No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[cymarak]

Found some stuff in the judgement handed down (my bolding) - it's pretty much just the judge repeating what he's been told by ASADA / the Switkowski Report:

460. On the evidence before the Court, the investigation disclosed a strong link between deficient governance and management practices at Essendon and the possibility of Essendon players being involved in anti-doping violations. This can be seen from the Statement of Grounds brought by the AFL against Essendon and Mr Hird, and by reference to the Deeds entered into by Essendon and Mr Hird in the settlement of the disciplinary charges brought against them by the AFL.

461. The Interim Report itself identified a connection between deficient governance and management practices on the part of Essendon personnel and the possibility of players being involved in anti-doping violations. The Interim Report did not (as was contended by Mr Hird and Essendon) dwell extensively on matters of governance. Its focus was the suspected anti-doping violations by Essendon players and personnel.

462. Further, in the Switkowski Report it was concluded that:

… A number of management processes normally associated with good governance failed during this period, and as a result, suspicions and concerns have arisen about the EFC.

In particular, the presence of banned substances on Club premises, rapid diversification into exotic supplements, sharp increase in the frequency of injections, the shift to treatment offsite in alternative medicine clinics, emergency of unfamiliar suppliers, marginalisation of traditional medical staff etc combined to create a disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented within the Club in the period under review.

Compliance rules existed but normal controls during an abnormal period were insufficient to check the behaviours of some people who may have contravened accepted procedures, and the CEO and the board were not informed.

463. Therefore, the poor governance and management practices at Essendon were related to possible anti-doping violations by Essendon players, to the extent that such violations may have been systemic, or may have occurred because proper governance and management practices were not in place. This seems to have been the very situation that existed at Essendon. The disclosure of investigative information to enable the AFL to consider and, if thought appropriate, take disciplinary action against Essendon and its officials in this way was “in connection with” the ASADA investigation.

 

[abers47]

7NewsMelbourne retweeted
Tom Browne ‏@TomBrowne7 5m
Expect @AFLPlayers to put out statement shortly, hosing down any suggestions Essendon players could break ranks and do a deal

 

[Mercurial89]

Jobe doesnt sound to worried....? Doesnt really sound like they are on the verge of taking any deals either.




ESSENDON captain Jobe Watson says the Bombers' unsuccessful court case against the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority was "inconsequential" to the players facing possible suspensions.

Essendon's challenge to the legality of ASADA's investigation into the club's 2011-12 supplements program was dismissed in the Federal Court last Friday.

The ruling means the show-cause notices issued to 34 past and present players still stand.

Young Don's family 'let down' by club

Despite the threat of suspensions hanging over their heads once more, Watson said the court case changed nothing from the players' perspective.

"Obviously it didn't work out they way the club wanted it to. The players were very much separate from that," the 2012 Brownlow medallist said on Monday.

"It was disappointing from the club's perspective, but the players were never really party to that at all, it was totally the club's decision to go ahead with that and unfortunately for them it didn't work out.

"Nothing's changed from the players' perspective. The court case was inconsequential to the players and their situation."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-09-22/nothings-changed-jobe

 

[Halftimehero]

1. Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun 5m
   Players Association and Essendon say Age story this morning about players taking deals is wrong. Who to believe?

 

[Dave]

The fact that no one has brought this up anywhere is absolutely damning.

It's been raised, it just doesn't suit the AFL's narrative, and well accreditation and all that you know.

 

[Tre Bones]

If the court case was inconsequential to the players and their situation then why did we have the court case?

 

[2one2]

Only just noticed that old toad from the top of the hill is back and has said some wonderful things.
1. "Everyone that knows me know I tell the truth"
Except for those half a dozen lies you were flat out sprung saying throughout this
2. "There's a lot of work going on behind closed doors to bring this to an end...Organisations, clubs are always bigger than the individual. You should always put the interests of the whole first and foremost. Let's hope that some common sense prevails."
Is he spouting the "sack James and this will end" line too?!

 

[jmoo wan]

Ok, so the order of events is - in the event that the process keeps rolling forwards - presumably:
1. ASADA decide there's been possible doping
2. ASADA issue show-cause notices (SCNs) to the players.
3. Players respond (if they choose to) to the SCNs.
4. The ADRVP convenes, and decides whether or not to enter the players on the Register Of Findings.
5. If the Players are entered on the Register of Findings, they can appeal to the AAT.
6. The AFL issue infraction notices to the players.
7. AFL tribunal hearings.
8. WADA / etc. appeal, if relevant.

Thanks for this - so as far as the players getting the opportunity to defend the allegations, what happens?

At point 3 they put forward their defense (without seeing any evidence)?
At point 4 It seems like the ADRVP only use the players' response to the SCN as their evidence? The players do not have an opportunity to address the ADRVP to address the specific evidence? This doesn't seem right to me
They can appeal after being put on the R of F but only on procedure.
Then only at point 7, after an infraction notice is given, can the players address the specific evidence leveled at them and at this point it would only be to mitigate a sentence??

So it seems that they only have a chance to address the evidence at the tribunal after an infraction notice is given. * me, no wonder they want the SCNs to be deemed invalid.

 

[JayDon]

"inconsequential""inconsequential""inconsequential"...Just a thought about if our club is cleared of illegal drug use...
THE SLEEPING DRAGON WILL WAKEN!!!

 

[JayDon]

Thanks for this - so as far as the players getting the opportunity to defend the allegations, what happens?

At point 3 they put forward their defense (without seeing any evidence)?
At point 4 It seems like the ADRVP only use the players' response to the SCN as their evidence? The players do not have an opportunity to address the ADRVP to address the specific evidence? This doesn't seem right to me
They can appeal after being put on the R of F but only on procedure.
Then only at point 7, after an infraction notice is given, can the players address the specific evidence leveled at them and at this point it would only be to mitigate a sentence??

So it seems that they only have a chance to address the evidence at the tribunal after an infraction notice is given. **** me, no wonder they want the SCNs to be deemed invalid.

Start feeding to the media to set up a strong stance for EFC!!! Go hard at point #3 from above.

 

[cymarak]

Then only at point 7, after an infraction notice is given, can the players address the specific evidence leveled at them and at this point it would only be to mitigate a sentence??

It would be to try to avoid a suspension altogether (keeping in mind the onus is on ASADA to 'prove' the players guilty, not the players to prove themselves innocent).

 

[jmoo wan]

It would be to try to avoid a suspension altogether (keeping in mind the onus is on ASADA to 'prove' the players guilty, not the players to prove themselves innocent).

so - they have already been given an infraction notice at this point - the ADVRP essentially accepting ASADA's proof and putting them on the ROF. So, they have been "charged", "found guilty", and a penalty recommended (by the ADVRP), then the tribunal convenes to sort out a an appropriate penalty?

They can then try to defend themselves against ASADA's "proof", but the horse has well and truly bolted by this point?

seems arse about to me.

 

[DonsRule]

Tom BrowneVerified account‏@TomBrowne7
Neil Young QC will give advice on likely appeal success by Tuesday / Wednesday. @EssendonFC board will then consider

 

[cymarak]

so - they have already been given an infraction notice at this point - the ADVRP essentially accepting ASADA's proof and putting them on the ROF. So, they have been "charged", "found guilty", and a penalty recommended (by the ADVRP), then the tribunal convenes to sort out a an appropriate penalty?

They can then try to defend themselves against ASADA's "proof", but the horse has well and truly bolted by this point?

They haven't been found guilty in AFL terms as yet, no - only an AFL tribunal can actually find them guilty.

ASADA and the ADRVP both work on the principle that 'a doping offence may have occurred, so let's prosecute' - it's only when it gets to the tribunal stage that compelling proof of doping having occurred is required, and only at this stage that penalties can be handed out.

Of course, whether you believe this depends on how much you trust the AFL tribunal to be independent / competent / unbiased.

 

[bombers21]

1. Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun 5m
   Players Association and Essendon say Age story this morning about players taking deals is wrong. Who to believe?

Maybe getting info from same person that leaked them the Paddy story

 

[2one2]

Tom BrowneVerified account‏@TomBrowne7
Neil Young QC will give advice on likely appeal success by Tuesday / Wednesday. @EssendonFC board will then consider

Neil Young QC can lick the bag.

 

[yodellinhank]

If anyone wants to avoid feeling angry and is tired of this fiasco dont read this article.

You will feel pretty crap after you hear 1. What demetriou says and 2. What a parent is feeling.

Sarah? Know her does he? Hmmm

 

[2one2]

Maybe getting info from same person that leaked them the Paddy story

And classy response from the age:

 

[vast]

A pathetic tit for tat on twitter is the last thing I wanted to read. Having said that Fairfax must be upset that Robbo had a go at them for ruining Hirds reputation on friday.

 

[JayDon]

Maybe when we get to the AFL making decisions we may have some leverage? Interesting. Yes, the AFL look good looking after players who have been to hell and back, and maybe deals are brokered to avert continued legal proceedings. Hmmm. It'll all come out in the end...or will it. Interesting.

 

[cymarak]

Maybe when we get to the AFL making decisions we may have some leverage? Interesting. Yes, the AFL look good looking after players who have been to hell and back, and maybe deals are brokered to avert continued legal proceedings. Hmmm.

The AFL will carefully consider the cases, thoroughly review the evidence and testimony put before it - taking into account the rules laid out in the AFL Anti-Doping Code and the set standards of proof required - before reaching decisions that will be unimpeachable, fair and rigorously defendable.

Or, more likely, it will unofficially decide what is "best for the good of the game", and the cards will magically fall that way at the tribunal.

 

[2one2]

http://m.essendonfc.com.au/news/2014-09-22/aflpa-statement-on-behalf-of-essendon-players

And there.

Simple.

Now let's * up and enjoy the brownlow tonight. C'mon Doise!

 

[JayDon]

http://m.essendonfc.com.au/news/2014-09-22/aflpa-statement-on-behalf-of-essendon-players

And there.

Simple.

Now let's **** up and enjoy the brownlow tonight. C'mon Doise!

Contrary to media reports and speculation, the players remain steadfast in their position that they are not looking to resolve this matter through a ‘deal’ with ASADA.

Players continue to take the view that they have done nothing wrong and despite numerous requests, players have not been provided with any evidence to suggest otherwise.

This matter has already severely disrupted two AFL seasons and taken an enormous toll on the players involved.

As such, the players want this matter to proceed as soon as possible. For this to happen ASADA needs to provide the evidence it has and we call on them to do so urgently.

There has been speculation that Essendon Football Club or James Hird will seek to appeal the decision made by Justice Middleton. That is a matter for them.

GREAT WORK 2ONE2

 

[Matthew_Lloyd]

Thank you, no backroom deals.

 

[cymarak]

You'd think it's pretty simple - if ASADA has compelling evidence, show it to the players, convince them to take a deal, sort this out now.

In the absence of that, I can only assume ASADA doesn't have compelling evidence (unless ASADA's claiming that it can't provide the evidence now for confidentiality reasons or similar).