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

[Beerfish]

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.

Actually I think you're right but the fact that Grace was happy for a decision to be made today without reasons says to me that the result was of little concern as they wouldn't be appealing whichever way it went.. or maybe it was pretty obvious to him at that stage which way it would probably go.

 

[rumply]

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!!!

yes the poor dears over there conveniently forget/ignore that the players have the right to cross examine any witness evidence presented against them. So will the Tribunal allow any of these tapes of Alavi & Charter to be presented as evidence? & if they do, how heavily will they discount it as it cannot be challenged?

I could wish ASADA gl, but at this point they can go **** themselves.

 

[Smokin]

On the admission of the testimony - I assume this wouldn't be allowed in an appeal situation anyway, so why would the tribunal accept it?

Can we say on day 1 - if you allow it, we will appeal immediately so this whole case is a waste of time. See ya

 

[Dan Cooper]

I know one bloke who will enjoy watching ASADA attempt to present their train wreck of a case next Monday.

 

[rumply]

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

If they allow it I dont think they will ignore it, but they would have to weigh what importance they give it considering the players cannot challenge it by cross examination. The Trib would have to discount their evidence to some extent, depends to what extent.

 

[Old Campaigner]

On the admission of the testimony - I assume this wouldn't be allowed in an appeal situation anyway, so why would the tribunal accept it?

Can we say on day 1 - if you allow it, we will appeal immediately so this whole case is a waste of time. See ya

We don't need to do that. On its own without addition witness testimony the evidence is close to worthless.

Something I haven't yet been able to find an answer for yet: If this ends up in the Court of Arbitration for Sport because either side appeal can ASADA call upon Alavi, Dank and Charters, or are they only allowed to rely on evidence and witnesses that have already been heard from?

 

[cymarak]

yes the poor dears over there conveniently forget/ignore that the players have the right to cross examine any witness evidence presented against them.

Do players actually have any official rights in a tribunal hearing ?

Not being facetious - genuinely curious as to whether player rights are actually codified, or if it's up to the tribunal to run things however it feels like.

 

[cymarak]

I've heard that Croft can be a bit of a surly bastard.

He's presumably thinking 'there's 2 days of my life I'll never get back'.

 

[Walesy]

I'm kinda hoping the Judge walks in says LOL ASADA no dice and just leaves.

"your application has failed completely."

Potato, potaato.

 

[BrunoV]

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).

It's very Lionel Hutz "heresay and conjecture are kinds of evidence" territory.

Our lawyers will have a field day with any attempts to use Charter's "evidence" because of the comments he has recently made about ASADA's unwillingness to include additional information which did not support ASADA.

The weight afforded to the evidence will be diminished (I would have thought to the point that much of it is not relevant).

 

[cymarak]

ASADA might say at the tribunal that Charters / Alavi told them X and Y, but ASADA don't have any proof they actually said that, do they ? No sworn statement, no affidavit, no witness on hand to testify ...

So, for all the tribunal would know, ASADA made it up ?

 

[letstayunited]

Anyone have an informed view on the likelihood of ASADA appealing in the event they are unsuccessful or WADA "coming over the top?"

My gut feeling is that there wont be an appeal from ASADA or interference from WADA....

 

[Walesy]

ASADA have physical evidence that Charters imported TB4, and likely have evidence that he supplied it to Alavi for Dank.

All this should be written down (along with the docs showing that they imported Thymomodulin).

I wonder if they lose Charters "I told Dank this injection schedule" stuff.

 

[Smyth94]

Surely there will now be a 'no case to answer' submission from Grace QC, I think the AFL will still want the tribunal to proceed however for 'due process' *cough cough*...part of me still wants that to happen so we can eventually see what a joke ASADA's "evidence" is.

 

[Dan Cooper]

The Australian Sports Anti-doping Authority has suffered a significant setback, failing in its Supreme Court bid to have subpoenas granted compelling star witnesses Shane Charter and Nima Alavi attend the AFL anti-doping tribunal hearings involving 34 past and present Essendon players.

Justice Clyde Croft delivered his judgment on Friday morning, with reasons to be given next week.

In his judgment, Justice Croft quashed ASADA's argument that the tribunal proceedings could be classified as an arbitration.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-afl-antidoping-tribunal-20141211-125lll.html

 

[Old Campaigner]

The issue ASADA has with all this circumstantial evidence is that it only takes circumstantial evidence to counter it. They might come out and say that the injection program used is the same they use for TB4, but Dank or Reid can come out and tell the tribunal it was because they needed extra injections of thymomodulin because it was a bad season for flu or whatever. A perfectly reasonable response to a rather tenuous link. There are reasonable explanations (whether or not they're true or not is a whole other story) for nearly everything that has made it into the public sphere. I imagine the AFLPA lawyers will spend the next month picking it all off piece by piece.

Not to mention the sliding scale of comfortable satisfaction, which will be closer to 'beyond reasonable doubt' than not due to the seriousness of the charges being laid. Unless ASADA have something hidden up their sleeve, things are looking more and more optimistic.

 

[expires]

Mixed feelings.

On one hand a farce is a farce.

On the other hand, the rejection of honest testimony has odour.

 

[cymarak]

On the other hand, the rejection of honest testimony has odour.

Do we know the testimony is honest ?

 

[scottmclaren]

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).

I assume just as relevant and believable will be Charters published comments about ASADA wanting to insert / remove words and change his statement.

Basically you can ignore it all; then you are left with the well known fact that Charters imports supplements and Alavi compounds supplements.

Oh and Club doctors also prescribe WADA prohibited drugs to their other patients..... What a waste of time.

 

[lenny2013]

This saga definitely needs some Benny Hill music!

 

[Harlequin]

This saga definitely needs some Benny Hill music!

Well this ASAGA has become a Benny Hill skit

 

[yaco55]

We don't need to do that. On its own without addition witness testimony the evidence is close to worthless.

Something I haven't yet been able to find an answer for yet: If this ends up in the Court of Arbitration for Sport because either side appeal can ASADA call upon Alavi, Dank and Charters, or are they only allowed to rely on evidence and witnesses that have already been heard from?

This goes to CAS and ASADA will be laughed out of court - CAS is very legalistic and technical in their hearings.

There is a strong possibility that ASADA will withdraw their case before the tribunal hearing, or the players lawyers will ask the AFL's anti-doping Tribunal to throw out ASADA's case.

 

[yaco55]

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

You want Alavi and Charter to be cross examined ? Even if ASADA won their subpoena, Charter and Alavi wouldn't answer questions - This is a great result - It means that ASADA have no case.

 

[Dan Cooper]

This goes to CAS and ASADA will be laughed out of court - CAS is very legalistic and technical in their hearings.

There is a strong possibility that ASADA will withdraw their case before the tribunal hearing, or the players lawyers will ask the AFL's anti-doping Tribunal to throw out ASADA's case.

ASADA have come so far and wasted so many people's time and money surely they will at least attempt to go in and bat on Monday? But the players pleading they have no case to answer must be a very real possibility.

 

[yaco55]

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.

Alavi and Charter have not signed affidavits - There evidence means NOTHING.