The Bombers ASADA/WADA Saga

[Viceregal]

*grin* the thread started this morning on "WADA to appeal AFL Tribunal's Essendon ruling" is only up to page 60 (1478 posts) at this point!

 

[Skoob]

I agree to a point. There would have been pressure to take these substances from the Club and the Doctor who would have assured you it's safe... But on the flip side, when I signed my lucrative rookie deal, I would have been aware I was bound by a strict anti-drug policy, one that places the onus on the players to regulate what they put into their bodies, then I wouldn't have agreed to the administered treatment.

Maybe I'm risk-averse and happy to stand up for myself when being pressured, and maybe it's harder for some of these kids. I don't know.

I started out at a sympathetic point for the players... but I think that if they are happy to take the dollars that come with the contract, they should protect themselves better.

I agree, but I think it is possible to feel sorry for someone, at the same time recognising their wrongs. This takes me all the way back to last week with May being rubbed out for a bump. I think he meant no serious harm, was doing as he was told/taught and was unlucky. BUT, it didn't come off and the sport needs to have some sort of standard/rules to be met.
In this case, even if the players were totally ignorant/innocent, the fact that they can't show what was administered (and they have admitted they were on some sort of drug/supplement programme) then they have to wear the consequences of that. If not, it sets a precedent of innocence by deception. That, partnered by the fact that they are happy to accept the huge pay packets that come with a dream job, means they have to take responsibility. (Not to discount the duty of care upon the club).

 

[Skoob]

Sounds like they have all the same powers, no more no less. They just hear it as a new case under the AFL rules but with different (and I think the point is) more independent judges

I don't know, but I get the impression that WADA has the extra power to appeal to the higher CAS, not the AFL Tribunal (which is obvious), and the CAS may have the power to simply overrule the AFL Tribunal and reverse their decision of 'not guilty'.
I think it is more a procedural and interpretation of the regulations thing, as opposed to strength of or new evidence thing. I think the court will be asked to determine whether the case was strong enough for a guilty finding and not dismiss it due to "lack of evidence" as the tribunal did. The consequences affect the whole AFL, and was decided by its own tribunal. I think it's worth a closer look by an outside authority.

 

[KissKiss]

I don't know, but I get the impression that WADA has the extra power to appeal to the higher CAS, not the AFL Tribunal (which is obvious), and the CAS may have the power to simply overrule the AFL Tribunal and reverse their decision of 'not guilty'.
I think it is more a procedural and interpretation of the regulations thing, as opposed to strength of or new evidence thing. I think the court will be asked to determine whether the case was strong enough for a guilty finding and not dismiss it due to "lack of evidence" as the tribunal did. The consequences affect the whole AFL, and was decided by its own tribunal. I think it's worth a closer look by an outside authority.

That's a different interpretation that I got from the radio this morning. I thought it was talked about as they treat the case as completely new and basically ignore the AFL tribunal (not allowed to mention it at all). They can bring up new evidence if it has arisen, but the powers of compelling witnesses, etc, are the same

 

[lionbear]

I did find Hird's comments funny today saying how they were found not guilty, it was a very detailed ruling and don't understand how a complete ruling like this could be appealed.

Didn't James Appeal a very detailed ruling less than 6 months ago?

 

[Skoob]

That's a different interpretation that I got from the radio this morning. I thought it was talked about as they treat the case as completely new and basically ignore the AFL tribunal (not allowed to mention it at all). They can bring up new evidence if it has arisen, but the powers of compelling witnesses, etc, are the same

Fair enough, I must admit I didn't catch that.
Even if the Tribunal decision and or action is ignored, what I meant was that the CAS holds the ruling power, in that if they read the evidence/case differently, they have the power to overrule. It is they who decide how the matter is heard and how items are interpreted. The burden of proof, as I understand is one of "comfortable/reasonable satisfaction". The CAS will determine what that is, which could be different to what the tribunal was willing to accept.

 

[MacMum]

If that is the case Skoob, would Mr Tird be able to appeal again, and again.......and again like in the past......or would that be the end of it?

.....and didn't WADA take lots of years to get Lance Armstrong, but didn't give up until they did?

Hope the same applies in this case.

 

[Skoob]

If that is the case Skoob, would Mr Tird be able to appeal again, and again.......and again like in the past......or would that be the end of it?

.....and didn't WADA take lots of years to get Lance Armstrong, but didn't give up until they did?

Hope the same applies in this case.

I don't think James has anything left to appeal.
His argument was that the investigation was not legal, and this has been heard/determined.
I'm not a lawyer though.

 

[brizrider]

If Essendon are genuinely surprised by the WADA appeal then they have had exceptionally poor legal advice.

 

[lionbear]

And for the record Mr Hird:

The players where found not guilty due to insufficient evidence, not found innocent.

 

[AFLQLD]

Is this still a thing? I thought this wasn't a thing anymore. Now I find out it's still a thing.

I shall prepare my outrage once again. It started so long ago and will continue so long into the future that the original players' sons will have to be drafted by Essendon just to serve the sentences eventually handed down.

Justice moves at the speed of continental drift. Still, that club will eventually have to face the guilt we all knew about five or ten years ago. (Well, it feels that long).

 

[Kevvo]

Wow. Gerard Whately is tearing James Hird a new one on 360.

 

[Dom PC]

A couple of very blunt questions asked by Gerard to Hird on 360. He called Hird out on him stating the players had been proven to have not taken TB4. Hird essentially said "agree to disagree" lol

 

[POBT]

Wow. Gerard Whately is tearing James Hird a new one on 360.

Yeah? Would you be able to give us a précis?

 

[Grizzly86]

Saint James is floundering to Gerard, whereas Robbo is throwing him the Dorothy Dixer's.

 

[Kevvo]

Yeah? Would you be able to give us a précis?

Hird was saying "the tribunal found we didn't take anything". Gerard called him out "no, they never got to considering that question. Followed up by asking Hird if he had the moral authority to remain coach, then how he would feel as a father if the club couldn't tell him what his kids were given. There's more, but that was the tone.

It had been unflinching.

 

[Grizzly86]

Hirdy's first look at the conclusion of the interview was at the off-camera crew, and it screamed of "Get me out of here!"

You get the feeling that Gerard interviewing Hird live, for an hour, would get further than ASADA managed.

 

[Kevvo]

Gerard seems swayed by WADA appealing: says they don't have a reputation for appealing losing cases and must be convinced by the evidence.

 

[Elixuh]

Hird claiming Essendon did provide the tribunal with records of what the players were administered and that they did not destroy any documents. Basically saying the tribunal has lost the records or has lied.

All very soul destroying.

 

[Lace Out]

Hope Tania has foolscap

 

[Eons]

Gerard seems swayed by WADA appealing: says they don't have a reputation for appealing losing cases and must be convinced by the evidence.

Wada wins 90% of the cases it appeals. Doesn't look good for the Bombers.

 

[KissKiss]

If that is the case Skoob, would Mr Tird be able to appeal again, and again.......and again like in the past......or would that be the end of it?

.....and didn't WADA take lots of years to get Lance Armstrong, but didn't give up until they did?

Hope the same applies in this case.

A sports lawyer on the radio on the drive home was stating that standard practice at this stage is for both parties to sign an agreement before CAS that they will both abide by CAS' ruling and take the case no further. Seems like this is the last attempt (at TB4 and other drugs named in the AFL tribunal) no matter what happens.

WADA didn't give up on Armstrong but I don't think they got this far until the very end

 

[James North]

This is off topic guys - this thread is strictly relating to the ASADA side of the investigation.

 

[Eons]

This is off topic guys - this thread is strictly relating to the ASADA side of the investigation.

Fairley likes this post.

 

[lionbear]

Wow. Gerard Whately is tearing James Hird a new one on 360.

Must admit as a journalist I have never seen Whately go hard like that, it was good to see someone finally stare at Hird and ask the hard questions.

He just moved to number 1 on my journalist ladder.