Other clubs about to get hit?

[SeaEagleRock8]

Just stated on the Footy Show that players from the other clubs named in the ACC report also have players who are in the same boat as the Sharks ones. About 30 players all up I think they said.

 

[Masked Eagle]

Heard the same thing. I think it would naive to think that we don't have at least someone linked (not saying guilty). It seems to be not something the club have instigated but individual players who may have maintained a relationship a certain former employee of the club.

 

[Matabele]

Just stated on the Footy Show that players from the other clubs named in the ACC report also have players who are in the same boat as the Sharks ones. About 30 players all up I think they said.

14 of them Sharks so only 16 to share around 5 other clubs.

 

[manlyfan76]

Just stated on the Footy Show that players from the other clubs named in the ACC report also have players who are in the same boat as the Sharks ones. About 30 players all up I think they said.

14 of them Sharks so only 16 to share around 5 other clubs.

And how many of those 16 were at the sharks in 2011? Kelly & snowdon. Tim smith.

 

[Pittwater Legend]

Unfortunately I think that there would be players at every club that would try to get an edge if they felt they could get away with it.

The ASADA investigation only seems to be targeting players. I can't believe there has been hardly any mention of an investigation on club staff that aren't on playing rosters. Does that make sense to anybody?

 

[The Indian]

Struggling to try and find a positive spin on news another bunch of players are gonna be named....well at least we offloaded stack of players this offseason...hopefully a few of these offloads are making up the numbers. But seriously...

Realistically though this thing just gets worse, whats happening at the Sharks ( and us and other clubs next maybe who knows ) by "co-ercing" or strongly encouraging players to plead guilty and take a years pay and a guaranteed contract & admit guilt to "claim a scalp" for the authorities OR fight it and risk 2 years and your career and a huge legal bill and bankruptcy..thats not justice in my book thats a Kangaroo court.

Its probably just the way the legal system works but gee it stinks when applied to young blokes who in some cases may have been just following instructions.

 

[conanu]

Once again its all speculation. Honestly no one has a clue, i doubt ASADA know whats going on either.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Conanu I think at this stage of proceedings it is pretty clear there is something more afoot than mere speculation. I am only hoping our no dickhead policy means we are unlikely to have many players dumb enough to be involved.

 

[MWSE]

Stop listening to Hadleeeeeeee. You will do yourself a mischief.

It is very clear with WADA and ASADA that the buck stops with the athlete. It isn't that hard to comprehend. If players aren't smart enough to question what they are taking, then they will be now.

The DT is saying that the majority of players that are being interviewed all were at the Sharks and have since moved on to other clubs, retired, or England.

In reality, its not the media or ASADA or the Govt that are dragging this game through the mud. Its the players out there that have done the wrong thing and are hiding and not coming forward that keeps this circus going on.

 

[Pittwater Legend]

It may be poor media reporting but there was an article that mentioned that the former Sharks trainer could face a lifetime ban for any potential involvement with doping. To avoid a lifetime ban it was implied that he could blow the whistle for a less severe punishment.

Dank seems to be the target but he would have had to have worked under somebody at every club. It's just odd that only players seem to be getting mentioned.

 

[Masked Eagle]

Just stated on the Footy Show that players from the other clubs named in the ACC report also have players who are in the same boat as the Sharks ones. About 30 players all up I think they said.

14 of them Sharks so only 16 to share around 5 other clubs.

And how many of those 16 were at the sharks in 2011? Kelly & snowdon. Tim smith.

Douglas at the Titans. Also Taulima Tautai who is back at the Eels was at the SHarks in 2011, although that doesn't make sense at the Eels weren't one of the 6 clubs of interest. Apparently what made the Cowboys a club of interest was that they had a player on their books who was at another club of interest. Did they forget about Tautai?

 

[HappilyManly]

ASADA is still fishing as they have no tangible proof.

Coercing self incrimination, is akin to the Mcarthyism in the USA
No Cronulla Player has even been interviewed, let alone charged FFS.

Calling the Players cheats, when they allegedly followed the Club's directive is not on.

The threat of 2 years, as opposed to 6 month ban (still curious as to what Ben Barba admitted to for Greenturd to shelve him quietly???) is just that.

In 1996, swimmer Sam Riley tested positive but was exonerated, so there is precedence
..She had failed a drug test, and was only exonerated after her coach Scott Volkers admitted to giving her a headache tablet which contained the banned substance..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Riley

The ARLC must form a task force and investigate all Clubs to aid in protecting their product, if not their Players.:idea:
A cohesive legal strategy across the code would speed up the process of this seeming witch hunting, and save the Clubs masses of unnecessary legal bills.
Ultimate its the NRL that have the 1.2 billion contract and not the individual Clubs. Potentially, one rogue Club could bring the whole deal undone, so why is the ARLC not endeavouring to understand their exposure :huh:

It's laughable that the lead story on the Sharks always includes '..betting has been frozen..'
Match fixing is the real issue, not Players maximising their recovery and physique IMO

 

[globaleagle]

Hopefully T-rex is one of them.

lol

 

[susan]

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.

 

[lsz]

Agree with Susan 100%

Think about it apart from whispers what evidence did they have against Armstrong ? It took Tyler Hamilton and floyd landis to roll over, with the promise of lesser penalties, to get the ball rolling

 

[manlyfan76]

If they were all taking HUman Growth Hormone would we want them suspended regardless of what they knew? I would, we'll this is effectively in dectectable HGH. So if there is proof and or they admit suspend them.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[manlyfan76]

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.