No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[The Prosecutor]

As BTG stated.. a former CEO of ASADA should have far more understanding of how these things work than you or I.. I sure as hell hope he knows more about a doping investigation than I do...

He has nothing to do with this case though, so has no relevance at all.

 

[Loonerty]

I admire your...faith in me being such a...cool dude, yes...

Very clever!

 

[byronstjames]

I wonder if the ASADA investigator will remember who allowed the AFL investigator in the room.. or who authorised the release of confidential interview plans.. or who authorised the creation of the interim report.

Let's hope he has a memory to start with.

I really do feel sorry for AA.. early onset dementia is no laughing matter.

She highlights everything that's wrong with the public service.

Work your way up the ladder and score some cushy job so you can sit back and live on the people's dime. Nobody told her she actually had important work to do, I guess....

 

[Ben the Gooner]

He has nothing to do with this case though, so has no relevance at all.

Given part of ASADA's defence is centred around Ings' term as CEO, I'd argue that's not the case.

 

[DonsRule]

He has nothing to do with this case though, so has no relevance at all.

Could clear up AA there were joint investigations before her time etc.

 

[Doss]

I do think an argument could be made that Ings has relevance as far as trying to argue that ASADA's conduct in terms of the joint investigaton is, at best, highly unusual in the context of their work under Ings.

 

[Doss]

Very clever!

...

 

[Mercurial89]

He has nothing to do with this case though, so has no relevance at all.

I would think if this case was a bit longer, you could call him as an " expert witness" to strengthen a case against ASADA practices. Someone with a knowledge of the act, and the line of reporting within the organisation would be a good person to examine.

Of course this is all if this were a bigger case in the courts and id be calling many bigger names before him.

 

[Doss]

I would think if this case was a bit longer, you could call him as an " expert witness" to strengthen a case against ASADA practices. Someone with a knowledge of the act, and the line of reporting within the organisation would be a good person to examine.

Of course this is all if this were a bigger case in the courts and id be calling many bigger names before him.

There is that too. You can't, realistically, do a lot in three days.

 

[yaco55]

So it went something like this:

~April 8 - Lukin speaks to Hird and suggests he should consider standing down. Nobody at club had suggested anything like this previously.
April 12 - AD says on radio that standing down is an option Hird needs to consider. Appears to be first real shot fired at Hird in the media. Emotional Hird joins players in song after Freo win.
April 16 - ASADA interview. Hird drops a bomb on AD/DE. From this point on the AFL turn the heat up on Hird.

So was DE collateral damage or did the Board/DE have a target on the back of Hird's head as early as March/April?

To address your question, I think Hird volunteered the tip-off information, I doubt ASADA explicitly asked him about it.

How bizarre was it to have Lukin at the club as a consultant - Her brief is to promote and protect the brand of the AFL Executive - One of the bigegst mistake sin the saga.

 

[pepsi]

Why is the case limited to only 3 days?

Can the loser of the case appeal? Would they if it was an option?

 

[VelvetSledge]

View attachment 73217

Aaaaaaand there's a new wallpaper.

 

[yaco55]

As expected Andruska was destroyed in court - Least we now have it confirmed that the Govt subtly ordered EFC to self-report to ASADA, and there were pre-determined outcomes - There was government interference at the beginning now its matter of determining whether there was government interference at the end.

Surely the Government must close down this tainted investigation.

 

[Emissary]

Why is the case limited to only 3 days?

Can the loser of the case appeal? Would they if it was an option?

Judge is playing golf or something...

I assume there could be appeal on the grounds of an error of law, if an appeal was available at all.

 

[rines]

I understand the 'conditioned' foamers find it hard because they don't really understand but here is what we have:
Vlad: Lied about 'knowing' it was EFC, lied about penalties not being determined, probably lied about the 'tip off', lied about the deal of settlement
Gil: Lied to protect Vlad, lied about doping at EFC, lied about knowledge of interim report, lied about charge sheet, lied about role in sanctions
AA: Didn't recall breaching confidentiality by releasing interview plans, didn't recall breaching confidentiality by having AFL investigators in the room, lied about the history of 'joint investigations', lied about purposes of interim report, didn't recall meetings that discussed an outcome of an investigation before it had started.

Hird: Told the truth about wanting the program to be 'safe, legal and Dr approved', told the truth about the 'tip off', told the truth of the true nature of the 'sanction negiotiation', told the truth about his role in the running of the supplement program, told the truth about the players not being guilty of taking performance enhancing supplements, told the truth about the pressure for him to 'stand aside', told the truth about the press conference.

But yeah.. Hird is the devil in all this...

Still can't quite believe the power of the AFL and media.. to turn the ONLY truthful person into the villain. And still, when all these lies come out to the open in COURT, under OATH..

 

[BomberTime]

Am I reading too much into footage of all parties involved leaving court. Hird/Little/EFC looked confident and were seen laughing. Andruska appeared drained and defeated. Hope I am not.

 

[HirdyLannister]

Andruski was cross-examined today, so she is done for the trial (and for any future senior positions). There weren't many questions for her, and I imagine Star was keen to get her off the stand as quickly as possible. One of the worst performances I have seen on a witness stand for a long, long time. The repeated use of "I can't recall" will save her from perjury charges, however Middleton made it pretty clear that everytime she 'didn't recall', he would take that to mean 'yes'.

We know who you are!

 

[Go_Blues!]

If she's taking legal advice from another party who have a vested interest in convincing her to do something, it shows poor judgement on her part perhaps, but doesn't speak to whether the joint investigation was legal or not.

Well, I am not sure that any of this proves that the investigation was lawful or not and it might come down to quite a complex argument about the legal interactions between WADA and ASADA but what it does show is that the investigation was conducted without thought, integrity, legal advice or direction. ASADA should drop the case now; the AFL should apologise for their attempts to pervert natural justice; and the Australian Government needs to urgently review ASADA. I think today should make all Australian sports fans shudder. This is the crew that are supposedly protecting the integrity of Australian sport from a PED perspective. Seems like they could not run a tuck shop at a little league game.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

It's pretty evident this entire thing has been a beat up based on the ACC being way off the mark in regards to what we were taking, then everyone involved fudging the process ever since in an attempt to cover their arses. Bovine excrement If I've ever smelt it.

 

[rines]

Judge is playing golf or something...

I assume there could be appeal on the grounds of an error of law, if an appeal was available at all.

I doubt we'd appeal.

It was short because the actual questions of law are relatively simple. Middleton has allowed scope, but really some of this is just cathartic for the EFC to get into the open. Legal case is pretty simple:

1. Did ASADA act unlawfully by conducting a joint investigation (AFL in room, AFL had all info, AFL given interview plans, use of AFL powers to side step legislation)
2. Did ASADA provide information for improper purposes (interim report)

If we prove either of those points, or both, then it is case of relief:

• Can the Judge order the SCN's invalid?
• Can ASADA simply re-issue the SCN's?
• What evidence could be deemed inadmissable by injunction?
• Can the Judge place restrictions of further investigation on a statutory body?
• Were the nature of the breaches (unlawful/improper acts) enough to warrant such action?
• What consequences has the unlawful/improper conduct got?
• What consequences for EFC/Hird and Players?
• What consequences for ASADA if finding made against them?

I agree the Judge should have allowed far more than 3 days, and there is still a possibility that he may be forced to adjourn the matter and hear it at a later date. Although, he may already feel he has enough basis for a decision. The question of relief is something that will take him weeks, but not court time, to determine.

You have to remember that ASADA has very little defence, very little.

 

[Burzum]

It's pretty evident this entire thing has been a beat up based on the ACC being way off the mark in regards to what we were taking, then everyone involved fudging the process ever since in an attempt to cover their arses. Bovine excrement If I've ever smelt it.

I went to university there.

 

[Autobahn]

I don't recall ever wanting Dodoro sacked.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

That was by far, the most unproductive day in my life. And I've had some real doozies between first and third year at uni.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Just read through 20 pages of tweets and so on...

All I have to say is

lol norf

No wait,

lol arseada

 

[Autobahn]

Chris Kaias is a machine for twittering all day. Fletcher would do well to get him as finger coach.