Bombers Board and other Bomber officials can see documents provided they sign confidential agreement

[DonsRule]

Since when does the EFC listen to what the AFL have to say?
If I remember correctly before this saga got legs, the EFC/Hird were told not to go down the PED path, you didn't listen then.

I don't think anyone denies the meeting, what was said at the meeting is I think perhaps disputed, especially given when that info was given to ASADA.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I don't think anyone denies the meeting, what was said at the meeting is I think perhaps disputed, especially given when that info was given to ASADA.

Wise words, more people should heed

 

[MaddAdam]

Rodski's 2IC at Essendon, effectively COO.

An amazing rise for someone who, before it all broke, was just a PR flack.

 

[andrewb]

An amazing rise for someone who, before it all broke, was just a PR flack.

He's the CMO.. It's a marketing position.

 

[andrewb]

No the lesson here is don't run a boundary pushing supplements program and give a shady at best non qualified sports scientists who gets his raw compounds from a convicted drug dealer the keys to the club.

I'm glad we agree. You've basically added some floral language to what I said.

 

[I Rock]

I'm glad we agree. You've basically added some floral language to what I said.

Doubtful.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

He's the CMO.. It's a marketing position.

Whichever way you spin it, an odd choice for the "effective 2IC".

 

[Linda Lovelace]

I was actually about to make a post about Rodski's position, then slapped myself in the face for even contemplating giving a sh*t about who the 'effective 2IC' at the Essendon Football Club is.

 

[blackshadow]

An amazing rise for someone who, before it all broke, was just a PR flack.

And a poor one at that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

ASADA did not just sit in on the interviews. The interviews were "principally conducted by ASADA investigators". The AFL man only introduced the interviews. They were ASADA interviews conducted under AFL rules to evade the legal contraints placed on ASADA by the ASADA Act. ASADA admit this in their defence document.

Having said all that, it doesn't tell us anything about illegality....Have to wait till August for that to be actually tested....

 

[Argy]

And what are the consequences? Threaten to registered players etc?

Threaten them with (with the docs supplied to them) of a 4 year ban, would they be accused of not co operating if they refused.

Not totally disagreeing , just that it is far more complex .


And for someone who can't see at least at issue with the ASADA and AFL rep being in the same room asking questions. Or that ' The ASADA CEO could to what ever he wanted literal sense has IMO a poor understanding of law.

Let's get it clear. The players had to answer all the questions the AFL threw at them, regardless of whether they were self-incriminatory or not. If they didn't they knew the consequences.

The argument is not about whether the players had to answer self-incriminating questions, but whether ASADA are allowed to use the self-incriminating answers.

This is what the judges will decide.

 

[Freo2012]

Let's get it clear. The players had to answer all the questions the AFL threw at them, regardless of whether they were self-incriminatory or not. If they didn't they knew the consequences.

The argument is not about whether the players had to answer self-incriminating questions, but whether ASADA are allowed to use the self-incriminating answers.

This is what the judges will decide.

A little more than that - players had legal representation and advice prior to and during the interviews. There is a VERY big question mark as to whether the players had to answer the questions or not - irrespective of it being in their contracts, and their legal representation means they would (should) know whether those terms are actually legally binding or just a "bluff" and thus not legally enforceable term in their contracts.

I would have thought it clearly reasonable for any legal representation to question the legality of those contract terms before and during the interview process - we don't know if any did, and in my opinion if they did not then they willingly chose not to and thus won't succeed in this pursuit now.

 

[DonsRule]

A little more than that - players had legal representation and advice prior to and during the interviews. There is a VERY big question mark as to whether the players had to answer the questions or not - irrespective of it being in their contracts, and their legal representation means they would (should) know whether those terms are actually legally binding or just a "bluff" and thus not legally enforceable term in their contracts.

I would have thought it clearly reasonable for any legal representation to question the legality of those contract terms before and during the interview process - we don't know if any did, and in my opinion if they did not then they willingly chose not to and thus won't succeed in this pursuit now.

Hirds lawyer questioned it, it would appear he is on record in saying it too. Was told something along the lines (according to his writ 'This is an AFL investigation conducted under AFL rules'

As well as the apparent emails between ASADA and Essendon in the lead up to the interviews, which remained (according to Essendon) unanswered until after interviews began. As best I'm told thats unuual for a govt department who are usually quick to resolve such issues.

 

[Freo2012]

Hirds lawyer questioned it, it would appear he is on record in saying it too. Was told something along the lines (according to his writ 'This is an AFL investigation conducted under AFL rules'

As well as the apparent emails between ASADA and Essendon in the lead up to the interviews, which remained (according to Essendon) unanswered until after interviews began. As best I'm told thats unuual for a govt department who are usually quick to resolve such issues.

If their legal representation did question it (the legality of the AFL compulsory disclosure term) in the appropriate time frame it does add weight to their position and would help them to clear the very first hurdle in their claim of being denied. Would love to know what was actually said in relation to this by legal rep's at/before the interviews, and what responses were. The factual details of this should come out during proceedings - I think it does have a large bearing on the first step of the defence by ASADA to the action. Generally you do have to exert your rights at the appropriate time that is reasonable, or at least bring light to them and make known you are reserving your rights under that aspect.

 

[DonsRule]

If their legal representation did question it in the appropriate time frame it does add weight to their position. Would love to know what was actually said in relation to this by legal rep's at/before the interviews, and what responses were. The factual details of this should come out during proceedings - I think it does have a large bearing. Generally you do have to exert your rights at the appropriate time that is reasonable, or at least bring light to them and make known you are reserving your rights under that aspect.

I understand this could be out of context and things missing to make Essendon seem in the right, since it is clearly Pro Essendon but here was a little bit in the negotiations between Essendon and ASADA before interviews.

On March 5, last year, Appudurai wrote to ASADA investigator Aaron Walker seeking to clarify the ground rules for the probe, in which ASADA relied on the coercive powers of the AFL to compel Essendon players and staff to provide documents and answer potentially self-incriminating questions. When Walker failed to respond to the email, Appudurai wrote back three days later with a more urgent tone.

“As you are aware, the response is critical to the resolution of the fundamental issue re the status of the (joint) investigation,’’ he wrote. With no still substantive response from ASADA, he next wrote to ASADA legal services director Darren Mullaly on March 13, questioning the use of the AFL’s coercive powers in an anti-doping probe. “You will appreciate that it is important, given the potential consequences for individuals, that the ground rules are both clear and transparent; likewise for the integrity of ASADA’s investigation,’’ he wrote.

With still no response, Appudurai made a formal request to ASADA chief executive Aurora Andruska on April 4. The email was also sent to Simon Lethlean, the AFL’s deputy legal counsel and a member of Andrew Demetriou’s executive team.

It is understood that Russell Kennedy lawyers did not receive a response from ASADA until last mionth, after all the Essendon staff and many of the players had been interviewed.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...entially-illegal/story-fnca0u4y-1226998041633

 

[Freo2012]

I understand this could be out of context and things missing to make Essendon seem in the right, since it is clearly Pro Essendon but here was a little bit in the negotiations between Essendon and ASADA before interviews.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...entially-illegal/story-fnca0u4y-1226998041633

Does make it interesting. In my opinion the AFL "coercive" powers for disclosure in the individual contracts are not legally binding and any reasonable legal representative would know this. Thus having legal representation is a double edged sword, as if they should know this they should have used this knowledge at the appropriate time before and during the interviews. Thus I believe this is the very first hurdle that EFC and Hird need to pass - if this very first hurdle is not passed the court case will be over within very short time.

Everything above and elsewhere does not show this, it merely shows the EFC camp were actually "wanting others to believe that they believe the AFL terms are enforeceable" and relying on ignoring the legally unenforceability of those AFL clauses on the basis they could use that aspect in the future if things didn't go their way (which has happened). So the first hurdle step is whether those AFL clauses are enforceable under law (I believe they are very clearly not) and I believe the court will rule that because they had legal representation, that legal representation will know they are not enforceable and thus the interviews were conducted under there own free will and no denial of natural justice at the first hurdle, which also means EFC and Hird's cases against ASADA over.

Do you understand what I am saying and my point about having legal representation "being a double edged sword" in this regard?

 

[DonsRule]

Does make it interesting. In my opinion the AFL "coercive" powers for disclosure in the individual contracts are not legally binding and any reasonable legal representative would know this. Thus having legal representation is a double edged sword, as if they should know this they should have used this knowledge at the appropriate time before and during the interviews. Thus I believe this is the very first hurdle that EFC and Hird need to pass - if this very first hurdle is not passed the court case will be over within very short time.

Everything above and elsewhere does not show this, it merely shows the EFC camp were actually "wanting others to believe that they believe the AFL terms are enforeceable" and relying on ignoring the legally unenforceability of those AFL clauses on the basis they could use that aspect in the future if things didn't go their way (which has happened). So the first hurdle step is whether those AFL clauses are enforceable under law (I believe they are very clearly not) and I believe the court will rule that because they had legal representation, that legal representation will know they are not enforceable and thus the interviews were conducted under there own free will and no denial of natural justice at the first hurdle, which also means EFC and Hird's cases against ASADA over.

Do you understand what I am saying and my point about having legal representation "being a double edged sword" in this regard?

Yep. For sure, I can see it both ways. I'm (not to you) just doing my best to explain from people I've talked too what Essendon's case would be based on,

I can see the other side that you had legal representation and yet despite concerns then went ahead with the interviews and held it until the SC. I don't see a clear result for either side at this point.

THe one interesting thing that struck me though was Ben McDevitt said in an interview no one questioned the joint investigation and they all had legal representation.

We have some exchanges between key parties I posted above, plus the claimed conversation in Hirds writ.

I'm curuous a little to where that comment came from Ben, was he briefed and chose it ignore it (I don't think so, too experenced for that)


Had he not had enough time to cover everything in the case and missed that?

Or, have ASADA reps failed to inform or report on that , just a strange claim from Ben when it appears Essendons constantly questioned it. (yet to be proven)

The interview was after Essendon filed their case, so he would have known something like this would come out.

 

[Freo2012]

Yep. For sure, I can see it both ways. I'm (not to you) just doing my best to explain from people I've talked too what Essendon's case would be based on,

I can see the other side that you had legal representation and yet despite concerns then went ahead with the interviews and held it until the SC. I don't see a clear result for either side at this point.

THe one interesting thing that struck me though was Ben McDevitt said in an interview no one questioned the joint investigation and they all had legal representation.

We have some exchanges between key parties I posted above, plus the claimed conversation in Hirds writ.

I'm curuous a little to where that comment game from Ben, was he briefed and chose it ignore it (I don't think so, too experenced for that)


Had he not had enough time to cover everything in the case and missed that?

Or, have ASADA reps failed to inform or report on that , just a strange claim from Ben when it appears Essendons constantly questioned it. (yet to be proven)

The interview was after Essendon filed their case, so he would have known something like this would come out.

Yep, going to be very interesting following the court case - so many "he said she said" that it really is impossible to know until then.

 

[DonsRule]

Yep, going to be very interesting following the court case - so many "he said she said" that it really is impossible to know until then.

I'd imagine one of the reasons Essendon claimed discovery of their briefs and the interviews. If lawyers are on record as questioning it, it would clarift and back up one side. As you said it is a doubled edged sword, but makes one side a little more than he said she said, would be of a lot of value to the judge I'f think

 

[Freo2012]

I'd imagine one of the reasons Essendon claimed discovery of their briefs and the interviews. If lawyers are on record as questioning it, it would clarift and back up one side. As you said it is a doubled edged sword, but makes one side a little more than he said she said, would be of a lot of value to the judge I'f think

I also think this court case may just start to shed some light on some steps that some individuals have taken in trying to potentially cover up this whole issue, steps which may put them in far hotter water than what the penalties are for those initial breaches which ASADA are chasing if they are proven. I have said this in other threads - nb/ I'm not referring to EFC Board or proper employed persons.

 

[DonsRule]

I also think this court case may just start to shed some light on some steps that some individuals have taken in trying to potentially cover up this whole issue, steps which may put them in far hotter water than what the penalties are for those initial breaches which ASADA are chasing if they are proven. I have said this in other threads - nb/ I'm not referring to EFC Board or proper employed persons.

Understand and agree. I

I'm kinda happy for this case that we might discover who tried to manipulate the outcome, too many agendas for me and yeah including Essendon to know what to believe. And who did exactly what.

If Essendon did breach the code, I'm happy for that action to be taken, Hird to vanish etc, I'd prefer that than to see him protected. I just want a more honest view (hopefully) of what went on.

 

[Baldur]

So why dindnt lawyers tell the players and others say nothing. One gets the feeling the idea of the investigation being illegal in efc mind was abiut the time the afl hit them for governance reasons. The horse may have bolted by then.

Where the players given this choice? AFL rules say they must answer. This is the issue.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Understand and agree. I

I'm kinda happy for this case that we might discover who tried to manipulate the outcome, too many agendas for me and yeah including Essendon to know what to believe. And who did exactly what.

If Essendon did breach the code, I'm happy for that action to be taken, Hird to vanish etc, I'd prefer that than to see him protected. I just want a more honest view (hopefully) of what went on.

Refreshing. That's what we all want, and it should have happened 18 months ago.

 

[Baldur]

Baldur again may tell me I am full of it here, I'm happy to accept his views on this.



As I said yes the trial is about the legality of the investigation. So their briefs may be important so IF Essendon win, they'll be able to disect the SCN's validity at the same trial, Middleton could order that be removed, while not dismissing the SCN as a whole (outside a hint to withdraw)

If Essendon win, they'll look at the SCN and claim they are invalid because they contain deemed illegal information Thats not certainty to happen.

But just because the investigation is deemed illegal does not mean what they gathered will be dismissed by Middleton.

Further, ASADA could still lose, issue SCN that are perfectly valid because they relied on no evidence that was gathered during the joint investigationi.


I'd also suggest that having a record of the interviews - an official record as recorded by ASADA may be important. One of Hird's claims is he via his lawyer questioned the legality of the investigation in his interview.

Without that it may be a case of he said she said word vs work, but if it is recorded in an interview, they may questioned ASADA's reps as to why they did nothing (it is their section of law to uphold) They'd possible question ASADA why they did not react.



Even if Essendon and The AFL asked for the joint investigation it is upto ASADA's legal team to decide if it is or nor.

Because it is not following due process.

It's the same in some form to simplify it I admit, the police searching your house, finding something.

Then it goes to trial that the police did not get a warrant to search the house. They'll claim (in the case of Essendon here) they had reason to question Essendon given their intel/own investigation

Than they claim 'well, we could have got the warrant anyway' they probably would have and would have got the same evidence does not make the process right.

Yea

Some of what Essendon seeks is about the process, the agreements between the AFL and ASADA. Also its not enough to show the process was unlawful. Essendon will need to show that the players suffered an injustice due to this unlawfulness. To do this they need to review the evidence obtained. Then the remedy if judge decides to provide one depends on just what portions of the evidence cause the players to suffer an injustice.

They may well have another agenda as well.

 

[Slax]

What the hell is all the fuss about. Signing a confidentiallity agreement over viewing of high private documents involving individuals is standard due to the requirements of the Privacy Act.

Signing the agreement also has a secondary attachment in that it would mean leaking of the information by any Essendon employee or board member would place them in contempt of court. This risks a criminal conviction which would create a strong likelihood that they would receive an ASIC ban on being a director of a company.

Storm in a tea cup.