Separate names with a comma.
Now you can give your BigFooty mates a Premium Membership! Give here.
Great as a birthday gift or as a prize.
Discussion in 'Hot Topic - The AFL, ASADA and Drugs' started by Percel, Jul 5, 2013.
(Log in to remove this ad.)
old hat, but good hat
Hello Dank, bye bye Cronulla
Fair smack on the chops.
Dank doesn't fit into any of those categories.
Then there is the evidence the ACC has collected.
ASADA wants access to mountain of ACC evidence
Date May 16, 2013
Roy Masters Rugby League Columnist
Cronulla players are likely to be still arguing with the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority this time next year, when Essendon players will have already served their suspensions.
That is the most likely scenario, unless federal government lawyers succeed in gaining immediate permission to use evidence collected by the Australian Crime Commission. ASADA and the ACC have a mountain of information, including testimony by guilty parties and emails and text messages, but some of the ACC material cannot be used as evidence against the NRL and AFL players because it was gained by coercion.
Government lawyers are working late to devise ways the material can be supplied to ASADA in order to build a stronger case against players and coaches.
ASADA wants access to mountain of ACC evidence
Well if they have access to but cant use the ACC evidence cant they just request what they know that party has and they have to oblige under the new policy?
You will need a lawyer to give you an answer as it sounds like a legal technicality to me.
...is what could have been made by throwing $100 on a draw in the 2010 first grand final then taking the original $100 out and throwing the rest on Collingwood once they dropped Leon Davis(draw was only paying $31 at some bookies)
The Act does not refer to players or officials. It talks about person and individual.
It also,says for a body corporae, the penalty is 5 times. So the clubs and other companies, perhaps compounding pharmacies, have to meet the demands.
Main difficulty is that the penalties have to be applied by a court, not as an administrative declaration.
Yes BUT unlike the ACC, ASADA cannot force a person to give an answer that incriminates them.
So ASADA may know that the person gave a certain answer to the ACC, they can drag them in the question them but cannot make them answer.
was referring to a specific chain of texts that for instance say, show that Bomber Thompson had intimate knowledge of the drugs coming to the club. If the ACC reports says they are there and what dates. Cant ASADA say can we have your phone records for period covered and gauge their reply as co-operating or not. As they have the evidence there but cant say "you are busted because we have this that puts the drugs in your hands".
Was more physical evidence than actual testimony to the ACC.
As for not speaking for fear of incrimination, doesnt that refer to a criminal charge? As incriminating yourself with ASADA does not carry the same issues.
So you can show texts that show you had a conversation about a banned substance under the code that has no effect on a criminal charge?
There are certain clauses in various legislations that say that information gathered through legal requirement rather than having been willingly handed over, can't be used against the individual that handed it over, in a court of law. It doesn't protect an organisation though, just individual responsibility. The ACC stuff is probably a lot more complicated in that. It's funny that the ACC uncovered all this, but the evidence they collected against suppliers, makes it hard for ASADA to pursue the parties they are interested in. I wonder if this is the real hold up ... that ASADA are aware of the evidence but can't use it, and have to find other ways to re-collect it.
I suspect that is part of it as well as confirming any evidence collected too. I feel a little for ASADA with the way they have had to deal with this. They could have been working along side the ACC a little behind the scenes (given the ACC report, and investigated in private) would have had plenty of time. Without everyone hounding them for answers. I think they were almost given a ticking time bomb,
Yeah but without the ACC, ASADA would probably be talking to Reimers and have virtually nothing else.
I'll clear up what I meant, I think ASADA should have had the ACC's evidence, but been given time to investigate without pressure, form their own evidence, regather what the ACC had, as much as possible. I just think ASADA were given a hell of a hard job, NRL, AFL, as well as normal investigations outside of that, now all of a sudden came under intense media and public pressure. People are wanting a finding now - or before finals. Fair comment, but, without knowing details of the investigation, they have to make the right decision.
Who falls under the remit of the new legislation?
As I understand it, the drugs in question are not 'illegal' as far as general possession and ingestion is concerned - but certain drugs are prohibited by certain sporting codes.
Are all Australian sporting codes affiliated/subservient to ASADA/WADA?
Are the officials and players of every Australian sports club up and down the land liable for fines of $5100 per day if they don't comply to the whims of ASADA?
Only those sports that are signed up to the WADA Code (which would be most major sporting codes in Australia) may fall under this new legislation and then fined the $5,100 only if requested to appear before a tribunal and they fail to show.
OK thanks. If a sport is signed up to WADA/ASADA, who falls under the remit?
For example, I am no longer a registered soccer player (Victoria) but I am on the club committee. Can they fine me $5,100 per day if I fail to meet their requirements?
My point is that these are not generally illegal drugs. Why is federal government imposing fines of over $35,000 per week for involvement in drugs that are legal but are only prohibited by certain sporting codes? Surely the fines should be imposed by the sporting codes that adhere to WADA/ASADA?
To answer your first question, the answer is yes, it means they can fine you if you fail to comply with a Disclosure Notice (of course, your common law right against self- incrimination is unaffected). Any person can receive a Disclosure Notice from ASADA, not just those persons involved in WADA compliant sports.
As to your second question, it has nothing to do with "...imposing fines of over $35,000 per week for involvement in drugs that are legal...".
ASADA is part of the federal government. They can now impose fines in the same way other statutory authorities can impose fines on individuals. The new amendment to the ASADA Act allows them to impose fines for failing to respond to a Disclosure Notice ie. a request for documents and "things" (eg. text messages) or a request for an interview.
The answer to your third question is self- evident, sporting codes cannot impose civil penalties on behalf of the government.
Thanks Cygninae. Very informative
Have to say I love the title of this thread, I always read it in the voice used in Wired World of Sports by the 12th man "cold hard CAAAAAAAAAAAASH"
first two people i bring in.
ian thorpe. lying prick.
harry obrien. lying prick.
just for the laffs.