TOPIC:

anchorman wrote: Swan AOD9604 IS a banned substance.It is banned by WADA.

A/man I am not disputing what WADA has said about AOD9604. HOWEVER, whilst Watson has admitted to taking AOD9604 he has not admitted to taking a banned substance. There is a subtle difference and that difference is why he was still playing footy. He obviously believes that there are mitigating circumstances which preclude him from being found guilty of taking a banned substance. That is fundamentally what the ASADA investigation will determine. Once they have made that determination then any sanctions will be given at that point in time.

anchorman wrote: Swan if WADA say that M&Ms are banned then it is illegal to take them.He has admitted to taking a substance that is on the WADA banned list.

From all reports Essendon believe they have documentation from ASADA or some other source which indicates that AOD9604 was not a banned substance. Yes, that is contrary to what the President of WADA, John Fahey, has said. However, due to that conflict it is the reason why Watson has not admitted guilt to taking a banned substance. Once again I will state that the ASADA investigation will determine whether Essendon have any legitimate claim or not. If it is found not to be a legitimate claim then it will be at that point in time that any sanctions will be imposed. Until that time Watson has the right to be presumed innocent.

whether Watson believes its banned or not is irrelevant given its a strict liability offence...once he admits taking a substance which is banned he's as good as guilty regardless of the circumstances, his views on the matter or whether he's been given contrary advice internally.

i think its pretty obvious that the only reason he admitted it was he knew he wouldnt get banned due to the ongoing investigation and all the grey areas in all this which are no doubt being thrashed out between lawyers on both sides..

thats different to what i've been hearing anchor...any penalty must be sanctioned by ASADA and a 6 month ban over the off-season is not an option according to the ex boss of ASADA.

just what i hird (sic) on tv mate....

anchorman wrote: It was interesting to hear the guys on PR the other morning saying why the AFL want the enquiry results before the end of August.They are saying they will get a six month ban,That allows them to begin training pre season in February.
Hopefully that will not be the case.
If that happens then there will basically be no penalty at all.I am not sure that WADA or ASADA will be happy with that.
I am not sure whether ASADA or the AFL have the right to penalise them.If there is to be a penalty at all.

Delusionally the AFL think they can/will set the timetable for the conclusion of the investigation. It will finish when it finishes and not when the AFL want it to finish.

Unless there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances, such as a player has offered considerable evidence to the inquiry, the likely sanction will be 2 years.

anchorman wrote: I hope you are right Swan as I think the whole thing stinks.
I am sure that WADA will hand down the penalty,but was interesting to hear the views of the PR boys.

You are in serious trouble if you think that 6PR is a reliable source. Personally I don't have a problem with the way the investigation is going at this present point in time. ASADA will ignore the AFL deadline wishes and will take as long as they need. It seems to me that the people who are having trouble with the investigation is those who seem to want to bypass the investigation stage and want penalties to be imposed prior to the conclusion of the investigation.