Bruce Francis

[Muggs]

It has been widely reported that the CEO went against the advice of internal legal counsel.

I've seen numerous people quote that, but all seem to be referencing the interim report that ASADA admits was not enough evidence, not the final report 6 months later.

The best I've seen in regards to the final report was chips article on investigators recommending against charges due to difficulties in proving a circumstantial case, despite there being evidence. This was then sent to Gary Downes who recommended proceeding, considering its Downes with court room experience not investigators can understand why more weight was put on his opinion.

 

[Gigantor]

Hence the words "Worst case scenario"

Stay Strong GG. Even though the building is coming down around you. All signs point to HA!

Really?

I can't see that anything has changed since ASADA stated back in August 2013 that it had insufficient evidence.

We know ASADA's witnesses have dropped like flies.

We know none of them signed sworn statements.

We know none of them had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program.

We know that ASADA has zero direct evidence of any player taking TB4 (let alone all 34).

We know ASADA's has a preference for getting results through backroom deals, and would much rather avoid the tribunal.

We now understand why - what bunch of dumbass shinyarse bureaucrats would put a case up with no sworn statements?

 

[Armchair Critic]

It is known by most on this board that at the time of the interim board, ASADA advised the AFL in its covering letter that in relation to TB4 there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel that there had been an anti-doping rule violation.

Note: they referred to the "panel".

That's significant.

Yes the ADRVP ,they have already proceeded past that now so for most people the answer is obvious.

 

[Gigantor]

I've seen numerous people quote that, but all seem to be referencing the interim report that ASADA admits was not enough evidence, not the final report 6 months later.

The best I've seen in regards to the final report was chips article on investigators recommending against charges due to difficulties in proving a circumstantial case, despite there being evidence. This was then sent to Gary Downes who recommended proceeding, considering its Downes with court room experience not investigators can understand why more weight was put on his opinion.

There was enough in the public domain for Richard Ings to comment on more than one occasion that it is acceptable for the CEO to go against his internal advice on such matters.

 

[Chameleon75]

There was enough in the public domain for Richard Ings to comment on more than one occasion that it is acceptable for the CEO to go against his internal advice on such matters.

yet you can't produce one link to this widely reported issue.

 

[hfchfc]

Really?

I can't see that anything has changed since ASADA stated back in August 2013 that it had insufficient evidence.

We know ASADA's witnesses have dropped like flies.

We know none of them signed sworn statements.

We know none of them had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program.

We know that ASADA has zero direct evidence of any player taking TB4 (let alone all 34).

We know ASADA's has a preference for getting results through backroom deals, and would much rather avoid the tribunal.

We now understand why - what bunch of dumbass shinyarse bureaucrats would put a case up with no sworn statements?

Stay where you are Gigantor, the ambulance is on it's way.

P.S - You left out "Micky Mouse" drugs.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

It has been widely reported that the CEO went against the advice of internal legal counsel.

If it as so widely reported then you shouldn't have any trouble providing a link. Look forward to it.

 

[Muggs]

Seeing that the next step for ASADA would be to present the evidence before the ADRV Panel, then I would think that that is the panel they are talking about.

ASADA does not automatically lead the prosecution to present evidence before the AFL anti-doping tribunal, it was invited by the AFL to do so on this occasion.

ADRVP does not use comfortable satisfaction, only is there a case to answer.

While ASADA idoes bit automatically lead the prosecution it does supply the evidence used regardless who leads...

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Can you be sued for telling the truth?

Yes and no.
You must be able to prove what you are saying is the truth. If Dank gets off, he could easily sue.

 

[The_Wookie]

Really?

I can't see that anything has changed since ASADA stated back in August 2013 that it had insufficient evidence.

You havent seen anything since ASADA havent been leaking like a sieve since the AFL left the investigation - that didnt end until february 26th. You understand the term "interim" and what it means right?

We know ASADA's witnesses have dropped like flies.

two witnesses dropped out. two.

We know none of them signed sworn statements.

If the media and everyone else on the HTB bar yourself is correct, then it has hardly mattered.

We know none of them had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program.

Assumption.

We know that ASADA has zero direct evidence of any player taking TB4 (let alone all 34).

Assumption.

We know ASADA's has a preference for getting results through backroom deals, and would much rather avoid the tribunal.

We also know that there are countless incidents over the years where ASADA went to various courts and tribunals.

We now understand why - what bunch of dumbass shinyarse bureaucrats would put a case up with no sworn statements?

As you have been told many times, no having the statements sworn doesnt completely invalidate them. It generally puts a lesser weight on them. As media reported yesterday, and I and many others predicted weeks ago.

 

[Muggs]

Really?

I can't see that anything has changed since ASADA stated back in August 2013 that it had insufficient evidence.

We know ASADA's witnesses have dropped like flies.

We know none of them signed sworn statements.

We know none of them had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program.

We know that ASADA has zero direct evidence of any player taking TB4 (let alone all 34).

We know ASADA's has a preference for getting results through backroom deals, and would much rather avoid the tribunal.

We now understand why - what bunch of dumbass shinyarse bureaucrats would put a case up with no sworn statements?

So seen the final report have you GG?
All I've seen from you is repeating the same lines when you have no idea of what ASADA presented, and how they might have collaborated those unsigned statements...

 

[Ancient Tiger]

GG or Gigantor, did you get to read the post that was removed? It was directed to you. That should give you some insight that some of your allegations are potentially incorrect......

 

[onemancyclone]

In any event, a competent investigative team would normally have its sworn statements well and truly filed away long before the brief of evidence lands on the prosecutor's desk.

That didn't happen here.

People can excuse it whichever way they want, but it's an indicator of gross incompetence, and perhaps also a clue that the CEO never truly intended to go all the way to tribunal (and was hoping more for a Cronulla-like outcome, which never eventuated).

Typical defence posturing. You fell short of threatening disbarment and and malicious prosecution. Looks like you won't be getting the part of 'random angry defence attorney' on law & order.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Ah ! - But you don't know what advice Young and Downes gave - They could have advised to charge 38 players - Who knows !

Holmes is a paid QC who prosecutes a case - Doubt he decided who should be charged !

You are confusing me here. You are saying Holmes is a prosecutor but then state you doubt he would be the one who decides who to charge.

Are you talking about just in this case in his role as an advisor or as a prosecutor in general

 

[Laphroaig]

Can you be sued for telling the truth?

Yes you can.

Truth is a defence against defamation. But only if you can convince the Court the statement is true. Which may be impossible even when the statement in question is absolutely true and accurate.

 

[Gigantor]

You havent seen anything since ASADA havent been leaking like a sieve since the AFL left the investigation - that didnt end until february 26th. You understand the term "interim" and what it means right?



two witnesses dropped out. two.



If the media and everyone else on the HTB bar yourself is correct, then it has hardly mattered.



Assumption.



Assumption.



We also know that there are countless incidents over the years where ASADA went to various courts and tribunals.



As you have been told many times, no having the statements sworn doesnt completely invalidate them. It generally puts a lesser weight on them. As media reported yesterday, and I and many others predicted weeks ago.

You're wrong.

Three of five dropped out.

Either way, no sworn statements were compiled for the two key witnesses, and none of the five had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program.

 

[Gigantor]

So seen the final report have you GG?
All I've seen from you is repeating the same lines when you have no idea of what ASADA presented, and how they might have collaborated those unsigned statements...

corroborated?

 

[The_Wookie]

You're wrong.

Three of five dropped out.

Either way, no sworn statements were compiled for the two key witnesses, and none of the five had direct knowledge of EFC's supplements program.

THAT YOU KNOW OF. Theres information out there that categorically suggests otherwise.

 

[Gigantor]

THAT YOU KNOW OF. Theres information out there that categorically suggests otherwise.

That three of five dropped out?

Isn't that public information?

 

[Art Corvelay]

There was enough in the public domain for Richard Ings to comment on more than one occasion that it is acceptable for the CEO to go against his internal advice on such matters.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link



Please.

 

[blackshadow]

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link



Please.

And.....


















crickets

 

[Argy]

It has been widely reported that the CEO went against the advice of internal legal counsel.

That's not what I asked.

What has happened since the interim report to make ASADA change its mind and charge the players?

 

[Gigantor]

That's not what I asked.

What has happened since the interim report to make ASADA change its mind and charge the players?

Isn't that part of the mix?

A new CEO (ex-copper engaged by another ex-copper), wanting to make a name for himself, willing to go against the advice of internal legal counsel, aiming to engineer a Cronulla-like outcome.

 

[Argy]

What has happened since the interim report to make ASADA change its mind and charge the players?

 

[blackshadow]

What has happened since the interim report to make ASADA change its mind and charge the players?

Don't ask gigity - he hasn't got a clue.