felixdacat

http://m.theage.com.au/sport/hopes-of-escaping-dope-ban-near-zero-20130317-2g996.html#ixzz2ZfnV1UTG Interesting article from a while ago.

Yes but the the WADA code can also ban support staff like coaches, trainers etc also as they to have a responsibility. 2.8 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. 10.3.2 For violations of Articles 2.7 (Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking) or 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method), the period of Ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility unless the conditions provided in Article 10.5 are met. An anti-doping rule violation involving a Minor shall be considered a particularly serious violation and, if committed by Athlete Support Personnel for violations other than Specified Substances referenced in Article 4.2.2, shall result in lifetime Ineligibility for Athlete Support Personnel. In addition, significant violations of Articles 2.7 or 2.8 which may also violate non-sporting laws and regulations shall be reported to the competent administrative, professional or judicial authorities.

Jeff Chapman seems to have the right experience, from the little info you can find that is. We need a Chairman who knows how to run a board and understands Governance and how to build a business up. In regards to sponsorship or providing large amounts of Cash to the MFC that only blurs the lines in regards to being a Chair. The board review alluded to the danger "A number of Board members joined the Board in mid 2008 when the MFC had limited management skills,lacked resources and had significant debt. This resulted in a blurring of roles of the Board and management, as Board members were immersed in “running the club” and eliminating the debt." The CEO runs the day to day operations and the Board provides strategies and policies that ensure that the MFC is a viable entity.

I like the way you think!

It seems Melbourne has not moved on from Roos

Exactly B59 and they should be because this is the code they all agreed to. They can not say AFL is doping free anymore because the captain of the Essendon FC has admitted to being injected with AOD. The AFL cant not do anything else other then apply the code. Anything less will mean they end up in court with WADA. On one hand they lose a substantial part of an AFL list for a period if time or they end up having to defend there actions in court and or being sanctioned as no longer a doping free sport. Quite frankly $hit happens sometimes and sometimes you have to make a hard choice. But that's what AD and the AFL get paid to do. Either way the media will crucify whichever they choose.

All the articles coming out of Herald Sun seem to me to be trying to Deflect the focus from the issue of Essendon players being injected with AOD a banned substance. First there was a secret deal between AFL, ASADA and Essendon that suggested collusion now there is the AFL CEO has warned Essendon the night before they came forward to ask ASADA to look into the supplement regime. The spin doctors are earning their keep creating controversy and doubt in the public about the validity and veracity of the investigating organisation and trying to invent a narrative that paints them as the victim of a heavy handed government agency and the ominous AFl, whom, will ultimately decide its fate after the investigation. If football fans in Australia stop talking about the fact that Essendon Players were injected with AOD and start talking about a side issue then mission accomplished. Also on another note Self Reporting reduces the penalty to a half at the most. First offence 2 years ineligibility to play. 10.5.4 Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. That also depends on whether ASADA had reliable evidence of the doping prior to Essendon coming forward this will only get you 1 year on the sideline. They may try for the no fault but I can not see how they would argue that they did not do it to enhance their performance. They willing injected it as they signed forms to say that they understood what they were taking. No Fault seems to be the defence along the lines of a competitor drugged your food or drink or you were given a drug whilst unconscious. As previously stated saying ASADA said it was okay does not negate your responsibility to ensure you know exactly what is being injected into you. This is written into the WADA code see below 2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

The WADA code has a few ways people can reduce their sanction. Here are some of the relevant parts of the WADA code that make this issue even more interesting; 10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Article 2.1 (Presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), Article 2.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) or Article 2.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods) shall be as follows, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Articles 10.4 and 10.5, or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Article 10.6,are met: First violation: Two (2) years Ineligibility [Comment to Article 10.2: Harmonization of sanctions has been one of the most discussed and debated areas of anti-doping. Harmonization means that the same rules and criteria are applied to assess the unique facts of each case. Arguments against requiring harmonization of sanctions are based on differences between sports including, for example, the following: in some sports the Athletes are professionals making a sizable income from the sport and in others the Athletes are true amateurs; in those sports where an Athlete's career is short (e.g., artistic gymnastics) a two-year Disqualification has a much more significant effect on the Athlete than in sports where careers are traditionally much longer (e.g., equestrian and shooting); in Individual Sports, the Athlete is better able to maintain competitive skills through solitary practice during Disqualification than in other sports where practice as part of a team is more important. A primary argument in favor of harmonization is that it is simply not right that two Athletes from the same country who test positive for the same Prohibited Substance under similar circumstances should receive different sanctions only because they participate in different sports.In addition, flexibility in sanctioning has often been viewed as an unacceptable opportunity for some sporting organizations to be more lenient with dopers. The lack of harmonization of sanctions has also frequently been the source of jurisdictional conflicts between International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations.] 10.4 Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances Where an Athlete or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his or her body or came into his or her Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Athlete’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Article 10.2 shall be replaced with the following: First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility from future Events, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility. To justify any elimination or reduction, the Athlete or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his or her word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility 10.5.4 Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable. 10.5.4 above cast a different light on Jobe's Admission but if ASADA have the signed forms then it may not reduce as his admission may not be the only reliable evidence anyway. Another aspect is that on ASADA website it has a list of people who have been sanctioned for a an Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV) http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/sanctions.html the sanction is always ineligibility to play or compete in competition. As a side note check out the name 8th on the sanction list I wonder if they are related. The more I read about this the more you realise how bad it could get for Essendon oh well "it happens" I just hope we don't have any issues with any of our players and an ADRV in the future. Because of course then I would be calling for leniency

Classic the AFL trying to declare Bar lees ? or wait wait I wasn't ready or I didn't know that rule! If the AFL tried to do that it would be the laughing stock of the world sporting organisations. WADA will only intervene if it feels ASADA is not enforcing the code in the correct manner. WADA's has the power to sanction countries with the IOC, which could mean that Australia can lose the right to host Olympic games. The AFL can't manage this situation or negotiate a settlement it needs to enforce the rules it has committed to as that is the only way to maintain its integrity both Nationally and Internationally.

That seems to be what there arguing but as it says in the NAD: (i) It is each athletes personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athletes part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti‑doping violation for use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method. So to me that means there only defence is that AOD is not a prohibited substance which is not the case. The argument regarding performance or not is made irrelevant by the following: (ii) The success or failure of the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method is not material. It is sufficient that the prohibited substance or prohibited method was used or attempted to be used for an anti‑doping rule violation to be committed. Good luck I say

Firstly La Dee-vina just re quoting your post to add further info my intention is not to keep harping at you or trying to harass you so please I beg your indulgence. ASADA Law - National Anti Doping Scheme or NAD 2.01 Anti‑doping rules (1) The purpose of this Division is to specify the circumstances and conduct that constitute breaches of the anti‑doping rules, or anti‑doping rule violations. Entries onto the Register of Findings will proceed based on the assertion that 1 or more of these specific rules has been violated. (2) Athletes and support persons are responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti‑doping rule violation and the substances and methods that have been included on the prohibited list. The following anti‑doping rule violations constitute breaches of the anti‑doping rules: (b) Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method. (i) It is each athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti‑doping violation for use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method. (ii) The success or failure of the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method is not material. It is sufficient that the prohibited substance or prohibited method was used or attempted to be used for an anti‑doping rule violation to be committed. © Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorised in applicable anti‑doping rules, or otherwise evading sample collection. 1.07 Meaning of support person (1) The anti‑doping rules apply to all persons who are involved as support persons in a sport with an anti‑doping policy and such persons are subject to the NAD scheme. (2) For the NAD scheme, a support person is: (a) a person who works with or treats 1 or more athletes participating in, or preparing for, sporting activities in 1 or more of the following capacities: (i) coach; (ii) trainer; (iii) manager; (iv) agent; (v) team staff member; (vi) official; (vii) medical practitioner; (viii)para‑medical practitioner; or (b) any other person who works (as a volunteer or otherwise) with, or helps, an athlete subject to the NAD scheme to participate in, or prepare for, sports competition. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00004/ So I do feel for Essendon but the real interesting thing out of this is the AFL's response to the findings. The AFL is very big on protecting the integrity of the Game when it came to Tanking so how it reacts to Jobe's admission. Even "blind freddy" could see that a breach of the NAD has occurred and in the least Jobes name should be entered on to the register of findings.

The relevant info is publicly available and the code your club and the AFL has signed up to stipulates quite clearly how it treats substances that have not been approved for therapeutic use. As a club if you do not do the due diligence and read the code and ask the doctor if AOD has been approved for therapeutic use before you decide to inject your players with it then more fool you. Like any company the EFC works under codes, laws and rules. It is the clubs duty to its players to read and understand these laws. The club doctor should have a good understanding of the rules around doping. The rule is not murky or hard to understand its quite clear. Why would the EFC need to get advice from ASADA at all? Advice both formally and informally saying that its okay from ASADA does not trump the fact that WADA code says its banned. WADA will decide if ASADA has applied its code correctly if they disagree then it will act.

My 2 cents.... The 2012 list stipulates the use of drugs not being approved for therapeutic use as being banned. It is quite clear in the published literature on their website which is publicly available to everyone. The defence that EFC sought advice from ASADA and was advised differently is irrelevant when any person who requires information can read the list. Because EFC failed to read the document it was working under does not absolve them from the fact that AOD does not have approval for therapeutic use. If ASADA does not apply the code appropriately WADA will take it further on a international level. The simple oversight of checking to see if AOD was approved for therapeutic use means EFC are in a bad place.

You may be right regarding the intensity at training but from my understanding the aerobic fitness of our players were at question when Misson started. I get the point about bigger bodies but those bodies need to run out the game so the aerobic base needs to be built and maintained whilst building the mass which I think is where we are at with some of the younger players. Also building mass is different for each individual so may take longer or shorter according to their own physical makeup. Unless we go down the bombers route where at the start of 12 all the commentators were saying how much they had bulked up under the weapon I that preseason. I think Misson is doing an okay job he is not setting the world in fire but he is not making it worse. I can see that the boys have the capacity to run out games. Which to me is a win. I do think that you are trivialising the Darwin trip. To say that it was a walk is a bit of understatement. I spent my teens and early twenties in the NT and the boys would have been training I mid to high 30s and 75% humidity. Hiking through Kakadu is not a leisurely stroll and I believe they did jog through parts of the track. That time if year is is bad just be thankful they weren't there in sept to nov that when it gets real bad With the foot injury did you consider Joel Mac dropping a weight on his foot not add to the spate of these type of injuries.

Equal parts Tenacity, stubborness, delusion and alcohol.

BZB59 I have also noticed the lack of noise surrounding the Board on this Board. Only word publicly relates to resignations, so that being said would you have a list of current board? maybe we need an ins and outs type set up for the MFC board.

Exactly If it isn't going to help you get better then why jab yourself with it each week?

All niceness aside could you give him a whack nonetheless Red

I like the idea of the conspiracy but would go further to add Roos to the hypothetical conspiracy. I.e Gerard and Roos get together in some seedy back room to discuss the strategy of getting rid of Cam Schwab, Mark Neeld Don Mc et al. Final end game to get Roo as coach in the MFC. All a bit of stretch and as conspiracy theories go not all that juicy or exciting but something to think about whilst waiting for the next game.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/footyclassified/video Honestly what are people expecting him to say, yeah I did a [censored] job, the players all hated me, nothing i did was right and they should never have given me the job. And some poster talk about Mark Neeld being in denial and being delusional. If you listen to the questions being asked you will realise that the answers were always going to be the ones provided. If you ask someone a hypothetical or about their perceptions or on what they believe then don't expect factual interview. Good Bye Mark Neeld and Good Luck in your future endeavours. Next...

Another Potential Candidate

Stephen Hill debut in 2009 at 72 kg but was also surrounded by a more experienced Midfield to assist him. So I think there are exceptions to the weight argument. But would prefer to see him given the chance to develop before deciding to get rid of him. There are others on the list that could be dropped before any of the three listed in the op especially since we are going along the youth line.

Stephen Hill debut in 2009 at 72 kg but was also surrounded by a more experienced Midfield to assist him. So I think there are exceptions to the weight argument. But would prefer to see him given the chance to develop before deciding to get rid of him. There are others on the list that could be dropped before any of the three listed in the op especially since we are going along the youth line.

Whispering you only had to say the first 6 words of that sentence and i was in agreement.

lol