Saga should be over soon.

[Kwality]

I will be proven correct in time. They will stall at any opportunity from herein. Players called their bluff by requesting an expedited tribunal hearing.

Why did the AFLPA play this out thru the press Andy - if they were credible they'd have talked direct to ASADA & found out McDevitt was going overseas, where he is this day.
Marsh trying to manipulate the system given the AFLPA position of influence over the AFL Commission.

 

[Kwality]

They are the equivalent of fundamentalist Christians arguing that Dinosaurs never existed.

"There is no evidence".

fair dinkum ....

 

[Gigantor]

A question for anyone who know a bit more detail about the process.

Is there any requirement on ASADA on how and to whom they present the evidence on the doping allegation?

The AFL convene a special tribunal made up of experts in their field (certainly not the normal boys club members) for the hearing of the case. Does ASADA present the evidence to the Tribunal once it is formed or does it simply email it Gil or whomever and it is their baby from then on?

Logically, I would have thought it would be the former - i.e. that they are required to present the evidence to the Tribunal once the Tribunal is convened. If that is the case then the reports that ASADA refused to send it to the AFL would make perfect sense. Again logically, and from a basis of procedural fairness, it would also make sense not to have the evidence in general circulation prior to the hearing of the case.

Anyone know?

this has been the subject of much discussion over the last 24 hours
I have alerted the community to the fact that only the AFL can issue infraction notices, and if you read the AFL anti-doping code, they do so with zero deference to anything the ADRVP may or may not be doing
in other words, until Dillon reviews the evidence, there will be no infraction notices and that means no tribunal hearing
however, Argy has taken umbrage at this view, arguing the AFL has zero discretion in the matter, and that the AFL is not entitled to see the evidence at the IN stage, but rather will only see it just before the tribunal, despite the fact that it actually falls on the AFL to prosecute the case through the tribunal

 

[Gigantor]

You know what is really sad, the fact that Essendon need to hire people to argue their case on the internet, it must pay well, I'm just spewing I didn't get in on the act, I mean how hard is it, there is even a journo parading around here arguing Essendon's case.

Essendon are not guilty
Players will be cleared
AOD is off the table
It's all Dank's fault
ASADA are a disgrace
ASADA have nothing
The drugs were legal
Standbyhird

And just repeat over and over and over and put my team as Fremantle, GWS or Sydney.

wasn't the bolded true?

 

[Hinkley Power]

They are the equivalent of fundamentalist Christians arguing that Dinosaurs never existed.

"There is no evidence".

to be fair to the literal believers, they don't dispute that dinosaurs existed, they just fit these massive reptiles within the past 6000 years. Tyranonaurus Rex for example was running around when the Pyramids were being built. Just before that big strong guy Noah built thus massive boat to save the brontosaurases and taipan snakes etc.

Be fair Ecoloi mate. You cant just Gallop in here on your high horse making stuff about.

I want to hear what mxupp has to say about this

 

[chelseacarlton]

this has been the subject of much discussion over the last 24 hours
I have alerted the community to the fact that only the AFL can issue infraction notices, and if you read the AFL anti-doping code, they do so with zero deference to anything the ADRVP may or may not be doing
in other words, until Dillon reviews the evidence, there will be no infraction notices and that means no tribunal hearing
however, Argy has taken umbrage at this view, arguing the AFL has zero discretion in the matter, and that the AFL is not entitled to see the evidence at the IN stage, but rather will only see it just before the tribunal, despite the fact that it actually falls on the AFL to prosecute the case through the tribunal

So Asada continue down their virtuous path on the road less litigious.
Who could fault them this course of procedural righteousness.
Not even GG or BC.
The EFC have made this a game of snakes and ladders,and Asada seem to not want to play anymore.
They have chosen their path so just let it go EFC posters.

 

[spackler]

Mate even McDevitt is saying what I'm saying:

"In my opinion, ASADA has compiled a considerable body of evidence. The decision for me was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that a possible anti-doping rule violation had been committed under the National Anti-Doping scheme or AFL anti-doping policy.

"Based on the advice of our legal counsel, including the architect of the code, and a review of the evidence by a former Federal Court judge, I reached the conclusion that these players have a case to answer under the code."

POSSIBLE anti-doping rule violation.
Case to answer.
etc.

He's got enough for a RoF, but not enough for a successful tribunal hearing. And he knows it.

What are the statistics of an athlete receiving a penalty once an infraction notice is issued? I gather the likelihood of a penalty is astonishingly high after issued with an IN?
Seems counter to the idea that ASADA know they dont have the evidence to see this all the way home doesn't it?

 

[threesixpio]

They do have a case to answer.
There is some evidence of a supply chain of TB4 to Dank.
There's just not enough to prove guilt to a tribunal, even when the standard of proof is as low as 'comfortable satisfaction'.

Again with your last paragraph (in this post). Where does he say it? You're allowed to say he doesn't. It won't hurt.

 

[Gigantor]

I posted this link a few days ago to help explain the roadmap of the process.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ndon-supplements-scandal-20141023-11akoy.html

that's a reasonable summary
although this bit is unclear:

Infraction notice

If a player is put on the register of findings and does not challenge or the challenge fails, ASADA will notify the AFL an infraction notice should be issued. At this stage, ASADA can recommend the types of sanctions that are applicable. The AFL, as per its agreement with ASADA, is obligated to issue an infraction notice.

I quote the AFL Anti-doping code:

4 Powers of AFL and ASADA

4.2 ASADA agrees that the AFL retains all functions and powers relating to this Code, including all functions and powers relating to the issuing of an infraction notice….

13 Infaction notice

13.1 As soon as possibile after the AFL General manager – Football operations has received notification from ASADA of an Adverse Analytical Finding or he believes on other grounds that there may have been committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation or a breach of this Code…

in other words, a close reading of the AFL anti-doping code indicates that the AFL is NOT obligated to issue an infraction notice on the advice of ASADA, this is precisely why other newspaper reports have indicated that Dillon would be reviewing the evidence before issuing infraction notices, because that is the agreed process between ASADA and the AFL.

there is also some doubt about this bit in the article:

Provisional suspension
Once the infraction notice is issued, the players are provisionally suspended and the "ban clock" begins. This is less relevant in the off-season.

looking at the AFL anti-doping code, it would appear that the provisional suspensions are entirely voluntary

 

[Gigantor]

So Asada continue down their virtuous path on the road less litigious.
Who could fault them this course of procedural righteousness.
Not even GG or BC.
The EFC have made this a game of snakes and ladders,and Asada seem to not want to play anymore.
They have chosen their path so just let it go EFC posters.

in fairness, McDevitt's inappropriate bluster was directed at the PA, who had nothing to do with the court case
and in any event, it remains the case that over a four month period, ASADA has shown a great reluctance to get the evidence to the AFL, suggesting that they are not too keen to have the evidence tested in the tribunal

 

[Gigantor]

What are the statistics of an athlete receiving a penalty once an infraction notice is issued? I gather the likelihood of a penalty is astonishingly high after issued with an IN?
Seems counter to the idea that ASADA know they dont have the evidence to see this all the way home doesn't it?

people on the forum need to differentiate between infraction notices arising from an AAF, and infraction notices for other matters
within the AFL itself, I'm not really aware of any examples of the latter

 

[eldorado]

ASADA has shown a great reluctance to get the evidence to the AFL, suggesting that they are not too keen to have the evidence tested in the tribunal

Or that they do not trust the AFL to be discreet with sensitive information.

 

[Gigantor]

Or that they do not trust the AFL to be discreet with sensitive information.

and they may well have a good reason for that!
in any event, given the ASADA CEO chose not to exercise his discretion under his own act to move this along within a shorter time frame, we have plenty there which suggests to us that ASADA is not really too keen to get this tested in the tribunal

 

[spackler]

people on the forum need to differentiate between infraction notices arising from an AAF, and infraction notices for other matters
within the AFL itself, I'm not really aware of any examples of the latter

So you're saying this is unprecedented - ie the stats ive seen are not even worthwhile considering?

 

[Gigantor]

So you're saying this is unprecedented - ie the stats ive seen are not even worthwhile considering?

as far as the AFL is concerned, I think that's right
but like you, I too would be very happy to hear of examples
be that from the AFL, or other sports
but I provide this forewarning, the rules surrounding the issuing of infraction notices in the AFL anti-doping code may differ to that of other sports
for instance, I was just looking at the NRL anti-doping rules, and the differences between the two are stark

 

[chelseacarlton]

in fairness, McDevitt's inappropriate bluster was directed at the PA, who had nothing to do with the court case
and in any event, it remains the case that over a four month period, ASADA has shown a great reluctance to get the evidence to the AFL, suggesting that they are not too keen to have the evidence tested in the tribunal

Where was the aflpa when all this cluster was going down?,oh,nowhere,ok cool!.
Apparently the aflpa have also compared the EFC players to the asbestos sufferers,where were they when the players they represent were being exposed to this hazard?,oh,nowhere,ok I see.
They are not reluctant,they just wish to follow procedure in order to protect themselves from a exceedingly litigious adversary!.

 

[Gigantor]

Where was the aflpa when all this cluster was going down?,oh,nowhere,ok cool!.
Apparently the aflpa have also compared the EFC players to the asbestos sufferers,where were they when the players they represent were being exposed to this hazard?,oh,nowhere,ok I see.
They are not reluctant,they just wish to follow procedure in order to protect themselves from a exceedingly litigious adversary!.

I accept this is a valid view of things
except neither the PA or the players have shown a litigious streak to date
so I'm not sure it is fair to label them as an exceedingly litigious adversary
that aside, with the PA keen to get the matter to the tribunal stage where the evidence can finally be tested
McDevitt's response is to question where the PA were in 2012, which hardly is the response of someone who is keen to get to the tribunal, in fact, it seems an unhelpful response all round

 

[Bobby Charlton]

I posted this link a few days ago to help explain the roadmap of the process.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ndon-supplements-scandal-20141023-11akoy.html

There are number of errors in that.

The 34 players have requested an ADRVP decision within seven days.

The players actually requested something quite different. "...requested that ASADA expedite the process by bringing the matter before the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel within seven days."

The AFL, as per its agreement with ASADA, is obligated to issue an infraction notice.

Only true for an AAF. There is no AAF in this case.

Once the infraction notice is issued, the players are provisionally suspended and the "ban clock" begins.

The AFL is not obligated to provisionally suspend for a possible violation.

At any point, ASADA and the players can agree on a deal – as occurred in the Cronulla case in the NRL.

No. Any deal requires the agreement of the AFL. As with the recent NRL case (where it was the NRL which imposed the sanctions) it is the AFL who alone can impose sanctions.

 

[Gigantor]

in case people missed it, earlier today Argy expressed this opinion:

The AFL code does not exist in isolation. An entry on the RoF would signal to the AFL that an ADRV has potentially taken place. It cannot argue otherwise. According to its own code has no discretion but to issue an IN.

Dillon only gets to see the full evidence prior to the tribunal. Not at the IN stage.

while the first bit is debateable, when viewed alongside the exact wording contained withing the AFL anti-doping code, it's the last bit I would like to discuss
Argy says that Dillon would only get to see the full evidence prior to the tribunal, not at the IN stage
but I would say:
1/ given the AFL's responsibility in issuing infraction notices, and the wording of the relevant clause, Dillon would have to review that evidence before giving the go ahead to issue an infraction notice; and
2/ given that it's actually a matter for the AFL to prosecute the case, I can't see how anyone could argue that the AFL can only see the evidence immediately prior to the tribunal
so Argy's view doesn't quite stack up
but the pertinent question is this (and it was touched on by another poster):
if the AFL needs to review the evidence before issuing infraction notices, and if Argy is right that there is no compulsion for ASADA to forward the evidence until the tribunal stage (which in turn is dependent on the issuing of infraction notices), does that not cause a Catch-22 situation?

 

[Gigantor]

There are number of errors in that.
The players actually requested something quite different. "...requested that ASADA expedite the process by bringing the matter before the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel within seven days."
Only true for an AAF. There is no AAF in this case.
The AFL is not obligated to provisionally suspend for a possible violation.
No. Any deal requires the agreement of the AFL. As with the recent NRL case (where it was the NRL which imposed the sanctions) it is the AFL who alone can impose sanctions.

thank goodness there is at least one other person on this board who understands how things work

 

[HoopsAhoy]

in fairness, McDevitt's inappropriate bluster was directed at the PA, who had nothing to do with the court case
and in any event, it remains the case that over a four month period, ASADA has shown a great reluctance to get the evidence to the AFL, suggesting that they are not too keen to have the evidence tested in the tribunal

And why would they bother at this stage? Especially given the 2014 legal challenge by Hird and EFC and all the EFC whining about the interim ASADA report to the AFL last year.

The chance to get this dealt with "in house" and swept under the rug has long flown. Hird and Little made sure of that.

ASADA is not obligated to provide the evidence any sooner than it is legally required to for the relevant stage of the process. It has not gone to the AFL and Dillon because it has to go through the ADVRP and RoF process first. So no point getting your panties in a wad because ASADA won't dance to your tune (prematurely).

 

[Hinkley Power]

thank goodness there is at least one other person on this board who understands how things work

I only read your posts CC and Robbie Carlton's stuff.

Then I summarise it and run it by nxitt's secretary.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Only true for an AAF. There is no AAF in this case.

Is that written somewhere?
It's only because situations where say an AFL player is found to have brought in banned substances usually would mean an automatic infraction notice. There is no AAF in that situation.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I accept this is a valid view of things
except neither the PA or the players have shown a litigious streak to date
so I'm not sure it is fair to label them as an exceedingly litigious adversary
that aside, with the PA keen to get the matter to the tribunal stage where the evidence can finally be tested
McDevitt's response is to question where the PA were in 2012, which hardly is the response of someone who is keen to get to the tribunal, in fact, it seems an unhelpful response all round

But if we skip the key steps in the process the EFC will rush back to court!.
We all know that.
Ben and Asadas legal councel know this and it has/was a pathetic attempt to trip up Asada.
They didn't fall for it.
Jeez whomevers writing the script for the EFC should take a dramatic pay cut!.
They are dumb with a capital b

 

[Gigantor]

Is that written somewhere?
It's only because situations where say an AFL player is found to have brought in banned substances usually would mean an automatic infraction notice. There is no AAT in that situation.

13. INFRACTION NOTICE
13.1 As soon as possible after the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has
received notification from ASADA of an Adverse Analytical Finding or he believes on
other grounds that there may have been committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation or
a breach of this Code (other than as described in Clauses 13.4 and 13.5), he will give
to the Person an infraction notice, together with a copy of this Code, and refer the
matter to the Tribunal for hearing and determination.