bing181

As will McKenzie IMO.

Somehow, don't think that's going to happen. Could be wrong, of course.

Ah, a training thread. Good to see normal broadcasting has been resumed. For a minute there I thought we might be stuck with reports on training.

He's been as fast and free with his funding information as he has with his "science". "Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it. “The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said."

Hopefully, we now have the senior players and solid citizens around the club to avoid a repeat of some of the derailing we've had in the past: if the likes of Roos, McCarthy, Goodwin, Cross, Lumumba (from what I've read), Jones and even our boy Nev Jetta can't help keep Mr. Garlett on the straight and narrow, then it's hard to know what would. Also hopefully, this is the residue of an unsettled year at Carlton, and once its played out, he'll settle back down to letting his footy do the talking.

In an interview with Roos, there was a number put on the sessions a little while back to "qualify", thought it was something like 25.

Saad and Lees were banned from all official training (and using club facilities etc. etc.) once they were banned - which will be the case with the Essendon players if they're banned. On the other hand, even if banned, nothing to stop them organising to get together every other afternoon on the local oval, it just can't be through any AFL structure or affiliated organisation. Provisionally banned only stops you from competing. I'm not sure how it works in other sports, some athletes seem to keep training with their club etc., while others don't. Also, the point to remember, is the a ban is for a time period, not for a number of matches or competitions, which is where a perception of variability creeps in.

Really? Where did they say that? The only guarantee I've seen from ASADA is that there are no guarantees. Suspensions are usually backdated to the issuing of IN's, which is when provisional suspension usually starts.

I'd be surprised if a majority of people haven't taken an illicit drug at least once. (or so I'm told ... cough cough).

Has been discussed before, so not going to contribute to going round in circles by opening that particular Pandora's box more than necessary - but believe you're wrong. For Olympic sports, it's the ADRVP who confirm guilt (or otherwise) and recommend penalties. Which can then be appealed at CAS. But if there's an appeal, there has to have been a ruling (of guilt), or as it's now phrased in the legislation, "an assertion of guilt"- which comes from the ADVRP. This is also confirmed for me by the situation with the Register of Findings. OK, the ROF has now been abolished, but being entered onto the ROF is an assertion of guilt: once your name is there, it's only removed if you're found innocent. Once again, the ROF isn't a kind of "yeah, could be something in it". Entering names on the ROF is what the ADRVP do. IMHO, it's not inherently different to the situation/relationship regarding the match review committee and the tribunal. The match review committee doesn't simply say "hmm, that could have been a head-high tackle". They make a finding and lay specific charges, including recommending penalties. If the player wants to contest or appeal those charges, they go to the tribunal. From my understanding, it's not really any different here.

To be fair, so far we haven't seen any evidence full stop. We have no idea what ASADA presented, nor the players for that matter.

Because there's a school of thought, even repeated here, that the players don't have to do anything. If they do nothing, they'll be found guilty - presuming, as you rightly point out, that ASADA can make the case. But we wouldn't be here if ASADA couldn't make their case - it wouldn't have even passed the ADRVP stage.

That's the point I was trying to make: the "no fault" clause doesn't have an effect on guilt or innocence, only on the penalties. He was found guilty, but no penalty was imposed - though he did serve nearly 6 months of provisional suspension while the case was underway. The players can't "get off" if it can be shown that an infringement occurred, no matter what the circumstances. In such an outcome, they will (always) be guilty. Penalties is another story, but as above, going to be a bit like getting that camel through the eye of a needle to establish "no fault".

I don't believe that that's enough - a couple of quick examples below. It's only in the third of these 3, where the player was in such a state that he wasn't in a position/state to ask questions, that he got off: “They must show “no significant fault or negligence” (penalty 12-24 months) or “no fault or negligence” where “the player (must) establish that he did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected” that he was using a prohibited substance or method (penalty 0-12 months). However, these tests are generally difficult to satisfy. Take the following cases from the Court of Arbitration for Sport: MEDICINAL cream used by a 17-year-old swimmer purchased in a foreign country for a foot condition unknowingly contained a steroid. No performance enhancement but a 12-month suspension ensued. TWO Australian weightlifters aged 17 and 18 tested positive for a stimulant similar to substances on the prohibited list. CAS found they had failed to properly inquire, though had not failed to inquire altogether, as to the integrity of the supplement drink. Two-year ban, not reduced on appeal. AN ice hockey player was administered the steroid Nandrolone by a doctor at hospital following a heavy “body check” in a Ukranian championship game. CAS accepted there was no fault or negligence as his very bad physical and mental condition made it impossible for him to monitor or ask questions about medications. He wanted to save his life; no suspension was imposed. http://www.sportslawyer.com.au/wada-compliant-afl-anti-doping-code-severe-in-penalties-on-banned-substances/

Suspect that the quoting hasn't quite worked out as intended, and not sure who the DC is in a quote from me. Nevertheless ... There IS an onus on the players, and that is the onus to defend themselves - well, if they want to give themselves a chance of being cleared.

It can't be successful in terms of guilty or not. If you took it, you took it, intentionally or not. But it can help to minimise a penalty under the "no fault" clause. But "no fault" is more for someone who was injected while they were unconscious, not someone whose phone had a flat battery the day they went to call ASADA. Mick Rogers was cleared of having intentionally taken Clenbuterol last year, due to him being able to successfully establish that it wasn't intentional, and could have (and almost certainly did) entered into his system through contaminated meat in China. (so much for no onus on the players ...) However, he was still disqualified from the race where he tested positive, as he'd tested positive, innocently or not.

ASADA will present its case. All 300 pages of it. Then, the players get a chance to either a) discredit that evidence or b) present an alternative. If they can do neither, or just sit on their hands and do nothing, then the ASADA case stands.

You're wrong on all those counts. Not only that, on the one hand, you say that we only know what's been reported in the papers, but then go on to make assertions as to what's gone/going on inside the tribunal and what evidence has been presented. I'd also be interested to know what a "purported invoice" is. I'll chase it up with my accountant. I just always assumed you had an invoice, or you didn't have an invoice.

Hope you washed your hands afterwards. I dropped by a couple of times, but it's just too disturbing.

My mistake, fuzzy brain. Getting my Terlichs and McKenzies mixed up.

Terlich on Kent I believe.

Fair enough, but would be a bit cheeky to make an event out of half a game of footy where a large slab of the team are not even playing. I know we're all starved of the real thing, but there's a limit ... Perhaps there'll be a more substantial hit-out in the coming week - also worth noting that Collingwood have their first NAB cup match a week before ours.

And by the same token, poor form in an intra-club means little?

There you go TDI, the gauntlet has been thrown down. But why stop at Hawthorn? Pies, Dogs, Blues, Saints ...

Just catching up with the thread: The Contador appeal took over a year, but that's in part because there were a lot of documents that had to be translated from Spanish etc. etc. Normally, appeals should take 4 - 6 months to come to court. But then the case has to be heard, then the CAS has to hand down its findings, which often takes another 3 months. The Mark French case took a year, though there were a few hold-ups and some legal manoeuvring and stalling along the way. However, given that here we have 34 players, and masses of evidence (300 pages according to the press), I would imagine it could easily take a year to get to appeal, and a substantial time afterwards to deliver a ruling. If the players get 12 months or less, there's perhaps no practical benefit in appealing as their bans would finish before they could get the appeal through. On another topic, if the players are found guilty, and they appeal, they aren't eligible to resume playing (as they're banned). If on the other hand they're cleared, but WADA/ASADA/AFL appeal, they can continue playing until the appeal is heard (and a verdict reached). If they're found guilty on appeal, then the time they've served as provisional suspension would be deducted from any ban, which would start from the date of the appeal ruling. (as I understand it ...)