OT: ASADA and Drugs in NRL

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/national/eel...iner-trent-elkin/story-e6frfkp9-1226786220716

Eels move to fill gap left by trainer Trent Elkin

Dan Koch
The Australian
December 19, 2013 12:00AM

PARRAMATTA insists it will continue to support performance director Trent Elkin but is believed to be well advanced in planning for life without the controversial trainer.

From obscurity, Elkin's name has been cast into the spotlight following NRL boss David Smith's extraordinary media conference on Tuesday, which detailed the findings of the league's interim report into the highly questionable supplements program Cronulla employed during the 2011 NRL season.

Elkin still faces the possibility of further and more severe punishment from ASADA, whose investigation into the trafficking and use of peptides and other performance-enhancing ElephantJuice is believed to be nearing its conclusion.

After almost a year, it is believed ASADA's investigation could see infraction notices handed out to individual players and officials late next month.

The Eels are conscious of ensuring Elkin is afforded the opportunity to respond to claims he not only allowed sports scientist Stephen Dank and his offsider, Darren Hibbert, to implement a dangerous supplements program at the Sharks but in fact was actively participating in the regime, which included players receiving regular injections of substances without the knowledge or presence of the club doctor.

Aware of Elkin's links to the controversial practices at the Sharks, the Eels are understood to have had him working closely with right-hand man Ciriaco Mescia to map out its strength and conditioning program for the remainder of the pre-season and the season proper.

Recently appointed director of football Daniel Anderson and coach Brad Arthur are canvassing the possibility of employing a short-term consultant to help ensure Mescia has the support necessary to groom and develop one of the NRL's youngest squads.

Elkin has been granted time away from the Eels to work with his legal team preparing his defence to the serious allegations made against him by the NRL.

According to the NRL's breach notice, Elkin has until January 15 to respond to claims he -- among other things -- personally injected players without adequate qualifications and in doing so exposed them to the risk of breaches of the NRL anti-doping rules.

 

[Gronk]

Wonder if there are any Sharks players with a "Flanno clause" in their contracts ? :-k

 

[Craig Johnston]

fafita overheard talking to mackenzie at cafe last night about switching to rugby

 

[Delboy]

Here's a fact, Fafita still lives in the local area (Doonside I believe), his wife/partner just bought a car so "Andrew has something decent to drive to Cronulla every day"

Not sure on pour cap space which is supposed to be better after this season, worth asking his manager a question I guess

 

[Gronk]

My post about Josh Cordoba suing over the supplements program was deleted earlier.

Link is here --> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...pplement-program/story-fni3gol8-1226741260187

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Wonder if there are any Sharks players with a "Flanno clause" in their contracts ? :-k

What do you think will happen to the Sharks players?

 

[Craig Johnston]

if the sharks were forced to relocate, would their player contracts still be enforceable?

 

[Suitman]

The Sharks SHOULD be forced to relocate. We need less teams in Sydney.
We should be next.

Suity

 

[IFR33K]

The Sharks SHOULD be forced to relocate. We need less teams in Sydney.
We should be next.

Suity

Lol. You call yourself a fan.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

if the sharks were forced to relocate, would their player contracts still be enforceable?

Yep, assuming that it simply a relocation of the existing club/franchise. If a player had a specific variation added to their contract that would also allow a release, but I'd surprised if such terms are common.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The Sharks SHOULD be forced to relocate. We need less teams in Sydney.
We should be next.

Suity

Why would they want to move a team out of the demographic centre of Sydney, with a relatively large catchment area for fans and players?

 

[hineyrulz]

The Sharks SHOULD be forced to relocate. We need less teams in Sydney.
We should be next.

Suity

:? I do hope you are taking the piss.

 

[Suitman]

:? I do hope you are taking the piss.

;-)

 

[The Elephant In The room]

if the sharks were forced to relocate, would their player contracts still be enforceable?

They won't be relocated. However, I'd suspect the non-banned players would be in a pretty good position if they were. They would be able to enforce payment of their contract under their existing terms. If the Sharks don't have a team to play for, so be it , they could be paid to do nothing (the newly located team would to operating under a new licence and entity I'd suspect). They'd be under no obligation to play for the new franchise. However I'd also suspect they would be granted an immediate release should they want to take up an offer elsewhere.

#PlayerWinWin

 

[Craig Johnston]

They won't be relocated. However, I'd suspect the non-banned players would be in a pretty good position if they were. They would be able to enforce payment of their contract under their existing terms. If the Sharks don't have a team to play for, so be it , they could be paid to do nothing (the newly located team would to operating under a new licence and entity I'd suspect). They'd be under no obligation to play for the new franchise. However I'd also suspect they would be granted an immediate release should they want to take up an offer elsewhere.

#PlayerWinWin

i'm not sure it's as simple as that. the only situation i could see the sharks relocating is if they were forced into administration. if this happened then, receiving all monies owing to them would be a concern.

if the player was to accept to carryover their playing contract with the relocated club then they could protect their payments.

if they didn't, sure they could seek another agreement but would they still be entitled to all monies they were owed?

 

[Gronk]

The $600k fine won't matter to the Sharks. It's the litigation by players who (may) have been injected with banned or dangerous substances without their knowledge. That could cost them for a) negligence (duty of care) b) personal injury if any of the players suffered temporary or permanent injury and c) loss of wages if ASADA bans them from earning an income.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

i'm not sure it's as simple as that. the only situation i could see the sharks relocating is if they were forced into administration. if this happened then, receiving all monies owing to them would be a concern.

There's another possibility. The Sharks' financial situation deteriorates (with being placed in administration) and the NRL persuade them to move or partially move (i.e. half the home games) in return for guaranteed increased central funding.

if the player was to accept to carryover their playing contract with the relocated club then they could protect their payments.

if they didn't, sure they could seek another agreement but would they still be entitled to all monies they were owed?

It's far from clear that simply relocating a club would give the player an option to walk away. It might. If there is a new license holder then the old license holder would probably have to (at least) guarantee their promised salary for the balance of their contract (or negotiate a release fee). But who knows, there could be also sorts of clauses in the NRL standard contract.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Is ignorance an acceptable excuse for asada?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Is ignorance an acceptable excuse for asada?

i dunno

 

[El Diablo]

Is ignorance an acceptable excuse for asada?

no

the responsibility is with the athlete even if a Doctor or trainer told them it was OK