test exists for TB4) or if they intended to take an illegal substance and Thymosin is not illegal (or beneficial). The club has been very clever, it will in my opinion be their downfall. The club still intended to administer PED's they are guilty. And also the long term effects to the players and ongoing and future legal stoushes.

Or disagree for that matter.

Good point on AOD, but if the players were given copies of the WADA AOD ruling it would be different. Very hard for a player to check the composition of every vial of drugs given to them, remember we are talking about hundreds of injections. I find it hard arguing for the EFC players, because my gut feeling is that they are guilty. But the counter argument to a conspiracy needs to be raised, I suppose I am today's devils advocate.

Welcome Chris. AOD's illegality was ambiguous at the time it was used by EFC. It was decided that ADADA would not continue with AOD charges as a result. If the club lied to the players about what was being given to them they could hardly check to see if it were legal. I am sure the club set out to cheat. I am not sure the players knew, I think that is how the program was intended to work. The club becomes more guilty as the players are exonerated. Edit: Too many words.

So in the EFC players case. There is no evidence that any PED's were taken. Was there an intent to take a PED by the players? Not proven. Were PED's taken. Not proven Was it known what was taken. Not proven. The not knowing aspect is where I think we differ. You say "If a player took something through misdirection Wada will consider that, possibly mitigate the applied penalty but its still an infraction none the less" But that assumes that proof exists that the players actually took a PED. If that proof does not exist we cannot go on to the next step of mitigation, it is not required. No proof is exactly that. That is how we end up at the intent to take PED's and that has also not been proven. A clever ploy by the EFC legal team to keep it at AFL tribunal level. WADA need to pursue the club. They may get the players at the same time.

Sorry Beeb I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

Got to love an active discussion without personal insults. Yes, "Theres no requirement that they knew it to be prohibited. Only that it is and they intended to use it" But that ignores the possibility that they were told one drug (legal) and given another (illegal drug). In that case they did not intend to use a prohibited drug. They intended to use a legal drug. Then it falls to a positive test, If positive they are guilty under a different rule.

Easily. If the players new that the drugs that they intended to use were banned or should have known they were banned they are guilty whether they used them or not. For instance a document is found where the players were told that they would be taking TB4 and they signed it.

My reading of the rules is different. What you are saying is correct for a positive test. If there is no positive test a different rule applies. Intent to take a prohibited substance.... And it would appear that is how the players have received no penalty. They cannot prove that the players intended to take a prohibited substance. I hope subsequent testing does find them guilty.

There is a third option Beeb, taking a substance that you are told is legal that may not be legal. No intent to take an illegal substance exists here. A positive test is the only way to be guilty in this scenario. IMO

Sorry, I had to laugh. Only a conspiracy theorist would suspect the finger was being pointed at them. Or perhaps a paranoid conspiracy theorist. No Dees2014 it was not pointed at you. You have made some valid points, I don't agree with all of them though.

Beeb, you know my feelings on all this but ask the question. Did the players attempt to take a banned substance or did the club attempt to give it to them? I think it entirely possible that the players did not attempt to take a banned substance. I am completely satisfied that the club attempted to administer banned substances. With a positive test the players are guilty. This may still happen as testing improves. Wade Lees attempted to import that is very different to players at Essendon who have argued ignorance. (very well I might add). The club clearly attempted to use PED's furthermore they most likely have tampered with the records. If the club told the players they were administering TB4 then the players would be guilty of attempting to use PED's

I agree, unfortunately that is not how the rules are written and it should be. Complete records of doses, dates, drugs, supplements, observations on a player by player basis should be up to date and complete. In the absence of those records guilt is presumed and innocence needs to be proven. Edit: We were all thinking the same thoughts and typing at the same time. Spooky.

Nut, I think we need to move our attention to the practices of the club. It is possible that the players were given illegal PED's without their permission or knowledge. If we accept the AFL Tribunal judgement then I think it clear that the club is still guilty under Rule 8 of the anti doping code. (see above) The club clearly attempted to administer PED's. Perhaps we should concentrate our vitriol on the EFC as they were the architects of the program and subsequent cover up. The EFC should be banished from sport.

I will give it a try Clint by breaking it up. 1 For the players to be found guilty for attempted use you would have to establish that they new what they attempted to take was not approved for use. It is fairly clear that the club through its employees misled the players about the substances used. (I disagree with the outcome but understand the methodology) 2 The club as you rightly question has not to my knowledge been charged with a violation on doping to date. This is a mystery to me but I think the good burghers at ASADA are waiting on a positive outcome from the tribunal against Dank to aid their case against the club. Under rule 8 of the ASADA code (see below) it should be a slam dunk guilty against the club. I would be staggered if ASADA or WADA do not charge and subsequently rule against the EFC. The delay is interesting. The case against the EFC should be the easiest I would have thought. As an aside, I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists here. None of us have read the evidence. From what we have read it is clear that the EFC have cheated, but to make a case against the players without positive tests or knowledge that they knew what they were taking is difficult. You would have to establish that they attempted to take banned substances and I am not sure that that could be proven. (I do think that they did take banned substances probably without their knowledge) http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html 8. Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation. Edit:Written before reading last two pages, sorry if going over old ground.

Not trying to be a smart ar$e (sometimes I do) but what do you mean?

No test exists for TB4 - samples held for 10 years and can/will be tested in the future. So the clock still ticks.