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

[Stumpy Pete]

If you separate the case into compartments surely this is about ASADA demonstrating their is sufficient evidence that the players were injected with a substance that was labelled on the consent forms as "Thymosin". Because players have no information on supply chain issues I presume that other information will be relied upon to demonstrate that the Thymosin they believe was injected into the players was Beta-4.

Put simply they need to prove what it was and where it went and the player interviews are clearly key to "proving" the latter.

This is why the record keeping demands placed on football clubs is so high, and why the lack of record keeping by Essendon is so damning (IMO). Essendon have wilfully created a situation where ASADA are fighting with one hand tied behind their back and are using the Federal court to get the other hand tied there as well.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[DonsRule]

That is just my recollection of how I read that statement at the time. Could be wrong.

I think that was Middleton asking questions could they getting a feel for where each side was at.

ASADA's lawyers said they could get it within 24 hours. Middleton said there would need to be a turn around.

Essendon's lawyers argued they would have to re interview the players as they could assert privilege next time around.

Middleton was questioning if he threw out the player testimony would that stop ASADA? Essendon's lawyers said no nothing would stop them from conducting new interviews through correct procedure.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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 deep of the s**t they are in at this stage, it may be because they have nothing.

It may be that they "changed tactics", but there's no evidence to back that up, it's just a hypothesis. It is just as likely (and a simpler explanation, and this more likely so to my biased mind) that they provided evidence where it would help them get the deal and didn't where it wouldn't.

This changing tactic argument depends on them being so dumb they made the initial mistake and fixed up the process. Seems unlikely to me they didn't realise showing evidence=more chance of a deal...

 

[Stumpy Pete]

I think that was Middleton asking questions could they getting a feel for where each side was at.

ASADA's lawyers said they could get it within 24 hours. Middleton said there would need to be a turn around.

Essendon's lawyers argued they would have to re interview the players as they could assert privilege next time around.

Middleton was questioning if he threw out the player testimony would that stop ASADA? Essendon's lawyers said no nothing would stop them from conducting new interviews through correct procedure.

This is where I think Essendon's lawyer erred. Suggesting that players may be less cooperative next time around did not need to be said.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[TheEnsign]

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

Could be holding 73o. But sometimes that turns out ok.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If you separate the case into compartments surely this is about ASADA demonstrating their is sufficient evidence that the players were injected with a substance that was labelled on the consent forms as "Thymosin". Because players have no information on supply chain issues I presume that other information will be relied upon to demonstrate that the Thymosin they believe was injected into the players was Beta-4.

Put simply they need to prove what it was and where it went and the player interviews are clearly key to "proving" the latter.

This is why the record keeping demands placed on football clubs is so high, and why the lack of record keeping by Essendon is so damning (IMO). Essendon have wilfully created a situation where ASADA are fighting with one hand tied behind their back and are using the Federal court to get the other hand tied there as well.

Regards

S. Pete

Agree in some ways, but you've missed an important part. It demonstrates a fundamental flaw in WADAs code.

They could change it so having no records is not a way out. It should never have been a way out. The code was flawed.

If this episode fixes that it's a silver lining for everyone

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Agree in some ways, but you've missed an important part. It demonstrates a fundamental flaw in WADAs code.

They could change it so having no records is not a way out. It should never have been a way out. The code was flawed.

If this episode fixes that it's a silver lining for everyone

There are a few things that this case could fix. I think it has also demonstrated a framework that requires a professional sporting code's governing body to have such a significant role, when that same governing body has a vested interest in TV rights, sponsorships etc., is fundamentally naive.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[tesla1962]

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.

Where do you get this 'I understand it's the normal procedure' from? The only thing I have seen on this was the ex CEO of ASADA Ings being surprised and suggesting it was unfair.

Where is your evidence it's normal practice?

 

[tesla1962]

There are a few things that this case could fix. I think it has also demonstrated a framework that requires a professional sporting code's governing body to have such a significant role, when that same governing body has a vested interest in TV rights, sponsorships etc., is fundamentally naive.

Regards

S. Pete

OMG you just worked this out now. Many of us were aware of this, and were complaining about it 16 months ago.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

OMG you just worked this out now. Many of us were aware of this, and were complaining about it 16 months ago.

Haven't just worked it out - have thought this for a while. Question is whether Essendon knew this and factored AFL's conflict into their decision making regarding likely consequences from running the program.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[jenny61_99]

I think that was Middleton asking questions could they getting a feel for where each side was at.

ASADA's lawyers said they could get it within 24 hours. Middleton said there would need to be a turn around.

Essendon's lawyers argued they would have to re interview the players as they could assert privilege next time around.

Middleton was questioning if he threw out the player testimony would that stop ASADA? Essendon's lawyers said no nothing would stop them from conducting new interviews through correct procedure.

What's to stop the AFL interviewing the players where they HAVE to answer the truth? And then ASADA asking for the transcripts? AFL already know the players answers from last time, so if they differ, player will be penalised. Players cannot use the "I can't answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" with the AFL.

 

[jenny61_99]

Where do you get this 'I understand it's the normal procedure' from? The only thing I have seen on this was the ex CEO of ASADA Ings being surprised and suggesting it was unfair.

Where is your evidence it's normal practice?

Don't be using Ings as your point of reference about how to do things right. he got sacked remember?

 

[andrewb]

No his comment was something about "come on now, it would take more than 24 hours".

Come on Jenny, you know that's not true.
His comment was alluding to the fact that if he rules the evidence to be unlawfully collected then ASADA would need to seriously consider whether they felt using that evidence would be cognisant of natural justice.

 

[jenny61_99]

Come on Jenny, you know that's not true.
His comment was alluding to the fact that if he rules the evidence to be unlawfully collected then ASADA would need to seriously consider whether they felt using that evidence would be cognisant of natural justice.

Keep reading andrew.

 

[buttsauce]

If they have to interview the players again, what if they just lie?

The AFL cant be trusted with anything with hoe dodgy they have been.

For people saying that the player interviews is all the evidence they have, what about the texts between dank/hird/charters? invoices for vials of TB4, there is a ton of evidence.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What's to stop the AFL interviewing the players where they HAVE to answer the truth? And then ASADA asking for the transcripts? AFL already know the players answers from last time, so if they differ, player will be penalised. Players cannot use the "I can't answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" with the AFL.

probably nothing, but I'm not sure the AFL and ASADA are on the best of terms these days

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If they have to interview the players again, what if they just lie?

The AFL cant be trusted with anything with hoe dodgy they have been.

For people saying that the player interviews is all the evidence they have, what about the texts between dank/hird/charters? invoices for vials of TB4, there is a ton of evidence.

it's all a chain of circumstantial evidence. On it's own, each link can be as strong as you like. But the chain must be unbroken.

 

[jenny61_99]

probably nothing, but I'm not sure the AFL and ASADA are on the best of terms these days

AFL have to co-operate with ASADA. It's in the code.

And seriously, if AFL DIDN'T co-operate with ASADA? The fallout could be catastrophic.

 

[andrewb]

What's to stop the AFL interviewing the players where they HAVE to answer the truth? And then ASADA asking for the transcripts? AFL already know the players answers from last time, so if they differ, player will be penalised. Players cannot use the "I can't answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" with the AFL.

I think we saw enough "I can't recall" answers from Androuska and Hird during the court case to get a good feel as to how the players would respond.

Can't sack someone for memory loss. Especially with all those hits to the head that players get .

 

[jenny61_99]

If they have to interview the players again, what if they just lie?

The AFL cant be trusted with anything with hoe dodgy they have been.

For people saying that the player interviews is all the evidence they have, what about the texts between dank/hird/charters? invoices for vials of TB4, there is a ton of evidence.

Wow, that's dodgy alright.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think we saw enough "I can't recall" answers from Androuska and Hird during the court case to get a good feel as to how the players would respond.

Can't sack someone for memory loss. Especially with all those hits to the head that players get .

We already know their answers. What if the answers differ? The AFL COMPELS them to tell the truth under threat of sanction.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

What's to stop the AFL interviewing the players where they HAVE to answer the truth? And then ASADA asking for the transcripts? AFL already know the players answers from last time, so if they differ, player will be penalised. Players cannot use the "I can't answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" with the AFL.

It depends on the breadth of Middleton's ruling. If he essentially says that all parties must forget that players interviews ever happened then the AFL interviewers would not be able to take into account the previous responses in determining whether players are fully coperating and telling the truth. As I stated in another thread - the investigative world is one where what is known can effectively be unknown.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[good4footy]

The article can not accurately reflect anything about evidence - no one knows. Chip, Caro, Robbo no one. ASADA know what they have and Essendon know what they have done. That is it.

For anyone on this board to say the article shows this or that then they are only hypothesising based on their bias. There are some normally measured posters that I can only assume have had their accounts hacked this morning!!

My hypothesis about the article has nothing to do with evidence because Chip wouldn't know (beacuse Essendon wouldn't know what ASADA have). The Bombers PR campaign continues via this article and all it is saying to the players is hold firm the court case will set you free.

For me the only weight this article can hold is to help Essendon control any players that may be weakening. There has been a lot of media regards deals, the soft offer to the NRL players, AFLPA making their statement etc. 'Hold firm guys they have nothing- you would be stupid to break ranks now'

 

[andrewb]

If they have to interview the players again, what if they just lie?

The AFL cant be trusted with anything with hoe dodgy they have been.

For people saying that the player interviews is all the evidence they have, what about the texts between dank/hird/charters? invoices for vials of TB4, there is a ton of evidence.

There is evidence of PEDs on site. SARMS and Hex were definitely on site - Wep was apparently using them.

What is missing is evidence of players being injected with PEDs.

Thymosin is on the injection schedules, but was it the good or the bad? And if it was the bad, how much of it was at the club and who was it used on?

 

[tesla1962]

Don't be using Ings as your point of reference about how to do things right. he got sacked remember?

The the point of reference was the former CEO, a well know process freak and at least it's one point of reference. I was really after Baldur's point/s of reference for what is 'standard practice'. I won't hold my breath.