ASADA issues show-cause notices to Essendon players

[Ghost Dog]

Don't underestimate the power of cash.

The EFC will have cash to burn, and players only interested in monetary compensation will be lining up to "help rebuild the once great club, that is the EFC"

Watch at the end of this year when clubs actively trade with the EFC rather than smash them for their newly exposed unrestricted free agents. Can you actually imagine the AFL letting clubs rape the EFC list and allowing them to flounder without compensation?

It's not going to happen - irrespective of whether it should.

Whilst justice is going part way to being served, if you think you've seen the most perverted interventions by AFL House when it comes to this saga you're way off. The rebuilding of the EFC will be by far the most sickening component of the whole episode. And, you can be sure as shit at whose expense that rebuilding will be, just as I am.

Like this post. Then again, Carlton, Melbourne. The AFL can try to rebuild all it likes. Some clubs are just inept.

[bornadog]

Peter Gordon's view here

[LostDoggy]

The band of youngsters and misfits that will be Essendon will need some understanding, compassionate on-field leadership this year.

They've just appointed Brendan Goddard Captain.

Ah Bombers, the chuckles just keep on coming

[Bulldog4life]

The band of youngsters and misfits that will be Essendon will need some understanding, compassionate on-field leadership this year.

They've just appointed Brendan Goddard Captain.

Ah Bombers, the chuckles just keep on coming

Hilarious.

[Greystache]

The band of youngsters and misfits that will be Essendon will need some understanding, compassionate on-field leadership this year.

They've just appointed Brendan Goddard Captain.

Ah Bombers, the chuckles just keep on coming

A do as I say not as I do leader that will throw people under the bus to deflect scrutiny off himself. Seems the only logical choice for that rabble.

[merantau]

Get ready for a lot of finger pointing, arm waving and gesticulating.

[Twodogs]

Get ready for a lot of finger pointing, arm waving and gesticulating.

In the warm up.

[Bulldog Joe]

In the warm up.

Well you do need to warm the muscles that will be required to perform through the game.

[jeemak]

Neil Balme's contribution:

http://www.sen.com.au/news/01-16/nei...xfweEUrmX5c.97

[Bulldog Joe]

Neil Balme's contribution:

http://www.sen.com.au/news/01-16/nei...xfweEUrmX5c.97

This is becoming tedious.

It is very simple.

If they are innocent they would(should) have records and everyone would/should KNOW what was taken.
Any suggestion that they should somehow be exonerated because the records have been destroyed/never existed, is an invitation for the Premiership to be decided by the best laboratory.

[Twodogs]

This is becoming tedious.

It is very simple.

If they are innocent they would(should) have records and everyone would/should KNOW what was taken.
Any suggestion that they should somehow be exonerated because the records have been destroyed/never existed, is an invitation for the Premiership to be decided by the best laboratory.

That's not how the law works. You don't need to prove your innocence. The other side need to prove you are guilty.

[FrediKanoute]

That's not how the law works. You don't need to prove your innocence. The other side need to prove you are guilty.

Not in all cases. Traffikking of drugs is an instance where the legal burden is reversed.

Here you had a situation that WADA needed to prove to comfortable satisfaction, not beyond reasonable doubt that they players took banned substances. This means that the weight of circumstantial evidence is higher and the ability to "derive" missing strands in the evidence chain is permitted.

[bulldogtragic]

Not in all cases. Traffikking of drugs is an instance where the legal burden is reversed.

Here you had a situation that WADA needed to prove to comfortable satisfaction, not beyond reasonable doubt that they players took banned substances. This means that the weight of circumstantial evidence is higher and the ability to "derive" missing strands in the evidence chain is permitted.

Yep, this was an issue cracking down on serious crooks and gangland figures in Victoria. Possessing items from a proceed of crime is reverse onus too, because their lawyers would use the same argument there was no records of alleged drug sales or stand over cash so despite never having had a job and driving a Maserati so they must be acquitted. A reverse onus of proof isn't that uncommon in modern law. Reverse onus is needed in matters of doping or alleged doping because it creates a system where clean athletes document everything to prove they're clean - like our club and players do. It's just strict liability like car parking offences, if your car is in a disabled zone and you don't have a permit displayed that's the matter done, guilt and it doesn't matter about intent. And because everyone knows that's how it is, people don't frequently do it. If police or inspectors didn't book people in such instances because they didn't see a sign, were told by their parents who were passengers it was ok or that they had complete diminished responsibility somehow then what's the point of it. Strict and absolute liability exist in laws for a good reason.

WADA must forcefully impose and enforce their codes in absolute liability because anyone can make up stories to try to explain anomalies in tests, witness evidence or invoices, like drugs entered my system via 'a bad steak' or that 'my mum gave me a diuretic because I wanted to lose some weight, not cover any other substance'.

They all know the rules, all the players were asked by ASADA testers if they had anything to declare (which they did) and every player said "no". The villain isn't ASADA, WADA or CAS. The villain is a group of mad scientists and sociopaths who tested young men with TB4, AOD and who knows what from Mexico and then made them feel unable to tell the truth and may have done irreparable damage to these young men's health and killed their careers and brought a big club to infamous disrepute forever. Evil in this instance occurred from the bad people doing bad things, and the good people doing nothing about it. I feel like hell for them, but their interests in a shit situation where there's been wrongdoing isn't more important than the rest of the competition of sport or players doing the right things at clubs like ours. Really, as far as I see it either we stay hard on cheats and good cheats (Armstrong, Jones and many others never had records or positive tests) or we say all athletes can use whatever drugs they want use. But anywhere in between is pointless.

[merantau]

Yep, this was an issue cracking down on serious crooks and gangland figures in Victoria. Possessing items from a proceed of crime is reverse onus too, because their lawyers would use the same argument there was no records of alleged drug sales or stand over cash so despite never having had a job and driving a Maserati so they must be acquitted. A reverse onus of proof isn't that uncommon in modern law. Reverse onus is needed in matters of doping or alleged doping because it creates a system where clean athletes document everything to prove they're clean - like our club and players do. It's just strict liability like car parking offences, if your car is in a disabled zone and you don't have a permit displayed that's the matter done, guilt and it doesn't matter about intent. And because everyone knows that's how it is, people don't frequently do it. If police or inspectors didn't book people in such instances because they didn't see a sign, were told by their parents who were passengers it was ok or that they had complete diminished responsibility somehow then what's the point of it. Strict and absolute liability exist in laws for a good reason.

WADA must forcefully impose and enforce their codes in absolute liability because anyone can make up stories to try to explain anomalies in tests, witness evidence or invoices, like drugs entered my system via 'a bad steak' or that 'my mum gave me a diuretic because I wanted to lose some weight, not cover any other substance'.

They all know the rules, all the players were asked by ASADA testers if they had anything to declare (which they did) and every player said "no". The villain isn't ASADA, WADA or CAS. The villain is a group of mad scientists and sociopaths who tested young men with TB4, AOD and who knows what from Mexico and then made them feel unable to tell the truth and may have done irreparable damage to these young men's health and killed their careers and brought a big club to infamous disrepute forever. Evil in this instance occurred from the bad people doing bad things, and the good people doing nothing about it. I feel like hell for them, but their interests in a shit situation where there's been wrongdoing isn't more important than the rest of the competition of sport or players doing the right things at clubs like ours. Really, as far as I see it either we stay hard on cheats and good cheats (Armstrong, Jones and many others never had records or positive tests) or we say all athletes can use whatever drugs they want use. But anywhere in between is pointless.

Beautifully put BT.

[Twodogs]

Yep, this was an issue cracking down on serious crooks and gangland figures in Victoria. Possessing items from a proceed of crime is reverse onus too, because their lawyers would use the same argument there was no records of alleged drug sales or stand over cash so despite never having had a job and driving a Maserati so they must be acquitted. A reverse onus of proof isn't that uncommon in modern law. Reverse onus is needed in matters of doping or alleged doping because it creates a system where clean athletes document everything to prove they're clean - like our club and players do. It's just strict liability like car parking offences, if your car is in a disabled zone and you don't have a permit displayed that's the matter done, guilt and it doesn't matter about intent. And because everyone knows that's how it is, people don't frequently do it. If police or inspectors didn't book people in such instances because they didn't see a sign, were told by their parents who were passengers it was ok or that they had complete diminished responsibility somehow then what's the point of it. Strict and absolute liability exist in laws for a good reason.

WADA must forcefully impose and enforce their codes in absolute liability because anyone can make up stories to try to explain anomalies in tests, witness evidence or invoices, like drugs entered my system via 'a bad steak' or that 'my mum gave me a diuretic because I wanted to lose some weight, not cover any other substance'.

They all know the rules, all the players were asked by ASADA testers if they had anything to declare (which they did) and every player said "no". The villain isn't ASADA, WADA or CAS. The villain is a group of mad scientists and sociopaths who tested young men with TB4, AOD and who knows what from Mexico and then made them feel unable to tell the truth and may have done irreparable damage to these young men's health and killed their careers and brought a big club to infamous disrepute forever. Evil in this instance occurred from the bad people doing bad things, and the good people doing nothing about it. I feel like hell for them, but their interests in a shit situation where there's been wrongdoing isn't more important than the rest of the competition of sport or players doing the right things at clubs like ours. Really, as far as I see it either we stay hard on cheats and good cheats (Armstrong, Jones and many others never had records or positive tests) or we say all athletes can use whatever drugs they want use. But anywhere in between is pointless.

Strict liability sounds to me like the new mandatory sentencing laws or three strike policy or zero tolerance policy? The new group think in law enforcement!