Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
plugger66 wrote:As we should be doing with Essendon and was my point all along lets just wait for all the information to come out. I will say one thing though, those people who were so strong on the strict liability for Essendon players surely cant be now making excuses for Saad.
Why, are they exactly the same instances or are both scenarios claiming the same defence?
No they sound completely different. One was caught via ASADA apparently and the other is relying on witnesses to dob them in. Either way its either strict liability or its not. Or we could wait for both investigations to finish. There are some funny things on this thread. people blaming the AFL, ASADA< cro who was everyones pet yeaterday. People dig themselves in a hole and then it bites you on the arse. I hope Saad gets off myself just as i have thought the Essendon players thought they were taking legal stuff and was prepared to wait for the findings.
Johnny Member wrote:There are probably very good excuses for Essendon players. But the problem for them is, that that doesn't mean s***.
Excuses don't count.
Yes we know that. As probably said 1000 times in the Essendope thread but they do count in reducing the penalty and hopefully if Saad has accidently taken something he will get minimum penalty. I hope the saints do the right thing and get a good solictor for him.
Johnny Member wrote:There are probably very good excuses for Essendon players. But the problem for them is, that that doesn't mean s***.
Excuses don't count.
Yes we know that. As probably said 1000 times in the Essendope thread but they do count in reducing the penalty and hopefully if Saad has accidently taken something he will get minimum penalty. I hope the saints do the right thing and get a good solictor for him.
Johnny Member wrote:There are probably very good excuses for Essendon players. But the problem for them is, that that doesn't mean s***.
Excuses don't count.
Yes we know that. As probably said 1000 times in the Essendope thread but they do count in reducing the penalty and hopefully if Saad has accidently taken something he will get minimum penalty. I hope the saints do the right thing and get a good solictor for him.
What's a solicitor going to do?
I dont know. drink with him? WWhat are you on about?
plugger66 wrote:As we should be doing with Essendon and was my point all along lets just wait for all the information to come out. I will say one thing though, those people who were so strong on the strict liability for Essendon players surely cant be now making excuses for Saad.
Why, are they exactly the same instances or are both scenarios claiming the same defence?
No they sound completely different. One was caught via ASADA apparently and the other is relying on witnesses to dob them in. Either way its either strict liability or its not. Or we could wait for both investigations to finish. There are some funny things on this thread. people blaming the AFL, ASADA< cro who was everyones pet yeaterday. People dig themselves in a hole and then it bites you on the arse. I hope Saad gets off myself just as i have thought the Essendon players thought they were taking legal stuff and was prepared to wait for the findings.
Don't agree the reasons or intent for the violation is at the heart of strict liability, surely.
Whilst the Bombers could have been duped, they intended on gaining an advantage.
Saad by the sounds took something accidentally.
Agree wait for all the facts, but strict liability should be applied on a case by case basis not on a blanket basis.
Johnny Member wrote:There are probably very good excuses for Essendon players. But the problem for them is, that that doesn't mean s***.
Excuses don't count.
Yes we know that. As probably said 1000 times in the Essendope thread but they do count in reducing the penalty and hopefully if Saad has accidently taken something he will get minimum penalty. I hope the saints do the right thing and get a good solictor for him.
What's a solicitor going to do?
charge saad and the saints a s-load of money......
Last edited by stinger on Wed 31 Jul 2013 3:55pm, edited 1 time in total.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
maverick wrote:
Why, are they exactly the same instances or are both scenarios claiming the same defence?
No they sound completely different. One was caught via ASADA apparently and the other is relying on witnesses to dob them in. Either way its either strict liability or its not. Or we could wait for both investigations to finish. There are some funny things on this thread. people blaming the AFL, ASADA< cro who was everyones pet yeaterday. People dig themselves in a hole and then it bites you on the arse. I hope Saad gets off myself just as i have thought the Essendon players thought they were taking legal stuff and was prepared to wait for the findings.
Don't agree the reasons or intent for the violation is at the heart of strict liability, surely.
Whilst the Bombers could have been duped, they intended on gaining an advantage.
Saad by the sounds took something accidentally.
Agree wait for all the facts, but strict liability should be applied on a case by case basis not on a blanket basis.
Im pretty sure it doesnt work that why hence the word strict liability.Essendon as a club sounds like it wanted an advantage. Im not sure 20 players or what ever the number wanted to cheat but strct liability says it doesnt matter. I dont think Saad wanted to cheat either but apparently unless he is in a drgged state he is pretty much in trouble if found guilty. The problem with those going so hard at Essendon players is we now have a player that may have done the wrong thing even if its an accident.
I'm waiting to see how long it takes for the Club to make a statement. They would have known about the Test Results for a while now and would have already undertaken an investigation into what/how things occurred.
You'd reckon the club might be able to muster a little press release by now… acknowledging the investigation without being able to comment further at this stage…
It's a pretty big deal with the clubs name all over the news right now.
plugger66 wrote:
Im pretty sure it doesnt work that why hence the word strict liability.Essendon as a club sounds like it wanted an advantage. Im not sure 20 players or what ever the number wanted to cheat but strct liability says it doesnt matter. I dont think Saad wanted to cheat either but apparently unless he is in a drgged state he is pretty much in trouble if found guilty. The problem with those going so hard at Essendon players is we now have a player that may have done the wrong thing even if its an accident.
Similarly, the last thing the Bombers or their fans* would want is for Saady to go for 2 years if he innocently/naively took some substance/additive.
* Of course some dopey Essendon fans who haven't thought it through may be cheering for him to get rubbed out.
dragit wrote:You'd reckon the club might be able to muster a little press release by now… acknowledging the investigation without being able to comment further at this stage…
It's a pretty big deal with the clubs name all over the news right now.
GT isnt happy apparently. Sadi pretty the same as you. get on the front foot.
dragit wrote:You'd reckon the club might be able to muster a little press release by now… acknowledging the investigation without being able to comment further at this stage…
It's a pretty big deal with the clubs name all over the news right now.
GT isnt happy apparently. Sadi pretty the same as you. get on the front foot.
Need to drag Jack Rush back from his Windy Hill gig
its actually pissing me off a fair bit
i started writing the same thing about ten mins ago and thought: nahhh i wont harp on about the clubs non reaction
but seriously youve gotta say something
clubs name is being banded about left right and centre
i know for fact that ill get to work in an hr and the gossip will be that the whole team has been busted for steroids.
better take the phone charger to work tonight
i can see it going flat before smoko
If he took something he should not have, no matter what the reason was (apart from being unconscious), strict liability applies and he will need to serve out his ban.
Same thing with the Essendon players, no way out if you have taken something that you should not have.
Did it say his test was positive or irregular? The B sample should clear it up either way and if it is positive then accept the ban and learn from it!
From what I can tell Ess have gone to far greater lengths, I mean it isn't one player there, it is almost their entire list. Very different scenarios but I am fairly sure the strict liability part will be the same in both cases.
Professional athletes should know better and always need to be super careful about what they put into their bodies. Hardly a grey area IMO.
dragit wrote:You'd reckon the club might be able to muster a little press release by now… acknowledging the investigation without being able to comment further at this stage…
It's a pretty big deal with the clubs name all over the news right now.
Had until 11ish this morning...
I will harp on about it.
Amateur hour.
It doesn't have to be elaborate.
"Saints can confirm Ahmed Saad is assisting Asada with an undisclosed matter, while we understand the interest in this matter, we as a board will wait until more details come to light before we expand further"
Does anyone know the timeframe for both A and B samples to be tested (I have it in my mind 2 weeks or 6 weeks)? If the A sample is irregular but not positive I see this dragging out for quite some time !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
I mean really ASADA is just taking the piss out of Saad, aren't they?
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
matrix wrote:well i know at our work if you fail one it gets sent to WA and i think and takes about two weeks
doesnt really help your question tho eastern
It does (a bit). We do know that the "Irregularity" occurred in a test about a month ago. Combine that with what you have stated and the B sample would have a result by now. It is starting to look more and more like an irregular test, rather than a failed test and any investigation could go on for ages. Based on what we do and don't know this could go either way for Ahmed; Up to a 2 year ban for a violation or a whole lot of Hoo Haa over nothing !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
