ASADA relied on 'vague' accounts - The Australian 27/12/13

[Jade]

with jade & a few others moving into sympathy mode yesterday, its clear the day of reckoning is near.

Yeah because I both:

a) have inside knowledge that you don't have
and
b) care very deeply what imbeciles on the HTB think.....

 

[Jade]

Hands up if you think ASADA and the AFL want this to enter the court system?

My reading of things is that both hierarchies will move heaven and Earth to stay out of the courts.

Yeah my gut feel is most parties just want this closed off.

Reckon ASADA will be wanting a serious smoking gun to proceed further.

 

[Barkly St End]

AFL yes. ASADA definitely no. ASADA with the full backing of WADA will move heaven and earth to make the charges stick. And should this end up in court, hello full ACC report as evidence (which I believe ASADA still cannot currently use??)

People putting a lot of faith in what lurks behind the ACC report, which surely by now, people realise is pretty short on substance.

I recall that one of the big drivers for the report is the possibile link between PEDs and organised crime, and as a consequence of that, the increased risk of match fixing.

That's certainly worth having a good look at.

However, at the time of the big publicity stunt over the release of the ACC report, do you know what was happening at that exact point?

Interpol released their report on match fixing in soccer, absolutely rife, right across the world, with the epicentre immediately North of our shores.

Any mention of that by the ACC?

Asleep on the job?

 

[theflea]

How about this (don't tell me; 'delusional' right?) scenario:

The AFL is informed that organised crime has infiltrated it, and through lax AFL controls over clubs (who naturally will push the boundaries to succeed), questionable substance use is likely widespread and endemic. An all-out ASADA assault on the AFL could therefore destroy the game. The government's perspective is that the AFL is 'too big to fail', so an agreement is reached to set an example of only one club; so they obviously choose the one club they believe to be most openly pushing the boundaries - Essendon. The railroad is built.

Essendon is called in and made to believe that if they cooperate, the AFL would be lenient. They fall for it and open their doors. A ways down the track, however, they come to realise that the promise of leniency was a lie; a trap. Punishments were decided before Essendon was called in. They were going to be made an example of for the rest of the competition. All well and good if your one of the other teams. Obviously a bitter pill to swallow though if you're Essendon.

What would the AFL have to gain by making an example of Essendon in this case? The survival of the game. And Essendon being Essendon, they will survive too.

I'm not claiming any of this to be fact; it's just a possible (although delusional right?) interpretation of events. One which shows that the AFL helping out Essendon, is nothing but pretence.

It seems one media outlet (for whatever reason) is choosing the 'public display' version events the foamers seem so sure of. The other (for whatever reason) is questioning it.

Lax AFL control? Spare me, all clubs have a responsibility for their own actions. Since it is now apparent that at let 1 club cant this the parent organisation has moved in with new regulation.

 

[Dave]

As long as it has approval to be used for human therapeutic use from a regulatory health authority SOMEWHERE in the world - and it isn't a specified substance on any of the other prohibited clauses, you can use it.

But would be risking the wrath of Ian "legal in Mexico" W.

If a player spilt their guts to ASADA their career would be over. No club would go near them. Footy clubs are extremely insular organisations as we all know, plus the average AFL career is somewhere around 4 years (I think) so it would be a massive risk to do it. The player might get a few paid interviews, but what after that? Even if they have a degree or trade to fall back on, they would still be known as a whistleblower and it normally doesn't turn out well for them.

Bullshit. Michael Vick went to jail for dog fighting, he was signed up when he got out two years later. If the player is good enough someone will pick them up.

They didn't HAVE to pay him at all.

It would appear that his emploment contract says otherwise. How people have trouble understanding that a legally binding contract is well, legally binding, amazes me.

Steven Trigg and Phil Harper were suspended and neither of them could be paid by the club.

Did they have that in their "deed of agreement"? Did Hird?

Can you explain to me how this is even remotely a penalty to him? ITS ONLY A PENALTY IF HE ACTUALLY SUFFERS FROM IT. An all expenses paid holiday and million dollars spending money does not qualify as a penalty in any shape or form in anyone's ******* language.

Conveniently ignoring the part where he is prevented frim doing his job (some people actually like working you know) and the permanent mark on his reputation, not to mention the possibility that he may not return to his job as a result of the suspension.

How do you explain the fact that Steven Trigg, Phil Harper and Chris Connelly all had to forfeit their pay but James does not?

They didn't negotiate as good a deal? Perhaps he had leverage he could use that they didn't?

carlton would suggest differently

And they'd be wrong.

 

[coryne]

Isnt the rule regarding approval in 'any' country? So if 1 country approve it ten it might be ok?

We can use TA1 as an example here. It is a substance which has past regulations for its use in a number of countries (e.g. Mexico and some European countries) to it isn't caught under the S0 clause. There are however a number of regulations put in place in Australia regarding its administration (It isn't covered under the MIMS system, and cannot be prescribed without specific SAS paperwork) so while there are no WADA regulations regarding its use there are regulations within the medical system to prevent this from occurring (which is why I have always said that the EFC would still be in trouble if TA1 was used not TB4)

 

[theflea]

Oh geez...... this is where BF, whose collective intelligence would struggle to screw in a lightbulb, tells us how smart it is, because it doesn't read the Herald-Sun.....

Yes, I live in Victoria - I read ALL footy related news (like a lot of serious football fans); regardless of the publication. Picking what to believe is entirely a different skill.



Sorry, you must have missed my post before, here, let me help you.





Horseshit.

The AFL was on the AFLs side, which occasionally also aligned with Essendon's side.

Ha that means you too mate!!

 

[Jade]

Ha that means you too mate!!

Sadly, you're right.

I keep coming back don't I?

 

[mediumsizered]

If I was in Little's shoes I would probably do the same thing as he is doing. He knows they are in a very bad place and going to get whacked. He needs to ensure that when all this plays out, EFC is seen as a victim (as much as is possible). Dank and Robinson are rogue operators who brought EFC to its knees. As victims, they are in a better position to maintain some form of respectable revenue inflows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know why he did it, but in doing so he may have created false hope for the EFC faithful he was preaching to that night, which could conceivably come back & bite him big time.

Should ASADA issue any infractions at all against the club, the backlash from supporters will be quite severe. They will rightly want to know why Little said 'A' when the real scenario was 'B'. Bloodletting would have happened regardless of Little's statement, but it will be much worse if the contents of the statement & other statements he has made since Evans was knifed are proven to have been misleading at best.

 

[JeffDunne]

How about this (don't tell me; 'delusional' right?) scenario:

One problem with that scenario, the AFL aren't leveraging the situation to suit their interests by going after Essendon.

Why not got after a club whose demise would fit with their overall agenda? Or at the very least a club whose survival the AFL can threaten through the purse-strings if they fight back.

Essendon doesn't make sense as a club to use as an example. In fact in your scenario they make no sense at all.

Here's a more likely & plausible scenario: the AFL knew of what was going on at Essendon & possibly other clubs, did their best to shield themselves from it but got caught out when information about Essendon was uncovered in an ACC investigation.

That makes sense in terms of "why Essendon" & also makes sense when viewing the actions of the AFL.

 

[Mordecai]

Wow, James Hird disliked by opposition supporters. Who would have thought?

I liked him.

 

[Oscarman]

Bullshit. Michael Vick went to jail for dog fighting, he was signed up when he got out two years later. If the player is good enough someone will pick them up.

What Vick did was outside the club. Once he served his time all he needed was NFL clearance to be registered as a player again. If a player dobbed his club in for doping I'm not sure if another club could get past the trust issue, even a gun, not that a player of this quality would tip their club in. There is too much at stake, and for the player there is also life after football, including the possibility of a media career that would be gone. Look at the example blackcat mentioned, Werner Reiterer. He said there was doping but would not follow through with names and ends up getting a position with the AOC advising on anti-doping programs (maybe as reward for not naming anyone) - and he would have been perfect for this role after what he had done in previous years.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

One problem with that scenario, the AFL aren't leveraging the situation to suit their interests by going after Essendon.

Why not got after a club whose demise would fit with their overall agenda? Or at the very least a club whose survival the AFL can threaten through the purse-strings if they fight back.

Essendon doesn't make sense as a club to use as an example. In fact in your scenario they make no sense at all.

Here's a more likely & plausible scenario: the AFL knew of what was going on at Essendon & possibly other clubs, did their best to shield themselves from it but got caught out when information about Essendon was uncovered in an ACC investigation.

That makes sense in terms of "why Essendon" & also makes sense when viewing the actions of the AFL.

It could suit their interests by being able to issue the selected club with a hefty fine, thus showing they 'mean business', but not wipe the club out in the process. They probably thought they had enough not to have to worry about threatening Essendon through their purse-strings. Although it did come to that when the Hird still being paid deal was leaked.

The AFL knowing about it before being 'informed' by the ACC, doesn't really make much of a difference to the above scenario.

Hypothetically.

 

[tigerwill]

Note that Jade said: if ASADA is able to make doping infractions stick (presumably on players as opposed to other staff).

On what we have before us, it's long odds that we'll get to the stage where there will be infraction notices issued (to players).

Nevertheless, even in the unlikely event that that were to occur, there are still quite a few hoops to jump through before we get to the pointy end of suspensions being handed out, not just the ADRV Panel process and the AFL Tribunal process but the likelihood of an appeal to the AAT, and at that precise point, the whole affair enters the court system.

Hands up if you think ASADA and the AFL want this to enter the court system?

My reading of things is that both hierarchies will move heaven and Earth to stay out of the courts.

May be you should have actually taken the time to read through those large slabs of the AFL Anti Doping Code that I posted previously. I would have thought you were quite familiar with it after all.
If violations were found and it proceeded through the AFL Anti Doping Code procedures etc etc and if it did go through to the Appeals Process then from page 37 of the AFL Anti Doping Code, relevant section included
17.2 (c)The determination of the Appeals Board will be final and binding on the parties to the appeal and no Person may institute or maintain proceedings in any court or tribunal.

This sounds quite final and definitive, not open to interpretation is it? So...perhaps the "court system" threat is hollow

 

[tigerwill]

People putting a lot of faith in what lurks behind the ACC report, which surely by now, people realise is pretty short on substance.

I recall that one of the big drivers for the report is the possibile link between PEDs and organised crime, and as a consequence of that, the increased risk of match fixing.

That's certainly worth having a good look at.

However, at the time of the big publicity stunt over the release of the ACC report, do you know what was happening at that exact point?

Interpol released their report on match fixing in soccer, absolutely rife, right across the world, with the epicentre immediately North of our shores.

Any mention of that by the ACC?

Asleep on the job?

New Guinea?
How do you for certain that they aren't looking into it. Who was present at that historic press conference with the politicians and sports bodies? Were not the heads of all major sports or their representatives present?

 

[QuietB]

People putting a lot of faith in what lurks behind the ACC report, which surely by now, people realise is pretty short on substance.

I recall that one of the big drivers for the report is the possibile link between PEDs and organised crime, and as a consequence of that, the increased risk of match fixing.

That's certainly worth having a good look at.

However, at the time of the big publicity stunt over the release of the ACC report, do you know what was happening at that exact point?

Interpol released their report on match fixing in soccer, absolutely rife, right across the world, with the epicentre immediately North of our shores.

Any mention of that by the ACC?

Asleep on the job?

The ACC report will detail all of Dank's transactions including substances, source, volume, delivery addresses, etc. I would think that is key information. As I understand it ASADA currently have to find that information themselves

Your statement that the ACC report is light on substance is a 100% assumption. You have zero idea if that is the case.

And I am not sure what powers the ACC have to investigate match fixing in Asia, but yeah, I'm sure they are asleep on the job

 

[Barkly St End]

May be you should have actually taken the time to read through those large slabs of the AFL Anti Doping Code that I posted previously. I would have thought you were quite familiar with it after all.
If violations were found and it proceeded through the AFL Anti Doping Code procedures etc etc and if it did go through to the Appeals Process then from page 37 of the AFL Anti Doping Code, relevant section included
17.2 (c)The determination of the Appeals Board will be final and binding on the parties to the appeal and no Person may institute or maintain proceedings in any court or tribunal.

This sounds quite final and definitive, not open to interpretation is it? So...perhaps the "court system" threat is hollow

Ah - but I have mentioned before to you the small disconnect between what ASADA does under the NAD Scheme, involving the ADRV Panel and the Register of Findings - and what the AFL does under its own code.

I keep mentioning this small disconnect - but not too many want to talk about it!

At the point where the ADRV Panel decides to formally make an entry in the Register of Findings against a footballer, he can appeal it to the AAT.

Noting the discretion the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has under the AFL Code, it's unclear at what point he would feel compelled to issue an infraction notice.

If he understands a player has appealed the entry in the Register of Findings to the AAT, would he not be in his rights to hold off on issuing an infraction notice until that appeal process is finalised?

Pointless issuing an infraction notice if the AAT decides against ASADA.

It seems to me this helps explain the broad discretion the AFL has within its own code.

What you quoted applies only when the infraction notice has been issued, and hearing proceedings commenced.

 

[Barkly St End]

New Guinea?
How do you for certain that they aren't looking into it. Who was present at that historic press conference with the politicians and sports bodies? Were not the heads of all major sports or their representatives present?

Your memory is failing you.

Immediately after all of the policitcal grandstanding, it was made clear that the ACC report was about the NRL and AFL only.

I'm sure you agree that's strange.

The ACC completes an investigation ostensibly involving match fixing as one of its primary considerations, does not mention soccer at all, and at that exact point, Interpol finalises its worldwide investigation of match fixing in soccer, at every level of the game, across the world, a much, much bigger deal than anything we have heard in the so-called blackest day in Australian sport.

 

[Barkly St End]

The ACC report will detail all of Dank's transactions including substances, source, volume, delivery addresses, etc. I would think that is key information. As I understand it ASADA currently have to find that information themselves

Your statement that the ACC report is light on substance is a 100% assumption. You have zero idea if that is the case.

And I am not sure what powers the ACC have to investigate match fixing in Asia, but yeah, I'm sure they are asleep on the job

My dear fellow, the crime syndicates might be based in Asia, but their tentacles spread into Australia.

Of no interest to the ACC?

Really?

What an odd point of view.

 

[QuietB]

My dear fellow, the crime syndicates might be based in Asia, but their tentacles spread into Australia.

Of no interest to the ACC?

Really?

What an odd point of view.

I really do not care about match fixing as it does not relate to the topic at hand - it appears that you are merely trying to discredit the ACC to support you own position. What about your making assumptions about the ACC report "my dear fellow"? How is it light on substance? It was enough for the EFC to turn themselves in.

 

[Barkly St End]

I really do not care about match fixing as it does not relate to the topic at hand - it appears that you are merely trying to discredit the ACC to support you own position. What about your making assumptions about the ACC report "my dear fellow"? How is it light on substance? It was enough for the EFC to turn themselves in.

On the value of the ACC report, people are free to draw their own conclusions 11 months on (noting that the ACC's focus is organised crime, yet they appeared to be completely oblivious to the Interpol investigation on match fixing).

As for the EFC turning themselves in - you will probably get a different opinion on what the driver for that was from the Essendon supporters.

I'm sure many are now thinking whether it was wise to follow the AFL's game plan on this one, or whether they might have been better off following the Cronulla path.

 

[BigJoeD_]

I really do not care about match fixing as it does not relate to the topic at hand - it appears that you are merely trying to discredit the ACC to support you own position. What about your making assumptions about the ACC report "my dear fellow"? How is it light on substance? It was enough for the EFC to turn themselves in.

I think the AFL may have played a part in that, to be honest

 

[tigerwill]

Ah - but I have mentioned before to you the small disconnect between what ASADA does under the NAD Scheme, involving the ADRV Panel and the Register of Findings - and what the AFL does under its own code.

I keep mentioning this small disconnect - but not too many want to talk about it!

At the point where the ADRV Panel decides to formally make an entry in the Register of Findings against a footballer, he can appeal it to the AAT.

Noting the discretion the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has under the AFL Code, it's unclear at what point he would feel compelled to issue an infraction notice.

If he understands a player has appealed the entry in the Register of Findings to the AAT, would he not be in his rights to hold off on issuing an infraction notice until that appeal process is finalised?

Pointless issuing an infraction notice if the AAT decides against ASADA.

It seems to me this helps explain the broad discretion the AFL has within its own code.

What you quoted applies only when the infraction notice has been issued, and hearing proceedings commenced.

Save the preamble. In my post I made it quite clear that if Infractions were handed down and dealt with under the AFL Anti Doping Code, the Appeals process (if it went to Appeals) was what I posted. Not before any Infractions were handed down. Another deflection.
Given that all AFL clubs are signatories to the Code. The Code would take preference. Try getting around that and good luck, I wonder if deregistration could apply? Who knows how that works if you acknowledge you don't want to abide by the Rules and Code that you signed in agreement. I'm sure that these Codes were written for all clubs, not just the clubs that abide by them.
But one thing and it's probably why the investigation is ongoing, it needs to be shown conclusive evidence to prosecute a charge. Regardless of the burden of proof being on the player, balance of probabilities, etc etc of all the other phrases that are used. Due diligence and much care needs to be exercised if they do implement Infractions.

 

[Barkly St End]

Save the preamble. In my post I made it quite clear that if Infractions were handed down and dealt with under the AFL Anti Doping Code, the Appeals process (if it went to Appeals) was what I posted. Not before any Infractions were handed down. Another deflection.
Given that all AFL clubs are signatories to the Code. The Code would take preference. Try getting around that and good luck, I wonder if deregistration could apply? Who knows how that works if you acknowledge you don't want to abide by the Rules and Code that you signed in agreement. I'm sure that these Codes were written for all clubs, not just the clubs that abide by them.
But one thing and it's probably why the investigation is ongoing, it needs to be shown conclusive evidence to prosecute a charge. Regardless of the burden of proof being on the player, balance of probabilities, etc etc of all the other phrases that are used. Due diligence and much care needs to be exercised if they do implement Infractions.

My dear fellow - it's not a deflection.

You and your colleagues are yet to show the process by which we get from the ADRV Panel making an entry in the Register of Findings to the AFL issuing an infraction notice.

In between those two events, the footballer is in his rights to appeal to the AAT (and from there, it effectively enters the court system).

Should that happen - forget about the appeals process under the AFL Code - that would be many, many years away.

 

[Jade]

17.2 (c)The determination of the Appeals Board will be final and binding on the parties to the appeal and no Person may institute or maintain proceedings in any court or tribunal.

This sounds quite final and definitive, not open to interpretation is it? So...perhaps the "court system" threat is hollow

What you quoted applies only when the infraction notice has been issued, and hearing proceedings commenced.

Whilst you are right Barkly St End in that at any point prior to the appeals board decision any number of legal avenues would be open to the aggrieved parties (club, player, AFLPA etc) - it's also a very shaky clause that holds no 'real' power.

The courts in Australia are always, ALWAYS open for public use. The trick would be in convincing the court that it SHOULD hear a case that contravenes said clause - which honestly, if the player or club felt strongly enough about it would not be an overly difficult argument to swing (IMO).