bing181

Waiver forms mention Thymosin, not Thymomodlin. There is no such substance as Thymodilin. Even "Thymosin" is ambiguous as it could cover a range of substances, though the Tribunal accepted it wasn't Thymosin Alpha 1.

Perhaps, but one of the issues with the Essendon game, especially in the last quarter, is that we didn't have (enough) leaders to take it upon themselves stand up, stem the tide and turn the game around. Grimes was/is one of those.

That's what was supposed to be the case here as well (with the Tribunal) - the decision to not include the Alavi/Charters evidence, or not give it much weight seems at odds with that.

Should just add as well ... not only gutsy selections, but two of those must know that they need to perform or else, as both Dawes and Vince would be automatic selections for next week you would think.

Wow. Sends a huge message to the players and supporters. Gutsy, even brutal selections. Fantastic to see the selectors doing what they want the players to do: put themselves on the line. Kent, JKH, Brayshaw, VDB even Toumpas and an underdone Howe over some of the fringe players we've become used to as fixtures, is a bold commitment to the future. Notable omissions are not just Grimes, but Gawn and especially given Dawes' suspension, Pedersen.

Same for the Essendon players. It's clear they made no attempt to check that the product/s were/are legal, because by their own admission "we don't know what we took". So how could they have ensured that the products were legal? You're just wrong here ManDee. If you're an athlete and you go to your doctor for a vitamin shot and s/he gives you TB4, and the doctor then confesses to ASADA that they gave you TB4, then you're guilty of an ADRV, whether you intended to or not - and whether you test positive for it or not. Penalties would be reduced, or even not applied - but you'd still be guilty.

Good pick up. But irrelevant. Here's the full the quote from WADA's own guidelines: Does intent matter when it comes to an anti-doping rule violation? As noted before, you are responsible – “strictly liable” – for anything and everything in your system. To establish an anti-doping rule violation for use or presence of a prohibited substance, it is not necessary to demonstrate intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on your part. It is not a defense to an anti-doping rule violation that, for instance, someone in your entourage or camp gave you a substance; or that a banned substance was not listed on a product label; or that a prohibited substance or method would not have improved your performance. If you use or try to use a prohibited substance or method, that is doping. (From the WADA Athlete Reference Guide, 2015).

Wade Lees never failed a drug test. Under the WADA code, intent does come into it, but it was never tested - we never got that far once ASADA failed to established that the TB4 was TB4.

No, that's not the case. AOD has never received authorisation for therapeutic use, and as such, it was always banned under the S0 category. Always. However, there has been ambiguity regarding information about the legality of AOD. Which is why there haven't been prosecutions, because athletes "couldn't be expected to have known".

Sorry, reading this thread backwards ... That's just not the case ManDee. If they were "duped", that may have some impact on the penalties, as they can apply for reductions under the various categories. But ... they would still be guilty. You don't have to demonstrate intent to be found guilty of intent ... this is exactly the Wade Lees case. He intended to take a product, but didn't know it contained a banned substance. He was found guilty of intent. Same with Mick Rogers, tested positive for Clenbuterol after eating contaminated meat in China. Guilty - but no intent on his part, so no penalty (except the 6 months he spent provisionally suspended ...) The Essendon players got off not because of a demonstration of a lack of intent, but because ASADA couldn't establish that what Dank administered to them was definitely TB4. They agree that Dank attempted to administer TB4, but there is no confirmation that what was in the vial marked "TB4" was in fact TB4. They got off because though it looked like a duck, and quacked like a duck, no-one was able to throw it into a lake to see if it could swim.

No, this is simply wrong: "6.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. 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 under Article 6.1" and thus ... "It is not a defense to an anti-doping rule violation that, for instance, someone in your entourage or camp gave you a substance; or that a banned substance was not listed on a product label; or that a prohibited substance or method would not have improved your performance. If you use or try to use a prohibited substance or method, that is doping. The “success” or “failure” of the use or attempted use does not matter. It is considered doping."

Not at all. Wade Lees says hi. Ignorance/not knowing is not a defence.

Not quite right. Lees attempted to import a supplement - but he didn't know it contained a banned substance. It's not like he went to Peptides-R-Us.com and ordered a vial of TB4.

- It would appear that ASADA had enough, but didn't have enough accepted or given enough weight. A subtle difference, but in many people's eyes, an important one. - TB500 is just a "commercial" version of TB-4. Same substance ... or is supposed to be (which is once again, where the argument becomes about "proof" and lack of ...).

I'm not sure WADA will weigh in on this, even though CAS is a separate court. If the evidence to join all those dots just isn't solid enough now, hard to see how it would be in the future. Hope I'm wrong.

A day on, and still feel somewhat empty in response to the decision. Some great points/posts above. We do not have clarity, and we do not have closure, though I accept that the tribunal was bound to come to the decision they did, given the difficulty with Charter and Alavi's evidence. Suspect that the AFL's greatest impact on the next revision of the WADA code will not be adjustments for team sports, but a rewrite where not being able to produce records of what you've been injected with will become a doping offence.

How any Essendon supporter could think that this is an ideal outcome is beyond me. Less than ideal result, especially as the Tribunal rejected the "they were injected with legal Thymosin" argument. As someone else commented, would have been better that they'd been found guilty and got a slap on the wrist punishment than what we have now. This does not bring closure.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-verdict-asada-case-failure-likely-caused-by-witnesses-not-appearing/story-fni5f22o-1227286648242 THE failure of the ASADA case is likely to have been caused by the 11th-hour decision by key witnesses to opt out of appearing at the tribunal. Both anti-ageing clinician Shane Charter and pharmacist Nima Alavi declined to swear statements or appear before the tribunal judges.

Redleg, just to ask, are you using "learned" in the sense of "something I've figured out", or more specifically "something I heard from someone connected with the case/tribunal"?

Thanks for that Redleg. Have to say it's odd. My understanding is that a Tribunal isn't held to the same standards of evidence as in a criminal court, and doesn't necessarily need sworn evidence. Clearly though, if that evidence was only given minimal weight, then the case falls over - basically on a legal technicality, but so be it, it's a quasi-legal framework. Be that as it may, does anyone know whether or not CAS can subpoena witnesses? I know that at the CAS, the case starts over again from scratch/zero, but if key evidence can't be admitted because it can't be sworn or cross-examined, then hard to see any appeal being successful. Also, just shows how high the bar actually is for "comfortable satisfaction" in the case of non-presence ADRV's. Impossible to make stick without eye-witness accounts and/or confessions?

My god, you're big on the sweeping generalisations. From "bevy" to "a gaggle" we now have "countless others". The only "countless others" in regards to 18 year old draftees playing solid AFL games concerns the 95% (or more) who do NOT have the fitness to consistently play first-22 football. Whether Brayshaw is in the 5% or the 95%, we shall find out soon enough.

Just re the EU: "Clenbuterol has been outlawed since 1996 and it showed up only once in 83,203 animal samples tested by EU countries in 2008 and 2009, with zero positive cases in Spain from 19,431 samples analysed." http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/feb/08/alberto-contador-defence-doping-ban Maybe things are different in Eastern Europe, but still "EU Countries" would cover all of them.

Really? AFL strike and getting around a PED conviction maybe (though ... very maybe!), but their careers would be finished. They're still young, better to lie low, stick with the "we don't know how it got there", cop the 2 years, and come back through a State League or whatever.

Brayshaw wasn't pick 3 for nothing, and given that he's tracking OK, I'm sure we'll see him sooner rather than later - spots permitting. I think the biggest question mark wouldn't be over his ability, but his tank - it takes years to build up to full AFL fitness, but none of us know how far off the pace he might be. Happy to let the selection committee decide, but not going to be jumping off any tall buildings if he's not included.

Don't think anyone really is expecting them to get out of it. There's always a chance of it not being deliberate, but the chances of them being able to prove that without some really solid evidence would be slim to zero.