Why WADA Appealed to CASWADA Director General David Howman said the Essendon doping scandal represented a watershed moment for the anti-doping organisation about its pursuit of non-analytical cases.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport on Tuesday overturned the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal’s not guilty verdict and handed 34 past and present Bombers players a backdated two-year ban over the supplements saga that has engulfed the club since 2012.
Howman, speaking to foxsports.com.au from Quebec, said they had no option but to appeal because otherwise the precedent would have forced WADA into changing how it handled similar cases.
“If the Court of Arbitration for Sport said the (original) decision was right then we would be in a very difficult position to prove any non-analytical case — any case that depended on evidence being gathered by investigation,” he said.
“It just would’ve been impossible and we felt that wasn’t the spirit of the (WADA) Code. It wasn’t the way we wanted the Code to be construed and it certainly wasn’t the way it had been construed in the past.
“If we hadn’t appealed we would have accepted the change that wasn’t mandated upon us by our stakeholders.”
AFL Players’ Association chief Paul Marsh expressed surprise at how two tribunals looking at the same evidence could arrive at such wildly opposing verdicts. But Howman said WADA had felt the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal was incorrect in the way it looked at the standard of proof.
“We’ve had experience of many, many cases, including (disgraced sprinter) Tim Montgomery and the BALCO case where the standard of proof was different,” Howman said.
“It’s the standard of proof you’re looking at, not the evidence itself. It’s the way you construe the evidence and say how much is required to get to the situation where a breach of the rules has been made.
“Quite simply, and in a colloquial way, the Court of Arbitration for Sport said it was the ‘strand approach’ — in other words, you get each strand of evidence and line it up to see if it’s a strong enough rope. Rather than the ‘chain approach’, which was adopted by the other tribunal decision where if one chain is not there then whole thing falls over.
“And that’s quite a distinct difference in how you link evidence.”
Howman declined to comment on Essendon’s handling of the supplements saga, other than to say “there are a number of issues that might have been done better,” but revealed that he’d received some unflattering correspondence when asked if he had any sympathy for the players.
“I think the public have that expression (of sympathy),” Howman said. “I certainly have received some messages not of the complimentary style since the decision.
“I don’t think it’s for us to start looking at it from a sentiment view. We have to deal with cases on a daily basis involving athletes from all around the world. Some of whom make wrong decisions, some of whom are misguided, some of whom make major mistakes. And sometimes it’s all inadvertent.
“I think when you read the decision in this case you can form your own view about what the players felt and knew at the time under the program.”
Howman said the punishment meted out sent a very strong message to sporting organisations about the importance of vetting the people who look after the welfare of their athletes.
“Be very, very careful who you hired to administer any programs relating to the health of athletes,” he said. “It’s the entourage that has to be reviewed very specifically.
“It’s not just in AFL. If we look at examples in the cycling world you can see many examples of the entourage being responsible for determining programs that are wrong. You’ve got to be very careful in selecting those individuals.”
Sports scientist Stephen Dank, who was in charge of Essendon’s supplements program in 2011-12 and received a lifetime AFL ban, has said he plans to sue the AFL and ASADA to go along with the 24 legal actions he currently has pending against various media outlets.
Howman said WADA’s revised rules allow for offending entourage members to be punished. But in bad news for Bombers fans, he doesn’t think the CAS ruling represents the end of the matter.
“What we’ve been able to do in the last revision of our rules is to ensure the members of the entourage who might be responsible for leading to such decisions are also subject to the sanction process,” Howman said.
“I think the end of this matter has not yet been reached. I think the individual who introduced the program at the club is appealing some of the issues he was dealt with — and until that’s complete it’s not over.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-verdict-wada-chief-david-howman-explains-why-cas-appeal-was-necessary/news-story/3fc29afc3e4ffb661f909c389b432a08
