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

[cymarak]

Scooter ‏@ScooterMcNeice 5s5 seconds ago
Grace asking for Std costs order for players and Judge agreeing

For the players ? I didn't think the players were involved in this ?

 

[Old Campaigner]

For the players ? I didn't think the players were involved in this ?

They had a lawyer there representing them.

 

[baz_machine]

so off to the tribunal on monday

 

[2one2]

****ing gob a fat chode, campaigners. Now let's see that KO evidence, McDickhead

 

[flintandtas]

Just imagine if Hird's appeal is successful now. When is a decision on that due?

 

[Beerfish]

I guess it's lucky ASADA don't need them anyway. More taxpayers money wasted though for something they didn't even need.

 

[Dan Cooper]

AUSTRALIA’S peak anti-doping body has failed in its 11th hour bid to secure the testimony of two reluctant witnesses, throwing into doubt its prosecution of 34 current and former Essendon footballers and sports scientist Stephen Dank.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Clyde Croft this morning refused an application by ASADA to subpoena drug importer Shane Charter and pharmacist Nima Alavi to appear before an AFL tribunal specially convened to hear the high-stakes case.

The decision leaves ASADA without sworn evidence or testimony from its two most important witnesses. It also deprives the players any opportunity to test the veracity of documents and unsworn statements provided by Mr Charter and Mr Alavi throughout the two-year investigation into Essendon’s 202 season supplements regime.

Part of ASADA’s failed application to the Supreme Court was an attempt to secure documents from companies part-owned by Mr Dank.

The case is scheduled to begin on Monday.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...d6fff19ee6792e188ea1f2b5#.VIopKo_XNsE.twitter

 

[cymarak]

Correct me if I'm wrong - the statements that Alavi / Charters made to ASADA can still be considered as evidence by the tribunal, right ? (the whole 'not bound by the rules of evidence' business that McDevitt spouted earlier in the week).

 

[Mercurial89]

The fact we cant cross examine them is annoying because no doubt ASADA will use their previous testimonies to argue their case.

Im keen to compare the media coverage/reaction of this loss for ASADA and what will happen when Hird loses his appeal bid.

 

[letstayunited]

Correct me if I'm wrong - the statements that Alavi / Charters made to ASADA can still be considered as evidence by the tribunal, right ? (the whole 'not bound by the rules of evidence' business that McDevitt spouted earlier in the week).

correct but very little weight given to the evidence.

 

[letstayunited]

The fact we cant cross examine them is annoying because no doubt ASADA will use their previous testimonies to argue their case.

Im keen to compare the media coverage/reaction of this loss for ASADA and what will happen when Hird loses his appeal bid.

The players association were opposed to Charter and Alavi giving evidence so I think it has to be seen as a win, surely?

 

[cymarak]

The players association were opposed to Charter and Alavi giving evidence so I think it has to be seen as a win, surely?

It's a win, so long as we believe that the tribunal will now have to just about ignore the Charter / Alavi evidence.

 

[Don Won]

correct but very little weight given to the evidence.

Plus we can introduce charter's assertions that his evidence was manipulated, that he brought in thymodulin and that there was a third party involved. He mentioned these in the radio interview that mcdevitt described as 'gold'.

Will have a similar evidentiary weight I guess.

 

[Beerfish]

The players association were opposed to Charter and Alavi giving evidence so I think it has to be seen as a win, surely?

Were they?

 

[rumply]

DAY 637 of this saga & we get to the point ASADA effectively have no material witnesses to call upon.

I don't even..

 

[Mercurial89]

The players association were opposed to Charter and Alavi giving evidence so I think it has to be seen as a win, surely?

A win yes, however i would have liked to see some responses to their testimony under cross examination.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

DAY 637 of this saga & we get to the point ASADA effectively have no material witnesses to call upon.

I don't even..

When you put it that way, all I have to say is

 

[MNC Bomber]

Excellent, ducks lined up.. Should be an Arsada press conf this arvo.

"Look, we cant proceed now because of this decision. They have got us on a technicality, otherwise we would have ****ed Essendon over soooo bad."

 

[Smokin]

fret guys - the foamers reckon this is a win for them as the evidence will go through unchallenged. This was a loss for the players!

according to them asada has them on top knowing they gave us bad drugs - forget that both have stated they have NFI what Dank received, let alone have a clue about the players.

This is bad for us!!!

 

[Beerfish]

Excellent, ducks lined up.. Should be an Arsada press conf this arvo.

"Look, we cant proceed now because of this decision. They have got us on a technicality, otherwise we would have stuffed Essendon over soooo bad."

That might have flown if it wasn't for McDevitt saying they weren't required for their slam dunk, air tight, ex-Federal court judge approved case.

 

[simoro1]

Lol suck a fat one salada

 

[Smokin]

Plus we can introduce charter's assertions that his evidence was manipulated, that he brought in thymodulin and that there was a third party involved. He mentioned these in the radio interview that mcdevitt described as 'gold'.

Will have a similar evidentiary weight I guess.

exactly, plus Alavi has said he has no idea what it was.

Their whole testimonies arent worth the paper they are written on - seems they arent even written on paper!

 

[Old Campaigner]

Correct me if I'm wrong - the statements that Alavi / Charters made to ASADA can still be considered as evidence by the tribunal, right ? (the whole 'not bound by the rules of evidence' business that McDevitt spouted earlier in the week).

Yes. But they would have only slightly more weight than hearsay.

The fact we cant cross examine them is annoying because no doubt ASADA will use their previous testimonies to argue their case.

Im keen to compare the media coverage/reaction of this loss for ASADA and what will happen when Hird loses his appeal bid.

I wonder if the players will produce a sworn statement from Dank that he didn't use TB4 on players. Dank, Charter and Alavi can all provide sworn statements on behalf of the players if they want. I think the reasons ASADA wanted them there is so they can cross examine them after Dank et al come out saying it was thymomodulin.

 

[letstayunited]

Were they?

That was my understanding.

But I may be wrong?

I thought they had David Grace QC acting for them and that he was opposing it too.

 

[letstayunited]

A win yes, however i would have liked to see some responses to their testimony under cross examination.

same.

Hopefully it will all come out in media interviews.