Would it kill people to add an 'I think' at the start of sentences when appropriate? Honestly, you would think half the BF community were present in every EFC or ASADA meeting, handed Dank the needles or tapped half the phones in Melbourne!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EFAI think that I KNOW James Hird is a dunderhead.
[sorry to pick parts of your post but I didn't want my reply to be to long and un readable. I don't disagree with the parts I have removed]
It's an interesting view, but one which appears to be very subjective.
The press conference you are referring to was in regards to a report published by the crime commission which dealt with a doping epidemic in Australian sport. While the epidemic at professional level has not been found to be as wide spread as first believed performance and image enhancing drug use in Australia has been found to be at epidemic levels. It was obvious that at such a press conference the head of the national anti doping body should be available for comment as it was in the public interest. Being at the press conference in my opinion does not mean that ASADA was taking sides or being coerced into taking up any agenda at all other than it's own legislated agenda.
Also, the supreme court found that ASADA acted within it's legislated power to conduct it's "own" investigation. It found that;
28 ASADA’s purpose was as I have already described; that is, to investigate possible anti-doping violations. The “harnessing” of the “compulsory powers” of the AFL needs to be put in context. ASADA was not using any power of coercion or compulsion or any power of sanction under the Act or NAD Scheme. Mr Hird and the 34 Players could refuse to produce documents to, and to answer questions put to them by, ASADA or the AFL, but in doing so would breach their contractual obligations with Essendon and the AFL. Whether or not the 34 Players (or even Mr Hird) felt they had no choice to answer questions in front of ASADA and the AFL, is not to the point. The legal consequences of Mr Hird and the 34 Players voluntarily entering into the contractual regime with Essendon and the AFL, and subjecting themselves to the Player Rules and AFL Code, included undertaking certain obligations and relinquishing certain rights. One such right was the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination before the AFL subject to the carve out in r 1.9 of the Player Rules. Similarly, obligations were imposed on Mr Hird and the 34 Players to co-operate with the AFL and ASADA in investigations. There is no suggestion in these proceedings that Mr Hird or any of the 34 Players did not understand the nature of the contractual obligations undertaken, or the rights they were giving up, in return for the right or privilege to play or coach AFL football for Essendon in the AFL competition.
The supreme court also found that ASADA had not breached it's mandate even under the pressure being applied to it by the minister and the AFL.
I do not regard such pressure as giving rise to any dereliction by Ms Andruska in respect of her responsibilities, under the Act or the NAD Scheme.
It's also legislated as part of ASADAs function that;
21 CEO’s functions
(1) The CEO has the following functions:
(j)cooperate with the States and Territories, and with sporting organisations, to carry out initiatives about sports doping and safety matters;
The Hot Topic Board, which has several threads devoted to the Essendon saga and has an enormous array of opinions, some of them well informed, some not, but a great source of food for thought.
A detailed and well argued post like yours would go well there and it would also invite a detailed and well argued rebuttal from someone as informed as yourself, whereas I get my information from the HTB, this thread, and reading most things that come out of the media. That is where you will get a good argument, not from me, but I will enjoy following it.
I did not imply that I am an expert on the subject. Thrawn is a well informed and smart poster who was in my view disrespected by another poster who showed considerable ignorance in doing so. Hence my response.
By the way, be careful making statements like the bolded bit on this site. Your credibility is on the line. And I think if the facts were as clear cut as you believe we would not be where we are in this saga.
Public confidence was breached when ASADA was present, particularly given the emotive words used by the then Labor Government.
You can tell me I have no idea if I have no idea mate, no problems. This is social media.Unlike you, who tells other posters they have no idea, I won't ever say that about someone.
As for my credibility being on the line - happy for it to be so. Isn't it every time anyone posts something? I only ever post on things I know something about. Law I know a hell of a lot about. Economics/politics/tennis you also can't shut me up.
Motor vehicles, anything to do with a trade, anything outdoors or scary (e.g. rock climbing) I would be the dumbest person on this forum and would just STFU. Oh and Art, drama, ballet etc - snore.
ASADA, an independent statutory body, decided to be complicit in what was essentially a government stunt. The "blackest day in Australian sport" was essentially a media strategy by Jason Clare and Gillard's office to take attention away from Gillard's crazy decision to name an election date and Rudd continually back grounding against her. Despite the fact they had NOT carried out to proper investigation and not followed due process, ASADA officials decided to stand next to Government Ministers at a Press Conference announcing to the world that Australian sport had a drug problem. Remember the heads of all codes there? This was a political stunt and something an independent statutory body should not participate in.
Can you think of a blacker day than the one that announced the investigation into an entire squad of elite players of our indigenous game being systematically doped? An investigation that has led to 34 infraction notices and had a huge impact on the sport?Agree.
Richard Ings grandstanding.
"Blackest day in Australian Sport", what a load of bullshit.
Jason Clare (Minister/Shadow Minister for everything) and Kat Lundy were out for Brownie points.
Can you think of a blacker day than the one that announced the investigation into an entire squad of elite players of our indigenous game being systematically doped? An investigation that has led to 34 infraction notices and had a huge impact on the sport?
A million times this.But in these days of miracle and wonder no-one has collective memory. If an auto-cue reader says 'worst ever' with a stern face, no-one questions it or bothers to go and look it up.
A million times this.
Every day it's "Shocking" this, or "Horrible" that. Five things you must know about underwater basket weaving. Something-something-something sex.
**** off. Don't sell me drama, tell me the ******* news arseclown.
Yes but the report was not published by ASADA - a body that is meant to be independent from all outside influences. On that basis I do not believe it is appropriate for it to participate in press conferences relating to government or matters relating to other bodies/commissions. The public interest dictates that ASADA not just be, but also be seen to be independent. Public confidence was breached when ASADA was present, particularly given the emotive words used by the then Labor Government. Add to that we then had officials from ASADA providing media commentary in coming months and you can see why people criticise them.
You have quoted the judges findings in the initial decision - my contention is he got it wrong and it will be over turned. Maybe not at the Court of Appeal but if it goes to the High Court I believe it will be. The power in section 21 I believe will be read to be limited by the overarching purpose of ASADA to be independent, such that the CEO must cooperate and work with govt/sporting organisations etc in relation to initiatives (e.g. awareness campaigns, testing, policies etc) BUT when it comes to investigations and enforcement the need for independence means it must act by itself.
P.S. Something is happening in a middle-eastern country but we don't really know what it is, so here is some file footage of terrorist looking people and a few shots of an angry crowd.There's this thing called summer that could cause record bushfires.
Coming up next, a Royal with a baby bump..........and a cute animal playing a piano.
Don't bother thinking, commercial news will do it for you.
Also watch out for that monster Putin, and those monstrous North Koreans.There's this thing called summer that could cause record bushfires.
Coming up next, a Royal with a baby bump..........and a cute animal playing a piano.
Don't bother thinking, commercial news will do it for you.
"If an Essendon player injects a substance, and no-one is around to see it, does it enhance his performance?"
- Confucius, 600BC
Good nutshell.The Federal court decision is not proof of its own accuracy. There are many great legal minds who disagree. Neil Young strongly advised the Essendon board to appeal, he is adamant about his interpretation (and he was once a Fed court judge himself) ... And spare me the "lawyers lining their own pockets" narrative. Who knows if he is right but decisions are overturned all the time...
The reality is that the truth is relatively banal. Hird and Co had their heads so far up their own add that they didn't see the risk in pushing boundaries and didn't see Dank for what he was. The players asked some questions but not enough. Reid expressed concerns but was too beholden to the messiah to really object... ASADA have strong circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun. They also rushed the investigation and ballsed it up a bit. James has a technical legal argument but probably not so crucial as to change things. The players will get a holiday but not get wiped out.
FIN
That's all fair commentary IMHO, but the thing is that Essendon (the club) has been punished for exactly that already.- Players admit to being injected with something...
- Club admits players injected...
ASADA and WADA dictate that every injection/supplement etc must be documented accordingly specifying time/date player provided to etc etc.. fail to comply and provide proof evidence of such documentation is a breach...
In the law of the land "Ignorance is no excuse!" (and probably true in the eyes of ASADA/WADA) and as such funny if a court would find such ignorance acceptable...
Again from the "Ignorance is no excuse" point of view"... unless the players can provide evidence of complete and proper attempts to verify what they were given was Kosher... then they deserve some form of punishment.. if believed they were duped sure a lighter punishment is acceptable.. getting off scott free is not.
If proven guilty as long as Hird and Dank get the full brunt of any punishment (at least 2 years!) then I'll be satisfied.
SEN today saying the worst case scenario is Bombers miss 8 weeks.
Do they just pull numbers out of the air?! We have the worst excuse for football analysts and media personalities.