Cass charged with drug offence

[cub]

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

[Penelope]

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.

[Infamy]

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.

[the claw]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Infamy]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Infamy]

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

[WilliamPowell]

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

[Smokey]

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

[tigersalive]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[TigerLand]

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.

[Judge Roughneck]

What a load of poo.

[WilliamPowell]

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?