Le Grand: ASADA case against Essendon Bombers at risk of collapse

Remove this Banner Ad

jenny61_99 said:
And even if he did, ASADA can gave afl question them again (they must tell the truth), and then hand it over.
Click to expand...
Will they continue though?
Big Fozza said:
Until he quotes a source saying there are only these 2 pieces of evidence then I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Out of curiosity who has seen all of asada's evidence?

Come on Middleton... let's get a shake on here...
Click to expand...
Agree enough.

But it does certainly go for both sides. We don't know what evidence Essendon holds, not what ASADA have. We don't know precly what Downes, nor Young said of the case.

I suspect Essendon has a pretty good idea of where they stand There were a lot of hints IMO in their submissions. Leading questions kinda.

A lot more wait and see.
 
Big headline from another Hird fan boy
But if ASADA can reacquire the interview transcripts within 24 hours
than isn't this all just a waste of time and money.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Bazza37 said:
Big headline from another Hird fan boy
But if ASADA can reacquire the interview transcripts within 24 hours
than isn't this all just a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

1/ agreed
2/ has been a waste of time and money for over 18 months now
3/ and counting
4/ all because of a failed anti-obesity drug which turned out to be ok afterall
 
I love that the first response is to attack the messenger. So telling. Anyone want to have a go refuting the explanation of why those players who got served SCNs and more importantly why those who didn't?

No wonder ASADA have refused to show the evidence when suggesting deals. It all makes sense now.

Their evidence is contingent on a circumstantial chain that has a stupidly weak link. Middleton doesn't matter so much. They'll be lucky to get that past the ADRVP and no tribunal will convict.

No wonder they didn't want to show their hand. They're holding a 2 and a 4 and praying desperately for those cards to appear in the river and flop
 
Chip le Petite is worse then useless

First the consent forms.

Are we to believe that the only evidence we have of the consent forms is the players admitting they signed them. That Essendon did not keep them, sounds like complete and utter rubbish. Now it would be nice if the players admitted it is their signature rather then having to prove it. But in practice this is hardly ever an issue. I simply cannot see a player trying it on by saying his signature was forged and forcing ASADA to provide a hand writing expert and Essendon official who witnessed the signature to say otherwise.

Second the admission by some players that they were injected.

This is more important, as it appears some players may have signed forms but where not injected. It may be the case that Essendons records do not reveal which players where injected. Sounds unforgivably sloppy but I cannot discount it. But it is hardly going to make the case collapse just by itself.

ASADA can require the AFL to ask the players if they received injections and if they saw another player receive injections, if so whom. Even if the AFL allows them to not answer the first question on the grounds of self incrimination, the other two cannot be avoided for that reason. I would suggest that the players do not want to reach a situation where they are being forced to give evidence against each other.

The more interesting part of the article is the two players who were not interviewed for "personal reasons" and have declined to be interviewed on legal advice. I wonder why the AFL has not forced them to be interviewed, at a guess I would suggest they are no longer playing and therefore not subject to the AFL's powers.
 
Baldur said:
Chip le Petite is worse then useless

First the consent forms.

Are we to believe that the only evidence we have of the consent forms is the players admitting they signed them. That Essendon did not keep them, sounds like complete and utter rubbish. Now it would be nice if the players admitted it is their signature rather then having to prove it. But in practice this is hardly ever an issue. I simply cannot see a player trying it on by saying his signature was forged and forcing ASADA to provide a hand writing expert and Essendon official who witnessed the signature to say otherwise.

Second the admission by some players that they were injected.

This is more important, as it appears some players may have signed forms but where not injected. It may be the case that Essendons records do not reveal which players where injected. Sounds unforgivably sloppy but I cannot discount it. But it is hardly going to make the case collapse just by itself.

ASADA can require the AFL to ask the players if they received injections and if they saw another player receive injections, if so whom. Even if the AFL allows them to not answer the first question on the grounds of self incrimination, the other two cannot be avoided for that reason. I would suggest that the players do not want to reach a situation where they are being forced to give evidence against each other.

The more interesting part of the article is the two players who were not interviewed for "personal reasons" and have declined to be interviewed on legal advice. I wonder why the AFL has not forced them to be interviewed, at a guess I would suggest they are no longer playing and therefore not subject to the AFL's powers.
Click to expand...
It just shows why they have refused to show their evidence at the deal table. Their circumstantial chain contains a link made of porcelain.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
It just shows why they have refused to show their evidence at the deal table. Their circumstantial chain contains a link made of porcelain.
Click to expand...

the interesting counterpoint is the coherent part of Roy's article in Fairfax today (before he headed into his normal anti-AFL/pro-NRL rant).

He indicates that the evidence shown to the NRL players was extermely strong.

More importantly, he said ASADA decided to show the evidence after misjudging the response to the Essendon SCNs without the info also provided.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...ments-before-taking-deal-20140827-1091y4.html
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
I love that the first response is to attack the messenger. So telling. Anyone want to have a go refuting the explanation of why those players who got served SCNs and more importantly why those who didn't?

No wonder ASADA have refused to show the evidence when suggesting deals. It all makes sense now.

Their evidence is contingent on a circumstantial chain that has a stupidly weak link. Middleton doesn't matter so much. They'll be lucky to get that past the ADRVP and no tribunal will convict.

No wonder they didn't want to show their hand. They're holding a 2 and a 4 and praying desperately for those cards to appear in the river and flop
Click to expand...

Lance the article is silly.

As for why some players got notices and others did not. I do not know, I can only guess it is because ASADA believes that some were not injected with Tb4 or cannot prove it.

But I admit if their case really does depend on these two elements from the interviews, than they are holding a 2 and a 4. Nevertheless obtaining the two elements again should not be a problem.
 
Baldur said:
Chip le Petite is worse then useless

First the consent forms.

Are we to believe that the only evidence we have of the consent forms is the players admitting they signed them. That Essendon did not keep them, sounds like complete and utter rubbish. Now it would be nice if the players admitted it is their signature rather then having to prove it. But in practice this is hardly ever an issue. I simply cannot see a player trying it on by saying his signature was forged and forcing ASADA to provide a hand writing expert and Essendon official who witnessed the signature to say otherwise.

Second the admission by some players that they were injected.

This is more important, as it appears some players may have signed forms but where not injected. It may be the case that Essendons records do not reveal which players where injected. Sounds unforgivably sloppy but I cannot discount it. But it is hardly going to make the case collapse just by itself.

ASADA can require the AFL to ask the players if they received injections and if they saw another player receive injections, if so whom. Even if the AFL allows them to not answer the first question on the grounds of self incrimination, the other two cannot be avoided for that reason. I would suggest that the players do not want to reach a situation where they are being forced to give evidence against each other.

The more interesting part of the article is the two players who were not interviewed for "personal reasons" and have declined to be interviewed on legal advice. I wonder why the AFL has not forced them to be interviewed, at a guess I would suggest they are no longer playing and therefore not subject to the AFL's powers.
Click to expand...

receiving an injection is simply evidence of receiving an injection
we know there were injections
the taking of the syringe activity, etc
but isn't the important part what has been injected?
do people on here honestly believe that ASADA would have evidence of each and everyone of the 34 players receiving an injection of TB4?
I'd suggest that is an impossibility
 
Spongebob said:
the interesting counterpoint is the coherent part of Roy's article in Fairfax today (before he headed into his normal anti-AFL/pro-NRL rant).

He indicates that the evidence shown to the NRL players was extermely strong.

More importantly, he said ASADA decided to show the evidence after misjudging the response to the Essendon SCNs without the info also provided.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...ments-before-taking-deal-20140827-1091y4.html
Click to expand...

in the Cronulla case
the club had already stated in its own review that it had given players the two prohibited substances, this happened nearly 18 months ago
stated in black and white
what is unclear is whether ASADA was able to link that evience to the 17 players who received SCNs
we know that 12 took the deal
we know that immediately after that, ASADA took those 12 confessions to the ADRV Panel and they were put on the RoF (note: ASADA only went to the Panel after the confessions, not before, suggesting that the evidence may not have been as strong as people are making out)
now here is an interesting question
will ASADA put the other 5 to the ADRV Panel?
if not, will that suggest that the 12 players may have jumped the gun and signed on merely for the sake of convenience, afterall, they got a wet lettuce punishment
 
Lance Uppercut said:
It just shows why they have refused to show their evidence at the deal table. Their circumstantial chain contains a link made of porcelain.
Click to expand...

Does it? This may be the case or it may not. I understand the normal procedure is that they do not need to provide evidence at the Show Clause stage. I never show my hand if I gain nothing from it and do not need to do so. I know of nobody who does, hiding your case as long as possible is legal tactics 101.

Now they did it appears show their hand to the Sharks players. Why? Because they decided they had something to gain from it. And they where right.

It may be that they will now when the process begins again show their hand to the Essendon players, or they may not. We can guess at the reasons why, but just assuming the reason it is what you hope and pray it is is silly.
 
Baldur said:
Lance the article is silly.

As for why some players got notices and others did not. I do not know, I can only guess it is because ASADA believes that some were not injected with Tb4 or cannot prove it.

But I admit if their case really does depend on these two elements from the interviews, than they are holding a 2 and a 4. Nevertheless obtaining the two elements again should not be a problem.
Click to expand...
On the face of it the article contains very compelling explanations of why some players didn't get them, and suggests the chain of evidence is contingent on the consent forms and players "admissions" (which will get laughed out of a tribunal).

They can try and get that evidence again, or reuse it, it's still not going to prove what was in the needle. They won't win.

It makes perfect sense. The SCNs weren't a fishing expiration. They were a bargaining chip to attain a deal.
 
Chris Kaias @ChrisKaias · Aug 12
Middleton says problem he's worried about, making sure any order he makes doesn't prevent getting same information lawfully next time
Chris Kaias @ChrisKaias · Aug 12
Howe: could get new information within 24 hours and reissue. Middleton: couldn't do within 24 hours, would need to turn mind to it
 
Baldur said:
Does it? This may be the case or it may not. I understand the normal procedure is that they do not need to provide evidence at the Show Clause stage. I never show my hand if I gain nothing from it and do not need to do so. I know of nobody who does, hiding your case as long as possible is legal tactics 101.

Now they did it appears show their hand to the Sharks players. Why? Because they decided they had something to gain from it. And they where right.

It may be that they will now when the process begins again show their hand to the Essendon players, or they may not. We can guess at the reasons why, but just assuming the reason it is what you hope and pray it is is silly.
Click to expand...
Because I'd suggest they showed the sharks because they had evidence that was compelling.

Sure I'm speculating, and I might be wrong, but you know it makes sense
 
the_interloper said:
But it's not the AOD that's the issue is it, isn't it the TB4?
Click to expand...

1/ why did it take 18 months for ASADA to come out and say we aren't interested in AOD?
2/ why couldn't that have been said back in February 2013?
3/ why wasn't the AFL able to say from the start: AOD is a non-issue as far as use in 2012 goes, but we now expect clubs not to use it from hereonin
4/ why did both ASADA and AFL pretend it was an issue?

it goes to the heart of the credibility of the whole investigation
it backs up the suggestion that the whole thing has been a sham since the blackest day in Australian sport presser
emphasised by backroom wheeling and dealing on Cronulla which is the complete antithesis of the what the ASADA process under the NAD scheme is meant to be
 
jenny61_99 said:
Chris Kaias @ChrisKaias · Aug 12
Middleton says problem he's worried about, making sure any order he makes doesn't prevent getting same information lawfully next time
Chris Kaias @ChrisKaias · Aug 12
Howe: could get new information within 24 hours and reissue. Middleton: couldn't do within 24 hours, would need to turn mind to it
Click to expand...
Thanks for saving me the time. I'd be interested in ChrisKaias opinion, for me that's saying Midd is saying you couldn't do it in 24 hours, I have to think about whether you could resubmit. Happy to be corrected
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Because I'd suggest they showed the sharks because they had evidence that was compelling.

Sure I'm speculating, and I might be wrong, but you know it makes sense
Click to expand...

I would make the same guess. But this does not mean that the evidence against the Essendon players is not compelling. Afterall it is after the failure re the Essendon players that they changed their tactics. It may be because ASADA learned that they gain something from proving to the players the depth of the s**t they are in at this stage, it may be because they have nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
725
Satan
Satan
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top