One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: taztiger4 on February 04, 2011, 09:49:21 AM
-
Back page of todays West, charged after failing drug test after grand final
Dont know how to post link
Taz
-
Bye bye Cass. Glad we found out now rather than after we committed.
-
Fool (if it's true)
-
Back page of todays West, charged after failing drug test after grand final
Dont know how to post link
Taz
Do you have a link?
-
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/8773765/swans-flag-hero-faces-ban-over-drug-test/
-
Bye cass.
-
:police:
ps LMAO @ uncles and old whores feeling sorry for him. Muppets.
Cass you dipshiit
-
cass you dumb stuffing koala
hello mitch keddell :cheers
you know what they say, 3 mitches is a charm
-
Full article:
Swans flag hero faces ban over drug test
CRAIG O'DONOGHUE, The West Australian February 4, 2011, 5:21 am
A dark cloud hangs over Swan Districts premiership midfielder Travis Casserly and his dream of playing in the AFL after the WAFL launched proceedings against him over a positive test for a performance-enhancing drug.
The positive samples were taken after Swans' one-point victory in last year's grand final.
Casserly, 23, is believed to have tested positive to a drug similar to pseudoephedrine, which contains stimulant properties that can heighten alertness and accelerate heart rate.
He was randomly selected by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority after the grand final win over Claremont. The A and B urine samples were tested last year and an investigation followed.
The WA Football Commission, Swan Districts and ASADA refused to comment.
The West Australian _understands the WAFL notified Casserly that he would be charged this week. A hearing is likely to be held within a fortnight.
The notification comes at the worst possible time for Casserly. Richmond invited him to train with them for the opportunity to earn the final place on their rookie list.
This is the first year that the AFL has allowed clubs to trial players in the lead-up to the season and play them in games.
Casserly spent three years on Richmond's list after being drafted in 2005. He is competing with South
Australian small forward Liam Corrie and Victorian midfielder Mitch Keddell for the Tigers' final contract.
Keddell and Casserly were named in Richmond's squad to play against the Indigenous All-Stars in Alice Springs tonight.
If found guilty, Casserly faces up to a two-year ban. It is understood he will challenge the tests and say he took the drug to clear up a head cold.
Athletes are permitted to take some medication out of competition but cannot test positive on match day because it can be used to enhance performance.
Casserly was one of four WAFL players tested after the grand final. He performed well on the day, shutting Claremont playmaker Ryan Brabazon out of the match.
Casserly became the second WAFL player to test positive to performance-enhancing drugs last season.
East Perth midfielder Dean Cadwallader tested positive to nandrolone during State squad training and was stood down by the Royals. His tribunal hearing is yet to be scheduled.
Casserly's management could not be contacted last night.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/8773765/swans-flag-hero-faces-ban-over-drug-test/
-
To everybody saying he's a dumbass, he's saying he took the drug because of a head cold. Psuedoephadrine is a component of pretty much every prescription cold and flu medicine. We'll see what eventuates.
-
possibly a problem with semi professional leagues expected to abide by professional standards.
AFL clubs have comprehensive programs to educate players on these pitfalls, while I doubt the lesser leagues would have anything similar
-
To everybody saying he's a dumbass, he's saying he took the drug because of a head cold. Psuedoephadrine is a component of pretty much every prescription cold and flu medicine. We'll see what eventuates.
Yep it's in Sudafed which I've used when I've had the flu since I was a kid . Looks like Cass was only dumb about not seeking the Swans' club doctor to check the medication before taking it.
-
To everybody saying he's a dumbass, he's saying he took the drug because of a head cold. Psuedoephadrine is a component of pretty much every prescription cold and flu medicine. We'll see what eventuates.
Yep it's in Sudafed which I've used when I've had the flu since I was a kid . Looks like Cass was only dumb about not seeking the Swans' club doctor to check the medication before taking it.
So have I but How long has cass been a footballer for? and he was in the afl system for three years! He knows the rules.
They shouldn't give favours for a player being straight out dumb.
-
They shouldn't give favours for a player being straight out dumb.
So you're saying TA they'd then have to make exceptions for every footballer :laugh:
-
To everybody saying he's a dumbass, he's saying he took the drug because of a head cold. Psuedoephadrine is a component of pretty much every prescription cold and flu medicine. We'll see what eventuates.
It wasn't even Psuedoephadrine, it was something similar to that which means it was probably one of the new versions they make of tablets like Demazin or Sudafed which people can't use to make amphetamines.
The pack even says it may make you drowsy so not sure how its meant to be a stimulant
-
To everybody saying he's a dumbass, he's saying he took the drug because of a head cold. Psuedoephadrine is a component of pretty much every prescription cold and flu medicine. We'll see what eventuates.
It wasn't even Psuedoephadrine, it was something similar to that which means it was probably one of the new versions they make of tablets like Demazin or Sudafed which people can't use to make amphetamines.
The pack even says it may make you drowsy so not sure how its meant to be a stimulant
If it wasn't psuedoephedrine then it wouldn't have shown up as that. Those new drugs that act in a similar manner are for just that purpose - to provide similar relief from colds and flu without containing any trace of the the drug. Hence the reason many many chemist shops nowadays will not stock any drug containing psuedoephedrine - makes the 'shoppers' go elsewhere for their supply.
And having spent 3 years already on an AFL list he would have been acutely aware of the risks/impact involved in taking it. Probably didn't give any thought at the time to getting another crack at the title but that doesn't excuse his actions. Dumbness of the highest order and he will now pay a very high price for his stupidity.
And my sympathy level = 0.
-
To everybody saying he's a dumbass, he's saying he took the drug because of a head cold. Psuedoephadrine is a component of pretty much every prescription cold and flu medicine. We'll see what eventuates.
It wasn't even Psuedoephadrine, it was something similar to that which means it was probably one of the new versions they make of tablets like Demazin or Sudafed which people can't use to make amphetamines.
The pack even says it may make you drowsy so not sure how its meant to be a stimulant
If it wasn't psuedoephedrine then it wouldn't have shown up as that. Those new drugs that act in a similar manner are for just that purpose - to provide similar relief from colds and flu without containing any trace of the the drug. Hence the reason many many chemist shops nowadays will not stock any drug containing psuedoephedrine - makes the 'shoppers' go elsewhere for their supply.
And having spent 3 years already on an AFL list he would have been acutely aware of the risks/impact involved in taking it. Probably didn't give any thought at the time to getting another crack at the title but that doesn't excuse his actions. Dumbness of the highest order and he will now pay a very high price for his stupidity.
And my sympathy level = 0.
Try reading the article again, it never showed up as pseudoephedrine, just something similar to it
As per chemists not stocking it, I haven't found any that don't you just need to show your license. I can't take the new ones as they make my nose run like a tap.
-
Tiger Travis Casserly fights drug ban
Sam Lienert
Herald-Sun
February 05, 2011
RICHMOND rookie list hopeful Travis Casserly will fight to clear his name and avoid a two-year ban after testing positive to a performance-enhancing drug.
The 23-year-old defender, who spent 2006-08 on the Tigers' primary list, is battling for his AFL future after spending the past two seasons playing with WAFL club Swan Districts.
He is one of three players training with Richmond who are vying for one remaining Tigers rookie spot, along with Victorian Mitch Keddell and South Australian Liam Corrie. He was named to play in the Tigers' clash with the Indigenous All-Stars in Alice Springs tonight before the game was called off.
Casserly's positive test stems from Swan Districts' one-point win over Claremont in last year's WAFL grand final, in which then-teammate Andrew Krakouer won the Simpson Medal as best afield.
The 23-year-old is understood to have tested positive to a a drug similar to pseudoephedrine, which contains stimulant properties.
It is believed to have been contained in a cold and flu tablet Casserly consumed, as he was feeling unwell in the lead-up to the grand final.
An anti-doping violation hearing is expected to be held within the next fortnight, with Swan Districts football operations general manager Phil Smart saying Casserly will protest his innocence of any offence.
"We will be defending it vigorously," Smart said.
A Richmond spokesman said the club would not comment, as Casserley was not currently a listed Tigers player.
But the defender had been set to play for the club in Friday night's match against the Indigenous All Stars in Alice Springs, as was Keddell.
That game was cancelled due to the threat of severe weather.
Casserly is one of two WAFL players to have tested positive to a performance-enhancing drug last season.
East Perth 20-year-old Dean Cadwallader, who had been rated a potential AFL draft prospect, admitted to using banned steroid nandrolone.
Former Richmond and Footscray ruckman Justin Charles is the only AFL-listed player to have been sanctioned for performance-enhancing drug use.
He received a 16-game suspension in 1997 for using the steroid boldenone.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tiger-travis-casserly-fights-drug-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226000305034
-
Try reading the article again, it never showed up as pseudoephedrine, just something similar to it
As per chemists not stocking it, I haven't found any that don't you just need to show your license. I can't take the new ones as they make my nose run like a tap.
Yep, I apologise Infamy, I misread the article where it mentioned the substance. It still doesn't change my opinion on what he did. If the substance he took is on the banned substance list then as an ex-AFL player he would have received ample education and notification of that. Just like all laws, ignorance is no excuse. In my mind, the only excuse he might have is if the drug has been very recently placed on the list (after he left the AFL system) but if it is one of those pseudoephedrine substitutes then they have been around for a number of years so no dice there.
And I can assure you that around where I live it is almost impossible to find a chemist that now stocks or supplies (ID or not) psuedoephedrine-based products. The risk to the chemist of theft/break and enter is just not worth it, aside from the society-based protective health reasons that exist.
Wonder what that says about the area I live in? :help
-
Just did a bit more digging on the drug that was 'supposedly' taken. The replacement for pseudoephedrine is phenylephedrine and in a nutshell, the difference between the two is in the chemical composition. One is a chemical precursor for methamphetamine and is a stimulant, one isn't. In addition, phenylehpedrine was removed from the banned substance list by the start of 2010 (possibly earlier but I couldn't find an exact date) and there are many anecdotal reports of tests questioning whether phenylephedrine has any benefit at all when taken. So Casserly's positive test could not possibly be for that substance - it's either pseudoephedrine or another unrelated type of substance (hard to imagine what though). Here's an article that reported the incident at the time (correcting a spelling mistake of Sudafed):
Drug Player in Flu Pill Defence
By Kim Hagdorn
27 October 2010 02:43PM EST
A FOOTBALLER at the centre of a drug scandal in Western Australia will argue he was using cold and flu tablets if he is suspended as expected.
WA football has been rocked with revelations that a 2010 Swan Districts premiership player has returned a positive drug test.
He has returned a positive A-sample test with league and his club officials awaiting a ruling on the B-sample.
If his B-sample is positive as well, he faces an automatic two-year ban under Australian sports drug doping regulations.
It is understood that he is a relatively experienced player who just a few season back was on the verge of a career in the AFL.
He failed a urine test to a performance enhancing drug taken immediately after Swan Districts won a thrilling WAFL grand final last month.
The latest test from the exciting grand final was conducted by Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA) and is believed to have discovered levels of performance assisting drug Sudafed.
The drug is an amphetamine derivative. It is more commonly referred to as “speed” or “uppers” and is banned for sporting use by ASADA.
Sudafed is contained in many over-the-counter medications.
But the player is expected to claim he took medicated tablets to increase his metabolism for the big match.
He has told connections that he popped one tablet before the big game and another one during the half-time interval.
He was tested immediately following the grand final along with one teammate and two Claremont players, all in the same room with ASADA agents.
He is the second player in the WAFL this year to test positive to a banned substance.
Four months ago WA football authorities banned a young AFL draft hopeful after a positive drug test result when he was found to have been using anabolic steroids to assist his body building efforts.
East Perth midfielder Dean Cadwallader was banned for two years after he was tested while training with the WA senior squad in preparation for a match against Victoria in Perth back in May.
Cadwallader, 19, is appealing his suspension and is awaiting a hearing appointment with ASADA.
The WAFL is in line with the AFL’s controversial three-strike drug code that allows counselling and doctor-patient confidentiality for any first two offences of a positive test finding for any illicit drug.
But if ASADA find a banned substance in a player test on matchday that is considered a performance enhancing drug, he faces an automatic ban.
WAFL officials have declared a strict “no comment” on their latest drug furore until a ruling is made on the player’s B-sample.
http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2010/10/27/drug-player-in-flu-pill-defence/ (http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2010/10/27/drug-player-in-flu-pill-defence/)
Be interesting to see what comes out in the subsequent investigation but regardless of that, I wonder if Richmond was aware of the tests before they invited him over to train? Can't imagine they didn't know but if they did, why did they invite him over if he was under this cloud - unless they are very confident he will get off?
-
looks like cass's career migt be over. Shame for the kid, but thems the breaks.
-
nah his WAFL career will take off in 2 years :lol
-
I thought sudafed was a brand name rather than a drug itself
-
I thought sudafed was a brand name rather than a drug itself
It is Al, but the active constituent in the product is pseudoephedrine. Unifed, Sinufed, Actifed, Claritin-D, Zyrtek-D are other brand names for pseudoephedrine (some have other constituents as well). Exactly the same as Panadol/paracetamol.
-
possibly a problem with semi professional leagues expected to abide by professional standards.
AFL clubs have comprehensive programs to educate players on these pitfalls, while I doubt the lesser leagues would have anything similar
Cmon AL. He was in the AFL system long enough for one, even my sons colts team in the locl league last season was warned going into finals about things like that.
I neither like nor dislike Cas but it was more than stuppidity he knows better, he shouldnt have done it.
-
AFL clubs have comprehensive programs to educate players on these pitfalls, while I doubt the lesser leagues would have anything similar
Not so al, all state leagues (VFL WAFL etc) receieved the same info it's supplied by the AFL and all clubs are required to go through it with their players before each season as all players can be randomly tested at anytime during the sourse of the system, they are told and clubs hold a listing of what's on the banned list
In this case it is made all the more stupid as Trav was in the "big boys system" (AFL) for 3 years and he should have knwon better.
Beside as any sports person that can subjected to random testing is told when in doubt don't take it. It is that simple
-
it seems as if i stand corrected then :wallywink
-
and is believed to have discovered levels of performance assisting drug Sudafed.
The drug is an amphetamine derivative. It is more commonly referred to as “speed” or “uppers” and is banned for sporting use by ASADA.
Sudafed is contained in many over-the-counter medications.
Since when was Sudafed known as "speed" or "uppers"? ???
I better hand back that U12 little aths first place ribbon I won :laugh:.
Our local chemists still sell Sudafed but it's limited to one packet per customer over say six months so the junkies can't buy up a whole batch and convert it to speed in some dodgy backyard lab.
-
bit harsh on backyard labs there, some junkies take real pride in their work
-
Drug Player in Flu Pill Defence
By Kim Hagdorn
27 October 2010 02:43PM EST
But the player is expected to claim he took medicated tablets to increase his metabolism for the big match.
He has told connections that he popped one tablet before the big game and another one during the half-time interval.
Full article:
Swans flag hero faces ban over drug test
CRAIG O'DONOGHUE, The West Australian February 4, 2011, 5:21 am
Athletes are permitted to take some medication out of competition but cannot test positive on match day because it can be used to enhance performance.
Quotes from the 2 separate articles.
I personally think he screwed himself if he did admit to taking the “cold & flu” tablets during the game.
-
He could always use the Warney excuse - "my mum gave it me" :whistle
When does Cass actually find out if he'll be suspended or not by the way? It's only 6 weeks until the start of the season when I believe a final decision on which trial rookie gets the gig needs to be made.
-
Tigers knew of positive drug test of Travis Casserly
Mark Stevens
Herald Sun
February 08, 2011
RICHMOND welcomed Travis Casserly to the club as a rookie aspirant knowing he had tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug.
The Tigers yesterday confirmed Casserly was open about his plight before starting the pre-season at Punt Rd.
"We were aware of it from the start," Richmond football manager Craig Cameron said. "Travis was up front about it."
It is for that reason that it was business as usual at the Tigers when news of Casserly facing a two-year ban broke publicly at the weekend.
The 23-year-old defender, who spent 2006-08 on Richmond's list, tested positive after playing for Swan Districts in the WAFL Grand Final.
Knowing that issue would not be resolved before the rookie draft, the Tigers did not consider Casserly for a position in December. But they have continued to support him in his wish to train.
Casserly's fate should be known some time in the next fortnight -- before the Tigers have to make a call.
Casserly is believed to have tested positive to a drug similar to pseudoephedrine, which contains stimulant properties, that was in a cold and flu tablet he had consumed.
He had been feeling unwell before the Grand Final.
East Perth 20-year-old Dean Cadwallader, who had been rated a potential AFL draft prospect, has admitted to using a banned steroid.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-knew-of-positive-drug-test-of-travis-casserly/story-e6frf9jf-1226001880194
-
Casserly had his hearing last night. Some interesting things to surface;
Swans last night said that Casserly took one 60mg Sudafed tablet before the grand final and one at half-time to treat a hay fever condition he had suffered from throughout his career.
The dosage is usually considered within the prescribed limits under ASADA guidelines, with written evidence from Richmond that Casserly has taken the medication since his first stint at the AFL club running from 2006 to 2008.
Swans also claim Casserly drank champagne and up to four full-strength beers after the grand final before first being approached by ASADA for testing.
Documents state that it took Casserly an hour to provide his first urine sample - two hours after the grand final, due to dehydration, with Swans arguing the time and other fluids consumed could have produced the adverse test results.
Occupational Drug and Alcohol Services of Australia biochemist Bruce Myles has presented evidence on behalf of Swans that pseudoephedrine levels in the samples were low even for therapeutic means, let alone for performance-enhancing reasons.
Casserly had been previously drug tested after playing against Subiaco in June last year having taken one Sudafed tablet at the start of the game.
But he returned negative results.
It has already had implications on the AFL hopeful's career, with Richmond football operations manager Craig Cameron confirming in a written statement the club would have selected the defender in last year's rookie draft, if not the national draft, if the positive test had not occurred.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/wafl/8904382/im-not-a-drugs-cheat-claims-swans-flag-star/
Perhaps some jumped the gun a bit in condemning the kid as stupid?
-
So is he in the clear?
Does he get to have a game next week?
-
Decision to be handed down next week.
Whether he plays next week will be determined by the penalty I'd assume.
It is understood the Tigers will still consider Casserly for their remaining rookie position, which will be decided at the end of the pre-season competition, if any ban is no longer than 12 weeks.
-
2 year ban, that's ridiculous, you get the same for using steroids. I wonder if he can/will appeal.
Tiger hopeful Travis Casserly hit with two-year drug ban
Michael Washbourne
From: PerthNow
February 28, 20114:53PM
RICHMOND rookie hopeful Travis Casserly has been suspended for two years for testing positive to a performance-enchanting drug.
Casserly, 23, who has spent the past two years at Swan Districts and is trying out for a spot on the Tigers' rookie list, tested positive to banned substance pseudoephedrine after his team’s thrilling one-point win over Claremont in the WAFL frand final.
During a hearing last week, it was argued by Swans officials that Casserly had taken the drug to treat a bout of hay fever – a condition he has suffered throughout his playing career.
But WAFL tribunal chairman Paul Heaney ruled today that use of the substance was “beyond therapeutic” and that Casserly had knowingly taken the drug to improve his performance.
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly’s urine sample, indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that is was his intent for it to do so," Heaney said in his findings.
Heaney today handed Casserly a two-year suspension – the maximum penalty recommended by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority – backdated from October 18 last year.
It is believed this is the first time a sportsperson has been handed a two-year ban for testing positive to pseudoephedrine.
The decision all but ends Casserly’s AFL dream.
Casserly was given another AFL lifeline by the Tigers in December when selected as one of three players to train with the club in a bid to win the final spot on the rookie list before the start of the season.
Richmond was aware that Casserly had tested positive when it selected him in the rookie draft.
Casserly was vying for the final rookie spot with Victorian Mitch Keddell and South Australian Liam Corrie.
Casserly is the second WAFL player suspended for drug taking in the past year.
East Perth midfielder Dean Cadwallader, 20, was also given a two-year ban after testing positive to an anabolic steroid before last year’s State game.
Cadwallader was being looked at by a number of AFL clubs at the time.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tiger-hopeful-travis-casserly-fails-to-overturn-drug-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226013649712 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tiger-hopeful-travis-casserly-fails-to-overturn-drug-ban/story-e6frf9jf-1226013649712)
-
Gee thats really bad news....
-
The hearing proved one thing - it was pseudoephedrine and not one of the substitute products. And his reading was well above that of "therapuetic use".
My original opinion stands: sympathy level = 0.
-
The hearing proved one thing - it was pseudoephedrine and not one of the substitute products. And his reading was well above that of "therapuetic use".
My original opinion stands: sympathy level = 0.
Well if that is the case smokey...0 care factor for me too.
-
do the crime , do the time
-
do the crime , do the time
Agree Jack
2 year ban, that's ridiculous, you get the same for using steroids. I wonder if he can/will appeal.
Technically that's what he has been suspended for taking a performance enhancing drug; steriods are deemed performance enhancing.
Pseudoephedrine is a performance enhancing drug. It's on the banned list, he should have known
He got caught - he gets the mandatory whack for it
-
pretty quick to condemn a bloke who took 2 SUDAFED !!!
-
pretty quick to condemn a bloke who took 2 SUDAFED !!!
It's not about condemning
first, he had been in the AFL system 3 years, he would have known what he was allowed to take and what he wasn't
Second, all players (actually make that all sports people) are told if you are in doubt DONT take it and check with a doctor.
Final, read the news report - it says his readings were very high and went beyond being "therapeutic":
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly’s urine sample, indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that is was his intent for it to do so," Heaney said in his findings."
Would think that is pretty damning
-
Apparently the Swans Club Doctor gave them to him
Drug authority website says 3 Sudafed you are over, he took 2
Appeal will be forthcoming I would think either thru the WAFL or most probably the courts
I would think RFC would have done a bit of homework here before invting Cass along, I would say they are as shocked by this sentence as no doubt Cass is
-
Apparently the Swans Club Doctor gave them to him
Drug authority website says 3 Sudafed you are over, he took 2
Appeal will be forthcoming I would think either thru the WAFL or most probably the courts
I would think RFC would have done a bit of homework here before invting Cass along, I would say they are as shocked by this sentence as no doubt Cass is
Read the comments attributed to him originally - apparently he took a substitute, apparently he took them to increase metabolism, apparently he took them for a cold, apparently he took them for hay fever, apparently he took one before the match and one at half time, apparently he took 2 when a website says 3 is too many.
In reality he has been given a wealth of information over his sporting career about what, when and how much to take. In reality he was caught with a level much higher than if they were to be used therapeutically. In reality he was either a very very dumb sportsman or he was cheating. On either account he got what he deserved and my sympathy level is still 0.
And this article today would suggest that this is the outcome of his appeal, not the original decision. Court looks like his last chance and he will need a few $$'s to get that over the line. A bit harder to get the 'good' dollar when you aren't a professional sportsman any more.
Drugs body upholds ban on rookie hopeful
By Jennifer Witham 5:47 PM Mon 28 Feb, 2011
Travis Casserly at Tigers training in 2008
THE RACE for Richmond's final rookie spot has narrowed to two contenders after Travis Casserly's two-year ban for using a performance-enhancing drug was upheld by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority on Monday.
The 23-year-old, who tested positive for pseudoephedrine and was suspended by ASADA earlier this month, failed to convince a Perth hearing his overuse of the substance was accidental.
Casserly had been training with the Tigers in the hope of winning a spot on the rookie list.
Perth magistrate Paul Heaney was unconvinced by Casserly's defence that use of cold and flu medication had caused the positive test, conducted after his side's one-point WAFL grand final triumph last year.
"Having heard the evidence at the tribunal hearing ... I am not persuaded to a comfortable persuasion of the absence of intent to enhance his sporting performance," Heaney said after the ASADA hearing.
"I am satisfied to the requisite standard that ... Casserly did have the intent to enhances his sporting performance.
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in ... Casserly's urine sample, indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that is was his intent for it to do so."
Heaney said he Casserly's period of ineligibility would begin from October 18 last year.
Casserly was on Richmond's list from 2006-08 before spending the past two seasons playing for Swan Districts in the WAFL.
He was invited to train with the Tigers alongside other hopefuls Mitch Keddell and Liam Corrie vying for the rookie place on the 2011 list.
Casserly was pencilled in to play for the Tigers in their pre-season hit out against the Indigenous All-Stars in Alice Springs before the game was cancelled due to poor weather.
He is the second WAFL player to recently test positive to a performance-enhancing drug after East Perth's Dean Cadwallader admitted to using banned steroid nandrolone last season.
An AFL spokesman said the League supported the decision made by ASADA and the anti-doping code.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108572/default.aspx (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/108572/default.aspx)
-
If it was just 2 sudafed you would think more players would get caught more often ??? Sounds a bit fishy too me.
If so there is enough information and warnings/process' in place to not get yourself in this mess.
Made ur bed Cass
-
pretty quick to condemn a bloke who took 2 SUDAFED !!!
It's not about condemning
first, he had been in the AFL system 3 years, he would have known what he was allowed to take and what he wasn't.
True. He has been taking sudafed since his early days at Richmond
"The dosage is usually considered within the prescribed limits under ASADA guidelines, with written evidence from Richmond that Casserly has taken the medication since his first stint at the AFL club running from 2006 to 2008."
Second, all players (actually make that all sports people) are told if you are in doubt DONT take it and check with a doctor.
Final, read the news report - it says his readings were very high and went beyond being "therapeutic":
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly’s urine sample, indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that is was his intent for it to do so," Heaney said in his findings."
Yet...
"Occupational Drug and Alcohol Services of Australia biochemist Bruce Myles has presented evidence on behalf of Swans that pseudoephedrine levels in the samples were low even for therapeutic means, let alone for performance-enhancing reasons."
?? ??
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/wafl/8904382/im-not-a-drugs-cheat-claims-swans-flag-star/
Would think that is pretty damning
One way or another things don't add up here.
-
Technically that's what he has been suspended for taking a performance enhancing drug; steriods are deemed performance enhancing.
It's not a mandatory 2 year ban though, he's the first player in sporting history to get a ban this long.
There's performance enhancing and then there's performance enhancing, sorry but to see another kid in the WAFL get 2 years for taking Nandrolone and seeing Cass get 2 years for Sudafed is far too unbalanced.
-
there has been a push over here for a clamp down on drug cheats. unfortunately for travis hes been made an example of.
lets get one thing very clear taking sudafed as such is not illegal. taking too many sudafed is.
as has been shown travis has taken sudafed ever since his days at richmond and despite being tested has never had a problem. i reckon it a little churlish and simplistic to say he should have known better.
what i find interesting is heaneys comments about intent when handing down his decision. in other words heaney THINKS casserley deliberately took a whole pile of sudafed to enhance his performance despite evidence that suggests otherwise.
as one who was not happy that we were going to give him another go one still cant feel hes been hard done by. i certainly believe hes a victim of a very recent harsh stance on drug cheats no matter what he was going to cop it.
-
lets get one thing very clear taking sudafed as such is not illegal. taking too many sudafed is.
as has been shown travis has taken sudafed ever since his days at richmond and despite being tested has never had a problem. i reckon it a little churlish and simplistic to say he should have known better.
On the contrary, I would say it is exactly the point. Being someone who relied on the drug for therapeutic reasons he would have known his acceptable and legal limits to the last grain.
"lets get one thing very clear taking sudafed as such is not illegal. taking too many sudafed is."
what i find interesting is heaneys comments about intent when handing down his decision. in other words heaney THINKS casserley deliberately took a whole pile of sudafed to enhance his performance despite evidence that suggests otherwise.
And there was evidence that suggests he did.
as one who was not happy that we were going to give him another go one still cant feel hes been hard done by. i certainly believe hes a victim of a very recent harsh stance on drug cheats no matter what he was going to cop it.
I suppose Justin Charles was hard done by too? After all, he didn't take drugs to enhance performance, he was only trying to aid the mending of damaged muscle. And he got (basically) a season well before there was much of any sort of clampdown by the AFL.
-
I suppose Justin Charles was hard done by too? After all, he didn't take drugs to enhance performance, he was only trying to aid the mending of damaged muscle. And he got (basically) a season well before there was much of any sort of clampdown by the AFL.
Don't be ridiculous, taking steroids to recover from injury quicker is performance enhancing as without it he wouldn't even be playing.
That's the thing, taking a cycle of steroids is performance enhancing for an entire season or more, Sudafed is perhaps for a couple of hours. The bans should reflect that.
As for knowing his limit, all things metabolise differently in your system based on other variables. That's why things such as what you've eaten that day can affect your blood alcohol limit based on drinking the same amount of alcohol as another time. Without knowing how much he was over the threshold it's just speculation, but given we've heard medical evidence that says his levels were low for theraputic use it looks like he's just been made an example of.
-
I suppose Justin Charles was hard done by too? After all, he didn't take drugs to enhance performance, he was only trying to aid the mending of damaged muscle. And he got (basically) a season well before there was much of any sort of clampdown by the AFL.
Don't be ridiculous, taking steroids to recover from injury quicker is performance enhancing as without it he wouldn't even be playing.
Just like taking a cold and flu tablet?
That's the thing, taking a cycle of steroids is performance enhancing for an entire season or more, Sudafed is perhaps for a couple of hours. The bans should reflect that.
As for knowing his limit, all things metabolise differently in your system based on other variables. That's why things such as what you've eaten that day can affect your blood alcohol limit based on drinking the same amount of alcohol as another time. Without knowing how much he was over the threshold it's just speculation, but given we've heard medical evidence that says his levels were low for theraputic use it looks like he's just been made an example of.
It is entirely irrelevant how long it enhances performance for. If you take a banned substance to enhance your performance then you are cheating, end of story. We also heard medical evidence that say his levels were well above that of therapeutic use. And aside from all of that, this hearing was his appeal anyway. By being found with illegal amounts of a banned substance (regardless of the substance) in his system then he gets an automatic 2 year ban - no distinction is made on the type of substance. It's then up to him to prove the charge incorrect or plead circumstances in accordance with Clauses 14.3 or 14.4 of the AFL's Anti-Doping Code 2010:
14. SANCTIONS
14.1 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods.
The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Clause 11.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), Clause 11.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) and Clause 11.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Methods) shall be as follows, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.4, or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Clause 14.5, are met:
First violation: Two (2) years' Ineligibility
14.3 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances.
Where an Player or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his body or came into his Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Player’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Clause 14.1 shall be replaced with the following:
First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility.
To justify any elimination or reduction, the Player or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility.(19)
(19) Specified Substances are not necessarily less serious agents for purposes of sports doping than other Prohibited Substances (for example, a stimulant that is listed as a Specified Substance could be very effective to a Player In Competition);
for that reason, a Player who does not meet the criteria under this Clause would receive a two-year period of Ineligibility and could receive up to a four-year period of Ineligibility under Clause 14.5. However, there is a greater likelihood that Specified Substances, as opposed to other Prohibited Substances, could be susceptible to a credible, non-doping explanation. This
Clause applies only in those cases where the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied by the objective circumstances of the case that the Player in taking or Possessing a Prohibited Substance did not intend to enhance his sport performance. Examples of the type of objective circumstances which in combination might lead a hearing panel to be comfortably satisfied of no performance enhancing intent would include: the fact that the nature of the Specified Substance or the timing of its ingestion would not have been beneficial to the Player; the Player’s open Use or disclosure of his Use of the Specified Substance; and a contemporaneous medical records file substantiating the non sport-related prescription for the Specified Substance. Generally, the greater the potential performance-enhancing benefit, the higher the burden on the Player to prove lack of an intent to enhance sport performance.
While the absence of intent to enhance sport performance must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal, the Player may establish how the Specified Substance entered the body by a balance of probability.
In assessing the Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault, the circumstances considered must be specific and relevant to explain the Player’s or other Person’s departure from the expected standard of behaviour. Thus, for example, the fact that a Player would lose the opportunity to earn large sums of money during a period of Ineligibility or the fact that the Player only has a short time left in his career or the timing of the sporting calendar would not be relevant factors to be considered in reducing the period of Ineligibility under this Clause. It is anticipated that the period of Ineligibility will be eliminated entirely in only the most exceptional cases.
On top of all this, he had the option to submit a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) that would have allowed him to take a recorded and measured portion of the substance if he had met the condition of approval for such an exemption. He either failed to submit one or didn't meet the criteria. So I'll go back to my original point again:
He was either a very very dumb sportsman or he was cheating.
-
I suppose Justin Charles was hard done by too? After all, he didn't take drugs to enhance performance, he was only trying to aid the mending of damaged muscle. And he got (basically) a season well before there was much of any sort of clampdown by the AFL.
Don't be ridiculous, taking steroids to recover from injury quicker is performance enhancing as without it he wouldn't even be playing.
Just like taking a cold and flu tablet?
No, not at all. A player can still play with a cold or hayfever, but his performance would be impeded. In this sense a cold & flu tablet is no more performance enhancing as a pain killer.
It is entirely irrelevant how long it enhances performance for. If you take a banned substance to enhance your performance then you are cheating, end of story. We also heard medical evidence that say his levels were well above that of therapeutic use. And aside from all of that, this hearing was his appeal anyway. By being found with illegal amounts of a banned substance (regardless of the substance) in his system then he gets an automatic 2 year ban - no distinction is made on the type of substance. It's then up to him to prove the charge incorrect or plead circumstances in accordance with Clauses 14.3 or 14.4 of the AFL's Anti-Doping Code 2010:
On top of all this, he had the option to submit a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) that would have allowed him to take a recorded and measured portion of the substance if he had met the condition of approval for such an exemption. He either failed to submit one or didn't meet the criteria. So I'll go back to my original point again:
He was either a very very dumb sportsman or he was cheating.
I'm not suggesting he should have completely got off, but a 2 year ban is ridiculous, the fact that it's a first for sport in this country, if not the world goes to show how out of line it is with a regular punishment for this type of offence.
To compare steroid use with cold and flu tablets and think they deserve the same penalty is a joke, plain and simple
-
To compare steroid use with cold and flu tablets and think they deserve the same penalty is a joke, plain and simple
Whether the penalty is a joke becomes irrelevant.
The maximum penalty for this type of offence is 2 years.
For whatever reason he has been given the maximum penalty and that's how it stands.
The HUN web-site says he is going to appeal BTW
Do I think he is a cheat? Morally probably NOPE but under the anti-drug laws as they stand right now he is
However, more than anything I reckon he is one very stupid footballer and stupid is being very kind indeed and for being so STUPID he's certainly copped a good whack for it
-
At least he's not going down without a fight Infamy:
Tiger Hopeful Travis Casserly cops two-year ban for drug taking
* Michael Washbourne
* From: PerthNow
* March 01, 2011 7:43AM
RICHMOND hopeful Travis Casserly will appeal his two-year ban for testing positive to a performance-enhancing drug in last year's WAFL Grand Final.
Casserly, 23, has been handed the two-year suspension – the maximum penalty recommended by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority – after testing positive to restricted substance pseudoephedrine following his team’s thrilling one-point win over Claremont in the WAFL grand final.
The two-year ban all but ends Casserly’s AFL dream.
He was given another AFL lifeline by the Tigers in December when selected as one of three players to train with the club in a bid to win the final spot on the rookie list before the start of the season.
Richmond was aware that Casserly had tested positive when it selected him in the rookie draft.
Chief executive Brendon Gale today declined to comment on Casserly's future or the circumstances of the case.
The 23-year-old claimed the elevated levels of pseudoephedrine in his system were a combination of him taking a cold and flu tablet and being severely dehydrated when he was drug tested after the game. He took a tablet both before the game and at half time.
Casserly had previously been on Richmond's list between 2006-08, and the Tigers were considering re-select him as a rookie if he either beat the drug ban or was offered a backdated 12-week suspension.
Perth magistrate Paul Heaney believed Casserly used the drug to enhance his performance, upholding a recommendation from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority for the maximum length ban.
Casserly's ban will run from October 18, 2010 - ruling him out of action for the next two seasons.
"I am satisfied to the requisite standard, that player Casserly did have the intent to enhance his sporting performance,'' Heany said.
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly's urine sample, indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that it was his intent for it to do so.''
Casserly, who will remain in Melbourne for the next few days as he comes to terms with the decision, was vying for the final rookie spot with Victorian Mitch Keddell and South Australian Liam Corrie.
Swan Districts football operations general manager Phil Smart said he was “shocked” and “disappointed” by the decision, which the club plans to appeal.
“It is without precedent worldwide to suspend a player for two years for taking two Sudafed tablets that you can buy over the counter,” he said.
“(To describe the penalty as) harsh is being polite. We’ll definitely appeal, but what format that takes we’ll decide on the next couple of days.
At the WAFL tribunal hearing last week, Swans officials argued that Casserly had taken two Sudafed tablets during the grand final to treat a bout of hay fever.
Smart said Casserly had used the drug “spasmodically” to treat allergies for several years, including when he was on Richmond’s playing list between 2006 and 2008, and had always notified ASADA when he took the drug or when he was tested.
“We never hid the fact Travis took Sudafed,” he said. “He’s taken two tablets – it’s not a two-year penalty for a bloke trying to get back into the AFL system.
“Mr Heaney is well respected in WA and has been with the WAFL for a long time, but I don’t agree with him and the club doesn’t agree with him. I think he’s made a mistake.”
Pseudoephedrine was not on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of banned substances between 2004 and 2010, although levels of the drug were monitored and recorded during this period.
He is the second WAFL player suspended for drug taking in the past year.
East Perth midfielder Dean Cadwallader, 20, was also given a two-year ban after testing positive to an anabolic steroid before last year’s State game.
Cadwallader was being looked at by a number of AFL clubs at the time.
WAFL director of football Grant Dorrington said the league would increase testing this season in the wake of the two positive drugs results as well as review the drug education set-up within clubs.
“I think this is a message to every sport and to every athlete – don’t put anything in your mouth or inject anything in anyway unless you know from someone with medical advice that is it ok,” he said.
“That’s the strong message we’ll be giving to all our clubs and all our players. Every player has a responsibility.”
Dorrington said it was not the WAFL’s position to comment on the severity of the penalty, other than to say the league was satisfied with the tribunal process.
It is believed this is the first time a sportsperson has been handed a two-year ban for testing positive to pseudoephedrine.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/swan-districts-player-travis-casserly-cops-two-year-ban-for-drug-taking/story-e6frf9jf-1226013895835 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/swan-districts-player-travis-casserly-cops-two-year-ban-for-drug-taking/story-e6frf9jf-1226013895835)
-
pretty quick to condemn a bloke who took 2 SUDAFED !!!
It's not about condemning
first, he had been in the AFL system 3 years, he would have known what he was allowed to take and what he wasn't
Second, all players (actually make that all sports people) are told if you are in doubt DONT take it and check with a doctor.
Final, read the news report - it says his readings were very high and went beyond being "therapeutic":
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly’s urine sample, indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that is was his intent for it to do so," Heaney said in his findings."
Would think that is pretty damning
bloody well said. :thumbsup
-
Whether the penalty is a joke becomes irrelevant.
The maximum penalty for this type of offence is 2 years.
For whatever reason he has been given the maximum penalty and that's how it stands.
To correct your statement WP - the ONLY penalty for this type of offence is 2 years. It's up to him to satisfy the conditions for a reduction or removal on appeal. He failed to do that so ASADA and the WAFL had no choice - 2 years it is.
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
What a load of slop, 2 years, way to ruin a kids career.
Stupid or not, 2 years is pathetic, and honestly embarrassing.
Don't mention the war.. ergh I mean drug.
-
What a load of poo.
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Farcical or not the rules whether you agree or or not are very clear regarding what's banned and what the penalty is
The drug found in his test is a banned substance under the rules as they currently stand - end of story
The penalty is what is is under the ASADA rules - end of story
Blame the player, blame the doctor blame whoever you like but he has been penalised under the ASADA rules - end of story
If this was a player from another club rather than a possible RFC rookie who'd been handed the same penalty would people still be so anti the decision?
-
Dunno why people give a sh it.
Move on with your lives.
-
Dunno why people give a sh it.
Move on with your lives.
Good God I agree with the weirdo (the avatar is just a little scary)
:lol
-
Watch Tim & Eric.
You remind me of Pierre...but more evil. :shh
-
Morton tweet about Cass:
"Shout out to young trav casserly. Poor bloke was sick day of a grand final and didn't know he was doing the wrong thing :( chin up mate"
http://twitter.com/MitchMorton
-
Swans to fight Casserly ban
Dale Miller
The West Australian
March 1, 2011
A shell-shocked Swan Districts will appeal against a two-year ban for a positive drug test arising from last year's WAFL grand final that has torbreaded the AFL aspirations of Travis Casserly.
WAFL Tribunal chairman Paul Heaney yesterday delivered a shattering verdict for the 23-year-old in choosing to uphold an Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority recommendation to apply the maximum ban.
The decision has ended Casserly's hopes of securing the final rookie position at Richmond where he has been training since December.
The Tigers must decide on the rookie spot between the NAB Cup grand final and the start of the premiership season.
Any appeal process by Casserly is certain to extend beyond that deadline.
Casserly pleaded his innocence at a hearing last Thursday night in a bid for leniency after returning a positive test for the restricted substance pseudoephedrine, having been tested in the wake of Swans' one-point victory over Claremont in last year's grand final.
The defender claimed he took one 60mg Sudafed tablet before the game and one at half-time to treat a long-term hay fever condition on the understanding the dosage should not have taken him over the allowable limit.
But Heaney's assessment was particularly damning. He effectively labelled Casserly a drug cheat in saying he was satisfied the player had taken pseudoephedrine with the intent of enhancing sporting performance.
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly's urine sample indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that it was his intent for it to do so," Heaney said.
Under the world anti-doping code, a pseudoephedrine concentration above 150 micrograms per millilitre is considered a positive test. The reading on Casserly's A sample was 240 and on the B sample it was 230.
The length of the ban is the same given to East Perth midfielder Dean Cadwallader, who tested positive for an anabolic steroid last year.
The penalty will prevent Casserly from playing or training with any football club and has been backdated to October 18 last year.
It is understood the two-year penalty is unprecedented for a positive test involving pseudoephedrine anywhere in the world.
Three months is the most severe punishment previously delivered.
Pseudoephedrine was returned to the worldwide list of restricted or banned substances only last year, but Heaney said the onus was on the player to check if the substance was prohibited under the AFL anti-doping code.
WAFC football director Grant Dorrington said the ruling sent a simple message that any footballer who took an illegal substance was playing Russian roulette with their future.
"I think there's a message to every sport and every athlete, don't put anything in your mouth or inject in any way unless you know from someone with medical advice," Dorrington said.
"And by the way, this is a drug bought over the counter that we can all take every day. Don't do it unless you get checked."
Runners-up Claremont have always maintained they will not challenge the result of the grand final regardless of any findings against Casserly.
Casserly, who will not be stripped of his premiership medallion, will stay in Melbourne to reassess his situation as Swans plan their appeal. The club can appeal against the ruling before a WAFL Tribunal panel or by going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
A Richmond spokesman said Casserly would not train with the club until the appeal process was over.
Swans football operations general manager Phil Smart said the club was shocked, believing Heaney had made a mistake.
"The ASADA website is quite clear that if you take three Sudafed tablets of 60mg you will go over, you will have a positive reading," Smart said. "He took two and that wasn't challenged by ASADA."
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/wafl/8928370/swans-to-fight-casserly-ban/
-
Dr Peter Larkins Says Suspended Richmond Rookie Hopeful Travis Casserly Should Not Have Taken Two Sudafed Tablets
Post by: Ronny Lerner
MMM
1 March, 2011
Triple M Footy’s Dr Peter Larkins has told The Hot Breakfast on Tuesday that Richmond rookie hopeful Travis Casserly was ill-advised to take two Sudafed tablets during last year’s WAFL Grand Final.
Casserly, who was competing for the final spot on the Tigers’ rookie list this year, had his AFL dream dashed on Monday when he received the maximum two-year suspension recommended by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority for testing positive to pseudoephedrine.
While Casserly claimed he had the elevated levels of the substance in his system due to taking a tablet before and at half-time of the match to treat hay fever coupled with being dehydrated, our very own Dr Smooth said he was playing Russian roulette by taking that course of action.
“Instruction to athletes has been if you’re going to use it on match day, be careful which dose you use because it comes in different sizes and don’t take more than one because you risk going over the limit,” The Doc told Triple M’s Hot Breakfast.
“(Casserly was) ill-advised in the sense that to take two on a day when you’re competing, and it may have been warm, he may have been dehydrated so the likely level that you’re going to record (would be elevated).”
“You’re allowed to record a level, it’s a bit like the old caffeine story that you’re allowed to have a cup of coffee but you can’t take six NoDoz (caffeine tablets).”
“It comes down to what instruction he was given by the WAFL doctor, the players are usually instructed to within an inch of their life about what they should and shouldn’t take.”
The Doc said that Casserly should have sought a different way to deal with his condition on the day.
“The real strong message is don’t take anything at all unless you’ve clarified it with someone who understands the medical consequences,” he told Triple M’s Hot Breakfast.
“At that half-time point when he’s saying, ‘look, the hay fever’s playing up, I don’t think I’m going to be able to run out the game’, or ‘I’m going to be breathless’, or whatever he was complaining (about), he needed to look at an alternative.”
“Either a nasal spray or something else that was going to give him benefit rather than going for another (pseudoephedrine) dose of 60 milligram, which is a medium-sized-dose Sudafed tablet.”
But Casserly has found an ally in Luke Darcy who believes, on the surface of it, the 23-year-old has been harshly dealt with.
“I would have done the same,” Luke said. “If you’re playing in a grand final, you’re crook and you’ve got a head cold and you get yourself right and at half-time you’ve pushed yourself and you’re thinking, ‘you know what? It’s coming back again, I need to play well in the second half’, I’m not sure you’re gaining an advantage.”
Casserly will appeal his suspension.
http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sport/afl/news/blog/dr-peter-larkins-says-suspended-richmond-rookie-hopeful-travis-casserly-should-not-have-taken-two-sudafed-tablets/20110301-bjxb.html
-
To correct your statement WP - the ONLY penalty for this type of offence is 2 years. It's up to him to satisfy the conditions for a reduction or removal on appeal. He failed to do that so ASADA and the WAFL had no choice - 2 years it is.
Clearly this isn't true given the maximum ban handed out previously is only 3 months. His punshment is 800% of the maximum ban anyone has ever received before. Out of whack a bit?
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Neither is pseudoephadrine at certain levels and given readings can be affected by things such as hydration levels its not that easy to know when you're at your limit. It's not like having a few drinks when you can generally feel the effects of going over the limit.
-
To correct your statement WP - the ONLY penalty for this type of offence is 2 years. It's up to him to satisfy the conditions for a reduction or removal on appeal. He failed to do that so ASADA and the WAFL had no choice - 2 years it is.
Clearly this isn't true given the maximum ban handed out previously is only 3 months. His punshment is 800% of the maximum ban anyone has ever received before. Out of whack a bit?
The maximum ban that has been given in the world to a sportsman so far.
But, the AFL's Anti-Doping Policy clearly states:
14. SANCTIONS
14.1 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods.
The period of Ineligibility imposed for a violation of Clause 11.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers), Clause 11.2 (Use or Attempted Use of Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) and Clause 11.6 (Possession of Prohibited Substances and Methods) shall be as follows, unless the conditions for eliminating or reducing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.4, or the conditions for increasing the period of Ineligibility, as provided in Clause 14.5, are met:
First violation: Two (2) years' Ineligibility
Can't be much more clear cut than that, no minimums, no maximums, just 2 years fixed. He knew what he was risking when he did it - either as an act of stupidity or an act of dishonesty - but he knew regardless.
-
Neither is pseudoephadrine at certain levels and given readings can be affected by things such as hydration levels its not that easy to know when you're at your limit. It's not like having a few drinks when you can generally feel the effects of going over the limit.
Exactly right but he was over the allowed levels - that's not in dispute
Whether this was caused by being de-hydrated or something else; again it is irrelevant the player & doctor shouldn't have gone ahead with popping another sudafed.
When in doubt don't take it! Surely this isn't a difficult concept to grasp for players and & medicos
As I said blame the player, blame the doctor fact is his readings are way over the level and he has copped the penalty.
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Farcical or not the rules whether you agree or or not are very clear regarding what's banned and what the penalty is
The drug found in his test is a banned substance under the rules as they currently stand - end of story
The penalty is what is is under the ASADA rules - end of story
Blame the player, blame the doctor blame whoever you like but he has been penalised under the ASADA rules - end of story
If this was a player from another club rather than a possible RFC rookie who'd been handed the same penalty would people still be so anti the decision?
Your 100% right WP its in stated the rules but nothing in life is ever black in white.
Not all murder/rape sentences get maximum penalties.
As far as Cortisone goes, you're right its not banned, my point was if they penalised him on grounds of "performance enhancing". How is the performance enhancement of a cold and flu the maximised enhancement possible? Surely they asked tat question when they said should he get the maximum? Will this be consistant to the worst case of performance enhancing?
I think we'd all agree taking a cortisone injection to numb the feeling of a broken foot ala Trent Croad in 2008 Grand Final is alot more performance in hancing then a Sudafed.
He's taken a banned substance that we've all taken many times in our lives and has gone without the rules. I'm not saying his not guilty I'm saying punishing the kid for taking a flu tablet at the maximum penalty is ludicrous. What if Buddy Franklin is hospitalised for excessive use of a banned steroid. Or Brett Deledio for a high amount of EPO, they'll get 2 years, same as Flu Tablet?
Compare Steroid or EPO use to a sudafed tablet and the AFL starts to look very very stupid. Should have got 6 months max.
-
Neither is pseudoephadrine at certain levels and given readings can be affected by things such as hydration levels its not that easy to know when you're at your limit. It's not like having a few drinks when you can generally feel the effects of going over the limit.
Exactly right but he was over the allowed levels - that's not in dispute
Whether this was caused by being de-hydrated or something else; again it is irrelevant the player & doctor shouldn't have gone ahead with popping another sudafed.
When in doubt don't take it! Surely this isn't a difficult concept to grasp for players and & medicos
As I said blame the player, blame the doctor fact is his readings are way over the level and he has copped the penalty.
I don't think anyone is saying he's not guilty.
He's stuffed u the doctor has stuffed up but he's been given almost a life sentence for jay walking.
-
Again I come back to this statement
"I am satisfied that the high reading of pseudoephedrine found in player Casserly's urine sample indicated that his use of the substance went beyond the therapeutic to the enhancement of his sporting performance and that it was his intent for it to do so," Heaney said.
This does not state the level was higher than therapeutic use, but merely that the magistrate ( or whatever he is) believes the high reading (ie above prescribed levels for sportsman) indicates a deliberate attempt to cheat.
This is despite evidence saying that the level found in his system was not even that of therapeutic use and evidence that the lad was dehydrated. This is a highly plausable explaination yet it seems to have been disregarded and more concerning that the onus is on the accused to prove innocence rather than what we consider to be natural justice, that is the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
As it turns out the suspension is the highest in the world for such an offence with the next highest being 3 months.
There is either something we are not being told in regards to evidence produced or this is a witch hunt for whatever reason.
Something smells fishy here and it isn't Davey's fingers after a visit to the Dookies
-
Kid? The bloke is nearly a 24yr old adult. Needs to be responsible for his own actions.
Something smells fishy here and it isn't Davey's fingers after a visit to the Dookies
:lol
could be
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Farcical or not the rules whether you agree or or not are very clear regarding what's banned and what the penalty is
The drug found in his test is a banned substance under the rules as they currently stand - end of story
The penalty is what is is under the ASADA rules - end of story
Blame the player, blame the doctor blame whoever you like but he has been penalised under the ASADA rules - end of story
If this was a player from another club rather than a possible RFC rookie who'd been handed the same penalty would people still be so anti the decision?
Your 100% right WP its in stated the rules but nothing in life is ever black in white.
Not all murder/rape sentences get maximum penalties.
As far as Cortisone goes, you're right its not banned, my point was if they penalised him on grounds of "performance enhancing". How is the performance enhancement of a cold and flu the maximised enhancement possible? Surely they asked tat question when they said should he get the maximum? Will this be consistant to the worst case of performance enhancing?
I think we'd all agree taking a cortisone injection to numb the feeling of a broken foot ala Trent Croad in 2008 Grand Final is alot more performance in hancing then a Sudafed.
He's taken a banned substance that we've all taken many times in our lives and has gone without the rules. I'm not saying his not guilty I'm saying punishing the kid for taking a flu tablet at the maximum penalty is ludicrous. What if Buddy Franklin is hospitalised for excessive use of a banned steroid. Or Brett Deledio for a high amount of EPO, they'll get 2 years, same as Flu Tablet?
Compare Steroid or EPO use to a sudafed tablet and the AFL starts to look very very stupid. Should have got 6 months max.
Don't miss the point Pope, that they couldn't give him anything but 2 years. There is no sliding scale - if you are guilty you get 2 years for your first violation, end of story. I'm not going to debate if I think it was worth 2 years but there is no argument about how tough the tribunal were - they had no choice - 2 years and not a day less. His only hope for a reduction or cancellation AFTER the 2 year decision is for him to satisfy the conditions of either 14.3 or 14.4 of the Policy and he failed to do that at his first attempt. Will need to pull something special out of his hat to convince another panel but at least in our democratic society he has that right. Good luck to him.
-
This is despite evidence saying that the level found in his system was not even that of therapeutic use and evidence that the lad was dehydrated. This is a highly plausable explaination yet it seems to have been disregarded and more concerning that the onus is on the accused to prove innocence rather than what we consider to be natural justice, that is the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
His 2 samples are the proof of guilt Al. Now the ball is in his court to prove it wasn't a deliberate attempt to cheat and that is not going to be easy to do, regardless of if he is right or wrong.
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Farcical or not the rules whether you agree or or not are very clear regarding what's banned and what the penalty is
The drug found in his test is a banned substance under the rules as they currently stand - end of story
The penalty is what is is under the ASADA rules - end of story
Blame the player, blame the doctor blame whoever you like but he has been penalised under the ASADA rules - end of story
If this was a player from another club rather than a possible RFC rookie who'd been handed the same penalty would people still be so anti the decision?
Your 100% right WP its in stated the rules but nothing in life is ever black in white.
Not all murder/rape sentences get maximum penalties.
As far as Cortisone goes, you're right its not banned, my point was if they penalised him on grounds of "performance enhancing". How is the performance enhancement of a cold and flu the maximised enhancement possible? Surely they asked tat question when they said should he get the maximum? Will this be consistant to the worst case of performance enhancing?
I think we'd all agree taking a cortisone injection to numb the feeling of a broken foot ala Trent Croad in 2008 Grand Final is alot more performance in hancing then a Sudafed.
He's taken a banned substance that we've all taken many times in our lives and has gone without the rules. I'm not saying his not guilty I'm saying punishing the kid for taking a flu tablet at the maximum penalty is ludicrous. What if Buddy Franklin is hospitalised for excessive use of a banned steroid. Or Brett Deledio for a high amount of EPO, they'll get 2 years, same as Flu Tablet?
Compare Steroid or EPO use to a sudafed tablet and the AFL starts to look very very stupid. Should have got 6 months max.
Don't miss the point Pope, that they couldn't give him anything but 2 years. There is no sliding scale - if you are guilty you get 2 years for your first violation, end of story. I'm not going to debate if I think it was worth 2 years but there is no argument about how tough the tribunal were - they had no choice - 2 years and not a day less. His only hope for a reduction or cancellation AFTER the 2 year decision is for him to satisfy the conditions of either 14.3 or 14.4 of the Policy and he failed to do that at his first attempt. Will need to pull something special out of his hat to convince another panel but at least in our democratic society he has that right. Good luck to him.
If this is true, how do you explain the fact that the largest ban every given out for this before is only 3 months?
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Farcical or not the rules whether you agree or or not are very clear regarding what's banned and what the penalty is
The drug found in his test is a banned substance under the rules as they currently stand - end of story
The penalty is what is is under the ASADA rules - end of story
Blame the player, blame the doctor blame whoever you like but he has been penalised under the ASADA rules - end of story
If this was a player from another club rather than a possible RFC rookie who'd been handed the same penalty would people still be so anti the decision?
Your 100% right WP its in stated the rules but nothing in life is ever black in white.
Not all murder/rape sentences get maximum penalties.
As far as Cortisone goes, you're right its not banned, my point was if they penalised him on grounds of "performance enhancing". How is the performance enhancement of a cold and flu the maximised enhancement possible? Surely they asked tat question when they said should he get the maximum? Will this be consistant to the worst case of performance enhancing?
I think we'd all agree taking a cortisone injection to numb the feeling of a broken foot ala Trent Croad in 2008 Grand Final is alot more performance in hancing then a Sudafed.
He's taken a banned substance that we've all taken many times in our lives and has gone without the rules. I'm not saying his not guilty I'm saying punishing the kid for taking a flu tablet at the maximum penalty is ludicrous. What if Buddy Franklin is hospitalised for excessive use of a banned steroid. Or Brett Deledio for a high amount of EPO, they'll get 2 years, same as Flu Tablet?
Compare Steroid or EPO use to a sudafed tablet and the AFL starts to look very very stupid. Should have got 6 months max.
Don't miss the point Pope, that they couldn't give him anything but 2 years. There is no sliding scale - if you are guilty you get 2 years for your first violation, end of story. I'm not going to debate if I think it was worth 2 years but there is no argument about how tough the tribunal were - they had no choice - 2 years and not a day less. His only hope for a reduction or cancellation AFTER the 2 year decision is for him to satisfy the conditions of either 14.3 or 14.4 of the Policy and he failed to do that at his first attempt. Will need to pull something special out of his hat to convince another panel but at least in our democratic society he has that right. Good luck to him.
If this is true, how do you explain the fact that the largest ban every given out for this before is only 3 months?
Because it was given by an organization that is not using the AFL Anti-Doping Policy. All sports have their own policies that set these conditions and they loosely follow the WADA recommendations but at the end of the day it is up to each individual sport how they apply it. Some recent athletes have not received a ban at all for using pseudoephedrine but have been stripped of medals won at Athletic Meetings. All comes down to the rules of the sporting body you play under and that's why we can't compare the 2 years with the 3 months. Some sports see different substances in a different light and apply penalties accordingly. Bad luck for Cass that his sport sees it as a mandatory 2 year penalty but them's the rules and he knew it before he 'popped'.
-
Pretty funny that Ding Dong Dell got 2 years out of Rugga for a big night on the charlie and Cass gets the same for sudafed.
-
This is despite evidence saying that the level found in his system was not even that of therapeutic use and evidence that the lad was dehydrated. This is a highly plausable explaination yet it seems to have been disregarded and more concerning that the onus is on the accused to prove innocence rather than what we consider to be natural justice, that is the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
His 2 samples are the proof of guilt Al. Now the ball is in his court to prove it wasn't a deliberate attempt to cheat and that is not going to be easy to do, regardless of if he is right or wrong.
His two samples are only proof that he was above the prescribed limit, not proof that he deliberately cheated, as the magistarte has decided.
From what info we have, there is a fair case for his defence.
One important piece of info we dont have is if the second sudafed was taken with the doctors knowledge, although the article does say that normally three would not put you over the limit.
Perhaps they need to have the urine samples tested for other substances found in urine to show whether these were elevated above normal levels, 'cause to me i can see how being dehydrated would give a higher reading.
I think you are right about it being difficult to prove otherwise. I am getting the impression the result was a foregone conclusion regardless of what evidence he put up, which is plain wrong.
-
Because it was given by an organization that is not using the AFL Anti-Doping Policy. All sports have their own policies that set these conditions and they loosely follow the WADA recommendations but at the end of the day it is up to each individual sport how they apply it.quote]
I thought the AFL was going to lose their funding if they didn't change their policies to match the WADA structure
-
This is farcical.
Explain how cortisone injections are less performance enhancing then a cold and flu tablet.
Cortisone aint banned that's the difference
Farcical or not the rules whether you agree or or not are very clear regarding what's banned and what the penalty is
The drug found in his test is a banned substance under the rules as they currently stand - end of story
The penalty is what is is under the ASADA rules - end of story
Blame the player, blame the doctor blame whoever you like but he has been penalised under the ASADA rules - end of story
If this was a player from another club rather than a possible RFC rookie who'd been handed the same penalty would people still be so anti the decision?
Your 100% right WP its in stated the rules but nothing in life is ever black in white.
Not all murder/rape sentences get maximum penalties.
As far as Cortisone goes, you're right its not banned, my point was if they penalised him on grounds of "performance enhancing". How is the performance enhancement of a cold and flu the maximised enhancement possible? Surely they asked tat question when they said should he get the maximum? Will this be consistant to the worst case of performance enhancing?
I think we'd all agree taking a cortisone injection to numb the feeling of a broken foot ala Trent Croad in 2008 Grand Final is alot more performance in hancing then a Sudafed.
He's taken a banned substance that we've all taken many times in our lives and has gone without the rules. I'm not saying his not guilty I'm saying punishing the kid for taking a flu tablet at the maximum penalty is ludicrous. What if Buddy Franklin is hospitalised for excessive use of a banned steroid. Or Brett Deledio for a high amount of EPO, they'll get 2 years, same as Flu Tablet?
Compare Steroid or EPO use to a sudafed tablet and the AFL starts to look very very stupid. Should have got 6 months max.
Don't miss the point Pope, that they couldn't give him anything but 2 years. There is no sliding scale - if you are guilty you get 2 years for your first violation, end of story. I'm not going to debate if I think it was worth 2 years but there is no argument about how tough the tribunal were - they had no choice - 2 years and not a day less. His only hope for a reduction or cancellation AFTER the 2 year decision is for him to satisfy the conditions of either 14.3 or 14.4 of the Policy and he failed to do that at his first attempt. Will need to pull something special out of his hat to convince another panel but at least in our democratic society he has that right. Good luck to him.
If this is true, how do you explain the fact that the largest ban every given out for this before is only 3 months?
Because it was given by an organization that is not using the AFL Anti-Doping Policy. All sports have their own policies that set these conditions and they loosely follow the WADA recommendations but at the end of the day it is up to each individual sport how they apply it. Some recent athletes have not received a ban at all for using pseudoephedrine but have been stripped of medals won at Athletic Meetings. All comes down to the rules of the sporting body you play under and that's why we can't compare the 2 years with the 3 months. Some sports see different substances in a different light and apply penalties accordingly. Bad luck for Cass that his sport sees it as a mandatory 2 year penalty but them's the rules and he knew it before he 'popped'.
if justice heaney believed casserley, he had the option of a warning 3 mnths 12 mnths etc etc. he only had to believe casserley took two sudafed which by the way was a legal drug until last yr and other things like drinking alcohol and hydration played a role. casserley has openly said he has taken sudafed for yrs to help with his hayfever.
if heaney believes casserley did not deliberately try to cheat other clauses come into it.
i know for a fact east perth were hopeful that cadwaller (spelling) would get a reduced penalty due to his age from the same tribunal.
clearly the rfc were under the impression that the tribunal did not have to hand down the maximum penalty and were in fact prepared to wear a 12 week ban and rookie list him.
it all comes down to weather heaney thinks casserley DELIBERATELY TRIED TO CHEAT.
i dont think anyone anywhere but heaney believed casserley was taking sudafed for any other reason than hayfever. SOMETIMES THESE UPPER CRUST PEOPLE NEED TO APPLY JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE EVERY NOW AND AGAIN.
clearly this case at the least highlights the need for a review of the system.
-
This is despite evidence saying that the level found in his system was not even that of therapeutic use and evidence that the lad was dehydrated. This is a highly plausable explaination yet it seems to have been disregarded and more concerning that the onus is on the accused to prove innocence rather than what we consider to be natural justice, that is the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt.
His 2 samples are the proof of guilt Al. Now the ball is in his court to prove it wasn't a deliberate attempt to cheat and that is not going to be easy to do, regardless of if he is right or wrong.
His two samples are only proof that he was above the prescribed limit, not proof that he deliberately cheated, as the magistarte has decided.
From what info we have, there is a fair case for his defence.
One important piece of info we dont have is if the second sudafed was taken with the doctors knowledge, although the article does say that normally three would not put you over the limit.
Perhaps they need to have the urine samples tested for other substances found in urine to show whether these were elevated above normal levels, 'cause to me i can see how being dehydrated would give a higher reading.
I think you are right about it being difficult to prove otherwise. I am getting the impression the result was a foregone conclusion regardless of what evidence he put up, which is plain wrong.
it certainly was a foregone conclusion they have been under pressure over here to be seen to be tough on drug cheats.
-
if justice heaney believed casserley, he had the option of a warning 3 mnths 12 mnths etc etc. he only had to believe casserley took two sudafed which by the way was a legal drug until last yr and other things like drinking alcohol and hydration played a role. casserley has openly said he has taken sudafed for yrs to help with his hayfever.
if heaney believes casserley did not deliberately try to cheat other clauses come into it.
i know for a fact east perth were hopeful that cadwaller (spelling) would get a reduced penalty due to his age from the same tribunal.
clearly the rfc were under the impression that the tribunal did not have to hand down the maximum penalty and were in fact prepared to wear a 12 week ban and rookie list him.
it all comes down to weather heaney thinks casserley DELIBERATELY TRIED TO CHEAT.
i dont think anyone anywhere but heaney believed casserley was taking sudafed for any other reason than hayfever. SOMETIMES THESE UPPER CRUST PEOPLE NEED TO APPLY JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE EVERY NOW AND AGAIN.
clearly this case at the least highlights the need for a review of the system.
Heaney had the option to reduce the sentence if he believed that Casserly satisfied either of the criteria 14.3 and 14.4 in the AFL's Anti-Doping Policy. He obviously didn't satisfy the criteria in Heaney's eyes. And let's not forget that Heaney is a respected WA magistrate - he does know just a tad about the law and it's application. And given that the ONLY person that was in receipt of all the facts in this case/appeal was Heaney then I guess he was as good a person as any to judge right from wrong. Certainly none of us internet warriors from behind our keyboards were even close to that position.
"SOMETIMES THESE UPPER CRUST PEOPLE NEED TO APPLY JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE EVERY NOW AND AGAIN." :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
Something smells fishy here and it isn't Davey's fingers after a visit to the Dookies
:outtahere
-
And let's not forget that Heaney is a respected WA magistrate - he does know just a tad about the law and it's application. And given that the ONLY person that was in receipt of all the facts in this case/appeal was Heaney then I guess he was as good a person as any to judge right from wrong. Certainly none of us internet warriors from behind our keyboards were even close to that position.
In normal circumstances i would agree with this, particularly as we may not have all the FACTS :banghead ( :P), but given the history of wrongfully committed people in WA I personally have very little faith in the WA legal system.
-
if justice heaney believed casserley, he had the option of a warning 3 mnths 12 mnths etc etc. he only had to believe casserley took two sudafed which by the way was a legal drug until last yr and other things like drinking alcohol and hydration played a role. casserley has openly said he has taken sudafed for yrs to help with his hayfever.
if heaney believes casserley did not deliberately try to cheat other clauses come into it.
i know for a fact east perth were hopeful that cadwaller (spelling) would get a reduced penalty due to his age from the same tribunal.
clearly the rfc were under the impression that the tribunal did not have to hand down the maximum penalty and were in fact prepared to wear a 12 week ban and rookie list him.
it all comes down to weather heaney thinks casserley DELIBERATELY TRIED TO CHEAT.
i dont think anyone anywhere but heaney believed casserley was taking sudafed for any other reason than hayfever. SOMETIMES THESE UPPER CRUST PEOPLE NEED TO APPLY JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE EVERY NOW AND AGAIN.
clearly this case at the least highlights the need for a review of the system.
Heaney had the option to reduce the sentence if he believed that Casserly satisfied either of the criteria 14.3 and 14.4 in the AFL's Anti-Doping Policy. He obviously didn't satisfy the criteria in Heaney's eyes. And let's not forget that Heaney is a respected WA magistrate - he does know just a tad about the law and it's application. And given that the ONLY person that was in receipt of all the facts in this case/appeal was Heaney then I guess he was as good a person as any to judge right from wrong. Certainly none of us internet warriors from behind our keyboards were even close to that position.
"SOMETIMES THESE UPPER CRUST PEOPLE NEED TO APPLY JUST A LITTLE COMMON SENSE EVERY NOW AND AGAIN." :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
lol just like heaney you think the matter black or white, the simple fact is if heaney believes casserley did not deliberately cheat he could have handed down a lesser sentence or none at all with a reprimand.
and good for you for trusting the judiciary many dont for good reason.
when you are wrongly convicted or harshly dealt with in the system. i expect you are going to meekly lay down and use your black and white perspective and meekly cop it in the arse. now that would be funny.
common sense says heaney can neither prove or disprove casserley deliberately cheated.
his readings are at the low end and say though over the limit they are at a level that suggests hes taken them as medication rather than as an unfair advantage.
asada itself did not question he took more than two sudafed they were happy with that explanation.this coupled with the fact that casserley has openly admitted taking sudafed for yrs on game day because of hayfever and it is easy to say heaney is being pig headed. the player is asked why he should not cop the maximum penalty has come up with a very honest and plausible explanation and heaney ignores it.
to me and nearly everyone involved in his case it seems heaney should have evoked your clause 14.3 and 14.4 that obviously allows for extenuating circumstances.
yep judges often get it wrong. and a lot of them do not live in the real world you can see that by looking at many of the sentences and judgements they hand down.
ya know also all i ever get out of you is very silly smilies etc etc distortions of what i have said . you just look dumb when you have to resort to such imbecile actions im more than happy to debate the issues with you without such childish nonsense. i can be just as sarcastic as the next bloke and have shown it more than once but i rarely start it.
if you pay attention what you are saying is in a way exactly what im saying with one major difference justice heaney got it wrong or chose to ignore casserleys explanation i believe because he is under pressure to make a tough stand.
-
lol just like heaney you think the matter black or white, the simple fact is if heaney believes casserley did not deliberately cheat he could have handed down a lesser sentence or none at all with a reprimand.
There you go, wasn't too hard to get to the point. "If Heaney believes Casserly did not deliberately cheat then he could have handed down a lesser sentence..". Pretty obvious at this point what Heaney believes isn't it?
and good for you for trusting the judiciary many dont for good reason.
when you are wrongly convicted or harshly dealt with in the system. i expect you are going to meekly lay down and use your black and white perspective and meekly cop it in the behind. now that would be funny.
I trust in our judicial system. That doesn't mean they always get it right or it is always fair but above all our system provides for a number of avenues for appeal or recall at all levels. And I happen to think that if you exhaust all those without success then there is a better than fair chance that justice was served. I'm not sure what your taste in comedy has to do with this argument but whatever floats your boat.
common sense says heaney can neither prove or disprove casserley deliberately cheated.
And herein lies the biggest emotional mistake many people make when dealing with matters of law. Common sense has nothing to do with it. Heaney doesn't have to prove anything. The only proof in front of Heaney were the undeniable samples and that made him guilty as charged. Once he was guilty then by law the onus came on Casserly to prove a case for either a reduction or removal of the penalty. In this first attempt he failed. And by all accounts, all Heaney has to judge this on is the testimony of Casserly, a medical expert who disputes the medical experts from ASADA, and some anecdotal evidence from third parties about Casserly's previous history. Nothing in the evidence that has been made public sways me enough to believe that this would have swayed a magistrate making a judgment in law. What would have carried a lot of weight is the club doctor saying to the tribunal "I ordered him to take one before the game and one at half time" but this wasn't the case so the element of doubt remains. Another sports medicine expert well known in AFL circles, Dr Peter Larkins, had this to say: “It comes down to what instruction he was given by the WAFL doctor, the players are usually instructed to within an inch of their life about what they should and shouldn’t take.”. And if the doctor didn't advise Casserly but he took them on his own recognizance then his word is not going to even come close to getting him off, any more than it would in a law court, and regardless of how innocent his intentions might have been. The law does not account for stupidity, no matter how 'unfair' that might seem.
his readings are at the low end and say though over the limit they are at a level that suggests hes taken them as medication rather than as an unfair advantage.
asada itself did not question he took more than two sudafed they were happy with that explanation.this coupled with the fact that casserley has openly admitted taking sudafed for yrs on game day because of hayfever and it is easy to say heaney is being pig headed. the player is asked why he should not cop the maximum penalty has come up with a very honest and plausible explanation and heaney ignores it.
to me and nearly everyone involved in his case it seems heaney should have evoked your clause 14.3 and 14.4 that obviously allows for extenuating circumstances.
yep judges often get it wrong. and a lot of them do not live in the real world you can see that by looking at many of the sentences and judgements they hand down.
All this is just your opinion on Casserly's intention and has absolutely no part in deciding his guilt by law. How well do you know Casserly - are you his best mate? Were you there at the time and saw what happened? Did he ask you for advice before taking the tablets? Do you have first hand knowledge of a conspiracy in place? My guess is no to all of these and that makes it impossible to put any strength or credence in your opinion on the facts that a legal magistrate adjudicating this particular matter of law has in front of him.
ya know also all i ever get out of you is very silly smilies etc etc distortions of what i have said . you just look dumb when you have to resort to such imbecile actions im more than happy to debate the issues with you without such childish nonsense. i can be just as sarcastic as the next bloke and have shown it more than once but i rarely start it.
What the? If you want to discuss dumb then I suggest you start by correcting the grammatical and spelling inconsistencies in your ramblings to a point where they might make some slight modicum of sense. Until then, people in glass houses..........
if you pay attention what you are saying is in a way exactly what im saying with one major difference justice heaney got it wrong or chose to ignore casserleys explanation i believe because he is under pressure to make a tough stand.
Heaney didn't have a choice unless Casserly came up with evidence that PROVED he was not responsible for taking the substance and causing the elevated level. And at this point it doesn't appear that he has been able to prove that. Do I think 2 years for a first offence of elevated pseudoephedrine levels is too high? Yes I do. Do I think this case has been dealt with fairly and in accordance with law thus far? Absolutely.
-
lol just like heaney you think the matter black or white, the simple fact is if heaney believes casserley did not deliberately cheat he could have handed down a lesser sentence or none at all with a reprimand.
There you go, wasn't too hard to get to the point. "If Heaney believes Casserly did not deliberately cheat then he could have handed down a lesser sentence..". Pretty obvious at this point what Heaney believes.
exactly what ive been saying.bloody hell. casserley admitted to taking sudafed and as such was guilty. because he went slightly over the allowable limit.his hearing had nothing to do with guilt. it was to see if there was extenuating circumstances and weather casserley had gone out of his way to cheat.
so after many long winded posts as i said before the only difference of opinion is weather heaney should have invoked available clauses that would allow him to hand down a smaller more common sense penalty.
on this point we will obviously have to agree to disagree.
as you say yourself the only real evidence in the whole thing is the samples themselves. as the samples prove his guilt which was not in question as he openly admitted to taking the sudafed over a long period of time for a genuine medical condition. the samples also tend to back up casserleys side of the argument that he used them only as medication because of the low levels found.
this was further backed up by casserleys witnesses who are also obviously lying according to heaney.
all i have to add is when judges fail to use common sense you get judgements like casserleys.
oh one more thing what a cheap shot having a go at a bloke who admits he cant spell to well and has hardly any english education. when one steeps to that level he must be really insecure and desperate to win a lousy debate at any cost. talk about key board warrior.
-
oh one more thing what a cheap shot having a go at a bloke who admits he cant spell to well and has hardly any english education. when one steeps to that level he must be really insecure and desperate to win a lousy debate at any cost. talk about key board warrior.
Don't worry about him claw. As you can see he is a very black and white person. According to Smokey, you are either a drug cheat or your not, and you are either highly literate and worth reading, or, if your spelling isn't too good or sentences not grammatically correct, then you are just 'rambling' and obviously your opinion doesn't count. His blind faith in magistrates decisions doesn't surprise me one bit. Actually, Smokey58's 'holier than thou' approach to debating on here is frankly driving me away from OER.
-
pinging cass when they are missing the big boys. :police:
-
oh one more thing what a cheap shot having a go at a bloke who admits he cant spell to well and has hardly any english education. when one steeps to that level he must be really insecure and desperate to win a lousy debate at any cost. talk about key board warrior.
Don't worry about him claw. As you can see he is a very black and white person. According to Smokey, you are either a drug cheat or your not, and you are either highly literate and worth reading, or, if your spelling isn't too good or sentences not grammatically correct, then you are just 'rambling' and obviously your opinion doesn't count. His blind faith in magistrates decisions doesn't surprise me one bit. Actually, Smokey58's 'holier than thou' approach to debating on here is frankly driving me away from OER.
Thanks for the chuckle guys.
I'm pretty confident I don't initiate taking any comment or debate to a personal level but I will respond in kind if done to me, that's for sure. Keep that in mind when you are both chucking around the 'holier than thou' accusations. And DC, if my attitude offends anyone then I am very happy to take direction from the mods and cancel my account, it's no skin off my nose. But don't confuse your inability to argue your point with my attempts to argue mine - after all, isn't that what good debating is all about?
-
oh one more thing what a cheap shot having a go at a bloke who admits he cant spell to well and has hardly any english education. when one steeps to that level he must be really insecure and desperate to win a lousy debate at any cost. talk about key board warrior.
Don't worry about him claw. As you can see he is a very black and white person. According to Smokey, you are either a drug cheat or your not, and you are either highly literate and worth reading, or, if your spelling isn't too good or sentences not grammatically correct, then you are just 'rambling' and obviously your opinion doesn't count. His blind faith in magistrates decisions doesn't surprise me one bit. Actually, Smokey58's 'holier than thou' approach to debating on here is frankly driving me away from OER.
Thanks for the chuckle guys.
I'm pretty confident I don't initiate taking any comment or debate to a personal level but I will respond in kind if done to me, that's for sure. Keep that in mind when you are both chucking around the 'holier than thou' accusations. And DC, if my attitude offends anyone then I am very happy to take direction from the mods and cancel my account, it's no skin off my nose. But don't confuse your inability to argue your point with my attempts to argue mine - after all, isn't that what good debating is all about?
lol i dont believe i have ever attacked you on a personal level but have had to put up with plenty from you. a bit like the pot calling the kettle dont you think. if the gloves are to be off so be it. im all for it.
like i said pee weak having a go at a blokes spelling or grammar. and not big enough to admit you crossed the line. typical of your posting.
-
lol i dont believe i have ever attacked you on a personal level but have had to put up with plenty from you. a bit like the pot calling the kettle dont you think. if the gloves are to be off so be it. im all for it.
like i said pee weak having a go at a blokes spelling or grammar. and not big enough to admit you crossed the line. typical of your posting.
"ya know also all i ever get out of you is very silly smilies etc etc distortions of what i have said . you just look dumb when you have to resort to such imbecile actions" - that was the one I responded to.
Anyway, I'd say the debate between you and I about the topic has run it's course and as you correctly pointed out, some of our opinions were almost the same, just some others were poles apart, so let's not bore everyone with a name calling spat. There are other champs of that genre on here who can do a better job than you and I.
-
Maxwell slams drug ban for Casserly
By Tim Clarke
SportsNewsFirst
3 March 2011
AFL premiership skipper Nick Maxwell has launched a scathing attack on the two year drug ban handed out to Richmond hopeful
Casserly is pondering an appeal over the two-year ban, which was handed down by the WAFL this week after a magistrate deemed the 23-year-old had intended to improve his performance by taking two Sudafed tablets during the game.
Casserly claimed in the hearing he took one 60mg Sudafed tablet before the grand final and one at half-time, under observation of club staff.
Pseudoephedrine is a “specified stimulant” prohibited in doses greater than 150 micrograms per millilitre. Casserly returned samples of 240 micrograms and 230 micrograms.
The player argued he had taken the pills to treat an existing hay fever condition – but Paul Heaney was not convinced instead saying it had been intended to improve his game.
After receiving support from former AFL star Luke Darcy and Tiger colleague Mitch Morton, Maxwell became the highest profile advocate for Casserly via his Twitter feed.
“One sportsperson shoots someone & gets 2 day suspension & a fine. Another takes a Sudafed 4 a cold & gets 2 yr ban.2 harsh of a penalty IMO,” Maxwell said.
“Cole from Chelsea with the gun & Casserly from Tigers with Sudafed.”
Maxwell was referring to English footballer Ashley Cole, who escaped serious punishment over revelation he shot an intern with an air rifle he had taken to a training session at the South London Premiership giants.
That caused a sensation in England, when Cole is a maligned figure after revelations about his astronomical wages, his marriage to pop star Cheryl Tweedy and his subsequent infidelity.
Maxwell also admitted he had taken similar substances to overcome illness during training sessions, and did not feel that warranted them as performance enhancing.
“I don't see it as performance enhancing but I had only taken when crook at training years ago. I still felt terrible!,” Maxwell said.
“They were allowed until about 18 months ago. I wouldn’t say they enhance performance - maybe if you took 10 not 2.”
Casserly, 23, was on the Tigers' list from 2006-08 and has spent the past two seasons playing with WAFL club Swan Districts.
He was one of three players training with Richmond who are battling for the club's final rookie spot.
http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2011/03/03/maxwell-slams-drug-ban-for-casserly/
-
classic maxwell, only good at being 3rd man up
darcy, morton... whoop up pops nicky
-
:lol :thumbsup
-
It's in their club culture to be third man up.
Just ask Sam Gilbert. ;)
-
Appeal delay a blow for Casserly
By Craig O'Donoghue
The West Australian
March 8, 2011
Travis Casserly's hopes of having his two-year drug suspension reduced in time to join Richmond are all but over, with his lawyer Simon Watters admitting it will be difficult to hold an appeal before next Tuesday's rookie draft deadline.
Swan Districts received WAFL tribunal chairman Paul Heaney's 15-page finding on the case on Friday. It explained why he found Casserly guilty of using performance enhancing drug pseudoephedrine during last year's grand final.
Casserly had hoped for another chance at an AFL career after previously being on Richmond's list from 2006-2008. He was one of three players training with the Tigers as part of a new rule that allowed clubs to make their last rookie selection after the NAB Cup.
Richmond have already declared they would have selected Casserly at the December rookie draft if not for the drug charge.
The AFL yesterday announced that the selection had to be made before 11am next Tuesday.
Hawthorn also have a vacancy on their rookie list. Travis Tuck, who received a 12-match ban under the AFL's illicit drugs policy last year, is one of the players training with the Hawks.
The WAFL fast tracked the original tribunal hearing because of the draft deadline and the league's acting football operations manager Steve Hargrave said it would try to do the same thing for the appeal.
But Watters said that would be tough. "It's highly unlikely," he said. "We still need to file the grounds for appeal and ASADA (Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority) have to be ready too."
Watters said the appeal would be on the grounds that the suspension was manifestly excessive.
He will ask for the suspension to be reduced to three months and backdated to October 18. That would mean Casserly wouldn't miss any games.
The two-year ban can't be reduced unless Casserly convinces the appeals panel that he tested positive after taking Sudafed to treat hay fever.
Russian 1500m runner Anna Alminova received a three-month suspension for the same offence last year after telling the tribunal that she took a tablet to treat a cold.
Heaney dismissed the hay fever claim in the original hearing. He declared Casserly took the drug to improve his performance.
The appeals tribunal will be headed by one of the league's tribunal chairmen - Alan Moroni, Trevor O'Sullivan or Brian Sierakowski. The three-man panel could also include a doctor.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/wafl/8969157/appeal-delay-a-blow-for-casserly/
-
Cousins reference might help banned WAFL player
By Craig O'Donoghue
The West Australian
March 15, 2011
A reference to Ben Cousins in an article published by The West Australian two days after Swan Districts premiership player Travis Casserly was suspended for two years will form a key plank in the club's evidence at their appeal next month.
Swan Districts have been poring over Magistrate Paul Heaney's 12- page document which lists his reasons for suspending Casserly on February 28. Casserly tested positive to pseudoephedrine after last year's WAFL grand final after taking two Sudafed tablets.
Casserly said he took the tablets to treat hayfever, but Heaney declared Casserly used the drug to enhance his performance.
"He took the Sudafed tablets and he knew he was taking them with the intent to enhance his sporting performance," Heaney wrote.
Swan Districts' grounds for appeal include 13 points.
But Heaney's reference to _The West Australian _'s report about Cousins' book on March 2 will provide the most intrigue.
"Legal drugs were part and parcel of a footballer's routine," Cousins wrote in My Life Story.
"Taking caffeine was a way of manufacturing an alert sharp state for a match.
"It wouldn't guarantee you'd play well but it stacked the odds in your favour.
"Then there was Sudafed which was widely used in the AFL. The pseudoephedrine pepped you up for those games when you weren't quite sharp."
Swan Districts will argue that Cousins' comments were never raised in the tribunal and weren't published in _The West Australian _until after the suspension had been announced.
They will also question whether an autobiography can be used as a legal reference.
"We were surprised that the chairman would have used that to reach his decision," Swan Districts football operations manager Phil Smart said.
The club is also arguing that pseudoephedrine is a controlled substance, not a banned drug.
Players are allowed to have 150 micrograms per millilitre in their system but Casserly's A sample had 240.
The club intends to use Russian athlete Anna Alminova's three-month ban last year as a precedent to show the two-year suspension is excessive.
Swan Districts will also argue that Casserly did not perform beyond expectations during the game and he only intended to treat hayfever by taking the drug.
The club wants Casserly's suspension cut to three months, and backdated to October 18.
He hasn't been allowed to train with Swan Districts since testing positive, so that would become his punishment.
But the appeal won't be held in time to revive Casserly's AFL career. He had been training with Richmond, but the club must use their final rookie selection today.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/sport/9011222/cousins-reference-might-help-banned-wafl-player/
-
Just more insight into how the WA legal system locks up innocent people.
-
Drug ban upheld for former Tiger
abc.net.au
Posted June 3, 2011 20:46:00
Former Richmond defender Travis Casserly will remain barred from playing football at any level until the end of 2012 after his appeal against a doping offence was dismissed on Friday.
Casserly, who was on the Tigers' AFL list between 2006-08, was suspended for the 2011 and 2012 seasons after testing positive to restricted substance pseudoephedrine following last year's WAFL grand final win by Swan Districts.
The 24-year-old, who was a chance to regain his spot on Richmond's list earlier this year via the rookie draft before being handed the penalty, challenged the severity of the ban, which was the maximum he could receive.
Casserly argued he had taken two Sudafed tablets during the grand final to merely treat a bout of hay fever.
But the WAFL Appeals Panel dismissed Casserly's appeal, declaring the original decision by WAFL Tribunal Chairman Paul Heaney "was not erroneous or unreasonable given the evidence".
"Under the Australian Football League Anti-Doping Code if a player uses pseudoephedrine there is a mandatory two-year disqualification unless he shows that he did not use it to enhance his performance," the WAFL said in a statement.
"After hearing evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Casserly did not use it to enhance his performance and found that he did. It then imposed the mandatory disqualification of two years."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/03/3235356.htm?site=sport§ion=afl
-
I'd walk away from the game forever after a result like that, talk about being made a scape goat. He's received a ban 8 times longer than any athlete in the world and he was not even competing at the elite level.
Really feel bad for the kid.
-
I'd walk away from the game forever after a result like that, talk about being made a scape goat. He's received a ban 8 times longer than any athlete in the world and he was not even competing at the elite level.
Really feel bad for the kid.
It seems absurd.
-
1) He's not a kid.
2) He could have taken a range of medicines permitted by ASADA to combat his hay fever that don't have conditions of use like psuedoephedrine does and thereby eliminate all risk of "accidental" illegal dosage.
I can't feel sorry for him. He was goofed up to his eyeballs, guilty as charged. It's stuffed that he's been made a scape goat in terms of his penalty but you can't be made into a scape goat if you don't put yourself in that position in the first place.
What's more relevant to RFC is that we could have looked at a much needed ruck prospect along with Keddell and Corrie for that last rookie spot instead of wasting time with this idiot.
-
1) He's not a kid.
2) He could have taken a range of medicines permitted by ASADA to combat his hay fever that don't have conditions of use like psuedoephedrine does and thereby eliminate all risk of "accidental" illegal dosage.
I can't feel sorry for him. He was goofed up to his eyeballs, guilty as charged. It's stuffed that he's been made a scape goat in terms of his penalty but you can't be made into a scape goat if you don't put yourself in that position in the first place.
What's more relevant to RFC is that we could have looked at a much needed ruck prospect along with Keddell and Corrie for that last rookie spot instead of wasting time with this idiot.
1) Well I'm in my 30s so I'd still say 24 is a kid, he still had a chance at an AFL career. In 2 years time and at 26 years of age with two years out of the game he has no chance so the decision has ended any chance of a career in his profession of choice
2) Except for the fact that he had used it throughout his career and notified the authorities. Also I know from personal experience that the new versions of the hayfever/non-psuedoephedrine drugs don't work on me and I have to get the original versions.
Still don't know how anyone can explain how he gets a penalty so severe compared to every other case of this offense in every other sport around the world.
-
I'd walk away from the game forever after a result like that, talk about being made a scape goat. He's received a ban 8 times longer than any athlete in the world and he was not even competing at the elite level.
Really feel bad for the kid.
It seems absurd.
Must be more to it.
-
I'd walk away from the game forever after a result like that, talk about being made a scape goat. He's received a ban 8 times longer than any athlete in the world and he was not even competing at the elite level.
Really feel bad for the kid.
It seems absurd.
Must be more to it.
They obviously suspect he was covering for something else, in which case he probably got off lightly.
-
Pseudo-ephedrine is not a masking agent or diuretic so hardly see how that could be the case
-
I'd walk away from the game forever after a result like that, talk about being made a scape goat. He's received a ban 8 times longer than any athlete in the world and he was not even competing at the elite level.
Really feel bad for the kid.
It seems absurd.
It just seems to me that they didn't believe his reason for taking it, that's why the heavy penalty.
-
It just seems to me that they didn't believe his reason for taking it, that's why the heavy penalty.
Yep. On the face of it the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Must have more info.
-
Casserly takes drug ban to court
By Dale Miller,
The West Australian
June 11, 2011, 10:13 am
Swan Districts will lodge an injunction with the Supreme Court of WA in a desperate bid to allow suspended defender Travis Casserly to play for them this season.
Casserly, 24, is serving a two-year ban after failing a drug test. He was found to have the restricted substance pseudoephedrine in his system after last year's WAFL grand final win over Claremont.
His appeal to have the severity of the ban reduced was dismissed last week by a three-man panel, which upheld the original findings from tribunal chairman Paul Heaney released in February.
Heaney ruled the drug had been taken by Casserly with the intent to enhance sporting performance and applied the maximum ban recommended by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.
The previous longest ban in sports for a positive pseudoephedrine test anywhere in the world had been six months.
Swans president Peter Harvey confirmed the club would contest the ban at the highest level. Legal documents are to be lodged on Monday.
"We are extremely disturbed at the length of the penalty," Harvey said.
Thewest.com.au understands the injunction could be ruled on as early as next week if the club can sufficiently argue an urgent resolution is required in the best interests of Casserly's welfare on grounds such as financial hardship.
If the injunction is granted, Cass- erly would be allowed to play for Swans while the case is played out in the Supreme Court.
Harvey said the club expected the case to take several months.
The original ruling has already ended the premiership player's hopes of reviving his AFL career after he trained with Richmond in the off-season in a bid to get the Tigers' final rookie position.
Swans will appoint new legal counsel to replace lawyer Simon Watters, who handled Casserly's unsuccessful appeal.
The penalty as it stands prevents Casserly from playing or training with any football club and was backdated to October 18 last year.
As part of their earlier appeal lodged with the WA Football Commission, Swan Districts questioned why a reference to thewest.com.au's report on Brownlow medallist Ben Cousins' new book was cited in Heaney's findings.
Cousins' comments were never raised in the tribunal and weren't published until after the suspension had been imposed.
WAFC umpiring general manager Steve Hargrave, who has been representing the commission, said it was the right of the player and the club to explore the option of going to the Supreme Court.
"We believe that the process has been extremely thorough," Hargrave said.
"It's covered every avenue. It's followed a very, very strict process as outlined by the AFL policy, the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) code and our rules and regulations and as such we believe the matter is closed."
Hargrave said the commission could not comment further until it received formal documentation from Swan Districts.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/wafl/9623529/casserly-takes-drug-ban-to-court/
-
"The previous longest ban in sports for a positive pseudoephedrine test anywhere in the world had been six months."
If they think it was used as a masking agent then charge him and prove that case. Otherwise it's 6 months.
-
"The previous longest ban in sports for a positive pseudoephedrine test anywhere in the world had been six months."
If they think it was used as a masking agent then charge him and prove that case. Otherwise it's 6 months.
Pseudoephedrine is a stimulant not a masking agent, so why would they think that was the case? 2 years is the maximum penalty available under the relevant laws and that's what he got, rightly or wrongly. It's up to Casserley to make the case for a reduction or removal of the ban, not the AFL who have proven their case in the appropriate chamber.
-
Geez, with all the drug testing they do you would have to be pretty stiff to get caught out this way, especially when "we" all know a lot of thes dudes LURVE the juice, whatever juice that may be.
How do you think Tasisie won a flag :help
-
"The previous longest ban in sports for a positive pseudoephedrine test anywhere in the world had been six months."
If they think it was used as a masking agent then charge him and prove that case. Otherwise it's 6 months.
Pseudoephedrine is a stimulant not a masking agent, so why would they think that was the case? 2 years is the maximum penalty available under the relevant laws and that's what he got, rightly or wrongly. It's up to Casserley to make the case for a reduction or removal of the ban, not the AFL who have proven their case in the appropriate chamber.
Why do the AFL advocate triple the largest ban ever for this breach?
Didn't you say that there was more to this case?
If there is a basis for this penalty then cut the crap and state it wafl. Orherwise give him the ban he deserves.
-
Why do the AFL advocate triple the largest ban ever for this breach?
Didn't you say that there was more to this case?
If there is a basis for this penalty then cut the crap and state it wafl. Orherwise give him the ban he deserves.
I don't know why he got the full whack HRT, just that the tribunal that gave it to him were obviously not swayed by his testimony that it was taken for the flu. My uneducated guess is that if they thought it was genuinely taken for the flu then he would have copped much less than he did. Without the transcript of proceedings, no-one can say for sure but now that he has been given the ban then all the onus is on Casserley to prove a case for reduction or removal of it. The AFL, WAFL, or even ASADA don't have to do anything else, they don't have to explain or justify anything - the test was legal, the hearing was legal, the ban was legal. You might not like the decision for whatever reason but it was dealt with and handed down in accordance with all the laws and rules in place, and now Casserley is the only person that can change it if he has the grounds to do so. I have a fear (for him) that he doesn't.
-
I don't know why he got the full whack HRT, just that the tribunal that gave it to him were obviously not swayed by his testimony that it was taken for the flu. My uneducated guess is that if they thought it was genuinely taken for the flu then he would have copped much less than he did. Without the transcript of proceedings, no-one can say for sure but now that he has been given the ban then all the onus is on Casserley to prove a case for reduction or removal of it. The AFL, WAFL, or even ASADA don't have to do anything else, they don't have to explain or justify anything - the test was legal, the hearing was legal, the ban was legal. You might not like the decision for whatever reason but it was dealt with and handed down in accordance with all the laws and rules in place, and now Casserley is the only person that can change it if he has the grounds to do so. I have a fear (for him) that he doesn't.
I understand with your sentiment Smokey but the governing authority is deciding someone's profession so they owe him an explanation. As an employer, we have to do it in protecting ones "civil rights". How is this different? Just show cause why the ban is 4 times that of the biggest ban EVER. He deserves that much - surely.
Edited to correct quote
-
He did get an explaination. The judge who handed down the original decision decreed that he deliberately exceeded the dose to gain an advantage in the grand final.
The defense was that he was dehydrated after the game which led to a higher reading then normal.
This is totally plausible. They have just won a premiership so the usual recovery would have gone out the window and they were on the pee.
It took caserly a long time to provide a urine sample. This sample would have been a bright yellow due to the higher concentration of what makes pee yellow, biloids or something like that, so it also makes sense than any other substance would have been in higher than normal concentrations.
What we don't know is on what evidence, if there was any, that the magistrate made the decision it was a deliberate attempt to cheat that would outweigh the defense.
In a legal setting this defense would probably create reasonable doubt, but we are not talking about the judicial system here but something that more resembles a kangaroo court
-
I understand why he was found guilty, what I don't get is the rationale for what would appear to be an incredibly unfair sentence. Judges provide carefully thought through rationale when handing down penalties for all manner of crimes and provide something for people to consider . Why is this penalty 2 years instead of 6 months?
No wonder they want an injunction.
-
Why is this penalty 2 years instead of 6 months?
Or you could ask why were the penalities handed out before this one so lenient?
The maximum penalty for this offence is 2 years with no minimum penalty. It is all dicretionary. For whatever reason he copped the 2 years, the maximum and that is that.