What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Organised crime and drugs in sport investigation part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Danish

Referee
Messages
32,019
Furthermore:
Comment on Article 2.2:
It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
A player admitting he got injected with what he BELIEVED to be PEDs is guilty. There is no ambiguity there.

It states quite clearly in the WADA code (which is the same as the ASADA code) that providing a player knowindly attempts to use a banned substance, regardless of whether they succeed in doing so or not, they will be banned.

Section 2.2.2
The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti- doping rule violation to be committed

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

It is there in black and white (or green in white, as it were). If a player ATTEMPTS to use a PED - which Watson clearly stated he did - they are guilty and should be banned.

No burden of proof is required whatsoever to prove what he actually injected himself with

Furthermore:
Comment on Article 2.2:
It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish “Presence” of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ction-its-hard-to-see-why-20130801-2r10f.html

Essendon players escape sanction? It's hard to see why

Date
August 1, 2013 - 3:44PM

Peter Brukner
Australian sports medicine physician

On April 30, I wrote an article for The Age indicating the likely sanctions against players involved in the Essendon peptide saga. Since then, there have been almost daily disclosures in the media and much discussion around possible penalties.

There seems to be a general feeling that the likely result of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority inquiry is that the club will be severely punished with a large fine, suspension of officials and probable loss of points, but that the players will avoid suspensions.

I am not so sure about that.

There are two basic questions in this case. First, did the Essendon players, knowingly or not, take any banned substances or undertake any banned methods in 2012? Second, if they have taken banned substances, what penalties are likely to be handed out?

Did the Essendon players in 2012 take any banned substances? Jobe Watson has admitted on television he believed he – and presumably other Essendon players – took the anti-obesity drug AOD-9604.

There has been some confusion regarding the status of AOD-9604 based on a statement in the Australian Crime Commission report which said "AOD-6904 is not a banned substance".

The ACC subsequently published the following statement:

The Australian Crime Commission sought expert advice from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) at the time of developing the Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport report and was advised (correctly) that AOD-9604 is not prohibited under schedule S2 of the WADA prohibited list[1].

The World Anti-Doping Authority is the pre-eminent authority and expert in this field and the Australian Crime Commission welcomes the subsequent clarification by WADA on 22 April, 2013, of the status of AOD-9604 as a prohibited substance under the S0 classification.

The WADA statement confirms that AOD-9604 was a prohibited substance, both in and out of competition, during the period of activity that was investigated by Project Aperio.

The S0 classification reflects WADA's advice that there is no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority in the world for human therapeutic use of AOD-9604. One of the concerns held by the ACC during Project Aperio was that professional athletes were being administered substances that had not been approved for use on humans.

There is no doubt that AOD-9604 is a banned substance under Section S0 of the WADA Code which states:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the Prohibited List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (eg drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.

AOD-9604 is not approved for human use in any country in the world. So on the basis of this drug alone, players would be guilty of taking a banned substance.

There have been suggestions that the players were also administered a number of other drugs, including CJC-1295, GHRP-6, hexarelin, melanotan, cerebrolysin and thymosin. These drugs are either banned peptides under WADA S2 or substances not approved for use under S0.

It has also been suggested that the Essendon players might have been given intravenous vitamins in a drip containing more than the 50mls allowed by WADA.

So if we assume, as seems likely, that the Essendon players have taken at least one (and probably more) banned substances, what penalty is likely?

Most of us, I assume ASADA as well, have sympathy for the Essendon players. There is no suggestion they knew they were taking banned substances and, as a result, it has been suggested they will avoid suspensions. However, the basic principle of the WADA Code is that a player is totally responsible for what he takes.

There is only one section of the WADA Code that allows avoidance of suspension altogether – Section 10.5.1, No Fault or Negligence. This relates to suspension being waived in specific rare scenarios where an athlete can prove he or she was sabotaged by a competitor. It specifically states that it is not applicable in the following scenario:

"The administration of a prohibited substance by the athlete's personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the athlete (athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any prohibited substance).''

So it is hard to see how zero suspension can be applied in the Essendon case.

The WADA code stipulates a standard punishment of two years' suspension.

However, there are several clauses in the WADA Code that relate to reduction of the standard ban. The first is 10.5.2, entitled No Significant Fault or Negligence. It states:

"If an athlete or other person establishes in an individual case that he or she bears no significant fault or negligence, then the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable."

It is possible under this clause for players to argue they have no significant fault and have their bans halved.

The next relevant clause is 10.5.3, Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations. This clause states:

"An anti-doping organisation ... may ... suspend a part of the period of ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the athlete or other person has provided substantial assistance to an anti-doping organisation, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the anti-doping organisation discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules by another person ... No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility may be suspended."

If the Essendon players were considered to be eligible for reductions under both clauses 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, then the best-case scenario is a six-month ban.

The WADA Code also imposes sanctions on teams with multiple players found guilty. Clause 11.2, Consequences for Team Sports, states:

"If more than two members of a team in a team sport are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation during an event period, the ruling body of the event shall impose an appropriate sanction on the team (eg, loss of points, disqualification from a competition or event, or other sanction) in addition to any consequences imposed upon the individual athletes committing the anti-doping rule violation."


The AFL clearly has the authority to dock premiership points. These offences took place in 2012 and there is no suggestion that any banned substances have been taken this season. However, the AFL may take the attitude that any performance-enhancing effect may have carried over into this season and justify the deduction of points on that basis. Alternatively, they could decide that a points deduction is warranted on the basis of bringing the game into disrepute.

Like most football followers, I don't believe that the individual players should be suspended, but given that the AFL has signed up to the WADA Code, there seems little doubt to me that suspensions will be inflicted.

The minimum suspension will be six months. While there have been suggestions the ban will commence after this season and conclude at the start of next season, for the ban to be meaningful it must include some matches.

Probably the saddest thing is that the much-admired Jobe Watson may well be stripped of his 2012 Brownlow Medal.

Peter Brukner, OAM, is a sports physician and media commentator.
 
Last edited:

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
Of course you don't. You're a dumb merkin.



Who do you think? The people who state that everyone who disagrees with them is an afl troll.

Just in case you still aren't sure, it is the guy who visits 'Big Poofy' every day, Spot On, Parra, elbusto and co.

They all should be on Big Poofy daily arguing the conspiracy case.:cool:
 

Spot On

Coach
Messages
13,902
Of course you don't. You're a dumb merkin.



Who do you think? The people who state that everyone who disagrees with them is an afl troll.

Just in case you still aren't sure, it is the guy who visits 'Big Poofy' every day, Spot On, Parra, elbusto and co.

Geez Maxipad, you a special little one aren't you. Pent up rage will have you being compared to KMav and associates - a place for those who struggle with basic intelligence.

Didn't Danish already establish Jobe Watson should not be playing AFL according to the WADA code?
 

dogslife

Coach
Messages
18,985
Maybe, just maybe there's more to the story. Given Jobe Watson would've told the ASADA investigators the exact same thing, and nobody from WADA or ASADA or the AFL have decided to stand any players down.

But the LU circus has established guilt, so string em up boys!
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,885
A player admitting he got injected with what he BELIEVED to be PEDs is guilty. There is no ambiguity there.

It states quite clearly in the WADA code (which is the same as the ASADA code) that providing a player knowindly attempts to use a banned substance, regardless of whether they succeed in doing so or not, they will be banned.

Section 2.2.2
The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti- doping rule violation to be committed

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

It is there in black and white (or green in white, as it were). If a player ATTEMPTS to use a PED - which Watson clearly stated he did - they are guilty and should be banned.

No burden of proof is required whatsoever to prove what he actually injected himself with

Didn't cronullas performance manager admit to giving numerous players something banned? They haven't been banned either yet.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
i reckon he could've walked in with syriges hanging out of each arm and with Lance Armstrong as his lawyer and ASADA would have done jack
 

Danish

Referee
Messages
32,019
Didn't cronullas performance manager admit to giving numerous players something banned? They haven't been banned either yet.


If you can't tell the difference between a player admitting he was injected with banned drugs compared to a trainer claiming to have injected players with banned drugs then really there is no point even talking to you about it.

Its the difference between a confession to police and an eye witness statement. One is a guaranteed conviction while the other is completely useless without other evidence
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,885
You know the sht has hit the fan when the West Australian runs a full front page story ripping into the AFL!
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,885
If you can't tell the difference between a player admitting he was injected with banned drugs compared to a trainer claiming to have injected players with banned drugs then really there is no point even talking to you about it.

Its the difference between a confession to police and an eye witness statement. One is a guaranteed conviction while the other is completely useless without other evidence

Comment on Article 2.2:
It has always been the case that Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method may be established by any reliable means. As noted in the Comment to Article 3.2 (Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions), unlike the proof required to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1, Use or Attempted Use may also be established by other reliable means such as admissions by the Athlete, witness statements, documentary evidence, conclusions drawn from longitudinal profiling, or other analytical information which does not otherwise satisfy all the requirements to establish ?Presence? of a Prohibited Substance under Article 2.1.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,885
:crazy:

Slight difference between the above and a player telling the world he took a banned substance.

Yes it is but penalties have not been handed out to anyone yet. We have one player in afl admitting taking a banned drug and a cronulla official admitting administering banned drug to numerous players. The evidence will see bans, process will run and time will tell.
 
Messages
17,540
Noaksey has also tried to claim that what the weird lady (Kavanagh) put in her report was not what he said, rather based on his notes, which he says were recent and based on what was being suggested as the supplements given.

Pfft, yeah right.

But may also explain why the bone brained Board reinstated him. Wrongful dismissal based upon assumed evidence.
 

El Diablo

Post Whore
Messages
94,107
Yes it is but penalties have not been handed out to anyone yet. We have one player in afl admitting taking a banned drug and a cronulla official admitting administering banned drug to numerous players. The evidence will see bans, process will run and time will tell.

Noakes said on 7 he has never given a banned drug
 
Messages
4,980

Interesting to see how those two clauses play out in the Essendon and Sharks cases. I fail to see how Essendon players could argue 10.5.2 applies to them. Watson has admitted signing a consent form, and that he knew that he was being injected with AOD9604. Hard to argue "no significant fault or negligence" when you know exactly what is going into your body, but not whether it is legal or not. Should he so wished, he could have checked with ASADA himself. It's not like in the Sharks situation where it appears that non of players had much of an idea as to what they were taking.

Alternatively, I'd doubt many Sharks (at present) would be eligible for a reduction in section based on section 10.5.3, as they have been giving the investigation the bird from day one by all reports. The Bombers though may have been demes to have been giving enough assistance to ASADA to "earn" a reduction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top