Essendon ASADA update

[GCSkiwi]

Heh. The last few pages have been a bit of fun to read... Lets try to clear a few things up:

1) being a potential therapeutic drug does not mean a substance should be considered less of an offense than an illicit drug - particularly when we're talking performance enhancement. Heroin is unlikely to make you a better footy player. Nandrolone (steroid designed to help women with osteoporosis) is a commonly abused performace enhancer to help recovery and muscle gains. MOST PEDs (and heck, most illicit drugs) begin life as a therapeutic agent or are in testing to produce therapeutic agents. Opiates like morphine are great painkillers, heroin is just a variation on morphine. Ketamine is used as a sedative in surgery. Most nosesprays and inhaler medications have some type of amphetamine in them. Let's not use therapeutic potential as a pillar for "it's ok".

2) The antidoping code is such that a player is responsible for what goes into them. Whether they are deceived, mislead, poorly informed, whatever DOES NOT MATTER in the eyes of the code. Is it unfair to players/athletes? Yes and no. Yes it is, in cases like this where it appears that players were told by the club they were taking something that was perfectly legal, but now ASADA are coming down on them like a proverbial tonne of bricks. That sucks. And if they are found guilty, arguably the club should be held responsible, not the players themselves. BUT what about the other players in other teams? Is it fair to them that (assuming the verdict is guilty) they play against players who have had the benefits of illegal performance enhancement, even if it was unknowingly? Doesn't that just open the door for every club to dope up their players but then when they get stung lump it on some lackeys and let the players keep playing? I don't like what is happening to the essendon players here, but in the interests of clean sport the players HAVE to be punished if they are found guilty. They should sue the shower out of the club, but the players have to cop it. Yes, it will destroy careers. Yes, it will cause major fallout. But that is EXACTLY the deterrent that should stop this sort of thing happening in the first place, if it's not enforced then the entire premise is a joke.

3) An AFL tribunal are responsible reviewing the evidence and applying a sanction to the players. ASADAs job is to conduct the investigation and come up with the case. Essentially ASADA are the prosecution, and the AFL tribunal are the judge and jury. The jury makes a call about gulity or not guilty, and the judge applies a penalty based on the scope of penalties available to them. Once that is done, either side, be it the bombers or ASADA, have the right to apeal the outcome. If ASADA feel the punishment is too light, they have every right to continue the saga to try and up the penalty. WADA have a great track record of not liking any penalty less than 18months, and usually push for the maximum 2 years - again the idea being that this should deter offending in the first place. However there is provision for leniency in cases where athletes aren't directly at fault (which was shown with the NRL Sharks players). But I think there should be extreme caution in people thinking that the bombers and sharks will be treated the same way - read the WADA report on the sharks bans http://www.sharks.com.au/news/2014/09/30/statement_from_wada.html. From that:

"d. The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives). It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.
...
WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way."

Essendon have actively stalled this process, as much as people are clamouring that ASADA are holding everything up, the key difference is that the Sharks co-operated fully and tried to bring about a swift conclusion. Essendon have done the complete opposite, after they called for the initial investigation (allegations that they may have already been sprung anyway) they have used about every possible avenue to hold up the investigation. So I really don't see WADA looking favourably upon them. Chance of them actually only serving 2 weeks (which is rumour anyway and I suspect related to backdating a ban to the first show-cause notices) I think is slim.

4) All of the "they might not be guilty" - very true, and it's important we bear this in mind, that they aren't guilty yet. However, as much as many of you guys bleed essendon, try to take a dispassionate, objective view.
a) The bombers called for an investigation into a supplement programme they ran because they had concerns about it.
b) Said programme was hidden from the club doctor, who has been the only one to successfully challenge his sanction.
c) Hird and Essendon have undertaken extensive legal battles to get the investigation ruled unlawful
d) ASADA have issued show cause notices in relation to Thymosin beta 4 - there is no grey area on the legality of that.

In relation to a,b and c, if you were comfortable you had nothing to hide, why were those steps taken? In relation to d, I don't believe ASADA would issue these notices without sufficient evidence - exactly what that evidence is we don't know. There's been hearsay in the media about statements from Dank and Charter, and that sketchy photo floating around, but personally I believe ASADA must have something better than that, as I don't believe they'd make a case solely on something that shaky. But innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what happens.

[silloc]

Heh. The last few pages have been a bit of fun to read... Lets try to clear a few things up:

1) being a potential therapeutic drug does not mean a substance should be considered less of an offense than an illicit drug - particularly when we're talking performance enhancement. Heroin is unlikely to make you a better footy player. Nandrolone (steroid designed to help women with osteoporosis) is a commonly abused performace enhancer to help recovery and muscle gains. MOST PEDs (and heck, most illicit drugs) begin life as a therapeutic agent or are in testing to produce therapeutic agents. Opiates like morphine are great painkillers, heroin is just a variation on morphine. Ketamine is used as a sedative in surgery. Most nosesprays and inhaler medications have some type of amphetamine in them. Let's not use therapeutic potential as a pillar for "it's ok".

2) The antidoping code is such that a player is responsible for what goes into them. Whether they are deceived, mislead, poorly informed, whatever DOES NOT MATTER in the eyes of the code. Is it unfair to players/athletes? Yes and no. Yes it is, in cases like this where it appears that players were told by the club they were taking something that was perfectly legal, but now ASADA are coming down on them like a proverbial tonne of bricks. That sucks. And if they are found guilty, arguably the club should be held responsible, not the players themselves. BUT what about the other players in other teams? Is it fair to them that (assuming the verdict is guilty) they play against players who have had the benefits of illegal performance enhancement, even if it was unknowingly? Doesn't that just open the door for every club to dope up their players but then when they get stung lump it on some lackeys and let the players keep playing? I don't like what is happening to the essendon players here, but in the interests of clean sport the players HAVE to be punished if they are found guilty. They should sue the shower out of the club, but the players have to cop it. Yes, it will destroy careers. Yes, it will cause major fallout. But that is EXACTLY the deterrent that should stop this sort of thing happening in the first place, if it's not enforced then the entire premise is a joke.

3) An AFL tribunal are responsible reviewing the evidence and applying a sanction to the players. ASADAs job is to conduct the investigation and come up with the case. Essentially ASADA are the prosecution, and the AFL tribunal are the judge and jury. The jury makes a call about gulity or not guilty, and the judge applies a penalty based on the scope of penalties available to them. Once that is done, either side, be it the bombers or ASADA, have the right to apeal the outcome. If ASADA feel the punishment is too light, they have every right to continue the saga to try and up the penalty. WADA have a great track record of not liking any penalty less than 18months, and usually push for the maximum 2 years - again the idea being that this should deter offending in the first place. However there is provision for leniency in cases where athletes aren't directly at fault (which was shown with the NRL Sharks players). But I think there should be extreme caution in people thinking that the bombers and sharks will be treated the same way - read the WADA report on the sharks bans http://www.sharks.com.au/news/2014/09/30/statement_from_wada.html. From that:

"d. The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives). It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.
...
WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way."

Essendon have actively stalled this process, as much as people are clamouring that ASADA are holding everything up, the key difference is that the Sharks co-operated fully and tried to bring about a swift conclusion. Essendon have done the complete opposite, after they called for the initial investigation (allegations that they may have already been sprung anyway) they have used about every possible avenue to hold up the investigation. So I really don't see WADA looking favourably upon them. Chance of them actually only serving 2 weeks (which is rumour anyway and I suspect related to backdating a ban to the first show-cause notices) I think is slim.

4) All of the "they might not be guilty" - very true, and it's important we bear this in mind, that they aren't guilty yet. However, as much as many of you guys bleed essendon, try to take a dispassionate, objective view.
a) The bombers called for an investigation into a supplement programme they ran because they had concerns about it.
b) Said programme was hidden from the club doctor, who has been the only one to successfully challenge his sanction.
c) Hird and Essendon have undertaken extensive legal battles to get the investigation ruled unlawful
d) ASADA have issued show cause notices in relation to Thymosin beta 4 - there is no grey area on the legality of that.

In relation to a,b and c, if you were comfortable you had nothing to hide, why were those steps taken? In relation to d, I don't believe ASADA would issue these notices without sufficient evidence - exactly what that evidence is we don't know. There's been hearsay in the media about statements from Dank and Charter, and that sketchy photo floating around, but personally I believe ASADA must have something better than that, as I don't believe they'd make a case solely on something that shaky. But innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what happens.

TL;DR

[Ziplock]

Heh. The last few pages have been a bit of fun to read... Lets try to clear a few things up:

1) being a potential therapeutic drug does not mean a substance should be considered less of an offense than an illicit drug - particularly when we're talking performance enhancement. Heroin is unlikely to make you a better footy player. Nandrolone (steroid designed to help women with osteoporosis) is a commonly abused performace enhancer to help recovery and muscle gains. MOST PEDs (and heck, most illicit drugs) begin life as a therapeutic agent or are in testing to produce therapeutic agents. Opiates like morphine are great painkillers, heroin is just a variation on morphine. Ketamine is used as a sedative in surgery. Most nosesprays and inhaler medications have some type of amphetamine in them. Let's not use therapeutic potential as a pillar for "it's ok".

2) The antidoping code is such that a player is responsible for what goes into them. Whether they are deceived, mislead, poorly informed, whatever DOES NOT MATTER in the eyes of the code. Is it unfair to players/athletes? Yes and no. Yes it is, in cases like this where it appears that players were told by the club they were taking something that was perfectly legal, but now ASADA are coming down on them like a proverbial tonne of bricks. That sucks. And if they are found guilty, arguably the club should be held responsible, not the players themselves. BUT what about the other players in other teams? Is it fair to them that (assuming the verdict is guilty) they play against players who have had the benefits of illegal performance enhancement, even if it was unknowingly? Doesn't that just open the door for every club to dope up their players but then when they get stung lump it on some lackeys and let the players keep playing? I don't like what is happening to the essendon players here, but in the interests of clean sport the players HAVE to be punished if they are found guilty. They should sue the shower out of the club, but the players have to cop it. Yes, it will destroy careers. Yes, it will cause major fallout. But that is EXACTLY the deterrent that should stop this sort of thing happening in the first place, if it's not enforced then the entire premise is a joke.

3) An AFL tribunal are responsible reviewing the evidence and applying a sanction to the players. ASADAs job is to conduct the investigation and come up with the case. Essentially ASADA are the prosecution, and the AFL tribunal are the judge and jury. The jury makes a call about gulity or not guilty, and the judge applies a penalty based on the scope of penalties available to them. Once that is done, either side, be it the bombers or ASADA, have the right to apeal the outcome. If ASADA feel the punishment is too light, they have every right to continue the saga to try and up the penalty. WADA have a great track record of not liking any penalty less than 18months, and usually push for the maximum 2 years - again the idea being that this should deter offending in the first place. However there is provision for leniency in cases where athletes aren't directly at fault (which was shown with the NRL Sharks players). But I think there should be extreme caution in people thinking that the bombers and sharks will be treated the same way - read the WADA report on the sharks bans http://www.sharks.com.au/news/2014/09/30/statement_from_wada.html. From that:

"d. The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives). It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.
...
WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way."

Essendon have actively stalled this process, as much as people are clamouring that ASADA are holding everything up, the key difference is that the Sharks co-operated fully and tried to bring about a swift conclusion. Essendon have done the complete opposite, after they called for the initial investigation (allegations that they may have already been sprung anyway) they have used about every possible avenue to hold up the investigation. So I really don't see WADA looking favourably upon them. Chance of them actually only serving 2 weeks (which is rumour anyway and I suspect related to backdating a ban to the first show-cause notices) I think is slim.

4) All of the "they might not be guilty" - very true, and it's important we bear this in mind, that they aren't guilty yet. However, as much as many of you guys bleed essendon, try to take a dispassionate, objective view.
a) The bombers called for an investigation into a supplement programme they ran because they had concerns about it.
b) Said programme was hidden from the club doctor, who has been the only one to successfully challenge his sanction.
c) Hird and Essendon have undertaken extensive legal battles to get the investigation ruled unlawful
d) ASADA have issued show cause notices in relation to Thymosin beta 4 - there is no grey area on the legality of that.

In relation to a,b and c, if you were comfortable you had nothing to hide, why were those steps taken? In relation to d, I don't believe ASADA would issue these notices without sufficient evidence - exactly what that evidence is we don't know. There's been hearsay in the media about statements from Dank and Charter, and that sketchy photo floating around, but personally I believe ASADA must have something better than that, as I don't believe they'd make a case solely on something that shaky. But innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what happens.

TL;DR

Good thing you don't play footy for essendon then, or you'd probs be up on charges as well.

[silloc]

Heh. The last few pages have been a bit of fun to read... Lets try to clear a few things up:

1) being a potential therapeutic drug does not mean a substance should be considered less of an offense than an illicit drug - particularly when we're talking performance enhancement. Heroin is unlikely to make you a better footy player. Nandrolone (steroid designed to help women with osteoporosis) is a commonly abused performace enhancer to help recovery and muscle gains. MOST PEDs (and heck, most illicit drugs) begin life as a therapeutic agent or are in testing to produce therapeutic agents. Opiates like morphine are great painkillers, heroin is just a variation on morphine. Ketamine is used as a sedative in surgery. Most nosesprays and inhaler medications have some type of amphetamine in them. Let's not use therapeutic potential as a pillar for "it's ok".

2) The antidoping code is such that a player is responsible for what goes into them. Whether they are deceived, mislead, poorly informed, whatever DOES NOT MATTER in the eyes of the code. Is it unfair to players/athletes? Yes and no. Yes it is, in cases like this where it appears that players were told by the club they were taking something that was perfectly legal, but now ASADA are coming down on them like a proverbial tonne of bricks. That sucks. And if they are found guilty, arguably the club should be held responsible, not the players themselves. BUT what about the other players in other teams? Is it fair to them that (assuming the verdict is guilty) they play against players who have had the benefits of illegal performance enhancement, even if it was unknowingly? Doesn't that just open the door for every club to dope up their players but then when they get stung lump it on some lackeys and let the players keep playing? I don't like what is happening to the essendon players here, but in the interests of clean sport the players HAVE to be punished if they are found guilty. They should sue the shower out of the club, but the players have to cop it. Yes, it will destroy careers. Yes, it will cause major fallout. But that is EXACTLY the deterrent that should stop this sort of thing happening in the first place, if it's not enforced then the entire premise is a joke.

3) An AFL tribunal are responsible reviewing the evidence and applying a sanction to the players. ASADAs job is to conduct the investigation and come up with the case. Essentially ASADA are the prosecution, and the AFL tribunal are the judge and jury. The jury makes a call about gulity or not guilty, and the judge applies a penalty based on the scope of penalties available to them. Once that is done, either side, be it the bombers or ASADA, have the right to apeal the outcome. If ASADA feel the punishment is too light, they have every right to continue the saga to try and up the penalty. WADA have a great track record of not liking any penalty less than 18months, and usually push for the maximum 2 years - again the idea being that this should deter offending in the first place. However there is provision for leniency in cases where athletes aren't directly at fault (which was shown with the NRL Sharks players). But I think there should be extreme caution in people thinking that the bombers and sharks will be treated the same way - read the WADA report on the sharks bans http://www.sharks.com.au/news/2014/09/30/statement_from_wada.html. From that:

"d. The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives). It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.
...
WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way."

Essendon have actively stalled this process, as much as people are clamouring that ASADA are holding everything up, the key difference is that the Sharks co-operated fully and tried to bring about a swift conclusion. Essendon have done the complete opposite, after they called for the initial investigation (allegations that they may have already been sprung anyway) they have used about every possible avenue to hold up the investigation. So I really don't see WADA looking favourably upon them. Chance of them actually only serving 2 weeks (which is rumour anyway and I suspect related to backdating a ban to the first show-cause notices) I think is slim.

4) All of the "they might not be guilty" - very true, and it's important we bear this in mind, that they aren't guilty yet. However, as much as many of you guys bleed essendon, try to take a dispassionate, objective view.
a) The bombers called for an investigation into a supplement programme they ran because they had concerns about it.
b) Said programme was hidden from the club doctor, who has been the only one to successfully challenge his sanction.
c) Hird and Essendon have undertaken extensive legal battles to get the investigation ruled unlawful
d) ASADA have issued show cause notices in relation to Thymosin beta 4 - there is no grey area on the legality of that.

In relation to a,b and c, if you were comfortable you had nothing to hide, why were those steps taken? In relation to d, I don't believe ASADA would issue these notices without sufficient evidence - exactly what that evidence is we don't know. There's been hearsay in the media about statements from Dank and Charter, and that sketchy photo floating around, but personally I believe ASADA must have something better than that, as I don't believe they'd make a case solely on something that shaky. But innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what happens.

TL;DR

Good thing you don't play footy for essendon then, or you'd probs be up on charges as well.

hahahahaha

[The_Captain]

Heh. The last few pages have been a bit of fun to read... Lets try to clear a few things up:

1) being a potential therapeutic drug does not mean a substance should be considered less of an offense than an illicit drug - particularly when we're talking performance enhancement. Heroin is unlikely to make you a better footy player. Nandrolone (steroid designed to help women with osteoporosis) is a commonly abused performace enhancer to help recovery and muscle gains. MOST PEDs (and heck, most illicit drugs) begin life as a therapeutic agent or are in testing to produce therapeutic agents. Opiates like morphine are great painkillers, heroin is just a variation on morphine. Ketamine is used as a sedative in surgery. Most nosesprays and inhaler medications have some type of amphetamine in them. Let's not use therapeutic potential as a pillar for "it's ok".

2) The antidoping code is such that a player is responsible for what goes into them. Whether they are deceived, mislead, poorly informed, whatever DOES NOT MATTER in the eyes of the code. Is it unfair to players/athletes? Yes and no. Yes it is, in cases like this where it appears that players were told by the club they were taking something that was perfectly legal, but now ASADA are coming down on them like a proverbial tonne of bricks. That sucks. And if they are found guilty, arguably the club should be held responsible, not the players themselves. BUT what about the other players in other teams? Is it fair to them that (assuming the verdict is guilty) they play against players who have had the benefits of illegal performance enhancement, even if it was unknowingly? Doesn't that just open the door for every club to dope up their players but then when they get stung lump it on some lackeys and let the players keep playing? I don't like what is happening to the essendon players here, but in the interests of clean sport the players HAVE to be punished if they are found guilty. They should sue the shower out of the club, but the players have to cop it. Yes, it will destroy careers. Yes, it will cause major fallout. But that is EXACTLY the deterrent that should stop this sort of thing happening in the first place, if it's not enforced then the entire premise is a joke.

3) An AFL tribunal are responsible reviewing the evidence and applying a sanction to the players. ASADAs job is to conduct the investigation and come up with the case. Essentially ASADA are the prosecution, and the AFL tribunal are the judge and jury. The jury makes a call about gulity or not guilty, and the judge applies a penalty based on the scope of penalties available to them. Once that is done, either side, be it the bombers or ASADA, have the right to apeal the outcome. If ASADA feel the punishment is too light, they have every right to continue the saga to try and up the penalty. WADA have a great track record of not liking any penalty less than 18months, and usually push for the maximum 2 years - again the idea being that this should deter offending in the first place. However there is provision for leniency in cases where athletes aren't directly at fault (which was shown with the NRL Sharks players). But I think there should be extreme caution in people thinking that the bombers and sharks will be treated the same way - read the WADA report on the sharks bans http://www.sharks.com.au/news/2014/09/30/statement_from_wada.html. From that:

"d. The 12 month sanctions were deemed to commence on November 2013, such “backdating” being justified by the delays in the process which could not be and were not attributable to any action or lack of action on the part of the players (or their representatives). It is this last aspect of the sanctioning process that required close review.
...
WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way."

Essendon have actively stalled this process, as much as people are clamouring that ASADA are holding everything up, the key difference is that the Sharks co-operated fully and tried to bring about a swift conclusion. Essendon have done the complete opposite, after they called for the initial investigation (allegations that they may have already been sprung anyway) they have used about every possible avenue to hold up the investigation. So I really don't see WADA looking favourably upon them. Chance of them actually only serving 2 weeks (which is rumour anyway and I suspect related to backdating a ban to the first show-cause notices) I think is slim.

4) All of the "they might not be guilty" - very true, and it's important we bear this in mind, that they aren't guilty yet. However, as much as many of you guys bleed essendon, try to take a dispassionate, objective view.
a) The bombers called for an investigation into a supplement programme they ran because they had concerns about it.
b) Said programme was hidden from the club doctor, who has been the only one to successfully challenge his sanction.
c) Hird and Essendon have undertaken extensive legal battles to get the investigation ruled unlawful
d) ASADA have issued show cause notices in relation to Thymosin beta 4 - there is no grey area on the legality of that.

In relation to a,b and c, if you were comfortable you had nothing to hide, why were those steps taken? In relation to d, I don't believe ASADA would issue these notices without sufficient evidence - exactly what that evidence is we don't know. There's been hearsay in the media about statements from Dank and Charter, and that sketchy photo floating around, but personally I believe ASADA must have something better than that, as I don't believe they'd make a case solely on something that shaky. But innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what happens.

My name Jeff.

[Drak]

ASADA don't need anything more than that Kiwi.

The more I read. The more I realise I have been trying to compare what is happening with a real legal defence and prosecution.

And its not. Its ASADA and the AFL tribunal. The only hope Essendon have, is if the AFL tribunal view the destruction of a football club as too detrimental to the AFL as a whole.

And thats what will happen to Essendon if players get lengthy suspensions. Essendon will be sued by players. The solidarity the poor blokes have shown will come crashing down as they realise it has all been for nothing. And 22 damages lawsuits will destroy Essendon unless the AFL helps.

The AFL will have to be reasonably heavy handed in order to satisfy ASADA enough so they don't a) Appeal b) get WADA involved c) Move on to the 11 other clubs that were contained in the initial report of unaccountable supplement programs.

I know someone who plays for Melbourne. And he said that in 2012 before the AFL came down hard on every club for supplements, he used to get supplements once a week along with the majority of the team. As far as he was aware, the supplements were legal but he had no idea what it was, he just took the word of the club doctors and went along with the other players. And its this practice that ASADA will go after.

This needs to end on March 28th. Harsh penalties or not.

[GCSkiwi]

ASADA don't need anything more than that Kiwi.

Why not? I mean it just doesn't pass the common sense test that they have nothing more concrete than that, it will get thrown out and they'll look like idiots and vindicate all the hate on them, and they'll know that. If they have no case, they would have dropped it - yep they would have looked bad but not as bad as if they proceed and then get laughed out of tribunal.

The more I read. The more I realise I have been trying to compare what is happening with a real legal defence and prosecution.

And its not. Its ASADA and the AFL tribunal. The only hope Essendon have, is if the AFL tribunal view the destruction of a football club as too detrimental to the AFL as a whole.

And thats what will happen to Essendon if players get lengthy suspensions. Essendon will be sued by players. The solidarity the poor blokes have shown will come crashing down as they realise it has all been for nothing. And 22 damages lawsuits will destroy Essendon unless the AFL helps.

How is that not similar to a regular legal battle minus the jury of 12 peers? ASADA still have to prove their case and you'd have to think if anything the baseline sympathies of the tribunal will be with Essendon, not ASADA. In any case, your comment reads as though you think the players should get off - why? If they didn't take any PEDs then sure, they should absolutely get off scot free. If they did, why the heck shouldn't Essendon get absolutely buried? I mean I know that's a hard pill to swallow as an Essendon supporter, but why should this type of activity be condoned or forgiven? Other clubs would gladly snap up half of the Essendon list, or perhaps a new side throws their hat into the ring. But it would appear the club has brought this upon themselves, whether you're a die-hard Essendon supporter or not, you either support clean sport or you don't, and if you do then you cop the punishment on the chin if that's what it comes to.

The AFL will have to be reasonably heavy handed in order to satisfy ASADA enough so they don't a) Appeal b) get WADA involved c) Move on to the 11 other clubs that were contained in the initial report of unaccountable supplement programs.

Should they not be heavy handed? Why not? Aside from wanting this to be finished, in the interests of clean sport, a, b and c are not bad outcomes, if that's what it takes...

I know someone who plays for Melbourne. And he said that in 2012 before the AFL came down hard on every club for supplements, he used to get supplements once a week along with the majority of the team. As far as he was aware, the supplements were legal but he had no idea what it was, he just took the word of the club doctors and went along with the other players. And its this practice that ASADA will go after.

Again, should they not? How is it possibly good or ok that players are taking things when they don't even know what they are? I'm all for ASADA trying to eradicate that sort of practice because quite frankly it's dangerous, it's not in players best interests and it takes away from the sport - it's no longer about who can train and play the best footy, it's about who can get their hands on the best undetectable or not specifically banned doping agents and then fight the best legal battle. And it's not just Essendon or the AFL, it's sport in general. You can substitute any sport and club in for AFL and Essendon and I would be calling for the exact same thing.

This needs to end on March 28th. Harsh penalties or not.

It needs to end when an appropriate outcome is found. And I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for Essendon supporters who just want it over with, because it's the club that's helped drag it out so long. Can't have your cake and eat it too, if you (the club) want to protract the battle you can't turn around and cry foul that it hasn't had a swift conclusion.

[Keeper27]

AFL will probably give the minimum sentence.
Essendon pull in some of the bigger crowds. Can't let a money maker take a hit

[Grazz]

AFL will probably give the minimum sentence.
Essendon pull in some of the bigger crowds. Can't let a money maker take a hit

Can't go to lightly ASADA/WADA will need to be satisfied but i agree it will be as light as actually possible i think.

[GCSkiwi]

AFL will probably give the minimum sentence.
Essendon pull in some of the bigger crowds. Can't let a money maker take a hit

Can't go to lightly ASADA/WADA will need to be satisfied but i agree it will be as light as actually possible i think.

If found guilty I would expect 12 month bans, the question will be how far backdated they are. Given that WADA weren't that happy with the amount of backdating the Sharks got, and that was when they co-operated infinitely more than Essendon, I wouldn't be surprised if WADA won't be happy unless these players are rubbed out for the season. WADA don't care about the money the AFL lose...

[silloc]

AFL will probably give the minimum sentence.
Essendon pull in some of the bigger crowds. Can't let a money maker take a hit

Can't go to lightly ASADA/WADA will need to be satisfied but i agree it will be as light as actually possible i think.

If found guilty I would expect 12 month bans, the question will be how far backdated they are. Given that WADA weren't that happy with the amount of backdating the Sharks got, and that was when they co-operated infinitely more than Essendon, I wouldn't be surprised if WADA won't be happy unless these players are rubbed out for the season. WADA don't care about the money the AFL lose...

Thing that's different, is that essendon still don't admit to have done anything wrong. Sharks did admit to deliberate doping.

[shaker]

I was going to post something but am so sick and tired of it all I could not be bothered  :-X

[Ziplock]

AFL will probably give the minimum sentence.
Essendon pull in some of the bigger crowds. Can't let a money maker take a hit

Can't go to lightly ASADA/WADA will need to be satisfied but i agree it will be as light as actually possible i think.

If found guilty I would expect 12 month bans, the question will be how far backdated they are. Given that WADA weren't that happy with the amount of backdating the Sharks got, and that was when they co-operated infinitely more than Essendon, I wouldn't be surprised if WADA won't be happy unless these players are rubbed out for the season. WADA don't care about the money the AFL lose...

I can't see ASADA being ok with the equivalent of a 2 week ban- I'd expect another 6 months on top of the backdating at least.

[GCSkiwi]

AFL will probably give the minimum sentence.
Essendon pull in some of the bigger crowds. Can't let a money maker take a hit

Can't go to lightly ASADA/WADA will need to be satisfied but i agree it will be as light as actually possible i think.

If found guilty I would expect 12 month bans, the question will be how far backdated they are. Given that WADA weren't that happy with the amount of backdating the Sharks got, and that was when they co-operated infinitely more than Essendon, I wouldn't be surprised if WADA won't be happy unless these players are rubbed out for the season. WADA don't care about the money the AFL lose...

Thing that's different, is that essendon still don't admit to have done anything wrong. Sharks did admit to deliberate doping.

My understanding (and I may well be wrong) was that it was a pretty similar scenario, players were given something and told it was fine. They just copped to it a lot faster. In any case, I addressed that in my earlier post that you TL;DR'd :P

4) All of the "they might not be guilty" - very true, and it's important we bear this in mind, that they aren't guilty yet. However, as much as many of you guys bleed essendon, try to take a dispassionate, objective view.
a) The bombers called for an investigation into a supplement programme they ran because they had concerns about it.
b) Said programme was hidden from the club doctor, who has been the only one to successfully challenge his sanction.
c) Hird and Essendon have undertaken extensive legal battles to get the investigation ruled unlawful
d) ASADA have issued show cause notices in relation to Thymosin beta 4 - there is no grey area on the legality of that.

In relation to a,b and c, if you were comfortable you had nothing to hide, why were those steps taken? In relation to d, I don't believe ASADA would issue these notices without sufficient evidence - exactly what that evidence is we don't know. There's been hearsay in the media about statements from Dank and Charter, and that sketchy photo floating around, but personally I believe ASADA must have something better than that, as I don't believe they'd make a case solely on something that shaky. But innocent until proven guilty, we'll see what happens.

[Drak]

ASADA don't need anything more than that Kiwi.

Why not? I mean it just doesn't pass the common sense test that they have nothing more concrete than that, it will get thrown out and they'll look like idiots and vindicate all the hate on them, and they'll know that. If they have no case, they would have dropped it - yep they would have looked bad but not as bad as if they proceed and then get laughed out of tribunal.

The more I read. The more I realise I have been trying to compare what is happening with a real legal defence and prosecution.

And its not. Its ASADA and the AFL tribunal. The only hope Essendon have, is if the AFL tribunal view the destruction of a football club as too detrimental to the AFL as a whole.

And thats what will happen to Essendon if players get lengthy suspensions. Essendon will be sued by players. The solidarity the poor blokes have shown will come crashing down as they realise it has all been for nothing. And 22 damages lawsuits will destroy Essendon unless the AFL helps.

How is that not similar to a regular legal battle minus the jury of 12 peers? ASADA still have to prove their case and you'd have to think if anything the baseline sympathies of the tribunal will be with Essendon, not ASADA. In any case, your comment reads as though you think the players should get off - why? If they didn't take any PEDs then sure, they should absolutely get off scot free. If they did, why the heck shouldn't Essendon get absolutely buried? I mean I know that's a hard pill to swallow as an Essendon supporter, but why should this type of activity be condoned or forgiven? Other clubs would gladly snap up half of the Essendon list, or perhaps a new side throws their hat into the ring. But it would appear the club has brought this upon themselves, whether you're a die-hard Essendon supporter or not, you either support clean sport or you don't, and if you do then you cop the punishment on the chin if that's what it comes to.

The AFL will have to be reasonably heavy handed in order to satisfy ASADA enough so they don't a) Appeal b) get WADA involved c) Move on to the 11 other clubs that were contained in the initial report of unaccountable supplement programs.

Should they not be heavy handed? Why not? Aside from wanting this to be finished, in the interests of clean sport, a, b and c are not bad outcomes, if that's what it takes...

I know someone who plays for Melbourne. And he said that in 2012 before the AFL came down hard on every club for supplements, he used to get supplements once a week along with the majority of the team. As far as he was aware, the supplements were legal but he had no idea what it was, he just took the word of the club doctors and went along with the other players. And its this practice that ASADA will go after.

Again, should they not? How is it possibly good or ok that players are taking things when they don't even know what they are? I'm all for ASADA trying to eradicate that sort of practice because quite frankly it's dangerous, it's not in players best interests and it takes away from the sport - it's no longer about who can train and play the best footy, it's about who can get their hands on the best undetectable or not specifically banned doping agents and then fight the best legal battle. And it's not just Essendon or the AFL, it's sport in general. You can substitute any sport and club in for AFL and Essendon and I would be calling for the exact same thing.

This needs to end on March 28th. Harsh penalties or not.

It needs to end when an appropriate outcome is found. And I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for Essendon supporters who just want it over with, because it's the club that's helped drag it out so long. Can't have your cake and eat it too, if you (the club) want to protract the battle you can't turn around and cry foul that it hasn't had a swift conclusion.

Sorry, I wasn't saying they didn't HAVE more evidence. I was saying they dont really need more than what has been reported. Whether they have more or not. ASADA only need circumstantial to attain penalties.

Its different to a regular legal argument purely due to the fact that circumstantial evidence is all that is required. Also, with the way ASADA works, players are guilty until they can provide sufficient documentation to prove innocence. Which is the opposite to how our legal system works.

As for the rest of your tirade, you sound pretty angry. Im sorry about that.

I didn't think I was being antagonistic. Reading back over what I said, I don't really get how you could interpret any of it like you have.

For example, Im a little perplexed how players suing Essendon pertains to their innocence?

Or at any point in my comment that I said they shouldn't be penalised.

It kinda feels like you are just generalising me with the plethora of idiots that think nothing happened.

I really think you are being an arse blaming me for the decision making of the club I support. Thats pretty shower of you.

"If my club wants to protract the battle I can't cry foul over a swift conclusion"? Why can't I say that I think it should have been handled like the NRL so it was dealt with swiftly? Like I have in numerous posts on the forum.

Not sure what high horse you came in on mate. But being a die hard AFL supporter (not just one team) I can't think of anything worse than ASADA continuing after they are done with Essendon.