bing181

Not even. I would say it emanates from the idea of "responsibility". Showing that you didn't intend to take a banned substance isn't enough. You have to show that you did everything you could to ensure that you didn't take a banned substance.

No. It doesn't absolve the players of anything under the WADA code.

They don't have to be found to have taken a banned substance. They don't even have to be found to have intended to take a banned substance. Google: Wade Lees I don't believe that there's anything in either the WADA code or precedence that supports the argument(s) you're putting forward.

Bomberblitz would welcome you with open arms.

Good luck with that. The criteria to meet 10.5 are clear - and almost impossible to achieve in normal circumstances. Jake: nice guy, nice get, will be nice seeing you sometime in 2017.

Technically, any further charges would be laid by the AFL - they're the ones who have to issue the SCN's. Which would then go back to the AFL tribunal, perhaps even to the same 3 wise men we had last time. Can of worms.

Fair enough - though I would suggest that a) it's a fairly murky and far-ranging situation, implicating local drug-testing labs, the national federation and the IAAF, which isn't the case here and b) it's based on information coming to light retrospectively, which is IMHO, the only basis for introducing charges against admin and support staff at Essendon (or anyone for that matter). As for Hird, he may well be the ringleader - but he has to actually have committed a doping-related offence for charges to be issued. Administration, distribution, facilitating etc. etc., it's all in the code. We shall see, but I'm not holding my breath.

What's that supposed to be, some sort of put-down? Pathetic. In any case "my sources" doesn't count as "specific examples".

Provisional suspensions are credited against any full suspension, and they can only do it once. Apparently they have around 4 ½ months "in the bank". Banned players can return to training with the club 2 months before the end of any suspension. (actually ... shorter of 2 months or 1/4 of suspension period). i.e. If the players get a 6 month ban, they wouldn't have to stop anything (4 ½ month credit and immediate return to training). (I make no claims for having any expertise in these areas ... I've just followed cycling fairly closely for a long time, and well ... you get exposed to a lot of doping cases ...!!)

Based on? As previously: a) if there is/was enough evidence for ASADA/AFL to prosecute any of the admin/support staff they would already have been in the dock alongside Dank b) guilt (or otherwise) of the players is not of itself evidence of anything in regard to third parties, which then leaves us with a) Once again, I don't know of any cases where for the same offence, support staff (if charged) haven't been charged simultaneously with athletes, and I know of no cases where support staff have been charged on the basis of a guilty verdict for an athlete. I've already requested that anyone who has any examples to the contrary post it here so we can see/understand the circumstances - but none have been forthcoming.

What smutty innuendos?

It's not just in drugs-in-sport cases that small-fry take the punishment while the ringleaders walk away scot-free. Unfortunately. FWIW, I think where this has the potential to get nasty for the higher-ups is when banned-players turn on the club and coaches through civil prosecutions.

Perhaps not, but then find some examples where athletes and associated support staff were prosecuted at different times (years later) for the same offence. I don't know of any ... maybe you do.

Only if they have the evidence. If they didn't have it when the initial prosecutions were brought, hard to see how they would have it now. (sorry, meant to include this in my post above, not trying to take over the thread or get my post count up ...!)

Yes, but not on the back of successful prosecutions of an athlete. To my knowledge - such as it is, I could be wrong - when coaches and support staff are charged, it's at the same time as the athletes - as in the Armstrong case. If there was evidence to successfully prosecute Hird, or Goodwin, they would have been included originally, as Dank was. The way I see it, the only way they could now be prosecuted (when they weren't before) would be if there was substantial new evidence implicating them. OK, there haven't been any leaks and no-one knows, but I'd be surprised if that was the case. Also, the support staff who have been charged in other cases, were directly involved in doping offences: purchasing, distributing, administering etc. Once again, I'm not aware of any of those applying to Hird or Goodwin. IMHO ...

If you mean Dr. Ferrari and the Armstrong case, a) WADA wasn't involved b) USADA went after them when they had the evidence. That evidence surfaced on the back of the Federal Enquiry, which (only) started in 2010. There won't be any new prosecutions.

But of course. I was just commenting on possible time frames. I don't and didn't expect to see Melksham in the red and blue this year, and perhaps some/most of the next.

The mind boggles.

Well, we now have something of a vested interest in this. For our and Melksham's sakes, I'd prefer it was as early as possible, especially if the ban pans out to 13 - 14 months (18 months, minus the 4 ½ months provisional). He would miss 2016, but how much of 2017 he misses would depend on when the axe falls.

At which point I stopped reading. Satellites do not measure temperature.

... that's cheating JB, you've used more than 3 words.

Have to adjust my Sarcasometer ... my apologies. Thanks for the other info, and the work overall, much appreciated.

Unless I'm mistaken, there are two changes, one of which is throwing me: - no longer possible to Like your own post (OK ... can live with that ... probably) - the thread no longer automatically scrolls to the first unread post. (or am I missing something?)

I'd say that the AFL are fairly good at "fixing" problems (cough cough) - just not all that good at a) acknowledging that they exist in the first place and b) actually resolving them. It's the "just make it go away" approach.

I understand about the "de novo" part, but equally, I don't know that there's going anything that fundamentally changes the substance of the charges against the players to the extent that the club would be seen in a different light by WADA/ASADA. The AFL? They're doing everything they can to make this go away, so not much joy there. As to facts ... a) It's not WADA who will find anyone guilty, it's the CAS. b) it's not EFC who are facing charges, but (ex) Essendon players. c) it's not the AFL who hand down penalties, it's CAS (again). The AFL will have to impose them and enforce them, but CAS sets them - which is one of the reasons the AFL made a submission. As to belligerent ... not my intention, sorry if it comes across that way.