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

[blackshadow]

Wasn't he the one who got on here and announced that ASADA will be dropping the case if they didn't get the subpoena's and was pretty much rubbing it in everyone's faces that Essendon were going to get away with cheating, how did that turn out.

 

[Go_Blues!]

All would know by now that I am of the opinion that ASADA's case is weak:

• no sworn statements
• only two of five witnesses remain (none of whom had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program, with one witness appearing under dubious circumstances)
• no hard evidence of any EFC player being administered with TB4

On top of that, some evidence of impropriety:

• suggestions of ASADA doctoring evidence
• suggestions of Ministerial interference

Lastly, for anyone to claim the ASADA evidence is of such a standard that it deserves to be thrown out in five minutes is not the same thing as that person predicting the hearing will only last five minutes.

You remind me of someone who used to post on this board......I think his name was GG.

In any case, you are well within your rights to speculate and that is what this place thrives on and you are hardly the lone ranger on this. However, what you say is not really supportable.

ASADA did not doctor evidence. To make such an allegation, you would need to be pretty confident because what you are accusing them of is a crime. ASADA will, should, and must present the evidence that supports their case. They will leave out the bits that don't support or detract from their case. This is how the judicial system works. In addition, it is right for the minister to manage the government agencies for which they are responsible. That is not ministerial interference, that is a minister doing what they were appointed to do. Of course, if your allegation is that the minister demanded a charge without consideration for the evidence, that is very different, but I assume that is not what you are suggesting.

The "blackest day in Australian Sport" does seem supportable given recent allegations against Carlton and GCS. Sure, there was some political point scoring on that but that does not make it wrong. Also, you summation of the evidence is misleading. This case will be determined based of forensics and particularly financial forensics but also other forms of electronic forensics. Is the case strong enough to produce a substantiated charge of doping? Who knows; I don't know, you don't know, the lawyers for ASADA probably don't know and nor do the lawyers for Essendon.

My hope in all of this is simple; I want justice served. If the players inadvertently took banned substances, I want them found guilty (although I hope the penalties reflect the invidious position the players were placed in). If nothing banned was taken, I want the players too walk free and I want the AFL to explain themselves.

Just a question GG, and this is not leading, would you be happy for Dank to walk away from this and be free to work at other AFL clubs including Essendon?

 

[Dan Cooper]

McDevitt said on Friday that while the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority would prefer that biochemist Shane Charter and compound pharmacist Nima Alavi appeared at the December 15 hearing, authorities still had a strong case against the 34 current and former Essendon players charged with being administered the banned drug, thymosin beta 4.

I'd say this bloke has a bit more of a clue than your mate Bruce Francis

What did you expect McDevitt to say? That they now had a weak case? Of course he had to try and sound confident. After ASADA had spent 2 years on the case he no choice

Dan Star - who pleaded in vain to the Supreme Court on behalf of ASADA in an effort to force Charter & Alavi to attend the tribunal - was far more reserved after the court case failed: “The case will go on.’’ - Star told the Supreme Court.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...153529774?nk=b2655536b5fb2b9f1f24f19ab555eb52

 

[Crankyhawk]

Your big, partly made-up, speculative, subjective timeline? What a disaster.

No, Bruce Francis' subjective timeline.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Sorry, but why has The GG become Gigantor?

because there was a gg already,one that has been around for over ten years.
The GG was seen as a copycat and the original was none to impressed by the phony!.

 

[TaylorMade]

What did you expect McDevitt to say, they only had a weak case? He had no choice but to try and sound confident

Dan Star - who pleaded in vain to the Supreme Court on behalf of ASADA in an effort to force Charter & Alavi - was far more reserved after the court case failed: “The case will go on.’’ - Star told the Supreme Court.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...153529774?nk=b2655536b5fb2b9f1f24f19ab555eb52

Right, so what you are saying is:

Bruce Francis - Beacon of truth

Alavi & Charters (Known PED Dealers) - Their claims of tampering with evidence are proof of ASADA corruption

McDevitt - Liar claiming ASADA's case is strong when it's actually weak.

So we have Bruce Francis and 2 known PED dealers that we should be trusting and a long time law enforcement officer shouldn't.

You mentioned something earlier about only believing what you want to hear?

 

[Whatsonswhat]

The Court for Arbitration in sport isn't a court?

No. Despite the somewhat misleading name, the CAS is not a Court. It is an Arbitrary Tribunal. And to the extent that players are found guilty and given less than 2 year bans, I can absolutely assure you they won't be appealing to that body.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I said it was reported recently.

Is s**t was made up by someone. Or could have been taken out of context. Fact is all the media reports are crap, probably lower standard than what we read on htb. No reports can be trusted. And the hearing adjourning to mid January is another example of how s**t lazy the legal system is.

 

[Go_Blues!]

It's useful for us to look at the timeline, everything becomes so much clearer:

• in August 2013, ASADA's own legal counsel advised the CEO that there was insufficient evidence to comfortably satisfy the panel (note, they are talking about the panel, not the tribunal); True

• for almost 9 months, there is relative inaction (noting that all of the players, support staff and one key witness had been interviewed by August 2013); Not true. They wer going through the evidence, looking at the forensics and taps
• The Minister puts his own man in to review the evidence in Mar 2014 (the norm would be that the CEO relies on in-house legal expertise and/or the AGS); True, but this is not a usual case, it is appropriate for the minister to act in this way and appointing a Judge to audit the evidence seems like a sound decision, does it not?
• Within a couple of months, the Minister has replaced the previous CEO with his own man; True, but do you not think that the current CEO seems like a sound appointment. The previous CEO was retiring and I think the current CEO was a sensible choice who had made significant contributions in his career.
• McDevitt went to SCNs within 3 weeks of starting as CEO (and we now know that was done without sworn statements); True, the timing was not unusual though because of the appointment of Downy, and he had probably passed up his findings at that point.
• there is no secret that it has been a circumstantial case the whole way through, entirely dependent on Charter and Alavi's evidence (and even then, it ain't that strong); Not really true. This case will rely on a lot of direct evidence given by the players and others. You do know that a positive drug test is considered circumstantial evidence?
• we know, despite "compelling evidence" that McDevitt went straight to deals with Cronulla and tried the same trick with the bombers; Again, given that the players were placed in such an invidious position (if they were doped), it seems fair to me. Also, the players had every right to consider those deals, if they were offered, and after consideration rejected them. To me, that is not an indication of the strength of the case but does show some fortitude by the players who I am sure were well over this at the time.
• we know there is no direct evidence of use of TB4, and yet 34 players received SCNs, even when there were no sworn statements in the brief of evidence Downes supposedly reviewed; Speculation. We do not know what the evidence is.
• there have been reports that right up to the decision to issue SCNs, ASADA investigators were strongly advising that there was insufficient evidence; Not true, the internal legal advice was that there was sufficient evidence to mount a case. It may not be a lock down case but you are understating the evidence.
• we know ASADA unsuccessfully pursued an extraordinary action in the supreme court, on the very eve of the tribunal, hardly the action of a prosecution fully prepared for the hearing; True, they would have prefered to have Charters and Alavi testify.
• all of that before we even get to Charter's antics and assorted revelations relating to him (and Alavi); Not entirely sure what this means or how it is important?

Comments in bold

 

[Percel]

Perhaps you should quote someone else who has read the interim report if Bruce Francis isn't saying what you wanted to hear?

Merely pointing that there has been plenty of eyes on this since it came out. Using Bruce as your powder is pretty lame. But at least your consistent.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The players are currently engaged in the tribunal hearing called by ASADA, and for 3 days have sat and listened to ASADA talk.

Essendon Football club aren't even a party to the tribunal hearing. Nor are they in attendance.

So who is dragging this thing out?

The tribunal itself for failing to continue to sit. Lazy campaigners

 

[Crankyhawk]

Ministerial interference. Clearly.

I think the Carlton poster GG was sick of being tagged and negotiated with GWS theGG to arrange the name change.

 

[telsor]

But that aside, who could ever doubt my objectivity and independence.

That is just a classic comment. There are no words.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Merely pointing that there has been plenty of eyes on this since it came out. Using Bruce as your powder is pretty lame. But at least your consistent.

Feel free to quote someone else who has read the interim report other than Bruce Francis then. Here's you opportunity to provide an informed counterargument.

You are right I have been consistent. I have maintained ASADA will fail to prove their accusations

 

[Go_Blues!]

That is just a classic comment. There are no words.

There are a couple that come to mind; one involves sex and the other involves travel

 

[Crankyhawk]

There are those who have seen much more of the evidence than you or I. A prime example being Bruce Francis.

"Mountains" of paperwork are carried into most courts & tribunals. The reality is very little of it amounts to evidence.

Bruce is full of it, he hasn't seen it and is making s**t up just like the rest of us.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Right, so what you are saying is:

Bruce Francis - Beacon of truth

Alavi & Charters (Known PED Dealers) - Their claims of tampering with evidence are proof of ASADA corruption

McDevitt - Liar claiming ASADA's case is strong when it's actually weak.

So we have Bruce Francis and 2 known PED dealers that we should be trusting and a long time law enforcement officer shouldn't.

You mentioned something earlier about only believing what you want to hear?

You claim many doubts and inconsistencies exist. Doubts and inconsistencies are what will sink ASADA's case.

 

[DonsRule]

Merely pointing that there has been plenty of eyes on this since it came out. Using Bruce as your powder is pretty lame. But at least your consistent.

Brett Mr Integrity Clother read it.


That should clear it up for all.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Bruce is full of it, he hasn't seen it and is making s**t up just like the rest of us.

According to you Bruce hasn't seen the interim report

 

[Crankyhawk]

According to you Bruce hasn't seen the interim report

Yep I think he is making it All up from reading hot topic board and filling gaps with speculation.

The only way I will believe be has a copy is if he posts the full PDFs of the interim report on the web for all to see and judge for themselves.

 

[Argy]

Feel free to quote someone else who has read the interim report other than Bruce Francis then. Here's you opportunity to provide an informed counterargument.

You are right I have been consistent. I have maintained ASADA will fail to prove their accusations

The trouble with Bruce was that he was interpreting the mess with no real understanding of ethical responsibilities. He thinks an abstract organisational framework can allow a person to sidestep their duty of care. He actually seems to have a general problem with ethics, as his role in organising (and profiting from) a rogue cricket tour of South Africa during the apartheid era suggests.

 

[Go_Blues!]

You claim many doubts and inconsistencies exist. Doubts and inconsistencies are what will sink ASADA's case.

So this is a very good point because it is exactly what may sink their case. However, was it not your point earlier that Essendon will not rely on this in their defense? Unless I am mistaken, and I am sorry if I am, you were saying that Essendon will not make a defense?

 

[telsor]

because there was a gg already,one that has been around for over ten years.
The GG was seen as a copycat and the original was none to impressed by the phony!.

AKA, even his name was misleading....

 

[Dan Cooper]

Yep I think he is making it All up from reading hot topic board and filling gaps with speculation.

The only way I will believe be has a copy is if he posts the full PDFs of the interim report on the web for all to see and judge for themselves.

There are probably a number of reasons why that wouldn't be a good idea. Besides he doesn't have to prove anything to the likes of you

 

[TaylorMade]

You claim many doubts and inconsistencies exist. Doubts and inconsistencies are what will sink ASADA's case.

Nah, what I meant was the people you are relying on are full of s**t