Whispering_Jack

Jeremy Howe says "hello".

1. If the players genuinely didn't believe they were taking banned drugs but did they're gone. Yes if it's proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the panel that the drugs they took were banned. 2. If a rogue sports scientist injects them with a banned substance when they are told they are getting something else they're gone.Yes if it's proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the panel that the drugs they took were banned. That all the Essendon players will get infraction notices because presumably they all received the same drugs, or there is a reasonable probability they received banned drugs. Yes if it's proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the panel that they took drugs that were banned. I'm confused. I thought the so called 14 were at risk because they thought they were taking AOD 9604 and it was banned. If the others didn't know they were taking banned substances then surely under the "unconscious" rule they would be gone as well (assuming they were conscious at the time). Yes, you're confused but so are many others and some of the seeds of that confusion are being deliberately sown by those with a vested interest in achieving a favourable outcome for themselves and others. The difference between being conscious and unconscious goes to the issue of consent - if the players were conscious when they signed the waivers and conscious when they ingested the drugs, don't you think that's different to the case of the unconscious athlete who was operated on in that state and later failed a drug test? Also, I don't know what substance the so called 14 were at risk for taking or the exact circumstances. My guess is that they've admitted to taking TB4 and/or AOD 9604 and are in trouble.

There's more and more interesting stuff coming out on a daily basis - NRL and AFL given permission to name clubs identified in ACC report into drug and crime links to sport Also of interest is the fact that Stephen Dank has launched a $10m defamation suit. After all, a man of his stature has his reputation and standing in the community to protect.

Not really. Just another day at the office.

I'll do this one pro bono. There are a group of eminent persons on the panel who have to be comfortably satisfied that an anti doping violation has been committed. They are very knowledgeable, experienced and responsible. They can make mistakes but, as you might see from the Federal Court appeal judgement in the case above (which was lost by the Essendon supporting barrister referred to in some of the other posts above*), it would be difficult to overturn their decision. Circumstantial evidence can often be very compelling. Besides, I think your POV is that the players should be let off because they were misled by professionals upon who they relied and who they trusted. That doesn't work with ADV's unless they were operated on while unconscious. [*reading between the lines we can now understand why there has been a serious campaign by Essendon and its friends to malign ASADA and its procedures including the delays etc. but that's just a side issue to the main show that's about to come down] Speaking of side issues, as for Mrs. Hird, I think she is much maligned and it's not her fault. She probably succumbed to the hypnotic forces generated when Sticks Kernahan sang that classic song years ago. How does it go? "Stand by your man".

From the Tanya Hird interview: "Ms Hird, who describes herself as an assiduous record-keeper". What a pity she wasn't used to help her husband, the Essendon Football Club and Dank keep a record of what was being injected into his players during 2012. Probably would have saved everybody a whole lot of pain and discomfort as well as saving her the trauma of packing the family suitcases for their trip to Paree ...

How can you not feel excited by the sight of that full forward line?

Jordie McKenzie is the winner of our first Mystery Injury of the Week for 2014.

We've been there before and it's not surprising that this bloke (said to be a Bomber fan) was a mouthpiece for Essendon:- Get it?This person who was given some sort of gig by the Bombers reckons their programme was "well documented and controlled". If only they could find those documents :)

Your question is music to the ears of many in the legal profession. Most things can be challenged in a court of some sort but the caveat is that in the first place, it's usually expensive and in the second, if you embark on such a course you would be doing so for strategic reasons or because you really want a successful outcome so you really need to have the grounds to back up your challenge. In this case (and if there is an adverse finding) you might have some redress if you can establish that there were errors in the process followed by ASADA in its investigation but in respect to these matters, the AFL and by extension, the clubs and their constituent players have, by signing on to the WADA Code, abdicated many of their rights under sovereign law and placed themselves in the hands of WADA. This means that the Court of Arbitration in Sport is the ultimate court of appeal in these matters. If you follow the cases worldwide, courts have generally been reluctant to intervene to override the WADA Code where sporting bodies have agreed to subject themselves to the Code. The best bet for the players would be for ASADA to decide that it doesn't have a strong enough case to fulfill the standard of proof and therefore not to issue infraction notices. Even then WADA might disagree and go to CAS. If it were up to me and on the basis of what I've read about the events, I am comfortably satisfied with the conclusion that anti doping violations were committed by a number of players at Essendon. If the powers that be in these matters really wanted to clean up the sport, they would probably look at some other clubs as well but I don't know enough about what happened at Geelong, Melbourne and Gold Coast to really form an opinion one way or the other. I hope that's sufficiently vague enough to sound like legal advice. Here's an interesting Federal Court decision as reported in a cycling website - http://m.cyclingnews.com/news/australian-federal-court-upholds-asada-appeal-in-xztt-case

Done. Earlier this evening, a decision was made to ban this poster for a month. On reviewing his posts and his record over time, I've overruled that decision. The ban is now permanent. Please let that be a warning to posters who believe they can constantly offend against our code of conduct and behave in an offensive manner to others on this site. And finally, please show the appropriate respect to Mitch and to all players on the club's list.

No, no, no ... It's been discussed on this thread a number of times. This is the WADA Code: 3.1 Burdens and Standards of Proof. The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the Code places the burden of proof upon the Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall be by a balance of probability. (Comment) This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organization is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely applied by courts and tribunals in doping cases. See, for example, the CAS decision in N., J., Y., W. v. FINA, CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998 3.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions. Facts related to anti-doping rule violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions. Rules then follow which relate to the contesting of analysis by anti doping agencies

Dank draws a blank - Dank ignores ASADA request for explanation story This suggests to me that ASADA can now proceed to recommend the issue of infraction notices to players. In the absence of explanations from Dank about the thymosin administered to players, it's reasonable to conclude that Dank gave them the TB4 which is banned. He admitted to this in an interview with Baker and McKenzie of the Age and only withdrew that admission after he was told by his interviewers that TB4 is a prohibited substance. It's reasonable to conclude that this was done as an afterthought to save him from incriminating himself. I've previously discussed the connection between Dank, the invoices given to Essendon and the TB4. There's lots more but in essence, in the absence of a reasonable explanation from Dank (and he's now blown that opportunity) the circumstantial case against him, the players and a number of officials can be made. Once the notices go out, perhaps Worksafe might become interested and come in to assist the players.

Here's something to help - Roos flags two debutants for round one

It wasn't suggested that he had to be pulled up by Wilson, but more the fact that players like Wilson who set such great examples of how to train and hard they worked during games that had a profound effect on their younger teammates like Roos.

I'd say that sort of thing happens a lot more often than you might think. Not only that, it happens mostly in those societies where there is a contempt for the law which is effectively what you're advocating when you posit an outcome that ignores the rules that apply here. We can't ignore the reasons why the anti doping laws exist and how they evolved. Once we understand the "why" and the "how" then it should be clear why the players must receive infraction notices if evidence is produced to show that they ingested prohibited substances.

Assuming that's the problem then one would think the chances of having him up and about within a couple of months would be reasonable with the right treatment, by which time his physical issues would also have been sorted out and if he maintains a good fitness regimen during that period and recovers well, he would be available in the second half of the season. These things manifest themselves in different ways but I know of one player from another club who had issues with his mental health and overcame them in good time. Let's hope that it all turns out well for Mitch.

I've just notified the RACV.

Now you're starting to sound like a lawyer

And OD - in 2032 we'll be hoping to finish near the top again so that Neitz Jr doesn't cost us too high a draft pick.

Apologies for bringing some of you face to face with your own mortality but please permit me to return to the topic. Paul Roos was the keynote speaker and it was a pleasure to hear him speak for the second time in less than a week. I have no doubt that if I were a player I'd be breaking down doors to play in his team and I can understand the disappointment of the injured contingent about not being able to get out there on Saturday night. I didn't take notes but he spoke of the business of football and how the sport had changed dramatically over the years since he started. Nevertheless, he did say that some things don't change, notably the importance to the players of having responsible peers who are prepared to open up and tell their teammates when there's a need for improvement in areas such as behaviour. He pointed to Garry Wilson from his own playing days at Fitzroy, how the Sydney leadership had spoken to Mitch Morton which helped him become a premiership player and how the Geelong leaders had influenced Garry Ablett Jr. Stirring stuff - good times on the horizon.

I'm just happy that he's coaching Carlton and Paul Roos is coaching Melbourne. I heard Roos speaking today at the Melbourne Business Community breakfast (for the second time in less than a week) and I don't believe that you could get a more stark contrast in attitude and approach from that of Malthouse than what I am seeing and, ultimately, I think we will be a better club for having him.

Neita's expecting a baby in August. Hope it's a healthy boy

On now - Nick Smith of 426 fame is compering. How fitting!

^ ^ ^ This thread is like snakes n' ladders. Every once in a while someone comes up with the sentiments in the post above, it gets dissected and chewed up and we start again. My heat bleeds for those Bomber players but it's like saying you didn't realise the speed limit was 40 and then you get booked.