I took banned drug: Watson

[Wayne42]

P66 and Con, do us all a favour and give us a rest. You have both made your points clear.

Can you summarise what those points were, save me a lot of reading

[saintsRrising]

Now that a banned drug has been admitted I cannot see how that at least the minimum ban of 6 months will not be enforced. If the AFL does not enforce it WADA WILL step in, just as they have in other cases when the sentence has been too light.

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1468 ... e-players/

From NRL and AFL fans experiencing WADA justice close-up for the first time, a question often asked is why athletes who might have been oblivious to the contents of syringes are considered culpable. Why WADA enforces "strict liability", where an athlete is fully responsible for what enters his body – except in a few "extreme circumstances". (Significantly, these do not include "the administration of a prohibited substance by the athlete's personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the athlete".)

The rationale goes back as far as the widespread doping in East Germany. In the dark history of chemical-based cheating, that was the Melbourne Cup and the ASADA investigation is a Dubbo maiden. However, WADA has clearly decided the only way to fight systematic doping – including BALCO's free enterprise version – is to make athletes wholly responsible for what they consume. To the point that, to quote the WADA code, "athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any prohibited substances".

[Bluto]

I hope I am not going off topic but can someone explain how in the case of Watson who admits to using banned substances is permitted to play this weekend for Essendon, yet Milney who pleads his innocence is banned from playing football for us? Do Essendon and St Kilda apply completely different standards? I know the matters are different in circumstances but in my view we have a situation where a perpetrator is rewarded, and the other guy pleading his innocence is punished.

[saintsRrising]

]But, inevitably, the unforgiving WADA code that has put the players in such an insidious position does not bode well for Essendon. The removal of competition points is among the punishments WADA demands for team sports in which more than two players are caught using a banned substance. Rough justice for the players, if not those who failed to protect them.

There area lot more than 2 players.

So for mine:

Minimum 6 month ban for players. And that is getting off easy.

P66 defense of placing trust in doctors, trainers (the club) is clearly not a defense with WADA. It may hold sway in players suing the club, but not with WADA.

If the AFL is too lenient, WADA WILL intervene and overule.

Points MUST go.

"Charlie" will go.


The grey are is how long, how much AFL fines will be, and what the AFL does about draft order or picks. ie if points removed, plus players being unavailable causes Essendon to finish last it would not be a good look for them to be rewarded with No 1 pick in the draft.

[saintsRrising]

I hope I am not going off topic but can someone explain how in the case of Watson who admits to using banned substances is permitted to play this weekend for Essendon, yet Milney who pleads his innocence is banned from playing football for us? Do Essendon and St Kilda apply completely different standards? I know the matters are different in circumstances but in my view we have a situation where a perpetrator is rewarded, and the other guy pleading his innocence is punished.

It would be due to gravity of the crime being alleged. While drug cheating is not nice, it is not in the same league as rape.

If Milne was being charged with a minor crime he would be playing.

[saintsRrising]

However as Watson has effectively admitted that he is a drug cheat, it is hard to fathom while he is still able to play.

Dave Culbert clearly thinks he he should go now, and is no doubt that Watson is a cheat.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/d ... 6670278237

[Con Gorozidis]

1. Breaching the drug code is not a crime .
2. Milne has been charged with a crime of a sexual nature.
3. Asada have their own tribunual process and each player will have to have their case heard at a tribunual hearing before they are banned from playing.


These 3 reasons explain why Jobe is free to play and there are no double standards at play.

[saintbrat]

Lawyers and the Bombers ability to pay for plenty of them to help decipher ( or Muddy) the legalise-
banned as opposed to legal as opposed to restraint of trade

could it take long enough for these players to retire........

[magnifisaint]

1. Breaching the drug code is not a crime .
2. Milne has been charged with a crime of a sexual nature.
3. Asada have their own tribunual process and each player will have to have their case heard at a tribunual hearing before they are banned from playing.


These 3 reasons explain why Jobe is free to play and there are no double standards at play.

Milne isn't guilty yet.

[Con Gorozidis]

1. Breaching the drug code is not a crime .
2. Milne has been charged with a crime of a sexual nature.
3. Asada have their own tribunual process and each player will have to have their case heard at a tribunual hearing before they are banned from playing.


These 3 reasons explain why Jobe is free to play and there are no double standards at play.

Milne isn't guilty yet.

Bloody oath he isn't
I said only that he has been charged
He's also not banned from playing. He is free to play.
Him and the club have an informal agreement that he will sit out a few games. That is all.

Jobe will need to go through a formal hearing with asada before any bans are imposed.
So he is also free to play.

[Griggsy]

So according to the footy show Essendon are confident in this going to court and winning.

Their argument is that "Yes the drug is banned, but it is not illegal"

While I do get the difference, I don't understand how this will save them from bans from competition (but then again I know little of law). They also called it a 'high stakes game', a failure at the levels they are going to defend would mean huge penalties.

[PurpleHayes]

So according to the footy show Essendon are confident in this going to court and winning.

Their argument is that "Yes the drug is banned, but it is not illegal"

While I do get the difference, I don't understand how this will save them from bans from competition (but then again I know little of law). They also called it a 'high stakes game', a failure at the levels they are going to defend would mean huge penalties.

So according to the footy show Essendon are confident in this going to court and winning.

Their argument is that "Yes the drug is banned, but it is not illegal"

While I do get the difference, I don't understand how this will save them from bans from competition (but then again I know little of law). They also called it a 'high stakes game', a failure at the levels they are going to defend would mean huge penalties.

My goodness, if this is Essendon's argument I wish I was the prosecution!

Of course there are substances banned in sport, but not illegal in society!
Diuretics, anabolic steroids and EPO are all legal outside of sport, prescription or otherwise.
Take diuretics for example, they do have medicinal uses to reduce body fluids for people with high blood pressure. But outside of this, take them and you will piss to your hearts content. BUT as a professional sportsman this can mask other drugs or help you reduce excess weight - think boxing especially where it is obviously banned to avoid unfair advantages in dropping weigh divisions.

It is banned in sport for a reason you essendon muppets - to prevent providing you with potentially an unfair advantage over your opposition in a multi billion dollar industry! The ban has been put in place by the governing body for anti doping in sport for this country, which unfortunately you have signed up to, by playing football under the registered body being the AFL in this country..Simple!

[Life Long Saint]

1. Breaching the drug code is not a crime .
2. Milne has been charged with a crime of a sexual nature.
3. Asada have their own tribunual process and each player will have to have their case heard at a tribunual hearing before they are banned from playing.


These 3 reasons explain why Jobe is free to play and there are no double standards at play.

Isn't the act of cheating to obtain financial gain considered fraud? Why else would the ACC be involved?
Isn't the standard practice of ASADA/WADA to stand the athlete down whilst investigations are being conducted?
At the very least, Watson should be issued with an infraction notice as he confessed to using a banned substance. Whether or not he thought it was legal is irrelevant.

[Mr Magic]

1. Breaching the drug code is not a crime .
2. Milne has been charged with a crime of a sexual nature.
3. Asada have their own tribunual process and each player will have to have their case heard at a tribunual hearing before they are banned from playing.


These 3 reasons explain why Jobe is free to play and there are no double standards at play.

Isn't the act of cheating to obtain financial gain considered fraud? Why else would the ACC be involved?
Isn't the standard practice of ASADA/WADA to stand the athlete down whilst investigations are being conducted?
At the very least, Watson should be issued with an infraction notice as he confessed to using a banned substance. Whether or not he thought it was legal is irrelevant.

I believe the ACC are involved in this because of the purported link to Organized Crime.
There are apparently recordings in existence (from ACC wiretaps) linking the importation/distribution of peptides etc to 'organized crime figures'.

That part of this investigation seems to have been pretty much ignored by the footy media so far, instead concentrating on the players/coaches usage angle.

[Spinner]

My wife works with people close to Essendon footy club and they believe that there will be no penalty. Their legal team is extremely confident. It wasn't banned according to them and they will fight this in court and have the back up of blaming it all on Dank. AFL has a fight on their hands to even fight this in court. A nominal fine is all I'm thinking will come from it.

It was meant to be legal according to the ASADA website at the time.

Boom!

They said this last night on the footy show. Looks to be on the money regarding Essendon's thinking right now.

[saintspremiers]

1. Breaching the drug code is not a crime .
2. Milne has been charged with a crime of a sexual nature.
3. Asada have their own tribunual process and each player will have to have their case heard at a tribunual hearing before they are banned from playing.


These 3 reasons explain why Jobe is free to play and there are no double standards at play.

Isn't the act of cheating to obtain financial gain considered fraud? Why else would the ACC be involved?
Isn't the standard practice of ASADA/WADA to stand the athlete down whilst investigations are being conducted?
At the very least, Watson should be issued with an infraction notice as he confessed to using a banned substance. Whether or not he thought it was legal is irrelevant.

I believe the ACC are involved in this because of the purported link to Organized Crime.
There are apparently recordings in existence (from ACC wiretaps) linking the importation/distribution of peptides etc to 'organized crime figures'.

That part of this investigation seems to have been pretty much ignored by the footy media so far, instead concentrating on the players/coaches usage angle.

Does that have any implications to Essendon or just those who had the direct connection to the crime figures?

[Johnny Member]

I hope I am not going off topic but can someone explain how in the case of Watson who admits to using banned substances is permitted to play this weekend for Essendon, yet Milney who pleads his innocence is banned from playing football for us? Do Essendon and St Kilda apply completely different standards? I know the matters are different in circumstances but in my view we have a situation where a perpetrator is rewarded, and the other guy pleading his innocence is punished.

One is a criminal matter, one isn't.


There are of course other factors in terms of the AFL's customers and the image of the sport. Which I think people would have varying opinions on.

[Johnny Member]

So, that creep Damian Barrett on the Footy Show last night said that Essendon's defence is based on the fact that the drug wasn't illegal. It was banned, but not illegal.

What the hell does that mean?

[Mr Magic]

I believe the ACC are involved in this because of the purported link to Organized Crime.
There are apparently recordings in existence (from ACC wiretaps) linking the importation/distribution of peptides etc to 'organized crime figures'.

That part of this investigation seems to have been pretty much ignored by the footy media so far, instead concentrating on the players/coaches usage angle.

Does that have any implications to Essendon or just those who had the direct connection to the crime figures?

I don't know.
I was told by someone who heard it from another AFL club (not us) that the organized crime link to peptides and AFL players was the 'real story' here - not to diminish Essendon's culpability in trying to attain an advantage over the rest of the competition by use of chemical stimulants.

In all the argy bargy about who knows what, 1 thing is not in dispute.
Essendon decided on a plan to chemically stimulate their playing group in an effort to gain an advantage.
They KNEW that what they were getting involved in was 'questionable' (Bomber Thompson admitted it).
They went to great lengths to 'hide it'
They asked their players to sign 'consent forms' so that there would be no legal comeback against the club if the shyte hit the fan.

All this public gnashing of teeth over the poor Essendon players is laughable.
Surely there was 1 single player at Essendon last year who wasn't a moron and would have asked why am I signing this form and why am I getting injected repeatedly by someone who's not the Club doctor?
Not a single player on the list showed their manager/agent/legal advisor/parent/sibling/friend/confidante/wife/partner etc the form?
Not a single person raised any questions about all this?

Unbelievable to anybody with a skerrick of intelligence.


And the sycophantic footy media just laps up every tidbit the PR spin merchants advise the Essendon cheats to give them.

[Johnny Member]

My wife works with people close to Essendon footy club and they believe that there will be no penalty. Their legal team is extremely confident. It wasn't banned according to them and they will fight this in court and have the back up of blaming it all on Dank. AFL has a fight on their hands to even fight this in court. A nominal fine is all I'm thinking will come from it.

It was meant to be legal according to the ASADA website at the time.

Boom!

They said this last night on the footy show. Looks to be on the money regarding Essendon's thinking right now.

I didn't take it that way.


My understanding is that it was never 'approved'. It wasn't listed as 'banned' - but it wasn't on their 'approved' list. Which means you can't take it. So if it comes down to that, they're gone.


However Barrett was talking about it being banned, but not 'illegal'. I have no idea what that means and what the difference is in the context of footy.

[dragit]

My wife works with people close to Essendon footy club and they believe that there will be no penalty. Their legal team is extremely confident. It wasn't banned according to them and they will fight this in court and have the back up of blaming it all on Dank. AFL has a fight on their hands to even fight this in court. A nominal fine is all I'm thinking will come from it.

It was meant to be legal according to the ASADA website at the time.

Boom!

They said this last night on the footy show. Looks to be on the money regarding Essendon's thinking right now.

What a bunch of arrogant holes... Fair dinkum, how they came to use the drugs is a side issue.. The important FACT is that they have used banned substances.

Otherwise we might as well hire a cowboy too, shoot up on PEDs, then pass the buck.

I'm so sick of my smug bomber mates high fiving each other about this issue, they need to be banned & for a long time.

[saintspremiers]

Any drug that is not approved for human use by the TGA is automatically, by definition, a banned substance.

I reckon ASADA/WADA would be using that line in court, which is pretty hard to argue against!

[mullet]

I believe the ACC are involved in this because of the purported link to Organized Crime.
There are apparently recordings in existence (from ACC wiretaps) linking the importation/distribution of peptides etc to 'organized crime figures'.

That part of this investigation seems to have been pretty much ignored by the footy media so far, instead concentrating on the players/coaches usage angle.

Does that have any implications to Essendon or just those who had the direct connection to the crime figures?

I don't know.
I was told by someone who heard it from another AFL club (not us) that the organized crime link to peptides and AFL players was the 'real story' here - not to diminish Essendon's culpability in trying to attain an advantage over the rest of the competition by use of chemical stimulants.

In all the argy bargy about who knows what, 1 thing is not in dispute.
Essendon decided on a plan to chemically stimulate their playing group in an effort to gain an advantage.
They KNEW that what they were getting involved in was 'questionable' (Bomber Thompson admitted it).
They went to great lengths to 'hide it'
They asked their players to sign 'consent forms' so that there would be no legal comeback against the club if the shyte hit the fan.

All this public gnashing of teeth over the poor Essendon players is laughable.
Surely there was 1 single player at Essendon last year who wasn't a moron and would have asked why am I signing this form and why am I getting injected repeatedly by someone who's not the Club doctor?
Not a single player on the list showed their manager/agent/legal advisor/parent/sibling/friend/confidante/wife/partner etc the form?
Not a single person raised any questions about all this?

Unbelievable to anybody with a skerrick of intelligence.


And the sycophantic footy media just laps up every tidbit the PR spin merchants advise the Essendon cheats to give them.

And not one player thought, Gee I am getting much bigger in past 6 months than all those years in the Gym, and arent I playing well, and Gee I feel like I can train all day.

Please

[Life Long Saint]

They reported on SEN this morning that Barrett said that Essendon's defence (Ace in the hole) was that the drug is not actually a performance enhancing drug.
I don't watch the Footy Show so I don't know what he actually said.

Let's put aside the irrelevance of this...If that is the way they are going then they're not only cheats but stupid cheats.
Risking it all on a drug that doesn't actually enhance your performance. DUMB!

Now back on the relevance of this.
Surely, it doesn't matter whether the drug actually enhances your performance is not applicable if it is banned for use. I am sure that there are many drugs on that list that do not, on their own, enhance performance. Many are used as a masking agent to hide the real performance enhancer. If memory serves Warnie took a banned diuretic which is used to mask steroid use. He copped 12 months.

On SEN this morning, they used the analogy of being pulled over for doing 80 in a 60 zone and telling the officer that you're not accepting the ticket because you have evidence that this stretch of road should be an 80 zone.
The arrogance of this football club continues to stagger me. I know it shouldn't but just when I think I've seen it all they take it another level.

[markp]

Barrett sounds like he got his wires crossed... 'illegal' is irrelevant. I'm sure blood doping is not 'illegal'.

The drug is prohibited under SO full stop. How effective it is as a PED of course isn't known as human trials have not been completed.

If the EFC are confident because their highly paid lawyers are then confident good luck to them.

Prison's are full of people who were confident they'd get away with it... and then hired confident lawyers when the got caught.