ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

Nov 14, 2012
12,128
19,531
AFL Club
Carlton
But is ASADA strictly part of the Government ? Ultimately ASADA work under the ASADA ACT, and are ultimately answerable to WADA. This is why WADA through Fahey continually made public comments about ASADA's investigation. It wasn't the Federal Government who made any public comments during ASADA's investigation, though I guess they were pulling strings in the background.

Anyway its an interesting discussion point - Is ASADA more answerable to the Federal government or WADA ?

It's a statutory authority.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
And even then, it just makes sense. If you do not have the internal skills for any particular role, you need to assess if it is a role you want to train existing staff, hire someone new, or bring in a consultant. This happens every day and particularly in government. I do not understand why it could be anything but a good thing that a guy of Justice Downes background be brought in to assist?
Because Yacco likes to paint Asada as a bumbling Inspector Clouseau type organisation.
Yet when they seek outside experts to better help inform their decisions,Yacco again hopes to sway the view that this underfunded anti doping organisation is a bumbling fumbling mess and that this is proof of it.
So this is Yacco's modus operandi.
Asada are dumb cause they to outsourced legal expertise.
Asada got outsourced legal expertise proving my first point.
In other words he has no point!.
 

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
And even then, it just makes sense. If you do not have the internal skills for any particular role, you need to assess if it is a role you want to train existing staff, hire someone new, or bring in a consultant. This happens every day and particularly in government. I do not understand why it could be anything but a good thing that a guy of Justice Downes background be brought in to assist?

Agree how is this a bad thing?

Im can't see what Yaco55 is on about. ASADA was in the process of launching cases against at least 52 people (34 AFL, 17 NRL and Dank), biggest doping case in history of ASADA, if not world wide. Why wouldn't you bring in someone external to review the file with a fresh pair of eyes once the investigation was finished? They brought in Richard Young from the U.S. to help advise on the investigation so he's not independant at the final revew stage.
IF Downes recommend against the case proceeding doubt it would have. Sure it cost them something, doubt though the cost of Downes is anything like the cost of the lawyers that have been spent on all sides since.
Use lawyers from another goverment department? How many goverment department have lawyers with experince in going through evidence? Generally government lawyers are policy, legislative types without experience in this area. Prosecutors may have, but with the criminal court backlogs doubt they have the time, what be the backlash if criminal cases were delayed further to not having staff available to prosecute. Even if they were available why would you use them with Gary Downes available, as others have noted the use of retired judges for things like this.
As for Yaco55 asking for another case where ASADA used a retired judge, I ask him to show me another case of either that had this level of reporting on it so we could know, as most ASADA investigations are in the background or one of a size that needs it?
For most cases the ADRVP probably provides enough oversight, but most cases are not this big, involving this many people or rely so much on cicumstancial evidence, so what's wrong with an extra check, particularly as the ADRVP does not have a judge or law expert on it, so may be a bit weak in understanding rules of evidence that could be critical in a case like this.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Agree how is this a bad thing?

Im can't see what Yaco55 is on about. ASADA was in the process of launching cases against at least 52 people (34 AFL, 17 NRL and Dank), biggest doping case in history of ASADA, if not world wide. Why wouldn't you bring in someone external to review the file with a fresh pair of eyes once the investigation was finished? They brought in Richard Young from the U.S. to help advise on the investigation so he's not independant at the final revew stage.
IF Downes recommend against the case proceeding doubt it would have. Sure it cost them something, doubt though the cost of Downes is anything like the cost of the lawyers that have been spent on all sides since.
Use lawyers from another goverment department? How many goverment department have lawyers with experince in going through evidence? Generally government lawyers are policy, legislative types without experience in this area. Prosecutors may have, but with the criminal court backlogs doubt they have the time, what be the backlash if criminal cases were delayed further to not having staff available to prosecute. Even if they were available why would you use them with Gary Downes available, as others have noted the use of retired judges for things like this.
As for Yaco55 asking for another case where ASADA used a retired judge, I ask him to show me another case of either that had this level of reporting on it so we could know, as most ASADA investigations are in the background or one of a size that needs it?
For most cases the ADRVP probably provides enough oversight, but most cases are not this big, involving this many people or rely so much on cicumstancial evidence, so what's wrong with an extra check, particularly as the ADRVP does not have a judge or law expert on it, so may be a bit weak in understanding rules of evidence that could be critical in a case like this.

What you are saying would make perfect sense, if Andruska herself brought in the additional expertise, but from the way I remember it, there was involvement from the Minister.

Andruska already had the statutory power (both under ASADA Act and under the CAC Act), so why was the Minister's involvement necessary?

Was Andruska "told" to appoint Downes?
 
Jan 12, 2011
25,397
35,576
AFL Club
Collingwood
Agree how is this a bad thing?

Im can't see what Yaco55 is on about. ASADA was in the process of launching cases against at least 52 people (34 AFL, 17 NRL and Dank), biggest doping case in history of ASADA, if not world wide. Why wouldn't you bring in someone external to review the file with a fresh pair of eyes once the investigation was finished? They brought in Richard Young from the U.S. to help advise on the investigation so he's not independant at the final revew stage.
IF Downes recommend against the case proceeding doubt it would have. Sure it cost them something, doubt though the cost of Downes is anything like the cost of the lawyers that have been spent on all sides since.
Use lawyers from another goverment department? How many goverment department have lawyers with experince in going through evidence? Generally government lawyers are policy, legislative types without experience in this area. Prosecutors may have, but with the criminal court backlogs doubt they have the time, what be the backlash if criminal cases were delayed further to not having staff available to prosecute. Even if they were available why would you use them with Gary Downes available, as others have noted the use of retired judges for things like this.
As for Yaco55 asking for another case where ASADA used a retired judge, I ask him to show me another case of either that had this level of reporting on it so we could know, as most ASADA investigations are in the background or one of a size that needs it?
For most cases the ADRVP probably provides enough oversight, but most cases are not this big, involving this many people or rely so much on cicumstancial evidence, so what's wrong with an extra check, particularly as the ADRVP does not have a judge or law expert on it, so may be a bit weak in understanding rules of evidence that could be critical in a case like this.
Due diligence....its public money.....its required by Parliament
 
Jul 22, 2013
18,776
27,426
AFL Club
Carlton
ASADA already brought in Richard Young from the USA to work on the case. And I imagine that ASADA employed other experts in the investigation. Of course ASADA amd the Government service has enough legal staff - Each Department has a legal team and of course we have an Attorney General's Department. It would be staggering if the Federal Public Service, didn't have enough legal people.

I asked a simple question - Show me the precedent for the Government appointing a Retired Judge to review an ongoing investigation from ASADA ?

Your assumption on how things operate in Government couldn't be further from the truth. There are no teams of lawyers with a warm body waiting in the wings ready to mobilise his formidable expertise on the specialist area of law in question that day. Even in the AG's department.

BY and large government hires its guns, just like the public does.
 
Jan 12, 2011
25,397
35,576
AFL Club
Collingwood
Your assumption on how things operate in Government couldn't be further from the truth. There are no teams of lawyers with a warm body waiting in the wings ready to mobilise his formidable expertise on the specialist area of law in question that day. Even in the AG's department.

BY and large government hires its guns, just like the public does.
Yep, they maybe have a couple of in house solicitors and then contract in Barrister's or Silk as required
 

Tazmania

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2007
4,203
5,078
Back in WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
So you are suggesting that there was dispute between the investigators and the legal team - This won't go down with the HTB ! There is a difference between a fresh set of eyes looking over a case and a retired judge completely reviewing a case ?

As per reported in the paper, you do recall gigantor mentioning it in every second post don't you? ;)

As to your second point, no there's not unless, you're clinging to any shred of hope that will help the defence.
 

good4footy

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 9, 2004
5,124
8,276
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
West Ham
When it suits it's this -

Mclure never stated that a deal had been agreed. McLure said that a potential deal was being discussed. Chip's article verifies that a deal was discussed and rejected, though it didn't have ASADA's imprimatur allegedly.

When it doesn't it's this-

Do you believe everything that you read. The Cronulla deal would have been ticked off by WADA before it was offered to Cronulla players, otherwise WADA would have come over the top - Your post is implying that WADA is a toothless tiger . Of course WADA talked tough at the time but CHOSE to do nothing - Read between the lines.


You're funny.
 
Jun 1, 2003
3,156
5,095
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
What you are saying would make perfect sense, if Andruska herself brought in the additional expertise, but from the way I remember it, there was involvement from the Minister.

Andruska already had the statutory power (both under ASADA Act and under the CAC Act), so why was the Minister's involvement necessary?

Was Andruska "told" to appoint Downes?
We don't know, but as usual you took the assumption that works best with your version of events, and claimed it over and over and over again, believing yourself to be infallible.

All we know is that a minister took credit for it, and then we had a long discussion that made it clear that it isn't unusual for a minister to claim credit when an underling (Andruska) may have requested it in the first place.

Biggest difference, ASADA haven't had a song and dance every time they do something - unlike the AFL, EFC, or government ministers.
 

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
What you are saying would make perfect sense, if Andruska herself brought in the additional expertise, but from the way I remember it, there was involvement from the Minister.

Andruska already had the statutory power (both under ASADA Act and under the CAC Act), so why was the Minister's involvement necessary?

Was Andruska "told" to appoint Downes?

Why was the minister involvement necessary? New minister (Abbot government just under 6 months old when Downes appointed) and Minsters nearly ALWAYS announce good news or good ideas, new ministers especially...does not matter if it's the ministers office or not who come up with the idea if its a good idea the Minister is the one who announces it - political campaigning 101. As Cronos highlighted.

Was Andruska told to appoint Downes? No idea - don't think the reason why maters only the result - he recommended proceeding so if this is about the incompetence of ASASDA he found they not. if they were doubt the case would have proceeded - especially with a new CEO coming in just a week after his report was handed in.

But for reasons why here are four of the top of my head.

1. New minister did not want what was the most political issue in his department blowing up in his face
2. There were rumors emerging that senior labor figures were pissed with Lundy having the blackest day press conference and that the early part of the investigation was rife with political interference -so get the review done and blame the previous government before its to late.
3. Andruska had probably decided to retire and asked for the review to do a clean hand over to her replacement.
4. Its just a good idea.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Why was the minister involvement necessary? New minister (Abbot government just under 6 months old when Downes appointed) and Minsters nearly ALWAYS announce good news or good ideas, new ministers especially...does not matter if it's the ministers office or not who come up with the idea if its a good idea the Minister is the one who announces it - political campaigning 101. As Cronos highlighted.

Was Andruska told to appoint Downes? No idea - don't think the reason why maters only the result - he recommended proceeding so if this is about the incompetence of ASASDA he found they not. if they were doubt the case would have proceeded - especially with a new CEO coming in just a week after his report was handed in.

But for reasons why here are four of the top of my head.

1. New minister did not want what was the most political issue in his department blowing up in his face
2. There were rumors emerging that senior labor figures were pissed with Lundy having the blackest day press conference and that the early part of the investigation was rife with political interference -so get the review done and blame the previous government before its to late.
3. Andruska had probably decided to retire and asked for the review to do a clean hand over to her replacement.
4. Its just a good idea.

But 1 and 2 points to political interference in any event (whatever the motivation or intended outcome).
With 3, Andruska doesn't need to ask anyone for permission, she already had the statutory power under both the ASADA Act and the CAC Act.
There's a lot happening there already before we get to 4.
 

Muggs

Premiership Player
Jan 16, 2015
4,048
5,985
Your local dark alley
AFL Club
Adelaide
But 1 and 2 points to political interference in any event (whatever the motivation or intended outcome).
With 3, Andruska doesn't need to ask anyone for permission, she already had the statutory power under both the ASADA Act and the CAC Act.
There's a lot happening there already before we get to 4.

Don't deny my first two points are political, the blackest day press conference after all was political. However if as you claim that ASADA fell for their "legendary shinyarsed bureaucratic bumbling" why keep the case going? it would have been a perfect escape point for the new government to order ASADA to drop the investigation, the fact that Gary Downes recommended to proceed would suggest the exact opposite of bureaucratic bumbling.

Agree she did not need to ask for permission, but Minsters like announcing good news as both Cronos and myself have stated...
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
But 1 and 2 points to political interference in any event (whatever the motivation or intended outcome).
With 3, Andruska doesn't need to ask anyone for permission, she already had the statutory power under both the ASADA Act and the CAC Act.
There's a lot happening there already before we get to 4.

Its an agency that reports directly to the Minister for Sport. He doesnt need permission to conduct a review into his own agencies either.
 

BlueWorld

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 8, 2004
7,168
3,107
melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
Mclure never stated that a deal had been agreed. McLure said that a potential deal was being discussed. Chip's article verifies that a deal was discussed and rejected, though it didn't have ASADA's imprimatur allegedly.
Chip's article verifies:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'll wait for real verification thanks.
 

ThatsjustDappa

Premiership Player
Feb 19, 2011
3,649
4,937
AFL Club
Geelong
Retired Judges are brought back to review things all the time for the Government,. Its far from unprecedented. (Retired Judges are also used by private entities - particularly the CBAs internal review, the ACTU's own reviews, and hell even the AFL). For example Justice Margaret Stone, a former federal court judge was brought in to review ASIOs findings on refugees

Not to mention Royal Commissions, and number of enquries into Government departments and practices.

Exactly. I don't mind Essendon supporters questioning areas but arguments based on nonsense on stilts is nauseating. It's quite normal for organisations to engage peer reviews, I see them all the time in regards to business cases and feasibility studies in the infrastructure space. Usually it's some semi-retired person with an in depth understanding of the field and is well regarded. Oh my, sounds much like that retired judge guy who reviewed the case for ASADA......
 
Because Yacco likes to paint Asada as a bumbling Inspector Clouseau type organisation.
Yet when they seek outside experts to better help inform their decisions,Yacco again hopes to sway the view that this underfunded anti doping organisation is a bumbling fumbling mess and that this is proof of it.
So this is Yacco's modus operandi.
Asada are dumb cause they to outsourced legal expertise.
Asada got outsourced legal expertise proving my first point.
In other words he has no point!.

When did I say that ASADA was a bumbling Inspector Closeau organisation. I asked a valid question - Is there a precedent for ASADA to have a retired judge oversee a current investigation ? I am not interested, in whether this has happened in other Government Departments/Statutory Authorities/Quasi Government Agencies or QUANGO's
 
When it suits it's this -



When it doesn't it's this-




You're funny.

Ah ! It's a case of knowing what to read and accept could be fact. The quote that you highlighted in your second paragraph -'Do you believe everything that you read paragraph' about WADA accepting Cronulla's ban is a fact. People have posted that WADA was unhappy because of quotes from a newspaper article. The fact is that ASADA would have ticked off the deal with WADA before offering it to Cronulla players, and WADA did not come over the top. I have no problems with this post.

First quote - Chips article which followed Sam Mclure's report on 3AW about 2 players possibly accepting deals. The Chip article which added more flesh to McLure's earlier report seems to have a semblance of truth. I have no problem with this post.

And i see no contradiction between my two posts.
 
But 1 and 2 points to political interference in any event (whatever the motivation or intended outcome).
With 3, Andruska doesn't need to ask anyone for permission, she already had the statutory power under both the ASADA Act and the CAC Act.
There's a lot happening there already before we get to 4.

This is my interpretation - And the reason why I doubt there will be any type of political enquiry.
 

hfchfc

All Australian
Sep 6, 2010
885
851
AFL Club
Collingwood
When did I say that ASADA was a bumbling Inspector Closeau organisation. I asked a valid question - Is there a precedent for ASADA to have a retired judge oversee a current investigation ? I am not interested, in whether this has happened in other Government Departments/Statutory Authorities/Quasi Government Agencies or QUANGO's
Why does it matter? Isn't that the final outcome is correct that is the important part here. Why does it matter that someone else was brought in to look over the case. A "fresh set of eyes" as has been mentioned by others. As long as the end result is correct either way should be all that matters. No conspiracy here.
 

good4footy

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 9, 2004
5,124
8,276
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
West Ham
Ah ! It's a case of knowing what to read and accept could be fact. The quote that you highlighted in your second paragraph -'Do you believe everything that you read paragraph' about WADA accepting Cronulla's ban is a fact. People have posted that WADA was unhappy because of quotes from a newspaper article. The fact is that ASADA would have ticked off the deal with WADA before offering it to Cronulla players, and WADA did not come over the top. I have no problems with this post.

First quote - Chips article which followed Sam Mclure's report on 3AW about 2 players possibly accepting deals. The Chip article which added more flesh to McLure's earlier report seems to have a semblance of truth. I have no problem with this post.

And i see no contradiction between my two posts.

You are the only one.
 

Albert Ross

Premiership Player
Nov 24, 2012
3,437
6,242
Portland, Victoria
AFL Club
GWS
Its an agency that reports directly to the Minister for Sport. He doesnt need permission to conduct a review into his own agencies either.

Yep. Minister gets involved then he is corrupting the process; minister doesn't get involved and leaves the agency to do as it pleases, then he is negligent.

As for whether there will an inquiry, well the proper starting point is the Senate Estimates Committee and not only did it happen, but it was televised.
 
Back