ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[Ancient Tiger]

A banned drug with no clinical effect according to studies. Yes the intent was obviously to get an advantage (else why bother) it's just that AOD is nothing more than an expensive placebo.

I wouldn't be so sure. Initial studies with the drug injected showed some promise. Later studies were performed with orally taken AOD and they were negative. There are two other things we don't know. One is that we don't know if it is more active in larger doses (we don't know what dose Dank gave). The other is that we don't know it's effect when stacked with TB4. There may be a synergistic effect with combined with another PED. After all it is still popular in the body building fraternity, so I would imagine it does do something.

 

[Gigantor]

Well, if the media say it, it must be gospel truth, right?

Put it this way, we have someone with no connection to the AFL, let alone EFC, who claims to have full access to this documentation, and who wrote extensively about it with extensive quotes from the documentation (none of which contradicts anything else we have seen in the public domain).

But people would rather believe that doesn't exist at all, rather, that there is some other mystical evidence ASADA must have collected post August 2013?

Each to their own I guess.

 

[Demon in Hell]

So your saying Dank wil be found guilty of injecting EFC players with TB4.

GG, would appreciate if you could answer my question.

Do you believe that Dank will be found guilty, by the tribunal, of injecting EFC players with TB4.

 

[Gigantor]

The support staff member is not contesting the charges.

There are 30 separate charges in total (almost as many as the the total charges faced by the 34 players).

I don't know what the charges are. We know that the first day was spent discussing other clubs and other substances. We have not heard anything more specific after that first day.

I don't know what happens in these circumstances where a charge is not contested, i.e. I'm not sure to what degree the Tribunal delves into a case not being contested.

 

[Demon in Hell]

The support staff member is not contesting the charges.

There are 30 separate charges in total (almost as many as the the total charges faced by the 34 players).

I don't know what the charges are. We know that the first day was spent discussing other clubs and other substances. We have not heard anything more specific after that first day.

I don't know what happens in these circumstances where a charge is not contested, i.e. I'm not sure to what degree the Tribunal delves into a case not being contested.

Is that a yes, Dank will be found guilty, or is it a no, Dank will be found not guilty of injecting EFC players with TB4.

 

[Gigantor]

Is that a yes, Dank will be found guilty, or is it a no, Dank will be found not guilty of injecting EFC players with TB4.

Did you read? I said I don't know what the charges are.

Do you know?

 

[Demon in Hell]

Did you read? I said I don't know what the charges are.

Do you know?

Do you think Dank will be suspended, by the tribunal, for injecting EFC players with TB4.

I'm asking for your opinion, not what the charges are.

 

[Demon in Hell]

And we know the charges are that EFC players are in front of the tribunal for being injected with TB4.

 

[yaco55]

How has the 'federal government' been asked to review a case when it was Justice Downes reviewing it? Am I missing a piece of information that would mean Justice Downes = Federal Government.

So Justice Downes just walked into ASADA and conducted a review of the case - The Justice had nothing better to do ?

 

[yaco55]

My point is was as a former he's not part of the federal court anymore.

Furthermore courts are not part of the federal government, there is a clear separation of powers entrenched in the constitution.

Next it's common in any high profile case (indeed complex cases either high profile or not) to get a second opinion. I very much doubt the size of ASADAs legal team is sufficiently big enough internally to have enough staff to have any that did not work on the case, and if so have the time, to do a review. Even if big enough "lunch room" discussions can prevent this. For this reason I've known of legal firms to hire ex judges or other legal firms to review cases in commercial matters before deciding if to proceed.

Thus need to go external for the review, so who's the best expert in the area that is available? Hmm maybe a retired president of the AAT, the body that hears appeals of the ADRVP, or a retired federal court judge that hears appeals of the AAT.

So why Gary Downes.. An expert in the field who happens to be available, why is he an expert, because of his previous roles...

ASADA already brought in Richard Young from the USA to work on the case. And I imagine that ASADA employed other experts in the investigation. Of course ASADA amd the Government service has enough legal staff - Each Department has a legal team and of course we have an Attorney General's Department. It would be staggering if the Federal Public Service, didn't have enough legal people.

I asked a simple question - Show me the precedent for the Government appointing a Retired Judge to review an ongoing investigation from ASADA ?

 

[yaco55]

They called on government to give the FUNDING to appoint someone to review the case as I recall, very different from what you're suggesting.

So ASADA asked the Federal Government to review the case ? Government Deprtments usually avoid at all costs, anyone appointed by the Government to review a case. Government Departments even hate having a visit from the auditors.

 

[yaco55]

Whatever you do, anyone, do not tell Yaco the bit where ASADA has used private barristers in court and at the tribunal.

I cannot be held responsible for the combined meltdown and brain explosion that my result. Hundreds upon hundreds of posts, one after the other. Thread carpet bombing on an unimaginable scale.

ASADA using private barristers to run a prosecution is completely different to the Federal Government appointing a retired Judge to review a case.

 

[yaco55]

Yes but where the investigators are debating with the legal team and it's of such a high profile nature, calling in an independent reviewer is a smart step.

So you are suggesting that there was dispute between the investigators and the legal team - This won't go down with the HTB ! There is a difference between a fresh set of eyes looking over a case and a retired judge completely reviewing a case ?

 

[yaco55]

Yes it's ok he was part right. No deal agreed to by anyone including ASADA so he was WRONG.

Mclure never stated that a deal had been agreed. McLure said that a potential deal was being discussed. Chip's article verifies that a deal was discussed and rejected, though it didn't have ASADA's imprimatur allegedly.

 

[yaco55]

Deals that earned them a strong rebuke from WADA. mcdevitt was called in. He will not be doing that again.

Do you believe everything that you read. The Cronulla deal would have been ticked off by WADA before it was offered to Cronulla players, otherwise WADA would have come over the top - Your post is implying that WADA is a toothless tiger . Of course WADA talked tough at the time but CHOSE to do nothing - Read between the lines.

 

[The_Wookie]

ASADA already brought in Richard Young from the USA to work on the case. And I imagine that ASADA employed other experts in the investigation. Of course ASADA amd the Government service has enough legal staff - Each Department has a legal team and of course we have an Attorney General's Department. It would be staggering if the Federal Public Service, didn't have enough legal people.

I asked a simple question - Show me the precedent for the Government appointing a Retired Judge to review an ongoing investigation from ASADA ?

Retired Judges are brought back to review things all the time for the Government,. Its far from unprecedented. (Retired Judges are also used by private entities - particularly the CBAs internal review, the ACTU's own reviews, and hell even the AFL). For example Justice Margaret Stone, a former federal court judge was brought in to review ASIOs findings on refugees

Not to mention Royal Commissions, and number of enquries into Government departments and practices.

 

[yaco55]

Perhaps I am missing something but I totally agree with your post; how can Dank be banned unless it can be shown that the players took PED's?

My understanding is that ASADA will go down the trafficking route - Though support staff using PEDS is not committing a breach - I suppose ASADA will find a way seeing that Dank is not contesting charges.

 

[yaco55]

Retired Judges are brought back to review things all the time for the Government,. Its far from unprecedented. (Retired Judges are also used by private entities - particularly the CBAs internal review, the ACTU's own reviews, and hell even the AFL). For example Justice Margaret Stone, a former federal court judge was brought in to review ASIOs findings on refugees

Not to mention Royal Commissions, and number of enquries into Government departments and practices.

But is ASADA strictly part of the Government ? Ultimately ASADA work under the ASADA ACT, and are ultimately answerable to WADA. This is why WADA through Fahey continually made public comments about ASADA's investigation. It wasn't the Federal Government who made any public comments during ASADA's investigation, though I guess they were pulling strings in the background.

Anyway its an interesting discussion point - Is ASADA more answerable to the Federal government or WADA ?

 

[The_Wookie]

But is ASADA strictly part of the Government ? Ultimately ASADA work under the ASADA ACT, and are ultimately answerable to WADA. This is why WADA through Fahey continually made public comments about ASADA's investigation. It wasn't the Federal Government who made any public comments during ASADA's investigation, though I guess they were pulling strings in the background.

Anyway its an interesting discussion point - Is ASADA more answerable to the Federal government or WADA ?

Its not a discussion point at all.

From the ASADA website - About page

About ASADA

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) is a government statutory authority that is Australia's driving force for pure performance in sport

ASADA reports to the Minister for Sport. From its head office in Canberra, ASADA operates under strict corporate governance guidelines and works closely with the Office of Sport within the Department of Health.

It is first and foremost governed by the ASADA Act.

Further in regard to its international and WADA obligations - these are evidently part of Australias responsibility for signing onto the UNESCO conventions

According to ASADAs 2013-14 Annual Report, page 18

ABOUT ASADA

Australia’s anti-doping legislation gives effect to its international obligations under the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport (UNESCO Convention). The UNESCO Convention requires States Parties to implement arrangements that are consistent with the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). The Code provides the framework for the operation of harmonised rules and regulations around the world.

 

[yaco55]

Its not a discussion point at all.

From the ASADA website - About page

About ASADA





It is first and foremost governed by the ASADA Act.

Further in regard to its international and WADA obligations - these are evidently part of Australias responsibility for signing onto the UNESCO conventions

According to ASADAs 2013-14 Annual Report, page 18

That makes sense - So was Fahey overstepping the mark as HEAD of WADA when he complained about interference ( read Government/Sporting Orgainsations ) in the ASADA investigation into Cronulla and Essendon ? By implication Fahey suggested there needed to be a clear separation of powers between ASADA and the Federal Government.

Finally, WADA is in effect funded by Government's worldwide.

 

[The_Wookie]

That makes sense - So was Fahey overstepping the mark as HEAD of WADA when he complained about interference ( read Government/Sporting Orgainsations ) in the ASADA investigation into Cronulla and Essendon ? By implication Fahey suggested there needed to be a clear separation of powers between ASADA and the Federal Government.

Finally, WADA is in effect funded by Government's worldwide.

Probably not, WADA does have a role when it comes to investigations and it sets the principles - not to mention the prohibited list - that Australia signs up to when it comes to anti doping. Fahey is well within his rights to comment, but the Government is well within its rights to dictate to ASADA as well.

 

[Apex Predators]

So Justice Downes just walked into ASADA and conducted a review of the case - The Justice had nothing better to do ?

The 'federal government' is a very imprecise term. ASADA is a statutory agency within the federal government. The federal government is also commonly referred to as the elected representatives, as represented by the party in power. If the question is whether it is unusual for a statutory authority to request that a specialist, such as a retired judge, to do work for it, then the answer is no.

But don't trust me. The below link provides you with access to a range of reports based on enquiries conducted by external people just for the Department of Defence.

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/coi/

The link at the top is for an enquiry headed by a QC, as one example of how legal professionals can be used in this capacity.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Dank goes down.....the players go down

Its the the reason why Dank's case is being heard in conjunction.....ASADA get very good tactical legal advice

 

[MaddAdam]

So ASADA asked the Federal Government to review the case ? Government Deprtments usually avoid at all costs, anyone appointed by the Government to review a case. Government Departments even hate having a visit from the auditors.

No, they asked the Feds for funding to get an independent person in to review the case.

Learns to reading.

 

[Go_Blues!]

The 'federal government' is a very imprecise term. ASADA is a statutory agency within the federal government. The federal government is also commonly referred to as the elected representatives, as represented by the party in power. If the question is whether it is unusual for a statutory authority to request that a specialist, such as a retired judge, to do work for it, then the answer is no.

But don't trust me. The below link provides you with access to a range of reports based on enquiries conducted by external people just for the Department of Defence.

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/coi/

The link at the top is for an enquiry headed by a QC, as one example of how legal professionals can be used in this capacity.

And even then, it just makes sense. If you do not have the internal skills for any particular role, you need to assess if it is a role you want to train existing staff, hire someone new, or bring in a consultant. This happens every day and particularly in government. I do not understand why it could be anything but a good thing that a guy of Justice Downes background be brought in to assist?