Organised crime and drugs in sport investigation part III

[The Elephant In The room]

Mate, I seriously doubt they can keep up with what's legal and what's not. There is new stuff coming out on a weekly basis just about. The issue of disclosure from those that are supplying the substances need to come into question.

The law is never black and white and neither should the band substance rules

I agree it would be difficult, but at the end of the day it's part of their job to know whats legal or at least know where/who to check it with. Lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors and any number of professions deal with daily changes to rules/legislation that affects the job they do. Do you think they can just throw their hands up and say "it's all too hard because things keep changing"?

The players will have to wear the blame for any PED's taken regardless of not. Buy I expect they will be very well compensated by way of a law suit IF they have been duped and pumped full of illegal drugs without being fully made aware of the what they were being given. And I stress IF.

 

[Spot On]

Not according to WADA code its not. Their code specifically states that even if a player has been unknowingly doped by their coach, they will still be banned. They are however applicable for a reduction in the ban length.

That doesn't really apply here though given the AFL players signed documents stating precisely what they were taking, and at least 1 of them knew enough about it to admit on national television to the precise name of the banned drugs he'd been injected with.

You may be able to clarify a query. Jobe Watson - took a banned substance and admitted to such???

 

[Perth Red]

Essendon captain Jobe Watson has made the stunning admission he took the banned substance AOD-9604, but the AFL's reigning Brownlow Medallist remains adamant he did nothing wrong.
The star onballer said on Monday night he took the anti-obesity drug after signing a consent form.
"I signed that consent form and my understanding, after it being given through (club doctor) Bruce Reid and the club, that I was receiving AOD," he told Fox Sports program On The Couch.
Asked if he thought the substance was legal when he was taking it, Watson replied: "that it was legal at the time and that was actually what I was told I was being given."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-24/bomber-watson-admits-taking-banned-drug/4777342

Not sure what more evidence ASADA needs than a self confession?

 

[El Diablo]

me either

 

[PoWdErFiNgEr84]

Given the Dank link I highly doubt ASADA are going to issue any infraction notices until both investigations are complete. People need to remember the AFL only received an intet report which cannot name individuals. ASADA are going to wait till they have a water tight case. The case against Armstrong took over 2 yrs to gather evidence.

I believe even if a playet tests positive they would be free to play until their B sample is tested and that can take months.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Yes.

You can't have players on PEDs in the sport. It is simply unfair on the other athletes to ask them to compete at a disadvantage

I would agree, however there was nothing enhanced about the Sharks performance. Dismal as usual!

 

[The Elephant In The room]

me either

I think everyone is scratching their head over this. A week or two someone posted that a player faced sanction if they used or attempted to use PED, so it's pretty clear that Watson, at a bare minimum attempted to use a PED, whether that was what he actually took, or whether he thought it was performance enhancing or not.

My personal opinion, without any basis of fact other than guess work, is that the delay in issuing sanctions is a result of an on going "negotiation" between the players, ASADA and the AFL over the reduction in the ban period being faced by the players under sec 10.5 of the WADA code for 1) no significant fault or negligence and 2) giving ASADA substantial assistance.

I've said before that I don't think Essendon players should receive a discount due to no significant fault or negligence, but ASADA would probably prefer a guaranteed result by negotiation, rather than going for the maximum that might get appealed.

 

[gUt]

Glen Mitchell reckons a player admitting he believes he took a banned substance counts as circumstantial evidence and is therefore not worth much.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Glen Mitchell reckons a player admitting he believes he took a banned substance counts as circumstantial evidence and is therefore not worth much.

So a statement to the effect... I took a banned substance means nothing unless someone else substantiates it or a positive test supports it. That's seems weird!

 

[magpie4ever]

I would agree, however there was nothing enhanced about the Sharks performance. Dismal as usual!

2011; if I was the Titans or Parra, I would be pissed off, imagine if the Sharks weren't alledged on the gear.

 

[magpie4ever]

So a statement to the effect... I took a banned substance means nothing unless someone else substantiates it or a positive test supports it. That's seems weird!

Just wait until the end of the investigation, all will be explained, I hope.:?

 

[BuffaloRules]

Just wait until the end of the investigation, all will be explained, I hope.:?

"End"?

So are there still people left to be interviewed in respect of the AFL part of the enquiry?

I wonder what new evidence is yet to be disclosed?

I've got a feeling it might be none.

 

[Spot On]

Given the Dank link I highly doubt ASADA are going to issue any infraction notices until both investigations are complete. People need to remember the AFL only received an intet report which cannot name individuals. ASADA are going to wait till they have a water tight case. The case against Armstrong took over 2 yrs to gather evidence.

I believe even if a playet tests positive they would be free to play until their B sample is tested and that can take months.

I get your point but the Armstrong case was "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". It went on for over a decade and Armstrong was "donating" a shit load of money to the organisation testing his "samples". I think we could successfully argue that this case is slightly less "sophisticated" than the Armstrong case.

 

[Maximus]

Some of you seem to think that just because someone admits to something, it is a quick and easy process.

Matt White (cyclist) admitted to doping in October last year after he was named in the Lance Armstrong report. An infraction notice was issued in April (his ban was backdated, so his ban was actually finished before they issued the infraction notice). Part of the reason it took so long is that they used his evidence to gather evidence on others.

The process isn't as simple as gathering the evidence and issuing an infraction notice either.

Have a read of this (click on 'investigations process'). It goes through the steps that need to happen before an athlete can be banned

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/process.html

 

[Spot On]

Point taken Max.

However, White was on US Postal a decade ago.

 

[magpie4ever]

"End"?

So are there still people left to be interviewed in respect of the AFL part of the enquiry?

I wonder what new evidence is yet to be disclosed?

I've got a feeling it might be none.

I believe the AFL player interviews are finished, that doesn't mean the investigation has been completed.

 

[BuffaloRules]

I believe the AFL player interviews are finished, that doesn't mean the investigation has been completed.

So how will the investigation into the AFL progress?

Dank?

I don't think they will be getting much out of him.

 

[carcharias]

I am a sharks fan
Obviously I don't want my team to get fined etc etc
But
Even if you are on ASSADA's side you would have to admit
this had been a f**king shit fight from day 1.

6 months later and they still have basically f**k all.
What happened to all the players getting 6 month bans???

 

[seanoff]

So how will the investigation into the AFL progress?

Dank?

I don't think they will be getting much out of him.

Under the new laws they can compel dank to appear.
http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/2...to+investigate+possible+antidoping+violations

Fine is $5,100 per day if you don't comply.

 

[seanoff]

Btw if any essendon players are banned it will be for the minimum time. Asada have been very happy with the level of co-operation of the players. Although the aflpa made sure they were very well protected. Some of the players went in with 3 lawyers. Aflpa lawyer, club lawyer and those that wanted their own lawyer.

The NRL should make sure that any players interviewed have similar advice and representation.