Chris

Please do.

Interesting that the article doesn't mention the burden of proof and the fact it is a sliding scale. All it essentially says is that because these three judges thought this way then everyone else will. That seems to contradict what the bloggers at the social litigator have been saying. It also fails to recognise the potential subpoenas that could be issued through the supreme court to make the people who need to talk actually talk. By the time I finished reading the article it fell fair and square into the pile of articles written, especially from Sydney, that seem to have the sole purpose of making Essendon look good. I hope WADA do appeal, but I am not particularly confident.

That is my understanding. CAS, WADA, and ASADA may be able to have the whole thing heard fresh, and have no need for any justification fro appeal, they can just ask for one and then get it. Check out the social litigator blog, it is outlined in an article about any possible ASADA appeal.

I got that from the social litigator, so it is a legal opinion.

The 4 years would be taken of the table due to the timing of the offence. The appeals process would come down to the timing of the trial, which bridged the announcement being made. Could go either way.

Under the new procedures he could have the whole thing heard fresh, it was bought in as part of the changes to the WADA code during his trial. It will depend on the judges as to whether this is available to him.

My understanding is that CAS can do as it pleases basically, it could simply review the paper work or call witnesses etc. It can use the supreme court to subpoena people on its behalf as well (or at least it has in the past). ASADA can also present to CAS on Wada's behalf.

Don't think the big four or five Vic clubs have played at the cattery this millennium! It purely comes down to crowd numbers. The cats request to play the big clubs at the G or Docklands so they make more money. If we had consistently bigger crowds we may become one of these teams and stop having to play in Geelong. Just another example of economics skewing the fairness and integrity of the game!

Would hope for he sake of clarity that they could but have no idea. Last I saw the score the Tigers had come back from a long way and were within a goal.

It depends what you mean by touched? If you are talking about anything but ban them from sport then no they can't. But they can ban them from working in sport again.

I question the wording of findings as they seemed to stress that they could not be comfortable the players were given TB4, the question for mine is why did ASADA, or the tribunal, not look at the intent of the players and the club. Even from what of the findings has been released, they seem to think the intent was there, just not enough to say it happened.

There intent though was to blindly follow the program without undertaking any due diligence. How could this not be seen as linking the intent of the program with the intent of the player?

I missed a n't in the previous post. I think we both agree but have read each others posts wrong. My take is, intent is irrelevant in the prosecution in the case of a positive test. Intent is relevant if you can prove someone intended to take a banned substance. This is where Essendon may be relevant, did they intend to give TB4 to the players? Did the players intend to follow the program, and therefore intend to take TB4?

It all comes down to not treating the players like they are little boys. These are adults who should be responsible for their own welfare. The players, especially the senior players leading the younger ones, should not have taken a single thing that they didn't know what it was. If they know what it is then they can check. I am sure almost all clubs would have been saying things are fine, and I am fairly sure the AFL training said to check with the club doctor. This attitude is seriously flawed and has resulted in the last 2 years.

Lees didn't take anything, he didn't even receive the substance as customs took it. He had no positive test, had never been in contact with a banned drug, but was banned as it was proven that he intended to take a banned drug.

Good question! Only thought is he asked the same question of ASADA and got the same incomplete answer.

It isn't intent to knowingly taking a banned substance. It is intent to take a banned substance. To me the players intended to follow the clubs program, and as such defer their own intent to that of the program, which begs the question, did the program intend to use banned drugs?

Wrong way around. Intent does come into a case where there is a positive test. If there is no positive test, then intent can be used to ban someone.

They are separate arguments. If you fail a drug test then having no intent to cheat does not make you innocent, the best you could hope for is a reduced penalty. On the other side, you may not test positive, but if they can prove you intend to take a banned substance then you can be found guilty, look at Wade Lees.

We got away with it to. The mix up is simple. The ACC asked ASADA if it was banned, ASADA said no because it wasn't specifically banned. ASADA forgot to mention that it was prohibited under the S0 catch all clause. The ACC took this to mean it was fine for athletes, as they would, and published that it wasn't banned. Because this was published, and the reference would go to ASADA, it provided a viable out for using it. Due to this ASADA chose not to pursue the case.

They were told by the wrong people that it was legal. The only people the players should trust with that advice is ASADA. Being told by anyone else is no defence. If they checked with ASADA they have a defendable position, they didn't. The players should be checking everything they are given, no matter who it comes from. If the players checked for Thymosin on the portal, which is where to check, it asks for more information, and if you pick TB4 it comes up as banned. It has always been banned and has always done so. If they checked and it didn't say it was banned, then there is their defence, they get off the charge in about 3 seconds. That is why they should check with ASADA. By check with ASADA I don't mean consult the list, the list is worthless for an athlete. They need to use the hotline or the web portal, either of these ways and the athlete gets a receipt of the request for information. This receipt is the best defence an athlete could have.

That is why in comes down to intent, you and I differ on intent. Under my opinion of what is intent the whole list who signed up to the program should be done, if you can show the program intended to inject banned drugs. Unless the players can show the took reasonable steps to insure things were not banned, then they intended to follow the program.

Probably fastest to 5, haha. I tend to not stop on this as it pi55e5 me off that much! I don't disagree with what you are saying, except around the players. I went through ASADA training many moons ago (mid 90's) and still remember it being made clear to trust no one, even checking prescriptions from your GP, as you are responsible, and the only cover you have is the receipt of your conversation with ASADA (there was no internet portal then). If this wasn't drilled into the players then the training is wrong. Each player should check every substance themselves with ASADA and the clubs should be encouraging/enforcing this. If the clubs aren't then my suspicions rise. I also don't think this is only an Essendon player problem, it is across the board, including Melbourne, we only dodged a bullet due to the confusion with AOD!

If the players had done their checks and Dank said this is Thymosin, then they should have refused to have the injection. Thymosin is ambiguous in its meaning and could well be TB4. If you go to the ASADA site and plug in Thymosin it asks for more information. If Dank was saying Thymosin then the players should have been asking for more information. They should also have known exactly what he was giving them. The players needed to know what each thing was to the degree that they could be satisfied by ASADA that is what not banned. Their own waiver shows they did not take this measure. That is why I argue they had intent.

The players not being involved, which as far as we know is one as the others players may have been injected but couldn't be linked to TB4, only adds to the question of why the players who were injected didn't take reasonable steps to protect themselves.