Mega Thread Anti doping Tribunal Hearings - Verdict to be delivered March 31st, 2pm, Docklands. Closed hearing

[bing181]

ASADA has no hard evidence of a single player being administered with TB4.

a) You don't know that and
b) They don't need it, but in any case, from information that's in the public domain
c) They have it.

re c):

Dank confession
Players statements and consent forms
Injection schedules

Comfortable satisfaction.

(and that's without adding anything from Alavi/Charter or any other documentation and/or evidence/witnesses they may have).

 

[LoungeLizard]

would ASADA be doing the players cases one by one?

 

[becalm]

As the AFLPA said when they saw a summary of the evidence: it's the same ol' stuff.

We know that the ASADA CEO went to SCNs barely 3 weeks after stepping into the job WITHOUT sworn statements (and it's clear now that that was a result of Ministerial interference).

We know that the ASADA investigators and in-house legal counsel had recommended to the previous CEO: No further action.

We now know that there has been doctoring of the evidence, and it's pretty clear now that ASADA never, ever intended to present Charter and Alavi as witnesses.

ASADA has no witnesses.

ASADA has no hard evidence of a single player being administered with TB4.

ASADA did not even make an attempt to use its new found powers to question the one man who knows precisely what was administered to Dank.

I wonder what the bookies odds are on the decision. You seem so sure you should put some of your hard earned on the case being dismissed.

 

[becalm]

would ASADA be doing the players cases one by one?

The Age 15 December 2014 "The players will be prosecuted as one group".
I would imagine they will all have the same penalty unless the case is dismissed.
An individual player may have some evidence for his defense then his penalty may be reduced or dismissed.

 

[nick1408]

would ASADA be doing the players cases one by one?

I think they would have to for two reasons:

a) It's been inferred players will get different ban lengths. I can't see how they could get separate bans if they didn't all face separate charges

and b) I think ASADA's case would be stronger by going through each individual case. They can then outline each player in more detail to enhance their case

 

[nick1408]

As the AFLPA said when they saw a summary of the evidence: it's the same ol' stuff.

We know that the ASADA CEO went to SCNs barely 3 weeks after stepping into the job WITHOUT sworn statements (and it's clear now that that was a result of Ministerial interference).

We know that the ASADA investigators and in-house legal counsel had recommended to the previous CEO: No further action.

We now know that there has been doctoring of the evidence, and it's pretty clear now that ASADA never, ever intended to present Charter and Alavi as witnesses.

ASADA has no witnesses.

ASADA has no hard evidence of a single player being administered with TB4.

ASADA did not even make an attempt to use its new found powers to question the one man who knows precisely what was administered to Dank.

On the bold bit; I don't think they could use tyheir new powers on Dank as they didn't hold them when the investigation started. I feel they could if the case was beaten in court and then re-opened or if beaten now and a new case is opened with new evidence (or possibly an appeal but I don't know if you can introduce new evidence in an appeal or start a new investigation purely for the appeal)

 

[Valleyboy9]

Yes. Have an issue with that?

Yes he does.
He has an issue with anything that suggests for one moment Essendon have done wrong.
BUT he also has issues with ASADA as they can do no right
Simply put...He has got issues.

 

[wowlace]

Why don't these clowns (Dank and co) just fight the charges if they have nothing to hide?

 

[Pie eyed]

The hearing is in private. How would anyone know what has been revealed?

Really?
So...everything....in this thread is nothing but speculation or worse...gossip!!??

 

[Bluesince62]

I wonder what the bookies odds are on the decision. You seem so sure you should put some of your hard earned on the case being dismissed.

Very much so. Come on GG. Ante up, how much cash are you willing to put up on no players being found guilty ?

 

[Gigantor]

Yes he does.
He has an issue with anything that suggests for one moment Essendon have done wrong.
BUT he also has issues with ASADA as they can do no right
Simply put...He has got issues.

As citizens, we should all be far more upset at the manner in which a government investigative body has handled itself than the possibility that a footy club took some mickey mouse roids.

 

[The_Wookie]

As citizens, we should all be far more upset at the manner in which a government investigative body has handled itself than the possibility that a footy club took some mickey mouse roids.

You should post that at BigCitizens.com then. You're on the wrong forum

 

[Gigantor]

You should post that at BigCitizens.com then. You're on the wrong forum

But this government body has done it to an AFL club.

That is precisely why we are interested.

I'd still be concerned if it had happened to a Bocce club, but it's likely my concern would have been a bit more muted.

 

[not_working]

As citizens, we should all be far more upset at the manner in which a government investigative body has handled itself than the possibility that a footy club took some mickey mouse roids.

I believe that you genuinely think that, only two problems with this:
(1) Unlike you, most people are more concerned about clean sport than ideological misgivings about big vs. small government. There will be different definitions of what "clean" sport is - but whatever it is needs to be defined in advance so that there is a level playing field. And there will be different views on how much, or how little, power ASADA should have, and how efficient they are - but that will not change that actual doping infringements need to be pursued (According to the definitions above)
(2) What do you think the outcome is in a radical small government world, where ASADA has no authority over AFL (as a non-olympic, purely Australian sport): my bet would be that AFL would have investigated for 3 months tops, caved into perception issues to "protect the game" (or pots of gold), banned anyone tainted by the saga (including Hird, Dank, Robinson) and moved on. Maybe leaves the sport a bit less clean (fine by you, I guess), but would give Hird/EFC/anyone else impacted, much less room for appeals, legal rights, etc. since this is now just a commercial arrangement and too bad if you don't like it ...

 

[spenze]

Be so glad when this finishes up so we don't have to read delusional posts from people.

Of course, when it is finished I'll be expecting six months of this...

 

[jenny61_99]

Really?
So...everything....in this thread is nothing but speculation or worse...gossip!!??

Do you even know what happens on a public forum?

 

[DinoSoar]

The timing of EFC's application to have legal representation at the tribunal is curious. Not trying to over-analyse the situation, but is it an indicator that things aren't quite going as well as Windy Hill had hoped, seeing as there was quite a stream of leaks on Monday? Surely the time to make such an application would have been at the directions hearings before the case actually started and not once it had got underway?

As I said, a curious little twist given the timing and a little late to be trying to wangle an invitiation to the party after it's already started.

 

[Randomizor]

The timing of EFC's application to have legal representation at the tribunal is curious. Not trying to over-analyse the situation, but is it an indicator that things aren't quite going as well as Windy Hill had hoped, seeing as there was quite a stream of leaks on Monday? Surely the time to make such an application would have been at the directions hearings before the case actually started and not once it had got underway?

As I said, a curious little twist given the timing and a little late to be trying to wangle an invitiation to the party after it's already started.

I think so. Their tune has changed recently too imho.

 

[Gigantor]

a) You don't know that and
b) They don't need it, but in any case, from information that's in the public domain
c) They have it.

re c):

Dank confession
Players statements and consent forms
Injection schedules

Comfortable satisfaction.

(and that's without adding anything from Alavi/Charter or any other documentation and/or evidence/witnesses they may have).

It's pretty obvious that ASADA has no hard evidence of a single player being administered with TB4.

 

[Gigantor]

I believe that you genuinely think that, only two problems with this:
(1) Unlike you, most people are more concerned about clean sport than ideological misgivings about big vs. small government. There will be different definitions of what "clean" sport is - but whatever it is needs to be defined in advance so that there is a level playing field. And there will be different views on how much, or how little, power ASADA should have, and how efficient they are - but that will not change that actual doping infringements need to be pursued (According to the definitions above)
(2) What do you think the outcome is in a radical small government world, where ASADA has no authority over AFL (as a non-olympic, purely Australian sport): my bet would be that AFL would have investigated for 3 months tops, caved into perception issues to "protect the game" (or pots of gold), banned anyone tainted by the saga (including Hird, Dank, Robinson) and moved on. Maybe leaves the sport a bit less clean (fine by you, I guess), but would give Hird/EFC/anyone else impacted, much less room for appeals, legal rights, etc. since this is now just a commercial arrangement and too bad if you don't like it ...

1. It's a matter of opinion whether the possible taking of mickey mouse roids is more important than upholding basic legal protections. It's absolutely crazy that a mass murderer would have more legal rights than a footballer playing a game only played at the arsend of the world.

2. If this is the worst case scenario, it sort of helps underscore my philosophy on this front.

 

[bing181]

It's pretty obvious that ASADA has no hard evidence of a single player being administered with TB4.

Relevance to the case as it stands?

Zero.

 

[Gigantor]

Relevance to the case as it stands?

Zero.

Others might argue that that is not only relevant, it's fundamental to whether the case is successfully prosecuted or not, especially when one considers:

• there are no sworn statements
• only two of five witnesses remain (all of whom had zero direct knowledge of the EFC supplements program, one of whom is there under dubious circumstances
• there are gaps galore in ASADA's so-called circumstantial case.

 

[Randomizor]

Others might argue that that is not only relevant, it's fundamental to whether the case is successfully prosecuted or not, especially when one considers:

• there are no sworn statements
• only two of five witnesses remain (all of whom had zero direct knowledge of the EFC supplements program, one of whom is there under dubious circumstances
• there are gaps galore in ASADA's so-called circumstantial case.

You haven't seen the case so you're just making stuff up. Again. I applaud your imagination, though.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

The timing of EFC's application to have legal representation at the tribunal is curious. Not trying to over-analyse the situation, but is it an indicator that things aren't quite going as well as Windy Hill had hoped, seeing as there was quite a stream of leaks on Monday? Surely the time to make such an application would have been at the directions hearings before the case actually started and not once it had got underway?

As I said, a curious little twist given the timing and a little late to be trying to wangle an invitiation to the party after it's already started.

Maybe and only just maybe, the players have clammed up and are not spilling their guts on the proceedings like the club probably expected them too hence the application to get in on the hearings, just a thought.

 

[Gigantor]

Maybe and only just maybe, the players have clammed up and are not spilling their guts on the proceedings like the club probably expected them too hence the application to get in on the hearings, just a thought.

Clammed up? Or fell asleep through 3 days of tedious opening submissions.