No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[rumply]

Write to you local member.

I use my local member for things other than sending letters to

 

[Beerfish]

I use my local member for things other than sending letters to

I'll never forget the night my local member actually replied to me..

 

[BrunoV]

I've not really paid much attention to this stuff for a while but comments from Chief Wiggum yesterday left me with a homicidal fury.

The absurdity of ASADA even suggesting that it is not ready to brief the ADRVP got me thinking about the way the process works with ASADA presenting findings or recommendations (or whatever they are called) to the ADRVP which, based on the burden of proof at this stage, are effectively rubber stamped and it basically choosing when to do so.

I am starting to wonder whether there is more merit in Hird's appeal than I had previously thought.

There is a very important purpose for the confidentiality required by the NAD scheme. It enables the investigation to proceed independent of the pressures created by the media circus (and because ASADA investigates professional athletes it will always result in a media circus). These investigations, by their nature are long, and it is important for conclusions to be reached which are totally objective and independent of the pressures created by public expectation (which are very real if the actions of the government last year were anything to go by).

A public investigation with leaked evidence (and you can quite comfortably credit ASADA with the AFL's leak) will only ever conclude in an athlete being brought before the relevant tribunal (because the ARDVP is not a strong enough check and balancing measure). In effect, your stand accused not because of the evidence but primarily because outside and irrelevant factors require it. It naturally follows that you seriously have to question whether the accused athlete can ever receive a fair trial in those circumstances.

There is also then the issue with ASADA's implied threat to delay progression of this matter which is in effect an abuse of process aimed at getting players to plead (to bring the matter to an end rather than because of their actual guilt).

I'm wondering whether Middleton J's admittedly pragmatic/sensible approach really cures what now seem to be a much more substantively significant problems with the whole process.

As for the relief, well, any future investigation would be to identify the same evidence and would ultimately be tainted by the current investigation. It doesn't seem that ridiculous, in this type of context, that ASADA could be permanently injuncted from relying on this evidence even if gathered again (though nothing would stop them relying on a confession by Dank because it would be untainted evidence).

 

[dougyboy]

No, the parliament makes the law, the judicial system interprets them and ASADA (and many other agencies) enforce them.

ASADA arn't enforcing law no more than an umpire in a tennis match enforces law (rules of sport), however I would like to know about a player using law to question restriction of trade if they try to stop someone playing whilst waiting for an outcome

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Sorry Lance I got bored at work

all good, scored the century, rustled some jimmies

 

[carnthedons]

If you're anything like me, your local member has its own zip code.

BOOM!

So all those other posters who called you a bit of a utensil were right?

 

[boncer34]

Nope he's more then a bit

 

[Harlequin]

Sorry Lance I got bored at work

Thanks for the laugh. Certainly derailed a few there

 

[Dave]

all good, scored the century, rustled some jimmies

And yet the other troll thread remains open......surprise surprise.

 

[Gigantor]

Is it just me or does it seem stupid for them to come out and say we will follow process given they gave NRL players discounts because of their own delays in process.

especially when the NRL players themselves contributed to those delays by not cooperating during the first attempt at interviews

 

[Gigantor]

I've not really paid much attention to this stuff for a while but comments from Chief Wiggum yesterday left me with a homicidal fury.

The absurdity of ASADA even suggesting that it is not ready to brief the ADRVP got me thinking about the way the process works with ASADA presenting findings or recommendations (or whatever they are called) to the ADRVP which, based on the burden of proof at this stage, are effectively rubber stamped and it basically choosing when to do so.

I am starting to wonder whether there is more merit in Hird's appeal than I had previously thought.

There is a very important purpose for the confidentiality required by the NAD scheme. It enables the investigation to proceed independent of the pressures created by the media circus (and because ASADA investigates professional athletes it will always result in a media circus). These investigations, by their nature are long, and it is important for conclusions to be reached which are totally objective and independent of the pressures created by public expectation (which are very real if the actions of the government last year were anything to go by).

A public investigation with leaked evidence (and you can quite comfortably credit ASADA with the AFL's leak) will only ever conclude in an athlete being brought before the relevant tribunal (because the ARDVP is not a strong enough check and balancing measure). In effect, your stand accused not because of the evidence but primarily because outside and irrelevant factors require it. It naturally follows that you seriously have to question whether the accused athlete can ever receive a fair trial in those circumstances.

There is also then the issue with ASADA's implied threat to delay progression of this matter which is in effect an abuse of process aimed at getting players to plead (to bring the matter to an end rather than because of their actual guilt).

I'm wondering whether Middleton J's admittedly pragmatic/sensible approach really cures what now seem to be a much more substantively significant problems with the whole process.

As for the relief, well, any future investigation would be to identify the same evidence and would ultimately be tainted by the current investigation. It doesn't seem that ridiculous, in this type of context, that ASADA could be permanently injuncted from relying on this evidence even if gathered again (though nothing would stop them relying on a confession by Dank because it would be untainted evidence).

the other day, on the other thread, I put forward an opinion that Middleton had effectively said that because the joint investigation is legal, and because ASADA and the AFL are able to collect evidence jointly, and because the AFL is not subject to the ASADA Act as far as privacy and confidentiality goes, that the AFL could disseminate the information it had collected in the joint invesitgation to its heart's content, despite the fact that ASADA would use that very same information/evidence to prosecute a case pursuant to the NAD Scheme,
I have a lot of trouble accepting that Middleton is correct on that point because it is effectively circumventing the strict privacy and confidentiality provisions of the ASADA Act
that in itself is worth appealing

 

[rumply]

I'll never forget the night my local member actually replied to me..

drugs are bad, mkay

 

[Walesy]

Welcome to the best part of two years for us.

Predetermined outcome, narrative and isolate Hird.

Sit tight, perspire appropriately.

 

[scottmclaren]

the other day, on the other thread, I put forward an opinion that Middleton had effectively said that because the joint investigation is legal, and because ASADA and the AFL are able to collect evidence jointly, and because the AFL is not subject to the ASADA Act as far as privacy and confidentiality goes, that the AFL could disseminate the information it had collected in the joint invesitgation to its heart's content, despite the fact that ASADA would use that very same information/evidence to prosecute a case pursuant to the NAD Scheme,
I have a lot of trouble accepting that Middleton is correct on that point because it is effectively circumventing the strict privacy and confidentiality provisions of the ASADA Act
that in itself is worth appealing

Middleton did state in the televised opening submissions that if a loop hole exists, it exists....

 

[rumply]

Caro surprisingly neutral...


Essendon supplements saga: Players' lawyer hits back at ASADA boss
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-hits-back-at-asada-boss-20141024-11b6lt.html

Players lawyer Tony Hargreaves has accused ASADA boss Ben McDevitt of being "disingenuous" and slammed the ongoing delays in the case of the 34 past and present Essendon players as "inexcusable".

Responding to comments by McDevitt that ASADA would not be dictated to and insisting that the players follow due process, Hargreaves told Fairfax Media he feared the case could now move deep into next year.

"The real game now is with the AFL," Hargreaves said. "Let's bounce the ball and get on with it."

McDevitt on Thursday antagonised the AFL Players' Association and the AFL when he questioned the push to bypass the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and declared he wished "such interest in player welfare had been present in 2012".

Hargreaves refused to be drawn on that jibe and said he had not attempted to contact McDevitt. "I don't speak to McDevitt," he said. "I just read what he has to say in the newspapers ... (But) it is disingenuous for McDevitt to tell us to read the 12,000 pages of evidence. We've seen this before and it's not the evidence, it's a summary of what ASADA says is the evidence.

"We are not talking about 12,000 pages. We are talking about roughly 105 pages for each individual player, which are virtually identical. The AFL Players' Association and (players' QC) David Grace sat in on those player interviews and we are aware of their evidence and have been since last year.

"The delays, in our view, are inexcusable. Even allowing for the appeals by Essendon and (James) Hird, we would respectfully say that ASADA completed their interviews with the players in May 2013. The first show-cause letters arrived in June 2014. ASADA has been dealing with this for the past 18 months."

Hargreaves said it was wrong of McDevitt to suggest AFL and not ASADA held the power to fast-track the players' cases. "Not true. The AFL cannot decide whether or not to deliver infraction notices against the players until they have been delivered the evidence against those players."

It is understood that the league's legal counsel, Andrew Dillon, attempted in July to secure documents pertaining to ASADA's case against the 34 past and present Essendon players in order consider the AFL's position but was refused.

While some players said in their interviews last year that they had no idea what drugs they had been given under the Essendon substances program others recalled conversations which could have identified certain drugs.

Hargreaves, who is working with the AFLPA's lawyers Brett Murphy and Bernie Shinners in defending the players, said he feared McDevitt's insistence that the players' cases now go before the ADRVP could further slow the process.

"We don't know how long this is going to take," said Hargreaves. "They (the ADRVP) normally meet once a month and the panel consists of three members, all with significant other commitments. We have no problem adhering to their process, that is not the issue.

"We simply see no reason why McDevitt can't give the relevant documents to Andrew Dillon now to consider while the panel works concurrently considering the 34 show-cause packs."

 

[MightyDon]

Caro surprisingly neutral...

Neutral or the AFL's agenda has changed? Don't think the AFL want this going into another season.

 

[letstayunited]

Neutral or the AFL's agenda has changed? Don't think the AFL want this going into another season.

How Caro changed her tune after the monumental faaaark up with announcing Hird was sacked?

She may have been told to pull her head in by her own employers. A mistake that bad could really impact on a newspaper's credibility.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

How Caro changed her tune after the monumental faaaark up with announcing Hird was sacked?

She may have been told to pull her head in by her own employers. A mistake that bad could really impact on a newspaper's credibility.

Wonder if Rohan Connolly gave Caro a clip lolz.

 

[60sbomber]

Forgetting for a moment the merits (or lack of) of ASADA's evidence and the likely outcome of tribunal hearings, I am wondering what might be the real truth of what happened.

Dank did one of these three things:-
1. Used TB4 with a reckless and arrogant disregard for the fact that it was banned.
2. Used TB4 under the misapprehension that it was legal, and then tried to pass it off as thymomodulin when he discovered his mistake.
3. Used thymomodulin only and has been falsely accused of using TB4.

ASADA have contended 2. above. They said (in the interim report from memory?) that Dank only became aware that TB4 was banned at his ACC interview in May 2012, and immediately began trying to cover his tracks by passing it off as thymomodulin. They had a credible narrative that this could have happened, but have bugger all evidence to support it, seemingly only Charter’s evidence regarding the Dec/Jan order and delivery of a small amount of something that may have been TB4, may have been compounded by Alavi, and may or may not have been destroyed or used somewhere by Dank without paying for it.
The theory also is consistent with the greyness surrounding when TB4 was officially pronounced as banned (I have posted on this previously – don’t want to regurgitate it here).

The whole thing is mysterious because of the lack of invoices for either TB4 or thymomodulin.
There is no claim by EFC that neither was used, so there should be invoices for one of them.

Speculating now, the lack of invoices could be due to
1. Dank, and by association EFC, were playing clever by not paying for the stuff through the club’s books. If so, this indicates 1. above, not 2. ie being shifty with payments indicates an awareness of illegality from the start.
2. A thorough job by EFC of covering their tracks by destroying invoices and records of payment for TB4. This would be almost impossible, and would be discovered by any reasonably thorough auditing process.
3. Dank buying his stuff from other, probably illegal, suppliers on the black market. This could have been either TB4 or thymomodulin. If the latter, Dank can’t disclose it because it would get him in trouble legally. If the former, he wouldn’t want to disclose it anyway. What is still unexplained (whether it was TB4 or thymomodulin) is how EFC paid for it, and if they didn’t pay for it, were they complicit in the illegal supply (unlikely) or just negligent?
4. Some other (wilder?) possibilities. Eg Dank obtained the stuff illegally, it was paid for by bikie gangs, who expected some future return from Dank in some form. Again, doesn’t explain WTF EFC were doing – they must have expected to have to pay at some point, surely governance/record keeping could not have been that bad.

Complicating all this speculation is Dank’s “sacking” in late 2012, and Hamilton’s departure, and whether it was in any way due to impropriety by Dank on the money side of things, or by incompetence by Hamilton in failing to keep any sort of stewardship of the money side.

Plenty of room for speculation, and no-one is going to give us the answers to this now.
But the invoices/money are the key to knowing what really happened.

 

[Jesse Custer]

Wonder if Rohan Connolly gave Caro a clip lolz.

Just a death stare.

 

[Jesse Custer]

I see this going on for a long time yet unless the government steps in to push this along.

 

[Gigantor]

Middleton did state in the televised opening submissions that if a loop hole exists, it exists....

I'm just wondering whether courts will sometimes look at certain provisions of significance (like privacy and confidentiality provisions) and interpret legislation to ensure that such fundamental rights are not trampled upon

 

[Ned_Flanders]

And yet the other troll thread remains open......surprise surprise.

thats how they roll on Kashyyyk

 

[Doss]

And yet the other troll thread remains open......surprise surprise.

thats how they roll on Kashyyyk

Was closed.

 

[DonsRule]

thats how they roll on Kashyyyk

Which other troll thread in particular?