Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Condemned forever?

No comments:
Former ASADA chief Richard Ings’ condemnation of Essendon’s recruitment of former Docker Ryan Crowley says there can be no absolution for past sins.

For non-Twitterati, Ings’ tweet yesterday was :“Coming right out of a doping ban, Ryan Crowley signed by EFC as replacement for one of 12 banned for doping offenses. I do give up.” and a little later: “ IMO time served is of course the end of a ban. But my view relates to EFC distancing itself from all things ADRV related. The first signing.” (ADRV stands for anti-doping rule violation)

AussieRulesBlog accepts that EssendonFC will, for the foreseeable future, be known for the WADA bans, as will the thirty-four past and present Essendon players, and indeed Ryan Crowley.

But we wonder what length of time Ings has in mind for the Bombers to ‘distance [themselves]’ from such matters. Will they be pilloried if they accept the twelve banned players back into their ranks for the 2017 season? Crowley has served his time out of the game, as has Ahmed Saad. When would it be acceptable for the Bombers to consider them? How long is long enough? What about Justin Charles? Has enough time passed?

AussieRulesBlog didn’t break out the bubbly when Crowley’s signing was mooted, but he, Saad and Essendon have paid their penalties. Notwithstanding their inevitable long-term association with their particular doping issues, they're now fully entitled to get on with it.
Read More

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Disincentive or wet lettuce?

No comments:
AussieRulesBlog wonders how much disincentive the $5,000 suspended fine imposed on Dustin Martin by Richmond is to the young man. The fine was imposed after Victoria Police announced there would be no criminal prosecution out of Martin’s altercation with another restaurant patron. The suspended fine apparently relates to him drinking to excess, and thus contravening the [internal?] player code of conduct.

Let’s say Martin is on $500,000 per year — yes, it's probably more, but stay with us. After tax, $5,000 is around one week’s take-home pay.

For the person on around average male weekly earnings, a $5,000 fine is roughly five weeks’ take-home pay.

We leave readers to make up their own minds about the disincentive effects of the Tigers’ decision.
Read More

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

One letter makes a huge difference for the Bombers

No comments:
Whereas the AFL Drug Tribunal focused on whether Essendon players had been administered thymosin-beta 4 or not, the Court of Arbitration for Sport focused on what the players hadn't done. The difference between comission and omission — that pesky c — is the difference that saw the thirty-four past and present Essendon players banned today.

In the absence of positive drug testing results, the AFL Drug Tribunal’s hearing looked at what substances Steven Dank may have obtained, where he may have obtained them and who may have transmuted them into a useable form. It’s not too strong to say that Dank and his associates operated at the margins, so there were more holes in the chain of custody than a pair of fishnets.

WADA, on the other hand, had a telling precedent where no positive had been recorded — Lance Armstrong. They knew that circumstantial evidence could get them their desired result. And it wasn't hard to find.

The failure of the players to list the supplements that Dank was providing on their ASADA drug testing forms was the golden bullet. Anyone who is mystified or bemused about this decision need only read the CAS report to understand that.

Had the supplements been WADA-compliant, they could have been, and should have been, listed on the drug-tested players’ reports of supplements they'd used. It’s a red flag that no players filling out those forms listed the Dank-supplied supplements. And these players had all received the yearly AFL education about anti-doping testing and how to stay ‘clean’.

WADA and CAS inferred from the failure to list the Dank-supplied supplements that the substances weren’t WADA-compliant, and further, that the non-listing was an organised activity.

While the administration of non-compliant substances was very difficult to prove, proving the failure to list supplements was as easy as falling from a slippery log. Difficult-to-prove commission versus easy to prove omission.

There are further questions to be answered.

How complicit were club staff in the attempt to evade ASADA detection? That one might be answered in civil proceedings.

How were ASADA so woefully inept in their handling of this entire episode? That’s one for the politicians.

And will Andrew Demetriou’s fingerprints ever be erased from this whole saga? That one is for history.
Read More

CAS decision has a world sport perspective

No comments:
The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport to suspend thirty-four past and present Essendon players over the 2012 supplements program is a decision with a world sport perspective. The anti-doping regime could not afford a no-fault defence to succeed.

Morally, the suspension of the players for an entire season is indefensible, but this decision has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the players’ position.

Had CAS found in favour of the players, very clever dopers all over the world would have quickly concocted means to deliver their chemical boosts to their targets under cover of the no-fault defence.

That is the essence of this decision. The players are collateral damage.
Read More

Condemned forever?

Former ASADA chief Richard Ings’ condemnation of Essendon’s recruitment of former Docker Ryan Crowley says there can be no absolution for past sins.

For non-Twitterati, Ings’ tweet yesterday was :“Coming right out of a doping ban, Ryan Crowley signed by EFC as replacement for one of 12 banned for doping offenses. I do give up.” and a little later: “ IMO time served is of course the end of a ban. But my view relates to EFC distancing itself from all things ADRV related. The first signing.” (ADRV stands for anti-doping rule violation)

AussieRulesBlog accepts that EssendonFC will, for the foreseeable future, be known for the WADA bans, as will the thirty-four past and present Essendon players, and indeed Ryan Crowley.

But we wonder what length of time Ings has in mind for the Bombers to ‘distance [themselves]’ from such matters. Will they be pilloried if they accept the twelve banned players back into their ranks for the 2017 season? Crowley has served his time out of the game, as has Ahmed Saad. When would it be acceptable for the Bombers to consider them? How long is long enough? What about Justin Charles? Has enough time passed?

AussieRulesBlog didn’t break out the bubbly when Crowley’s signing was mooted, but he, Saad and Essendon have paid their penalties. Notwithstanding their inevitable long-term association with their particular doping issues, they're now fully entitled to get on with it.

Disincentive or wet lettuce?

AussieRulesBlog wonders how much disincentive the $5,000 suspended fine imposed on Dustin Martin by Richmond is to the young man. The fine was imposed after Victoria Police announced there would be no criminal prosecution out of Martin’s altercation with another restaurant patron. The suspended fine apparently relates to him drinking to excess, and thus contravening the [internal?] player code of conduct.

Let’s say Martin is on $500,000 per year — yes, it's probably more, but stay with us. After tax, $5,000 is around one week’s take-home pay.

For the person on around average male weekly earnings, a $5,000 fine is roughly five weeks’ take-home pay.

We leave readers to make up their own minds about the disincentive effects of the Tigers’ decision.

One letter makes a huge difference for the Bombers

Whereas the AFL Drug Tribunal focused on whether Essendon players had been administered thymosin-beta 4 or not, the Court of Arbitration for Sport focused on what the players hadn't done. The difference between comission and omission — that pesky c — is the difference that saw the thirty-four past and present Essendon players banned today.

In the absence of positive drug testing results, the AFL Drug Tribunal’s hearing looked at what substances Steven Dank may have obtained, where he may have obtained them and who may have transmuted them into a useable form. It’s not too strong to say that Dank and his associates operated at the margins, so there were more holes in the chain of custody than a pair of fishnets.

WADA, on the other hand, had a telling precedent where no positive had been recorded — Lance Armstrong. They knew that circumstantial evidence could get them their desired result. And it wasn't hard to find.

The failure of the players to list the supplements that Dank was providing on their ASADA drug testing forms was the golden bullet. Anyone who is mystified or bemused about this decision need only read the CAS report to understand that.

Had the supplements been WADA-compliant, they could have been, and should have been, listed on the drug-tested players’ reports of supplements they'd used. It’s a red flag that no players filling out those forms listed the Dank-supplied supplements. And these players had all received the yearly AFL education about anti-doping testing and how to stay ‘clean’.

WADA and CAS inferred from the failure to list the Dank-supplied supplements that the substances weren’t WADA-compliant, and further, that the non-listing was an organised activity.

While the administration of non-compliant substances was very difficult to prove, proving the failure to list supplements was as easy as falling from a slippery log. Difficult-to-prove commission versus easy to prove omission.

There are further questions to be answered.

How complicit were club staff in the attempt to evade ASADA detection? That one might be answered in civil proceedings.

How were ASADA so woefully inept in their handling of this entire episode? That’s one for the politicians.

And will Andrew Demetriou’s fingerprints ever be erased from this whole saga? That one is for history.

CAS decision has a world sport perspective

The decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport to suspend thirty-four past and present Essendon players over the 2012 supplements program is a decision with a world sport perspective. The anti-doping regime could not afford a no-fault defence to succeed.

Morally, the suspension of the players for an entire season is indefensible, but this decision has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the players’ position.

Had CAS found in favour of the players, very clever dopers all over the world would have quickly concocted means to deliver their chemical boosts to their targets under cover of the no-fault defence.

That is the essence of this decision. The players are collateral damage.