Old Feller wrote:
What I'm unclear about in this farrago is whether Aiton has ever had a doping test that's shown he's taken any banned substance.
If he hasn't, surely they have no proof that would stand up in a court of law?
Guilty without trial or even evidence it would seem to me which cannot be equitable?
From what I understand - and excuse any gaps/inaccuracies...
It all comes out of an Australian Crime Commission report into drug use in sport, which identified a guy called Stephen Dank as supplying and administering banned peptides at Cronulla and an AFL team (Essendon I think) in 2011.
The evidence Dank gave the ACC is inadmissible in court, as it was obtained under threat of a jail term if he refused to comply and he has to date refused to co-operate with either the ASADA or NRL.
Hence the players involved being given the option of taking a back-dated ban (which in real terms amounts to three games) in return for an admission of guilt despite never having failed a test.
If a player did decide to take it to court, then AFAIK ASADA would have to show that they have evidence of a banned substance being administered, obtained from somewhere other than Dank's evidence to the ACC. Have they got it? Who knows, but if the alternative is a two-year ban I'd be willing to take a punt that they haven't and litigate.