Ignorance isn't innocence, but let's give Bombers the benefit of the doubt

It was obviously an April fools joke

Yes the old AFL/NRL escape route of saying a major international global giant based 12,000 miles awaty is dodgy so therefore all of soccer is. I believe the contributor was talking about sport in Australia where soccer has beem rreasonably successful on taking on the huge responsibility of being the sport of choice for people from 5 to 16 or so and relatively scandal free at the top end here. When parents turn their kids to soccer or basketball, they are not looking at FIFA's shortcomings but thooe bigger orgs closer to home. Cycling's general popularity and Lance Armstrong are two different things.

Yes Perry but FIFA have the Essendon AFL defence. FIFA set up a committee to investigate FIFA and found that there was nothing wrong. Gee what a shock that was. The AFL in one sense are even more elite than FIFA because they have nobody to answer to and no other major orgs in their sport and their sport does not feature in any other sporting competitoin of note. The supreme example of a law unto itself.

All your arguments are very well put together Richard - my one concern is that you seem far too eloquent to be a Collingwood supporter...

Just on Cronulla. It might be prudent for the players and Sharks officials to lay low and just accept the outcome with the Bombers. Given the report which allegedly linked peptide (growth enhancers) with the exacerbation of various cancers and is in the possession of ASADA and the NRL, it might be best for the club to move on. It is arguable that the proposition the club was financially strapped and unable to afford a lengthy legal battle is probably a baseless one in this case. Read the article then judge for yourselves. See: http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8648732 Sparra

Let’s just hope that if this is the end of it we can learn from it and in particular the following lessons ingrain themselves and don't fade away as we forget with time: • Players feel better able to question what is being put into their bodies and if they aren’t satisfied to a "comfortable degree", to feel they are able to say no to the club without sanction. • Rookie coaches aren’t given the keys to the castle, even if (especially if!) they are perhaps the anointed messiah and feel a pressure to do “whatever it takes” to deliver results. • Football departments are less inclined to glibly pursue the cutting edge, so that grey vague areas become a desired place to be. • Footy departments are less “careless” about record keeping with experimental programs, and care more about player welfare than a winning edge.

The tribunal verdict isn't confidential. Any of the recipients are entitled to give a copy to whoever they like.

I think you're reading the case through rose coloured glasses. The tribunal accepted that TB4 was prohibited. They also accepted that Shane Charter bought TB4, and that it was likely this was on Dank's instruction. The doubt lies between Charter/Dank and the players. It was probably given to some players, not necessarily all, and in any case they can't identify which ones. But the conclusion of 'at least some players were probably administered with an illegal substance' isn't sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict on any given player (which is my interpretation of the verdict).

An April Fool's post clearly...

Oh dear... You want to think that one through again?

And the thing that really gets me is that the person who actually should take responsibility for the appalling duty of care that was extended to the players is the senior coach - seeing as it happened on his watch. But his 'punishment' seems to have been to be provided with a club-funded "study' trip to Europe and a n upgraded and extended contract. Some people just seem to be able to get away with murder...

Dan, who are you to doubt in the first place? You know better than a three judge tribunal? That is ignorance.

Perry, which suggests that the probability of a successful appeal will be significantly less than 30%. Time for us all to move on but acknowledge that the Essendon players particularly suffered a lot due to the lack of governance at Essendon in 2012.

also - re the integrity of the tribunal - read former ASADA chief Richard Ings comments : “But I think it’s important that ASADA respect the decision of this tribunal. “This is an experienced panel, they gave fair hearing to the parties. “And if ASADA disagrees with the legal framework or the review of the facts from the tribunal then of course they have an opportunity to appeal. “But that is a big call.” Ings said successful appeals can and did occur, but this was an “emphatic ruling” given after a long and fair hearing. He pointed out that without a positive test - then in these cases the strike rate of successful prosecution was around 30%.

It happens again though doesn't it - people get whipped into a frenzy by the papers and lose their ability to differentiate between facts, actual processes and things that 'have been reported'. In no way has anything been 'swept under the carpet' but that's effectively the conclusion many are jumping to.

Have a google of "FIFA WADA compliant" Note how FIFA and WADA held a running battle through the 2000s over being fully compliant. FIFA was threatened with Olympic expulsion. The book "Football: From England to the World" describes : "FIFA have clashed with WADA,.. FIFA, alongside cycling's UCI, has been WADA's 'sternest critic'. FIFA has continually resisted WADA's attempts to standardize doping procedures and penalties across sports and across national boundaries." This was largely around the standardized minimum bans - which saw for example Abel Xavier banned for 12 months for the same thing that athletics banned Dwain Chambers for 24 months. FIFA refused to sign up and was "perilously close to being dropped from the 2004 Athens Olympic Games" They had a part compromise - and signed a 'cooperative agreement' "in which WADA agreed to fully respect FIFA's stipuations of individual case management and flexibility when imposing sanctions, whilst FIFA accepted WADA's right to refer football related cases to CAS" (the Swiss based Court of arbitration in sport). Still by 2006 then WADA President Dick Pound still cited cycling and 'some elements within FIFA' as the "only problematic governing bodies in international sport". You see - the AFL had given up on their efforts to take the FIFA approach and had signed up fully. FIFA then also had the issue of gaining compliance from its member federations. The English FA was criticised even by Blatter for how it handled the Rio Ferdinand case. The irony is that the Australian media basically ignored FIFA and what would fit the 'soft on drugs' line that got trotted out here. Note too - we found out 2 yrs ago how ineffective WADA testing has become - and FIFA medical officials were described "base their estimation of the scale of drug use in football solely on the basis of drug testing results" This book at the time asserted "the existing testing programme is simply not very effective at detecting drug use" Anyway - you probably preferred soccer in the first place. Reality is that the AFL aren't bad - they had a tricky politicised situation to deal with. Gee - politics getting involved with non-Olympic sporting bodies - who'd've thunk-it.

An AFL tribunal finds one of the Big 4 AFL teams not guilty. Who could of seen that coming? Pays to be part of the 'good ol boys' club.

We know they were injected. But, with yesterday's findings 'not comfortably proven'. the players who may (or may not, depending on which club you barrack for) later develop nasty side effects from said injection is left up the creek without a paddle. A medical practicioner cannot treat effectively without knowing the cause, and the player cannot sue the club for dereliction of duty of care when it's not 'comfortably proven'. By the way, I see a distinct difference between 'not comfortably proven' and 'not guilty'. I know it's semantics, but may prove crucial in the worst-case scenario I've described ablve.

Once the infraction notices were issued, the AFL played no part, in fact, it invited ASADA in to prosecute the case before the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. Thereafter, all timings and dates were at the whim of the Tribunal, the AFL had zero say in the matter.

Perry your last point is a good one. It's amazing that so many have been keen to laud the Cronulla outcome when it was basically a backroom deal. This matter has gone through both the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and the AFL Anti-DopingTribunal, and from everything we have seen so far, including the 133 page report from the Tribunal, it has been done to the letter of the law at every step.