Other clubs about to get hit?

[lsz]

If there are 14 players suspended you would think it is close to the blackest day...

 

[simon_eagle]

Its the players out there that have done the wrong thing and are hiding and not coming forward that keeps this circus going on.

Yes and no. The players should have asked more questions, but really, it was the club who supplied the drugs, and the players would have believed that the club had done their research on what was on the banned substance list.

That is why Sharks directors are trying frantically to get the players to sign this deal of 1 year's pay and an automatic contract extension, so that it will waive all players rights to sue the club.

Both club and player are in the wrong, but unlike the Storm cap fiasco, I tend to side with the players more on this one. The club did not protect their players.

 

[EagleNEST]

Its the players out there that have done the wrong thing and are hiding and not coming forward that keeps this circus going on.

Both club and player are in the wrong, but unlike the Storm cap fiasco, I tend to side with the players more on this one. The club did not protect their players.

I agree, Simon.

 

[Ralphie]

While I understand your point the Sam Riley case is totally irrelevant at law. The WADA code has changed dramatically since then in actual response to cases like hers and others. She would have absolutely no defence under current legislation.

Secondly the public have no idea what evidence they have, so any assumption that they took it willingly/unwillingly(not that it matters in a legal sense) is just that, an assumption.

I would not be to quick to criticize their methods.These methods are exactly how the vast majority of drug cheats are caught.Lance Armstrong and The Balco brigade would still be plying their trade without them.Do we really want to create an environment where if no one tests positive then lets just not bother.Dangerous approach given overseas examples.

In those US cases, my understanding is the USADA had the solid evidence (in many cases involving many whistleblowers, as well as surveillance material) and laid the charges against the athletes, providing a 'show cause' period to refute it.

ASADA hasn't done that. If we were to compare we'd expect them to tell all those players they have evidence that they have breached and will now need to appeal otherwise.

The exercise feels like a scare campaign to gain better evidence then they currently have, which doesn't appear enough to stand anybody down.

How do you know what ASADA has or hasn't done?

1. We know they participated in a "shrill" news conference, where it was claimed to be the blackest day in Australian Sport.
2. We know that they and the ACC have stated their investigation was only intended to highlight risks.
3. We know they have been heavly criticised for their handling of the process and the lack of disclosure of evidence.
4. We know that more than a month on they have yet to charge anyone with anything.
5. We are told by the media they are offering a 6 month ban to those who confess in an attempt to start some sort of domino effect.

It is not unreasonable to conclude from what we do know that if they have any evidence, it's not enough to charge anyone with anything and that they have smeared the reputation of Australian Sportspeople in an utterly disgraceful manner.

I remain utterly sceptical about the whole thing.

It's more reasonable to conclude that they may have more evidence then they are letting on. If you present players with insomountable evidence then they have to "admit" which is not really cooperation and makes a decreased sentence un workable.

I'm a simple bloke really, but if I had solid evidence of wrongdoing against someone I would just charge them. If I didn't then I would try and bluff them into an admission.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

... The players should have asked more questions, but really, it was the club who supplied the drugs, and the players would have believed that the club had done their research on what was on the banned substance list.

So many people jumping to conclusions...

Simon, how do you know the club supplied them? How do we know what the players believed? Some reports are talking about players going to a clinic off their own bat after Dank was sacked.

Bottom line, we do not know any of these details yet.

---

I'm a simple bloke really

This might be why you are not in charge of ASADA or the ACC.

What if you had solid evidence against 1, but wanted to use that to get evidence against 10? Or wanted to get evidence against the 10 in the hope of using that to track down one of the Mr Bigs behind the whole mess?

Do any of you have much idea how law enforcement works these days?

 

[simon_eagle]

... The players should have asked more questions, but really, it was the club who supplied the drugs, and the players would have believed that the club had done their research on what was on the banned substance list.

So many people jumping to conclusions...

Simon, how do you know the club supplied them? How do we know what the players believed? Some reports are talking about players going to a clinic off their own bat after Dank was sacked.

Bottom line, we do not know any of these details yet.

I would be very, very surprised if players took drugs independently of the club. But you're right, I don't know for certain, but I can read between the lines. Why do you think the Sharks directors are in over-drive to get their players to sign up to this deal, which includes but is not limited to:

- An automatic one-year extension on their current contracts
- Full pay while suspended; and
- A waiving of all rights to sue the club and its board.

Sharks directors would almost certainly be personally liable in the event of liquidation - which - if the players began legal action against the club - would be almost assured.

 

[DSM5]

As I said in another post on this subject, I'd not be admitting to anything without independent legal advice, and by independent I mean not from some ex testing authority, NRL flunky or the club boofheads. The NRL could just fold up CRonulla and set up a club in Perth or wherever.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I would be very, very surprised if players took drugs independently of the club.

Well there are a lot of surprises in the game these days!

Let's wait and see what unfolds. Either way it looks like a disaster, at least for the poor old Sharkies.

 

[manlyfan76]

In those US cases, my understanding is the USADA had the solid evidence (in many cases involving many whistleblowers, as well as surveillance material) and laid the charges against the athletes, providing a 'show cause' period to refute it.

ASADA hasn't done that. If we were to compare we'd expect them to tell all those players they have evidence that they have breached and will now need to appeal otherwise.

The exercise feels like a scare campaign to gain better evidence then they currently have, which doesn't appear enough to stand anybody down.

How do you know what ASADA has or hasn't done?

1. We know they participated in a "shrill" news conference, where it was claimed to be the blackest day in Australian Sport.
2. We know that they and the ACC have stated their investigation was only intended to highlight risks.
3. We know they have been heavly criticised for their handling of the process and the lack of disclosure of evidence.
4. We know that more than a month on they have yet to charge anyone with anything.
5. We are told by the media they are offering a 6 month ban to those who confess in an attempt to start some sort of domino effect.

It is not unreasonable to conclude from what we do know that if they have any evidence, it's not enough to charge anyone with anything and that they have smeared the reputation of Australian Sportspeople in an utterly disgraceful manner.

I remain utterly sceptical about the whole thing.

It's more reasonable to conclude that they may have more evidence then they are letting on. If you present players with insomountable evidence then they have to "admit" which is not really cooperation and makes a decreased sentence un workable.

I'm a simple bloke really, but if I had solid evidence of wrongdoing against someone I would just charge them. If I didn't then I would try and bluff them into an admission.

Admission = no court case & no capital outlay, even if you have evidence it still tied up resources and you also have appeals etc.

 

[Hamster Huey]

While I understand your point the Sam Riley case is totally irrelevant at law. The WADA code has changed dramatically since then in actual response to cases like hers and others. She would have absolutely no defence under current legislation.

Secondly the public have no idea what evidence they have, so any assumption that they took it willingly/unwillingly(not that it matters in a legal sense) is just that, an assumption.

I would not be to quick to criticize their methods.These methods are exactly how the vast majority of drug cheats are caught.Lance Armstrong and The Balco brigade would still be plying their trade without them.Do we really want to create an environment where if no one tests positive then lets just not bother.Dangerous approach given overseas examples.

In those US cases, my understanding is the USADA had the solid evidence (in many cases involving many whistleblowers, as well as surveillance material) and laid the charges against the athletes, providing a 'show cause' period to refute it.

ASADA hasn't done that. If we were to compare we'd expect them to tell all those players they have evidence that they have breached and will now need to appeal otherwise.

The exercise feels like a scare campaign to gain better evidence then they currently have, which doesn't appear enough to stand anybody down.

How do you know what ASADA has or hasn't done?

Do you think any Cronulla player is currently charged?

---

What if you had solid evidence against 1, but wanted to use that to get evidence against 10? Or wanted to get evidence against the 10 in the hope of using that to track down one of the Mr Bigs behind the whole mess?

Do any of you have much idea how law enforcement works these days?

Surely the charging of one means you have a lot on others, in this case. I can't see how implicated illegal drug use of one can be compartmentalised in this matter.

If you have one, charge him to show it's serious and then work him for the rest of the info or scare more to come forward before it's too late. It makes little sense to withhold your information and expect that to draw more evidence, given those involved already know the allegations and the subsequent punishments.

The recent discussion in Canberra (senate enquiry?) is telling in that those investigating bodies were focused on getting higher punishments implimented for those under investigation for not talking. This lead-in suggests that they perhaps didn't have the information to charge, prior to now leaning on the Sharks players.

 

[MWSE]

While I understand your point the Sam Riley case is totally irrelevant at law. The WADA code has changed dramatically since then in actual response to cases like hers and others. She would have absolutely no defence under current legislation.

Secondly the public have no idea what evidence they have, so any assumption that they took it willingly/unwillingly(not that it matters in a legal sense) is just that, an assumption.

I would not be to quick to criticize their methods.These methods are exactly how the vast majority of drug cheats are caught.Lance Armstrong and The Balco brigade would still be plying their trade without them.Do we really want to create an environment where if no one tests positive then lets just not bother.Dangerous approach given overseas examples.

In those US cases, my understanding is the USADA had the solid evidence (in many cases involving many whistleblowers, as well as surveillance material) and laid the charges against the athletes, providing a 'show cause' period to refute it.

ASADA hasn't done that. If we were to compare we'd expect them to tell all those players they have evidence that they have breached and will now need to appeal otherwise.

The exercise feels like a scare campaign to gain better evidence then they currently have, which doesn't appear enough to stand anybody down.

How do you know what ASADA has or hasn't done?

Do you think any Cronulla player is currently charged?

---

What if you had solid evidence against 1, but wanted to use that to get evidence against 10? Or wanted to get evidence against the 10 in the hope of using that to track down one of the Mr Bigs behind the whole mess?

Do any of you have much idea how law enforcement works these days?

Surely the charging of one means you have a lot on others, in this case. I can't see how implicated illegal drug use of one can be compartmentalised in this matter.

If you have one, charge him to show it's serious and then work him for the rest of the info or scare more to come forward before it's too late. It makes little sense to withhold your information and expect that to draw more evidence, given those involved already know the allegations and the subsequent punishments.

The recent discussion in Canberra (senate enquiry?) is telling in that those investigating bodies were focused on getting higher punishments implimented for those under investigation for not talking. This lead-in suggests that they perhaps didn't have the information to charge, prior to now leaning on the Sharks players.

---

So I am guessing from this statement that you are in favour of a scare campaign?

And at present I would say that no, no players have been charged. I was merely trying to show that outside of media speculation, there is ZERO tangible facts that are available to the public.

 

[RL Gronk]

If there are 14 players suspended you would think it is close to the blackest day...

Why is the darkest day I hate that term. It has racist connotations. Why can't people just say the worst day or gloomy anything but dark.

 

[6/71]

If there are 14 players suspended you would think it is close to the blackest day...

Why is the darkest day I hate that term. It has racist connotations. Why can't people just say the worst day or gloomy anything but dark.

I get the feeling I'm feeding a troll, but no it doesn't.

 

[MadMarcus]

Sharks directors would almost certainly be personally liable in the event of liquidation.

I read this in a DT article as well. How do people figure that? I am not aware of anything to suggest that any director breached his or her directors duties or that the club is or ever has been trading whilst insolvent.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

If there are 14 players suspended you would think it is close to the blackest day...

Why is the darkest day I hate that term. It has racist connotations. Why can't people just say the worst day or gloomy anything but dark.

Lol I have read a bit of rubbish on here over the years, and this may be a contender for top of the pile haha

 

[RL Gronk]

If there are 14 players suspended you would think it is close to the blackest day...

Why is the darkest day I hate that term. It has racist connotations. Why can't people just say the worst day or gloomy anything but dark.

Lol I have read a bit of rubbish on here over the years, and this may be a contender for top of the pile haha

Come on mate i was just trying to send up those PC types who come out of the the holes now and again.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Lol I knew it had to be a gee up but it needed comment

 

[RL Gronk]

Has anyone heard the bs rumour doing the rounds. I am over these fb and twitter accounts that use official logos and then post tripe.

 

[southsideeagle]

Has the hallmarks of ASADA tacky investiagtion procedures .. fire a scatter bomb .. hit someone and say well that was a success. In the meantime the innocent casualties are everywhere. I have the feeling that at the end of this there will be more ASADA casualties then NRL players suspended.

 

[MadMarcus]

Has anyone heard the bs rumour doing the rounds. I am over these fb and twitter accounts that use official logos and then post tripe.

Looks pretty reliable. They obviously went to a lot of trouble to conceal the identities of the innocent. It is impossible to guess who they may be referring to...