Cass charged with drug offence

[Mr Magic]

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.

[The Big Richo]

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.

[Infamy]

Pseudo-ephedrine is not a masking agent or diuretic so hardly see how that could be the case

[Smokey]

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.

[Mr Magic]

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.

[one-eyed]

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/

[Hard Roar Tiger]

"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.

[Smokey]

"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.

[cub]

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 

[Hard Roar Tiger]

"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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Hard Roar Tiger]

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

[Penelope]

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

[yellowandback]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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.