Certified Legendary Thread 34 Essendon* Players suspended for doping violations - No opposition fans. Check OP for thread rules

[Aphrodite]

What is wrong with that ??? He has the PERFECT body for a male swimmer !!!!!!!

You mean female swimmer!

 

[coryne]

You mean female swimmer!

WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KnobHead]

It takes a special type of mind to understand the law and how lawyers think.

The argument will be that it was wrong on the balance of probabilities (the legal question) to conclude ASADA conducted an independent and impartial investigation. To make that argument it is necessary to refer to the evidence led (i.e. the facts). As I said...special type of logic!

Perhaps another way of looking at the Hird argument is that (a) ASADA did not have the statutory power to conduct the investigation in the fashion it did, (b) for Middleton to determine that argument it was necessary to refer to the evidence led (ie. the facts), and (c) for the Full Court to determine the appeal it is necessary to look to see if Middleton incorrectly applied the law, which may involve some re-visiting of the facts presented to Middleton.

Hird case only dealt with process issues relating to ASADA's conduct, not whether the players breached the anti-doping provisions.

Think it's going to be pretty hard for Hird to win the appeal - the ASADA act is designed for ASADA to work with sporting bodies to control doping, which it did. Think Hird would be on much stronger ground if ASADA had worked with the police, for instance, to gather evidence from the players.

ps - does anyone know if Worksafe has popped into EFC?

 

[BlueHeeler25]

Take this to the HTB and you will get some learned argument against your opinion. That I can guarantee.

I am new here - what is HTB?

You told another poster earlier they had no idea what they were talking about and implied you were the expert on this subject. Feel free to argue back

What I have stated isn't opinion - it is fact. Might take a few years but watch ASADA be reformed.

 

[BlueHeeler25]

I'll pass on your thoughts to my daughter...one more semester and she's finished her law degree

That is fantastic. What uni and what sort of law does she want to practice? Has she got a grad job? Very hard market atm feel sorry for kids today

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Take this to the HTB and you will get some learned argument against your opinion. That I can guarantee.

And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the stuff on the HTB is speculation or uneducated speculation.

 

[mike ockerts]

How could you forget Le Jingyi!

I thought her name was Yay we won, or was it We do ping, I get confused with the two of them.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

BlueHeeler25 HTB=hot topic board...a board dedicated to discussing the ASADA saga.
It's a bit of a nightmare.

 

[HBF]

BlueHeeler25 HTB=hot topic board...a board dedicated to discussing the ASADA saga.
It's a bit of a nightmare.

But absolutely hilarious at the same time.
Every Carlton supporter should really check it out.

 

[Red Bull]

I am new here - what is HTB?

You told another poster earlier they had no idea what they were talking about and implied you were the expert on this subject. Feel free to argue back

What I have stated isn't opinion - it is fact. Might take a few years but watch ASADA be reformed.

HTB is a circle jerk of people that get off jousting over their opinions of the law ...

Me , I'm just a Blues man and i hate essendon's guts !!
The allegations against them come as no surprise to me and i hope it's serious enough to disband the club at some point !!

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

I thought her name was Yay we won, or was it We do ping, I get confused with the two of them.

I thought it was the famous Billy Birmingham athlete Ana Bolic!!

 

[KnobHead]

I am new here - what is HTB?

You told another poster earlier they had no idea what they were talking about and implied you were the expert on this subject. Feel free to argue back

What I have stated isn't opinion - it is fact. Might take a few years but watch ASADA be reformed.

Just google "Bigfooty" and "Asada" and it'll take you there

As can you hear the drums put it, it's all speculation and uneducated guess work, and a full time job for some.

 

[Mezzoculo]

BlueHeeler25 HTB=hot topic board...a board dedicated to discussing the ASADA saga.
It's a bit of a nightmare.

Hot Topic Board? Hahahaha. And here's me thinking its the Holding The Ball board.

 

[Azul]

Hit The Boundary!

 

[BlueHeeler25]

BlueHeeler25 HTB=hot topic board...a board dedicated to discussing the ASADA saga.
It's a bit of a nightmare.

Thanks - will check it out

 

[footyfan1978]

footyfan admits he pays little attention but still stands by his opinion,

Get some comprehension clues.

Simply me stating an opinion without having an interest in discussing long winded speculation in forums on that whole long running story is in no way saying I pay no attention to actual events. My opinion is what it is. How I got that I did not even say. Enough with this dribble from people that think they can know anything about another person simply because I could not be bothered with indulging in endless speculation. A joke to think you can assume so much when I said very little.

 

[Blue Dangerfield]

Ok I will play because this is just totally wrong.

1. ASADA is a statutory body set up under legislation that has been around for decades. They have annual processes where they can request changes to legislation to broaden their powers or to give them more funding. Can you point me to where they have requested wider powers and more funding before this issue arose? No you can't because it never happened.

2. ASADA, an independent statutory body, decided to be complicit in what was essentially a government stunt. The "blackest day in Australian sport" was essentially a media strategy by Jason Clare and Gillard's office to take attention away from Gillard's crazy decision to name an election date and Rudd continually back grounding against her. Despite the fact they had NOT carried out to proper investigation and not followed due process, ASADA officials decided to stand next to Government Ministers at a Press Conference announcing to the world that Australian sport had a drug problem. Remember the heads of all codes there? This was a political stunt and something an independent statutory body should not participate in.

3. ASADA then proceeded to conduct an investigation with the help of the AFL (who should have been one of the party's under investigation) and to allow the AFL to have access to its findings first, and to consent to the AFL taking action against Essendon (kicking them out of the 2013 finals). Perhaps you don't understand what a statutory body is? It is meant to be independent and impartial from ALL interference - government, third party etc. ASADA has shown itself to be the puppet of government.

[sorry to pick parts of your post but I didn't want my reply to be to long and un readable. I don't disagree with the parts I have removed]
It's an interesting view, but one which appears to be very subjective.

The press conference you are referring to was in regards to a report published by the crime commission which dealt with a doping epidemic in Australian sport. While the epidemic at professional level has not been found to be as wide spread as first believed performance and image enhancing drug use in Australia has been found to be at epidemic levels. It was obvious that at such a press conference the head of the national anti doping body should be available for comment as it was in the public interest. Being at the press conference in my opinion does not mean that ASADA was taking sides or being coerced into taking up any agenda at all other than it's own legislated agenda.

Also, the supreme court found that ASADA acted within it's legislated power to conduct it's "own" investigation. It found that;

28 ASADA’s purpose was as I have already described; that is, to investigate possible anti-doping violations. The “harnessing” of the “compulsory powers” of the AFL needs to be put in context. ASADA was not using any power of coercion or compulsion or any power of sanction under the Act or NAD Scheme. Mr Hird and the 34 Players could refuse to produce documents to, and to answer questions put to them by, ASADA or the AFL, but in doing so would breach their contractual obligations with Essendon and the AFL. Whether or not the 34 Players (or even Mr Hird) felt they had no choice to answer questions in front of ASADA and the AFL, is not to the point. The legal consequences of Mr Hird and the 34 Players voluntarily entering into the contractual regime with Essendon and the AFL, and subjecting themselves to the Player Rules and AFL Code, included undertaking certain obligations and relinquishing certain rights. One such right was the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination before the AFL subject to the carve out in r 1.9 of the Player Rules. Similarly, obligations were imposed on Mr Hird and the 34 Players to co-operate with the AFL and ASADA in investigations. There is no suggestion in these proceedings that Mr Hird or any of the 34 Players did not understand the nature of the contractual obligations undertaken, or the rights they were giving up, in return for the right or privilege to play or coach AFL football for Essendon in the AFL competition.

The supreme court also found that ASADA had not breached it's mandate even under the pressure being applied to it by the minister and the AFL.

I do not regard such pressure as giving rise to any dereliction by Ms Andruska in respect of her responsibilities, under the Act or the NAD Scheme.

It's also legislated as part of ASADAs function that;

21 CEO’s functions
(1) The CEO has the following functions:
(j)cooperate with the States and Territories, and with sporting organisations, to carry out initiatives about sports doping and safety matters;

 

[Big Sim]

I am new here - what is HTB?

You told another poster earlier they had no idea what they were talking about and implied you were the expert on this subject. Feel free to argue back

What I have stated isn't opinion - it is fact. Might take a few years but watch ASADA be reformed.

The Hot Topic Board, which has several threads devoted to the Essendon saga and has an enormous array of opinions, some of them well informed, some not, but a great source of food for thought.

A detailed and well argued post like yours would go well there and it would also invite a detailed and well argued rebuttal from someone as informed as yourself, whereas I get my information from the HTB, this thread, and reading most things that come out of the media. That is where you will get a good argument, not from me, but I will enjoy following it.

I did not imply that I am an expert on the subject. Thrawn is a well informed and smart poster who was in my view disrespected by another poster who showed considerable ignorance in doing so. Hence my response.

By the way, be careful making statements like the bolded bit on this site. Your credibility is on the line. And I think if the facts were as clear cut as you believe we would not be where we are in this saga.

 

[Big Sim]

Get some comprehension clues.

Simply me stating an opinion without having an interest in discussing long winded speculation in forums on that whole long running story is in no way saying I pay no attention to actual events. My opinion is what it is. How I got that I did not even say. Enough with this dribble from people that think they can know anything about another person simply because I could not be bothered with indulging in endless speculation. A joke to think you can assume so much when I said very little.

You said enough to warrant my response.

 

[Big Sim]

And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the stuff on the HTB is speculation or uneducated speculation.

No doubt. But no more so than the media, and not all of it. There are some good brains trying to make sense of everything that is known in the public domain about what happened, which is a fair bit. There are also some nut jobs. Quite a few actually.

 

[ESKIE]

The real story is the systematic doping not the court case

This club doped their players with god knows what, they cannot go unpunished

 

[Stig O'Hara]

The real story is the systematic doping not the court case

This club doped their players with god knows what, they cannot go unpunished

The club has already been dealt with.

 

[ESKIE]

I want them dealt with MOAR

 

[Big Sim]

The club has already been dealt with.

For governance, not doping.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

[sorry to pick parts of your post but I didn't want my reply to be to long and un readable. I don't disagree with the parts I have removed]
It's an interesting view, but one which appears to be very subjective.

The press conference you are referring to was in regards to a report published by the crime commission which dealt with a doping epidemic in Australian sport. While the epidemic at professional level has not been found to be as wide spread as first believed performance and image enhancing drug use in Australia has been found to be at epidemic levels. It was obvious that at such a press conference the head of the national anti doping body should be available for comment as it was in the public interest. Being at the press conference in my opinion does not mean that ASADA was taking sides or being coerced into taking up any agenda at all other than it's own legislated agenda.

Also, the supreme court found that ASADA acted within it's legislated power to conduct it's "own" investigation. It found that;

28 ASADA’s purpose was as I have already described; that is, to investigate possible anti-doping violations. The “harnessing” of the “compulsory powers” of the AFL needs to be put in context. ASADA was not using any power of coercion or compulsive on or any power of sanction under the Act or NAD Scheme. Mr Hird and the 34 Players could refuse to produce documents to, and to answer questions put to them by, ASADA or the AFL, but in doing so would breach their contractual obligations with Essendon and the AFL. Whether or not the 34 Players (or even Mr Hird) felt they had no choice to answer questions in front of ASADA and the AFL, is not to the point. The legal consequences of Mr Hird and the 34 Players voluntarily entering into the contractual regime with Essendon and the AFL, and subjecting themselves to the Player Rules and AFL Code, included undertaking certain obligations and relinquishing certain rights. One such right was the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination before the AFL subject to the carve out in r 1.9 of the Player Rules. Similarly, obligations were imposed on Mr Hird and the 34 Players to co-operate with the AFL and ASADA in investigations. There is no suggestion in these proceedings that Mr Hird or any of the 34 Players did not understand the nature of the contractual obligations undertaken, or the rights they were giving up, in return for the right or privilege to play or coach AFL football for Essendon in the AFL competition.

The supreme court also found that ASADA had not breached it's mandate even under the pressure being applied to it by the minister and the AFL.

I do not regard such pressure as giving rise to any dereliction by Ms Andruska in respect of her responsibilities, under the Act or the NAD Scheme.

It's also legislated as part of ASADAs function that;

21 CEO’s functions
(1) The CEO has the following functions:
(j)cooperate with the States and Territories, and with sporting organisations, to carry out initiatives about sports doping and safety matters;

The Federal court decision is not proof of its own accuracy. There are many great legal minds who disagree. Neil Young strongly advised the Essendon board to appeal, he is adamant about his interpretation (and he was once a Fed court judge himself) ... And spare me the "lawyers lining their own pockets" narrative. Who knows if he is right but decisions are overturned all the time...

The reality is that the truth is relatively banal. Hird and Co had their heads so far up their own add that they didn't see the risk in pushing boundaries and didn't see Dank for what he was. The players asked some questions but not enough. Reid expressed concerns but was too beholden to the messiah to really object... ASADA have strong circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun. They also rushed the investigation and ballsed it up a bit. James has a technical legal argument but probably not so crucial as to change things. The players will get a holiday but not get wiped out.

FIN