Cass charged with drug offence

[Infamy]

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?

[Smokey]

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'.

[gerkin greg]

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.

[Penelope]

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.

[Infamy]

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

[the claw]

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.

[the claw]

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.

[Smokey]

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."   

[Coach]

Something smells fishy here and it isn't Davey's fingers after a visit to the Dookies

 

[Penelope]

  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  ( ), but given the history of wrongfully committed people in WA I personally have very little faith in the WA legal system.

[the claw]

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."   

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[the claw]

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.

[DCrane]

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. 

[3rogerd]

pinging cass when they are missing the big boys.