Saga should be over soon.

[compact72]

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 33s33 seconds ago
. @auskadi @The_Red_Sash I note that the AFL tribunal will reportedly hear the matters within 7 days. Not 18 months as some suggest

Reportedly.

However, I'm not sure if the ADVRP still take a look on the evidence (as that is the process)

 

[compact72]

Yeah actually it is probable, that's the point.

Here you go friend - http://www.applyesl.com/navi/step/article.asp?tid=03010

There is no confirmation that its likely to happen or going to be the case

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So based on this statement, if the players get off ASADA will appeal and then they will have to prove a possible violation.

I'm interested as to why you think ASADA would appeal if the players got off? I mean, they might, the mechanism is there, but what error of law are you suggesting will be applied?

 

[fabulousphil]

- the players remain steadfast in their belief they have done nothing wrong;
- the players have cooperated fully throughout the entire process;
- the evidence should have been provided when the show cause notices were originally issued in June; and
- the unnecessary delays that the players have had to endure that are in no part attributable to them, without there being any finality to this saga.
This process has already taken up 21 months – about half the average AFL player’s career. The prospect that players would have to endure a third season with these proceeding hanging over their head is simply unacceptable.
The players want this matter resolved quickly and fairly. It is time to bring this matter to an end.


No, no, no, the players have not co-operated, only Cronulla did.

No, no, no , the evidence should not have been supplied with the SCN's only at Cronulla should this have happened.

No, no, no , ASADA was simply crossing T's and dotting some other stuff, not sitting on their hands wasting time.

No, no, no, 34 players together with Hird all colluded in a drug crack house at Windy Hill and yet still no-one has cracked and dobbed in their mates after 2 years ....... they must have very strong constitutions at Windy Hill.

 

[Astro Bomber]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

There is no confirmation that its likely to happen or going to be the case

maybe stop sooking about semantics and trying to derail the thread, and discuss the actual topic?

 

[TheEnsign]

EFC Supporters - Not trolling, promise - let's say the evidence is weak and the tribunal declines to impose a sanction (or exonerates the players or whatever). Will this make Little's position untenable given the $$$ thrown at the unsuccessful, and (if the theory re evidence is borne out) ultimately redundant court challenge?

Also, asking for a hearing in 7 days (from today) is IMO unreasonable and not going to happen. I'm pretty sure ASADA will wait the full 10 days (ten working days would be my guess) specified in the SCNs in any case, since there's been a fair bit of scrutiny of 'natural justice' issues in this saga so far.

 

[compact72]

Chris Kaias ‏@ChrisKaias 6m6 minutes ago
@ringsau Indeed, but ADRVP will still have to fulfil their duties and consider/deliberate and no guarantee they'll sit within a week

Chris Kaias ‏@ChrisKaias 2m2 minutes ago
@arwon @ringsau the AFL GM does have the power to issue infractions separately, like the NRL did in Earl case. Won't though.

 

[compact72]

maybe stop sooking about semantics and trying to derail the thread, and discuss the actual topic?

But the topic is misleading? How can we talk about the topic, when it doesn't even relate to the opening post

 

[rdhopkins2]

Can't see this being over quickly to be honest. If the AFL tribunal findings don't uphold the Bomber's view that Essendon are innocent, no doubt we'll see the Bombers take the matter further.

If Essendon are found not guilty, ASADA aren't likely to give in either.

The dust fight will continue either way.

 

[Taylor]

Good move by the players.

I'm interested as to why you think ASADA would appeal if the players got off? I mean, they might, the mechanism is there, but what error of law are you suggesting will be applied?

I would imagine it would boil down to a reasonable assumption of comfortable satisfaction, which sounds like a very romantic night in. If ASADA felt that the AFL tribunal had intentionally biased itself and appealed on that ground there would be far too much fall out, assuming I have the process correct.

 

[Damon_3388]

Everyone is just biding their time.

 

[Taylor]

I appreciate the irony of discussing semantics of the wording instead of the topic in a thread about Essendon after they appealed the process investigating them.

 

[fishardansin]

EFC Supporters - Not trolling, promise - let's say the evidence is weak and the tribunal declines to impose a sanction (or exonerates the players or whatever). Will this make Little's position untenable given the $$$ thrown at the unsuccessful, and (if the theory re evidence is borne out) ultimately redundant court challenge?

Also, asking for a hearing in 7 days (from today) is IMO unreasonable and not going to happen. I'm pretty sure ASADA will wait the full 10 days (ten working days would be my guess) specified in the SCNs in any case, since there's been a fair bit of scrutiny of 'natural justice' issues in this saga so far.

I'm glad he did because players would have to be dealing with this during the season. Court case delayed this to after the season. It also highlighted the corruption, by Gil in particular, involved in writing that interim report. Also players were intimidated by SCNs when there was no evidence given because they didn't know what they were facing. Club saw most of the evidence from discovery orders ... and as a result players were given evidence as part of new SCNs.

Money well spent.

Hird is appealing because he's looking for a stick to go to town on some people with.

 

[TheEnsign]

I'm glad he did because players would have to be dealing with this during the season. Court case delayed this to after the season. It also highlighted the corruption, by Gil in particular, involved in writing that interim report. Also players were intimidated by SCNs when there was no evidence given because they didn't know what they were facing. Club saw most of the evidence from discovery orders ... and as a result players were given evidence as part of new SCNs.

Money well spent.

Hird is appealing because he's looking for a stick to go to town on some people with.

Fair enough, thanks.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Good move by the players.



I would imagine it would boil down to a reasonable assumption of comfortable satisfaction, which sounds like a very romantic night in. If ASADA felt that the AFL tribunal had intentionally biased itself and appealed on that ground there would be far too much fall out, assuming I have the process correct.

the AFL tribunal biased itself? I see no reason why that would be assumed. They have a process to follow, they can't afford to do that, in either direction.

Worth remembering ASADA appealed Saad, and got sent packing

 

[Windhover]

Hopefully immediately put into a register of finding and then straight to the tribunal.

I have heard that one player will go first and it'll be shown that even if there is a circumstantial case that TB4 was at Essendon that is very different to showing that this individual was given TB4 ... when there was less than 34 doses ever at the club .... if circumstantial case against those 26 vials holds up .... despite the only witness who could put them there never being interviewed and the person who gave them to him saying he doesn't know where they went.

Then the other 33 will go as a group case and all get off on the same principle.

It would make sense for ASADA to proceed first against what it believes is its strongest case. That way, if the panel is not satisfied the charge is made out to the requisite standard of proof, all the other cases can probably then be withdrawn. If the panel is satisfied the charge is made out then each of the other 33 cases will see that the circumstantial evidence, at least in the strongest case, has satisfied the panel and each remaining player can reconsider their position to contest and thus avoid 34 hearings.

I am very surprised FRD that you think ASADA think there is only evidence for less than 34 doses of TB4. Knowing you would not make a claim without basis am I to assume you have access to ASADA's brief of evidence?

 

[go_the_dockers]

I'm interested as to why you think ASADA would appeal if the players got off? I mean, they might, the mechanism is there, but what error of law are you suggesting will be applied?

At the AFL tribunal the AFL must prove the players were administered the prohibited substance, while ASADA\WADA only have to prove the possibility of a violation. I would think ASADA would appeal if the AFL can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the players were injected with a prohibited substance but ASADA can show the possibility of a violation.

Not a lawyer, but this is how a interrupted the below statement and how the event could unfold espeically with ASADA\WADA appealing the Saad case as well as another case with a VFL player.

<<<
It is important to note that the onus of proving the allegations against the players that they were administered the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4, rests with the AFL. While ASADA is only required to demonstrate to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel a ‘possibility’ of a violation, the much higher standard proof of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ is required to be proved by the AFL at the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.
>>>>

 

[Bunk Moreland]

EFC Supporters - Not trolling, promise - let's say the evidence is weak and the tribunal declines to impose a sanction (or exonerates the players or whatever). Will this make Little's position untenable given the $$$ thrown at the unsuccessful, and (if the theory re evidence is borne out) ultimately redundant court challenge?

Also, asking for a hearing in 7 days (from today) is IMO unreasonable and not going to happen. I'm pretty sure ASADA will wait the full 10 days (ten working days would be my guess) specified in the SCNs in any case, since there's been a fair bit of scrutiny of 'natural justice' issues in this saga so far.

I'm ok with it as it was the only shot the club had to fire on the players behalf and they fired it. Fair enough. It missed by a kilometre.

An appeal on the other hand would have been completely ridiculous, and is in Hird's case (based on the "reasons" he communicated).

 

[Argy]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

You mean the guys who Hird and Dank used to supply the drugs?

 

[womack]

Asadas key witnesses are a convicted drug dealer and a dodgy pharmacist.

I love this angle. Apparently you can't be a credible witness if you have been convicted of a crime. Better throw open the doors of Barwon Prison and let out all the blokes who have been put behind bars on the testimony of fellow crims!!!

Ps he is also a bio-chemist. But you and your mates keep high fiving with each other that he has been convicted of a crime in the past = can't be credible.

 

[simoro1]

EFC Supporters - Not trolling, promise - let's say the evidence is weak and the tribunal declines to impose a sanction (or exonerates the players or whatever). Will this make Little's position untenable given the $$$ thrown at the unsuccessful, and (if the theory re evidence is borne out) ultimately redundant court challenge?

Also, asking for a hearing in 7 days (from today) is IMO unreasonable and not going to happen. I'm pretty sure ASADA will wait the full 10 days (ten working days would be my guess) specified in the SCNs in any case, since there's been a fair bit of scrutiny of 'natural justice' issues in this saga so far.

If he thought the trial was a waste of money in hindsite, he might "donate" the amount we spend on legal fees and whatnot to the club. After all, it would be pocket change to him.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

At the AFL tribunal the AFL must prove the players were administered the prohibited substance, while ASADA\WADA only have to prove the possibility of a violation. I would think ASADA would appeal if the AFL can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the players were injected with a prohibited substance but ASADA can show the possibility of a violation.

Not a lawyer, but this is how a interrupted the below statement and how the event could unfold espeically with ASADA\WADA appealing the Saad case as well as another case with a VFL player.

<<<
It is important to note that the onus of proving the allegations against the players that they were administered the prohibited substance Thymosin Beta 4, rests with the AFL. While ASADA is only required to demonstrate to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel a ‘possibility’ of a violation, the much higher standard proof of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ is required to be proved by the AFL at the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.
>>>>

dude sorry, there's quite a lot wrong with that.

ASADA/WADA don't "only have to prove the possibility", that is only for the SCN and infraction stage. Once it hits the tribunal the AFL and ASADA must prove to a high level, not reasonable doubt but a high level nonetheless, that a specific player took a specific substance. If the tribunal doesn't find that then ASADA/WADA can appeal, but only on points of law

 

[fishardansin]

I love this angle. Apparently you can't be a credible witness if you have been convicted of a crime. Better throw open the doors of Barwon Prison and let out all the blokes who have been put behind bars on the testimony of fellow crims!!!

Ps he is also a bio-chemist. But you and your mates keep high fiving with each other that he has been convicted of a crime in the past = can't be credible.

I think it is more the case that Dank, Hird, Reid and others are saying that doping didn't occur and there is a convicted crim on the other side. Especially when you look at what his evidence is. All his supplies to Dank could easily have been for his personal business.

 

[B0SK]

Nope, the matter won't end until the players sue the club. Which, incidentally, is what I'm looking forward to the most.