Essendon fails to gain injunction on ASADA show cause notices. Aug 11 court date set.

[I Rock]

So the SC injunction is off, however the Court Action against the "Joint" Instigation is still on?

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Lol, the look on that judge's face.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Can we have a lawyer count?

Rolling maul....

 

[TerryWallet]

Who would have guessed that James Albert's man would be a 2 bit spiv lol

 

[ziad]

Hirdy and co just bit the pillow as asada went in dry

a colourful legal expression I assume your honour

 

[rocket18]

Watching this I now can see why it took so long to issue the SC notices, they did well to do it so quick if this is rubbish that needs to go through.

 

[Big Fozza]

haha, this bloke is clutching at straws

 

[Lance Uppercut]

here we go, addressing the "it's separate investigation" dribble

 

[The Scales]

Whats next Essendon? Privy council?

Star Chamber.

 

[chelseacarlton]

He's on the 1st tee @ 1230

Royal Melbourne is a fair drive from court as well

 

[Blues_Man]

Is that like choosing not to **** your cousin?

Wait.....so are you saying that is wrong ?

 

[scottjr]

Watching this I now can see why it took so long to issue the SC notices, they did well to do it so quick if this is rubbish that needs to go through.

Quoted for excellence.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

So the SC injunction is off, however the Court Action against the "Joint" Instigation is still on?

Dont tell me they are on joints now....

 

[Laphroaig]

blackshadow said: ↑
If it's found to be against the act it doesn't mean that the evidence collected by ASADA during the investigation is ruled out though. More likely that ASADA will get a slap on the wrist and be told to be more careful in future.

how can you say that with confidence?

Because that tends to be the way Australian courts work.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I'd suggest because it prejudices the evidence, but I'm certainly no expert

For the evidence to be prejudiced it would first need to be demonstrated that the information was used for an improper purpose. THen that in providing the information to the AFL, ASADA knew that it would be used for an improper purpose.

And then a decision of where the greater damage lies. Allowing evidence which has been prejudiced, or killing the PED case.

Would be a high bar for Essendon to demonstrate sufficient damage to outweigh the national impact of preventing a PED case from proceeding.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

subpoena for Clothier.

Man that would be interesting

 

[Crawb]

So 0-0 draw. Extra time is on Wednesday:
Extent of Discovery decided
Players' involvement in case decided

 

[Big Fozza]

haha, so the AFL and ASADA are supposed to produce documents but EFC can't find theirs

 

[hirdylloydy1]

asking to subpoena clothier, emails between afl and asada should be discovered says the judge

 

[lones37]

Players will be part of the action, goodbye discounts.

Judge has stated if Young doesn't take hints he will order it.

Expect players to start rolling over shortly and take a discounted penalty.

 

[NikkiNoo]

haha, so the AFL and ASADA are supposed to produce documents but EFC can't find theirs

 

[ziad]

The lawyers' bank accounts.

if only sports bet gave odds on that

 

[ziad]

Players will be part of the action, goodbye discounts.

Judge has stated if Young doesn't take hints he will order it.

Expect players to start rolling over shortly and take a discounted penalty.

wooo big call judge

 

[PattoMan99]

No.

Today will likely be about as interesting as watching the grounds staff paint the boundary line. And have just as much impact on the final outcome.

Still better watching than Dees v Pies

 

[pazza]

Clothier being subpoenaed is a huge move. Cat into pigeons there.

Every document needs to be released in the discovery process that's fair and reasonable.

 

[Crawb]

If the lawyers extend this for another 15 minutes to 12:16 they get a 3rd hour of pay