Remove this Banner Ad

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

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
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
 
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 :eek:
 
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!!!
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom