Saad b sample positive

[saintspremiers]

I wonder how the actual substance compares with the Matt Clarke VFL case? Homo rage...

I reckon saad will get a 1 year ban, there has to be some room to move when it comes to classing the offence.

It's WADA's final call ultimately. With all the drug scandals throughout the world I'm sure they've had a gutful and will quite readily ban anyone for the the full 2 years. Now is not the time to be lenient or forgiving on anyone. I'm talking about the global issue here not our dinky little irrelevant game we love.

[Elementary]

Saad's case is separate to the Essendon case. Saad has a positive A and B test sample so has taken a banned substance. ASADA report findings, then the sporting body involved (in this case the AFL) decide what to do. He may get one year , he may get two years. If ASADA think the penalty is too light they can suggest a higher penaly consistent with world sporting expectations.

Essendon players have not had positive tests so there is not direct, indisputable evidence. ASADA has put together a report and the AFL needs to make the decision based on that report. Let's complain about the AFL's decision if we do not like it but dont link it to the Saad case. They are separate cases (if you like, they are separate 'crimes')

[stinger]

firstly ...dear AFL........WHO THE F@#k gives this woman all this info...........and get them the hell out of your business !!!

i think we all know the answer to that.....and it stinks....

[plugger66]

firstly ...dear AFL........WHO THE F@#k gives this woman all this info...........and get them the hell out of your business !!!

i think we all know the answer to that.....and it stinks....

So who is it? you wouldnt have a clue and I doubt any of us do.

[saintsRrising]

Two years is disgusting. He's tested positive, he deserves a penalty, but two years is in line with the worst PEDs out there. Any drug code that does not distinguish between various substances, lacks flexibility and compassion for the players is not a code the AFL should be a part of.

AFL if they want government funding does not really have a choice.

[dragit]

Saad's case is separate to the Essendon case. Saad has a positive A and B test sample so has taken a banned substance. ASADA report findings, then the sporting body involved (in this case the AFL) decide what to do. He may get one year , he may get two years. If ASADA think the penalty is too light they can suggest a higher penaly consistent with world sporting expectations.

Essendon players have not had positive tests so there is not direct, indisputable evidence. ASADA has put together a report and the AFL needs to make the decision based on that report. Let's complain about the AFL's decision if we do not like it but dont link it to the Saad case. They are separate cases (if you like, they are separate 'crimes')

Of course we are going to compare the cases…

We are talking about a team-wide injecting program, where the players can't produce the same results the following year, lots of talk that there will be no player sanctions… compared to a player who has drunk a shake on the wrong day of the week getting 2 years.

If people call Saad stupid and culpable for not checking what his protein shake had in it, how about 38 blokes receiving IV and weekly injections?

They might be different cases, but they are being investigated and charged by the same organisation.

[stinger]

...doesn't this also apply to saad...


"Richard Ings, ASADA chief executive until 2010 when he was replaced by Andruska, this week raised concerns about potential privacy breaches in the interim report into Essendon's practices last year. Ings said figures in the Essendon case could have grounds to lodge concerns with the Privacy Commissioner over the interim report.

The ASADA Act and the National Anti-Doping Scheme are meant to protect the privacy of any athlete or ''support person'' - such as a coach, team doctor or sport scientist. But Ings said that if the interim report on Essendon was judged to have made inferences that reflected poorly on an athlete or ''support person'' - and that individual was not given the opportunity to respond before the report was tabled and circulated to other parties - it could jeopardise the entire investigation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... z2bWYewT7y

[saintsRrising]

Saad's case is separate to the Essendon case. Saad has a positive A and B test sample so has taken a banned substance. ASADA report findings, then the sporting body involved (in this case the AFL) decide what to do. He may get one year , he may get two years. If ASADA think the penalty is too light they can suggest a higher penaly consistent with world sporting expectations.

Essendon players have not had positive tests so there is not direct, indisputable evidence. ASADA has put together a report and the AFL needs to make the decision based on that report. Let's complain about the AFL's decision if we do not like it but dont link it to the Saad case. They are separate cases (if you like, they are separate 'crimes')

Of course the Essendon case is a separate case. However the timing of the two cases together sharpens the focus, and will make it harder for the EFC to escape wit any leniency.

There are 8 different possible violations.

Saad has allegedly broken 1.

The EFC has allegedly broken several. As there are no positive tests they will escape on one type of violation. This includes the use of IV, which if 50ml or greater size bags were use (which is the minimum size) is a "procedure" violation. With these other violations, one only needs circumstantial evidence that an "attempt" to cheat was made. Evidence does not need to "be beyond reasonable doubt". Australian Law is largely irrelevant, as the WADA Code operates essentially under the French legal system.

EFC bought, and or maunfactured illegal sport substances
EFC players signed forms that listed various banned substances
Jobe admitted to taking AOD.

The other difference of course between Saad and the EFC issue is that:

* with Saad : it is only Saad that can be penalised
* with the EFC players: any or all of players, officials and club can be penalised.

[ShanghaiSaint]

i just hope that if Saad gets a year then the fraaaking IV dopers better get 2 years

[plugger66]

i just hope that if Saad gets a year then the fraaaking IV dopers better get 2 years

Well I reckon at best it will be the opposite. Im going Saad gets given a year and ASADA appeal and he gets 2 years. Im going Essendon players get 6 months or nothing. And ASADA wont appeal. All based on nothing at all.

Im also tipping nothing happens to the Saints which is pretty obvious but I reckon Essendon are in hole lot of pain. Lose points this year or if they appeal next year. Coaches banned for 2 years. Large fines and maybe loss of draft picks.

[Old Mate]

I wonder how the actual substance compares with the Matt Clarke VFL case? Homo rage...

I reckon saad will get a 1 year ban, there has to be some room to move when it comes to classing the offence.

Both pre workout supplements and both contained stimulants. Very much the same type of case.

[ShanghaiSaint]

i just hope that if Saad gets a year then the fraaaking IV dopers better get 2 years

Well I reckon at best it will be the opposite. Im going Saad gets given a year and ASADA appeal and he gets 2 years. Im going Essendon players get 6 months or nothing. And ASADA wont appeal. All based on nothing at all.

You're most likely spot on P66, but for the integrity of the game I really hope not.

[Bernard Shakey]

...doesn't this also apply to saad...


"Richard Ings, ASADA chief executive until 2010 when he was replaced by Andruska, this week raised concerns about potential privacy breaches in the interim report into Essendon's practices last year. Ings said figures in the Essendon case could have grounds to lodge concerns with the Privacy Commissioner over the interim report.

The ASADA Act and the National Anti-Doping Scheme are meant to protect the privacy of any athlete or ''support person'' - such as a coach, team doctor or sport scientist. But Ings said that if the interim report on Essendon was judged to have made inferences that reflected poorly on an athlete or ''support person'' - and that individual was not given the opportunity to respond before the report was tabled and circulated to other parties - it could jeopardise the entire investigation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... z2bWYewT7y

No! He's failed a drug test. The Bombers have not failed any test at all.

[stinger]

...doesn't this also apply to saad...


"Richard Ings, ASADA chief executive until 2010 when he was replaced by Andruska, this week raised concerns about potential privacy breaches in the interim report into Essendon's practices last year. Ings said figures in the Essendon case could have grounds to lodge concerns with the Privacy Commissioner over the interim report.

The ASADA Act and the National Anti-Doping Scheme are meant to protect the privacy of any athlete or ''support person'' - such as a coach, team doctor or sport scientist. But Ings said that if the interim report on Essendon was judged to have made inferences that reflected poorly on an athlete or ''support person'' - and that individual was not given the opportunity to respond before the report was tabled and circulated to other parties - it could jeopardise the entire investigation."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/p ... z2bWYewT7y

No! He's failed a drug test. The Bombers have not failed any test at all.

they don't need to if they admit to taking banned substances as watson has......

[tony74]

Apart from both samples proving positive everything written in the papers need to be taken with a grain of salt.

[sasaint]

Well I reckon at best it will be the opposite. Im going Saad gets given a year and ASADA appeal and he gets 2 years. Im going Essendon players get 6 months or nothing. And ASADA wont appeal. All based on nothing at all.

Im also tipping nothing happens to the Saints which is pretty obvious but I reckon Essendon are in hole lot of pain. Lose points this year or if they appeal next year. Coaches banned for 2 years. Large fines and maybe loss of draft picks.

I think P66 is on the money with this one.

[stinger]

Saad's case is separate to the Essendon case. Saad has a positive A and B test sample so has taken a banned substance. ASADA report findings, then the sporting body involved (in this case the AFL) decide what to do. He may get one year , he may get two years. If ASADA think the penalty is too light they can suggest a higher penaly consistent with world sporting expectations.

Essendon players have not had positive tests so there is not direct, indisputable evidence. ASADA has put together a report and the AFL needs to make the decision based on that report. Let's complain about the AFL's decision if we do not like it but dont link it to the Saad case. They are separate cases (if you like, they are separate 'crimes')

Of course we are going to compare the cases…

We are talking about a team-wide injecting program, where the players can't produce the same results the following year, lots of talk that there will be no player sanctions… compared to a player who has drunk a shake on the wrong day of the week getting 2 years.

If people call Saad stupid and culpable for not checking what his protein shake had in it, how about 38 blokes receiving IV and weekly injections?

They might be different cases, but they are being investigated and charged by the same organisation.

good post....

[maverick]

i just hope that if Saad gets a year then the fraaaking IV dopers better get 2 years

Well I reckon at best it will be the opposite. Im going Saad gets given a year and ASADA appeal and he gets 2 years. Im going Essendon players get 6 months or nothing. And ASADA wont appeal. All based on nothing at all.

Im also tipping nothing happens to the Saints which is pretty obvious but I reckon Essendon are in hole lot of pain. Lose points this year or if they appeal next year. Coaches banned for 2 years. Large fines and maybe loss of draft picks.

Well I reckon Saad will get a year, with no appeal.
Essendon players will get zero, again with no appeal.

[ShanghaiSaint]

i just hope that if Saad gets a year then the fraaaking IV dopers better get 2 years

Well I reckon at best it will be the opposite. Im going Saad gets given a year and ASADA appeal and he gets 2 years. Im going Essendon players get 6 months or nothing. And ASADA wont appeal. All based on nothing at all.

Im also tipping nothing happens to the Saints which is pretty obvious but I reckon Essendon are in hole lot of pain. Lose points this year or if they appeal next year. Coaches banned for 2 years. Large fines and maybe loss of draft picks.

Well I reckon Saad will get a year, with no appeal.
Essendon players will get zero, again with no appeal.

faak...

agree on the dopers front they will all plead the fifth and cry we had no idea what jimmy was poking us with.

[bobmurray]

Well I reckon at best it will be the opposite. Im going Saad gets given a year and ASADA appeal and he gets 2 years. Im going Essendon players get 6 months or nothing. And ASADA wont appeal. All based on nothing at all.

Im also tipping nothing happens to the Saints which is pretty obvious but I reckon Essendon are in hole lot of pain. Lose points this year or if they appeal next year. Coaches banned for 2 years. Large fines and maybe loss of draft picks.

I think P66 is on the money with this one.

Trying to predict the eventual outcome of essendongate has become a sport all unto itself

Looking forward to the rulings in both the Saad lunacy and the Bomber cheating...

[saintbrat]

Apart from both samples proving positive everything written in the papers need to be taken with a grain of salt.

worth repeating.....

[bobmurray]

Apart from both samples proving positive everything written in the papers need to be taken with a grain of salt.

worth repeating.....

same as everything written on here, a bit removed from fact, but, that's how fan forums work

[Hurricane]

Yeah he screwed up. In a big way. He should have consulted the clubs medical staff before he took any supplement , especially considering the stuff going on right now with Essendon. I hope it doesn't cost him his career. Id personally think that maybe a 1 season bad would be enough.

Considering the AFL will "work with Essendon to come up with a reasonable penalty" Expect there to be some token fines (about $50k probably), some incidental staff stood down and maybe a loss of draft picks for 1 year. I will be shocked if its any more than that.....actually ill be shocked if its that severe. When ,the league "works with a club" who has broken the biggest rule and systematically cheated for who knows how long it is beyond a joke.

BANG BANG

[Saint Mik]

What about the threat of legal action from VFL player as metioned from his lawyer representing him if the charges laid by AFL are not in line with what hwehas got. This was spoken about on SEN a long time ago and they see it as a way of defeating the 2 year ban handed down to him. Says to me that the findings on all cases need to be the same no matter how the drugs got into the players system. Going to be interesting.

[dragit]

Apart from both samples proving positive everything written in the papers need to be taken with a grain of salt.

worth repeating.....

Can either of you elaborate at all?

Any idea what he might be facing?