Saga should be over soon.

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
chelseacarlton said:
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
Click to expand...

although we are now at a stage where it is between ASADA and the players (supported by the PA), and the players are keen to get to the tribunal, but is ASADA?
also, EFC did not appeal, so I'm not sure you can conclude that EFC is keen to get back into court
 
The GG said:
although we are now at a stage where it is between ASADA and the players (supported by the PA), and the players are keen to get to the tribunal, but is ASADA?
also, EFC did not appeal, so I'm not sure you can conclude that EFC is keen to get back into court
Click to expand...
If Asada proceed to the trib,EFC will run to court faster than Bolt.
We 'ALL' know that is their pathetic game.
They tried it,it hasn't worked.
It's funny.
Asada will get there when the correct procedures have been abided by.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

chelseacarlton said:
If Asada proceed to the trib,EFC will run to court faster than Bolt.
We 'ALL' know that is their pathetic game.
They tried it,it hasn't worked.
It's funny.
Asada will get there when the correct procedures have been abided by.
Click to expand...

this is the interesting bit
what are the correct procedures to get to an infraction notice?
from what I can see, under the AFL anti-doping code, the one and only thing ASADA can do to get the AFL to issue infraction notices is get the evidence to them (being a case where there is no AAF)
 
The GG said:
the question is a simple enough one
is ASADA keen to get to the tribunal?
have not the players shown a willingness to get there?
Click to expand...
They are keen to get there when the other steps have taken place before that.
They know EFC will run to court.
The aflpa under instruction have tried to trip Asada up.
It hasn't worked.
tworked lol
 
RegHickeyStand said:
Is ASADA following procedures, which is at the core of this saga? Does this mitigate against any delaying accusations?
Click to expand...

ASADA is following the NAD scheme
although:
1/ the ASADA CEO has opted to not use his discretion to reduce the time period involved in going to the ADRVP
2/ the ASADA CEO could have forwarded the evidence to the AFL for their review months ago, but opted not to, noting that such a review will need to take place before any infraction notices are issued
3/ McDevitt's extraordinary outburst aimed at the PA suggest he is playing a game

all in all, raising suspicions that perhaps ASADA is not really that keen to get to the tribunal
 
chelseacarlton said:
They are keen to get there when the other steps have taken place before that.
They know EFC will run to court.
The aflpa under instruction have tried to trip Asada up.
It hasn't worked.
tworked lol
Click to expand...

why do you say the PA has tried to trip ASADA up?
I would have thought their public comments have been measured compared to the bluster we have heard from McDevitt
 
The GG said:
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.
Click to expand...

16.2 An entry on the Register of Findings by ASADA under the ASADA Act will be recognised by the Tribunal as proof, and without need for further enquiry, that the applicable procedures have been observed.

Also ASADA can also present the case at the hearing according to the NAD and AFL can only present the case if the CEO ASADA approves.

Any comparisons between the process with Cronulla are not relevant as they admitted to the doping which means their process and sanctions differ greatly to Essendon.

Yes the AFL can bring the case to players and then throw it out. But if ASADA's ADRVP find they have a case to answer then it must have a hearing anyway.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Anyone keen to tag me out?.
I have some banal chores to take care of!.
 
The GG said:
ASADA is following the NAD scheme
although:
1/ the ASADA CEO has opted to not use his discretion to reduce the time period involved in going to the ADRVP
2/ the ASADA CEO could have forwarded the evidence to the AFL for their review months ago, but opted not to, noting that such a review will need to take place before any infraction notices are issued
3/ McDevitt's extraordinary outburst aimed at the PA suggest he is playing a game

all in all, raising suspicions that perhaps ASADA is not really that keen to get to the tribunal
Click to expand...
Re 1&2, ASADA have not broken with procedure. So there is no reasonm to think it is delaying.
McDevitt's public reply was prompted by a public request from a AFLPA. You might not agree with it, but there was context .
 
chelseacarlton said:
Was it measured?
It was pathetic and disgraceful!.
Click to expand...

let us look at the exact quotes shall we?

Prendergast, speaking as a representative of the Australian Athletes' Alliance at a Senate inquiry in Canberra into proposed amendments to Australia's anti-doping legislation, criticised what the AAA felt were draconian doping penalties imposed on athletes in team sports.

"If we compare that situation at Essendon to what would happen in another industry – say the construction industry, for example, where construction workers are exposed to asbestos through the lies of their employer – would we be talking about punishing those workers or would we be talking about compensating them?" Prendergast said.​

the first thing to point out is that he was talking as a representative of the AAA, and was talking in the context of changes to doping penalties which he viewed as draconian
are the comments disgraceful?
I guess there are many on this board who have shown a history of being prone to hyperbole
 
pugthemagician said:
16.2 An entry on the Register of Findings by ASADA under the ASADA Act will be recognised by the Tribunal as proof, and without need for further enquiry, that the applicable procedures have been observed.

Also ASADA can also present the case at the hearing according to the NAD and AFL can only present the case if the CEO ASADA approves.

Any comparisons between the process with Cronulla are not relevant as they admitted to the doping which means their process and sanctions differ greatly to Essendon.

Yes the AFL can bring the case to players and then throw it out. But if ASADA's ADRVP find they have a case to answer then it must have a hearing anyway.
Click to expand...

please mate
I have advised many on this board to be careful not to mix up alleged violations which are backed by an AAF and other alleged violations
you are mixing up the two
please go back to the relevant section and read it in its entirety
 
RegHickeyStand said:
Re 1&2, ASADA have not broken with procedure. So there is no reasonm to think it is delaying.
McDevitt's public reply was prompted by a public request from a AFLPA. You might not agree with it, but there was context .
Click to expand...

not necessarily delaying, but certainly in no hurry to make it to the tribunal
why not?
 
The GG said:
the question is a simple enough one
is ASADA keen to get to the tribunal?
have not the players shown a willingness to get there?
Click to expand...

that is fair dinkum naive gigi - how about the ball is in ASADAs court & the opponent wants to call the tune & tough t***ies... to suggest ASADA are delaying is 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' stuff.
 
The GG said:
whether you agree with that asbestos comment or not
it was not a comment aimed at belittling the other party
Click to expand...
No, it was one of the worst comments in this whole affair.
It actually belittled asbestos victims and their families. How can you equate a group of healthy sportsmen consenting to injections they had also agreed to keep confidential, which they shouldn't have, to a group of people that were unknowingly exposed to asbestos that eventually led them to a very ugly death?
If you are truly impartial like you claim to be, you'd have to say these comments were far worse and unprofessional than anything McDevitt has said. They were demeaning to the victims and the families that were left behind. Truly and utterly poor taste.
 
Kwality said:
that is fair dinkum naive gigi - how about the ball is in ASADAs court & the opponent wants to call the tune & tough t***ies... to suggest ASADA are delaying is 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' stuff.
Click to expand...

yes, many have used the "it's just tough" argument
but such a response doesn't suggest that ASADA is actually keen to get it's evidence to the tribunal
 
The GG said:
it has been discussed many times, and there is more or less a consensus on this point, but some continue to argue the toss on it (not sure why)
it says in black and white, "absolute discretion"
furthermore, the Commissioner himself has publicly stated that there will be no more club-based sanctions whatever the outcome
Click to expand...

It also says;
4.7 In recognising ASADA’s charter to conduct its own investigations, the AFL and ASDA agree that:• the AFL will act on ASADA’s findings on such investigations in good faith inaccordance with this Code;
 
RegHickeyStand said:
Re 1&2, ASADA have not broken with procedure. So there is no reasonm to think it is delaying.
McDevitt's public reply was prompted by a public request from a AFLPA. You might not agree with it, but there was context .
Click to expand...

Exactly if the players representatives have stated they wish to not reply to the
SCN's then the CEO refers to the ADRVP which will meet as soon as they
are able to.

If the advice in relation to players reply to the SCN's is in writing the Ben will
refer to ADRVP if not he will await that advice or the 7 days. The AFLPA
big noting themselves by requesting via a CEO public statement will
understandably be smacked down by ASADA for the belated grandstanding it
was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
720
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top