Petition updateInquiry into ethics/practices of ASADA AFL WADA antidoping case against the 34 EFC playersA critique of the Essendon CAS verdict (Part 2)
Philip NelsonAustralia
Feb 26, 2016
Continued from last week: Part 2. From: By Mister Football, 18 Jan 2016 The Roar. Problem one – These are the exact words contained in the Doping Control Forms (DCF): “We recommend athletes consider declaring any substance used in the last seven days.” WADA and the CAS have painted this as some shocking omission of something which is mandatory, when quite clearly it is not. Problem two – Only 16 players were tested, which is less than half of the 34 charged. Problem three – The 34 players were denied the opportunity to view the DCFs, the reason given that it would breach the confidentiality of those players not part of the 34. In other words, players outside of the 34, not involved in the injection program, had been tested and would legitimately have had a nil return. Problem four – Of those fewer than 16 players who were part of the 34 who were tested during the season, the critical question becomes: at what point in their program were they tested? Before, during, or after (also noting that the injections were stopped before the end of the season). Once again, players could have legitimately had a nil return. Read the full article below. If you have already signed this petition, I thank you. Please take some time to share this petition via your favourite social media platform(s). All facts must be made public. Only then, will people be able to understand the injustices these players have suffered. Thank you again for those who supported this petition.
Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X