CAS verdict

[Drak]

For anyone interested the full decision can be found here http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

I'm part way through it and man, unless there's a big turnaround it's pretty damning. Dank should never work in sports again and Bruce Reid should receive a metric flowerton of compensation because it seems as though he did absolutely everything he could and should have done, short of going directly to the AFL himself, and he got absolutely dragged through the mud.

After reading it, I am even more aghast at players taking blame for this. There needs to be a grey area. Black and White is wrong. There are three other clubs that were doing supplements programs where the players just went along with it. Im not saying they took banned substances, Im saying that the players are all complicite unfairly.

Hird... at no point seemed to conspire about the program it reads. At multiple points, saying. As long as its within WADA code, agreed to by Doc Reid, and the players then we go with it.

Or am I reading it wrong? Its all Dank doing it below board?

[T Dog]

For anyone interested the full decision can be found here http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

I'm part way through it and man, unless there's a big turnaround it's pretty damning. Dank should never work in sports again and Bruce Reid should receive a metric flowerton of compensation because it seems as though he did absolutely everything he could and should have done, short of going directly to the AFL himself, and he got absolutely dragged through the mud.

Wow, what a read.  I feel slightly uneasy about all this.  :(

[Ricochet]

Didn't half the league have similar dodgy schemes going on at the same time?

In terms of a supplements program.. yes.
In terms of pushing the boundaries of what they put into their boys bodies... not so much

[PowerBug]

For anyone interested the full decision can be found here http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

I'm part way through it and man, unless there's a big turnaround it's pretty damning. Dank should never work in sports again and Bruce Reid should receive a metric flowerton of compensation because it seems as though he did absolutely everything he could and should have done, short of going directly to the AFL himself, and he got absolutely dragged through the mud.

B. 120 (v) All Players signed a constent form for the injection of 'Thymosin'

[Drak]

For anyone interested the full decision can be found here http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

I'm part way through it and man, unless there's a big turnaround it's pretty damning. Dank should never work in sports again and Bruce Reid should receive a metric flowerton of compensation because it seems as though he did absolutely everything he could and should have done, short of going directly to the AFL himself, and he got absolutely dragged through the mud.

B. 120 (v) All Players signed a constent form for the injection of 'Thymosin'

I dont understand how they were originally found not guilty then? wtf is the difference.....

[Grannyboy]

Much as objectively I think this is the right outcome, I'm gutted for the players and for the club because this will likely be a lot more damaging than just the 2016 season...

Why? Where is the proof they actually took something? If they did what was it and when was it? Why were they and the club sanctioned before a guilty verdict was given? All sounds like a big witch hunt and still no solid evidence to back anything up that I've heard.
The governing bodies seem to have a guilty before proven innocent mentality. AFL isn't even played around the world so WADA can flower right off!

[Drak]

Much as objectively I think this is the right outcome, I'm gutted for the players and for the club because this will likely be a lot more damaging than just the 2016 season...

Why? Where is the proof they actually took something? If they did what was it and when was it? Why were they and the club sanctioned before a guilty verdict was given? All sounds like a big witch hunt and still no solid evidence to back anything up that I've heard.
The governing bodies seem to have a guilty before proven innocent mentality. AFL isn't even played around the world so WADA can flower right off!

I am equally as angry.... but if you have been following this forum since the saga started you would have read that at no point does WADA need evidence. Ill let GCSkiwi take it from here.

[PowerBug]

The AFL is a brand, last year they made a decision to keep their brand in tact. Their "Integrity Unit" is just the CEO and his mates telling people what to say to keep the AFL running smoothly. There's no independent investigation happening anywhere. Judging by that 48 page WADA decision article that I am skimming through now, it seems like they took stuff.

[GCSkiwi]

Wow, what a read.  I feel slightly uneasy about all this.  :(

Yeah, I'd like to change my submission from Dank never working in sports again, to Dank should go to jail for a very long time. The bit about discussing basically conducting experimental trials on players of stuff never tested in humans is actually sick. There's a god damn good reason that drug trials are so strict. And the players had no idea.

After reading it, I am even more aghast at players taking blame for this. There needs to be a grey area. Black and White is wrong. There are three other clubs that were doing supplements programs where the players just went along with it. Im not saying they took banned substances, Im saying that the players are all complicite unfairly.

Nah, they have to take blame. The way everything was run should surely have raised alarm bells for anyone (particularly the "let's keep this secret from Doc Reid" element). But in any case, I refuse to believe that players can get to this level with no education on what constitutes an anti-doping offense. The second someone proposed an injection, every single one of them should have done a Zaha and said hell no. Section 100 covers that and it's pretty clear. I accept there's an element of coercion involved but again I've been there and I was very well aware of the rules, and that wasn't in a professional setting.

Hird... at no point seemed to conspire about the program it reads. At multiple points, saying. As long as its within WADA code, agreed to by Doc Reid, and the players then we go with it.

Or am I reading it wrong? Its all Dank doing it below board?

It seemed largely that way to me, though article 26 leaves me on the fence. In Hird's words: "Understand about injecting and don't want to push boundaries. Just need to make sure we are doing everything we can within the rules as other clubs are a long way ahead of Reidy and us at the moment". It seems like Hird continuously stressed keeping things above board from a legality point of view but also the "long way ahead of Reidy" part makes me think he though Reid was perhaps a bit old fashioned/past it, and therefore Hird didn't take Reid as seriously as he should have... At the end of it, the one person I think is almost totally clean in this is Reid. The only further thing he could have done was go outside the chain of command. But ultimately at the first hint of it being dodgy Hird should have stopped the supplementation immediately and demanded some concrete proof before proceeding. Though it does appear that Dank continued with injections even after being told to stop (article 31), so that may not have stopped him but that directive needed to come much earlier.

[ossie85]

I agree with GCSKiwi. The players were duped, but ultimately ignorance can't be a defence. They didn't declare the injections, or ask for more information. You can't have a drug code that says 'hey, if a player says he didn't know what it was he's innoccent'





I don't want this to happen.

But everyone is suggesting Watson's Brownlow should be taken away. But it wasn't the only award won by Essendon players in 2012.

So again, not saying it SHOULD happen, but this is what could happen.

2012 Brownlow Medal: Goes from Jobe Watson to Trent Cotchin and Sam Mitchell
2012 Best Captain (AFL Players Association): Goes from Jobe Watson to Joel Selwood
2012 AFL Coaches Association Best Young Player: Goes from Dyson Heppell to Jack Darling
2012 All-Australian selection of Jobe Watson goes to probably another midfielder, which would've been either Joel Selwood, Sam Mitchell, Andrew Swallow, Lenny Hayes or Kieran Jack

[Capper]

Just eating my breakfast and catching up on this. This is a massive story for AFL.

Also just saw this on twitter

#PutOutYourSyringes

[GCSkiwi]

Much as objectively I think this is the right outcome, I'm gutted for the players and for the club because this will likely be a lot more damaging than just the 2016 season...

Why? Where is the proof they actually took something? If they did what was it and when was it? Why were they and the club sanctioned before a guilty verdict was given? All sounds like a big witch hunt and still no solid evidence to back anything up that I've heard.
The governing bodies seem to have a guilty before proven innocent mentality. AFL isn't even played around the world so WADA can flower right off!

The case is actually really clear about this. Articles 99 and 100 cover it. Essentially, no case was pursued that there was the presence of a prohibited substance. The case was instead about use of a prohibited substance, which seems like the same thing but it isn't. In that regard, there's tonnes of proof. Much of it is circumstantial but collectively it's pretty hard to ignore. In any case, there were some positive test results for thymosin beta 4 though I believe this was given little consideration as it sounds as though the test is newly developed and not validated.

As far as AFL not being played around the world so WADA can flower off, you don't understand how the system works. AFL aligns to the WADA code, if they didn't then none of this would have happened. But they do, so it's moot.

[Drak]

The AFL is a brand, last year they made a decision to keep their brand in tact. Their "Integrity Unit" is just the CEO and his mates telling people what to say to keep the AFL running smoothly. There's no independent investigation happening anywhere. Judging by that 48 page WADA decision article that I am skimming through now, it seems like they took stuff.

How were we found not guilty with this evidence.... i do not understand. Ive almost finished the document. Im disappointed and ashamed.

[GCSkiwi]

The AFL is a brand, last year they made a decision to keep their brand in tact. Their "Integrity Unit" is just the CEO and his mates telling people what to say to keep the AFL running smoothly. There's no independent investigation happening anywhere. Judging by that 48 page WADA decision article that I am skimming through now, it seems like they took stuff.

How were we found not guilty with this evidence.... i do not understand. Ive almost finished the document. Im disappointed and ashamed.

The legal system is complicated and I think a lot of it fell to how the case was argued more than the evidence itself, though WADA contended a few things that ASADA didn't have. That's what the CAS are talking about when they refer to "links in a chain" vs "strands in a cable".

[Barra13]

So, I have a question. Since Essendon aren't allowed to pay the 12 players and must pay a certain amount of the salary cap, any top up players they get, would be on some pretty decent coin. Am I right in saying this?