ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[BlueWorld]

Thompson, Reid and Corcoran were royally screwed over by the AFL. .

Reid? How? Nothing was done to him at all and he remains in his job.
Thompson had a fine that for a man of his wealth was nothing, was still able to coach and he may not have paid it himself anyway.
Corcoran is not even there any more.
Cry me a river.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

How is it Essendons fault if ASADA cleared them to use it?

rofl

Did ASADA clear Essendon to use AOD?

 

[yaco55]

Gary Downes is a retired Federal Court Judge, and former president of the AAT., he's no longer employed by the federal court.. His former positions however give him experience and the independence (after all courts are at arm lengths as well!) to independently review the evidence.

It's fairly common for judged to do this type of work after they retire, just look at the AFL they hired two retired county court judges to hear this case!

I see it as ASADA doing their due diligence in getting an independent second opnion about if to proceed or not and who better than someone with Gary Downe's experience? No need for the Fed Govt to order it just good practice in a high profile case.

I am not disputing the independence of Justice Downes. And I am not disputing the appointment of retired judges to hear Royal Commissions I find it is highly unusual for a Statutory Authority to ask the Federal Government to review a case - Especially seeing that ASADA has their own legal team.

 

[yaco55]

Precedents have to start somewhere. its irrelevant thou because it does not effect the tribunal.

Its relevant because this type of action will be reviewed in the future. Its also relevant that many feel there will be a senate/political enquiry. I doubt this if both Governments have interfered in the process. Governments only have enquiries to put the Opposition under scrutiny, or if there is an overwhelming public need.

 

[yaco55]

No. He was asked for proof. Media speculation is NOT proof.

So lets close down the HTB Thread - Seeing that over half the threads are started from the media, whether it be articles, radio or TV appearances.

 

[yaco55]

Do you understand how a deal would work if they actually did exist? Reduced penalty due to assistance etc etc. Nobody would get the same penalty from the tribunal verdict as they would a deal as no discounts would be factored in.

So how did the Cronulla and Ex cConulla players get the same penalty ?

 

[yaco55]

Not sure what you're seeing here or trying to imply.... you seem to be looking for a conspiracy in what is fairly standard for a body like ASADA when they have a complicated case. Have it independently reviewed. They would have contracted Downes to come in and do this themselves.

You have to remember that ASADA had hired ex detectives who were used to working with beyond reasonable doubt criminal law cases. They come into ASADA where the burden is lower and then advise the CEO not to prosecute based on the evidence they've gathered (because it doesn't meet reasonable doubt).

The CEO calls in an independent reviewer with experience in these matters to go through the evidence and give some advice to help the CEO make a decision... and by independent I mean 'of the case'.

Fairly straight forward... and I've seen this done a few times.

ASADA has their own legal team who you think would have relevant expertise. Its common for ASADA to use outside consultants like Donald Young as a fresh set of eyes to look at aspects of a case. But getting in a retired Judge to review the whole case ( this was Cronulla and EFC ) is an unusual move.

 

[yaco55]

I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

Look at the situation from the start. We had the previous Labor Goverment that was lurching from self made crisis to self made crisis and needed a distraction. So we had the "blackest day in sport" press conference.

Next, change of government with a looming anti-doping saga involving one of the highest profile clubs in the highest profile sport in Australia, so no real public interest, right?

The incoming government clearly did not want to be sandbagged by a situation created by the previous one, hence the review just to make sure it wasn't going to blow up in their faces.

Looking back, it was a good idea and should be done as a routine if possible. Get the case checked by real experts prior to proceeding. Never a bad thing. Why proceed against 34 high profile players if the investigation doesn't justify the continued proceedings? In this case, it clearly did.

Why staff ASADA or any Government Department with legal people ? Why have an Attorney Generals Department ?

 

[telsor]

Its relevant because this type of action will be reviewed in the future. Its also relevant that many feel there will be a senate/political enquiry. I doubt this if both Governments have interfered in the process. Governments only have enquiries to put the Opposition under scrutiny, or if there is an overwhelming public need.

While I wouldn't call it an 'overwhelming need', I's say that in Australia, issues about the fairness and integrity of the AFL is pretty close...Certainly an issue of significant interest (and one the government of the day is unlikely to lose anything from looking into).

 

[yaco55]

Yes we're wasting all this time and effort on a tribunal case when all the players have accepted 2 week deals. Do you even think about what you post?

Seems like McLure was half right - Allegedly Peter Gordon colluded with the AFL to try to get a deal for Prismall and Crameri, without ASADA approval. Anyway it looks like this deal has fallen over.

It's not rocket science - The players are informed that if found guilty they will get a backdated 6 month penalty - Accept a deal as alleged by McLure and get the same penalty - Why would you plead guilty when there is a 50% chance you will be found not guilty.

 

[yaco55]

While I wouldn't call it an 'overwhelming need', I's say that in Australia, issues about the fairness and integrity of the AFL is pretty close...Certainly an issue of significant interest (and one the government of the day is unlikely to lose anything from looking into).

Political enquiries are only held if it doesnt hurt the Government of the day. This could be problematic for the Government.

 

[telsor]

Political enquiries are only held if it doesnt hurt the Government of the day. This could be problematic for the Government.

Firstly, it's not a political inquiry.

Secondly, how could it possibly hurt the government?

 

[yaco55]

I don't see why there is so much angst if ASADA offered deals to the 34 players. ASADA offered deals to the Cronulla players, so why would the Essendon situation be any different.

Anti-Doping agencies often make deals for various reasons. Its normal and accepted behaviour !

 

[yaco55]

Firstly, it's not a political inquiry.

Secondly, how could it possibly hurt the government?

An enquiry can be a Senate Enquiry or a Judicial Enquiry - Many a political enquiry has hurt the Government of the day, and even more often the previous Government.

First rule of politics is don't order an enquiry if it can hurt you.

 

[yaco55]

Most people do not believe him. Where are these deals? Why is the tribunal still going if the players have accepted deals?

First - McLure was referring to two players

Second - These two players may have accepted deals but no-one will be informed until a result comes from the anti-doping tribunal

Third - The Anti-Doping tribunal is also hearing a case against Dank.

 

[Chameleon75]

Seems like McLure was half right - Allegedly Peter Gordon colluded with the AFL to try to get a deal for Prismall and Crameri, without ASADA approval. Anyway it looks like this deal has fallen over.

It's not rocket science - The players are informed that if found guilty they will get a backdated 6 month penalty - Accept a deal as alleged by McLure and get the same penalty - Why would you plead guilty when there is a 50% chance you will be found not guilty.

Strictly speaking the 6 month ban would require a guilty plea. Substantial assistance discount requires you to plead guilty. 12 months is what there looking at, probably with some creative backdating.

 

[telsor]

An enquiry can be a Senate Enquiry or a Judicial Enquiry - Many a political enquiry has hurt the Government of the day, and even more often the previous Government.

First rule of politics is don't order an enquiry if it can hurt you.

It's a government agency doing what it's supposed to do. If your theory is that every time this happens it's political (and ordered by the government of the day), then you must get really worked up over parking tickets.

BTW..it's Inquiry. (and enquiry is a question, and inquiry an investigation).

 

[telsor]

Strictly speaking the 6 month ban would require a guilty plea. Substantial assistance discount requires you to plead guilty. 12 months is what there looking at, probably with some creative backdating.

Not to mention the whole 'we turned down the deal (which nobody is sure actually happened), but if it goes wrong, we should get the (assumed/hoped for) deal terms, backdated to that date'.

 

[yaco55]

I stand corrected, why write a report. Much more credible to get on big footy with all your inside information and argue your case, or just write to Caro and complain about her partial journalism style.

Think you'll find that Bruce Francis is a journalists pest. He writes to all and sundry.

 

[yaco55]

He gave us bit and pieces and picked snippets from the interim report , it was no diiferent to the AFL charge sheet

Bruce posted some large chunks on BB. Though I want hang him for not posting the whole report - It would make for dreary reading and possibly open up another 1001 conspiracy theories.

 

[yaco55]

Strictly speaking the 6 month ban would require a guilty plea. Substantial assistance discount requires you to plead guilty. 12 months is what there looking at, probably with some creative backdating.

As we seen with the Russian walkers Anti-Doping Agencies and Sporting Federations can be creative.

 

[yaco55]

It's a government agency doing what it's supposed to do. If your theory is that every time this happens it's political (and ordered by the government of the day), then you must get really worked up over parking tickets.

BTW..it's Inquiry. (and enquiry is a question, and inquiry an investigation).

1) Give me the precedent where a Government Department has called on the Government to review a current case
2) ASADA works under the ASADA act and is supposed to be independent of the Government
3) I am firm in my conviction. there will only be an inquiry, if both sides of politics are sure they will escape any unfavourable scrutiny

 

[telsor]

1) Give me the precedent where a Government Department has called on the Government to review a current case
2) ASADA works under the ASADA act and is supposed to be independent of the Government
3) I am firm in my conviction. there will only be an inquiry, if both sides of politics are sure they will escape any unfavourable scrutiny

The government, through the ministers responsible are supposed to review a great many things about departments, and high profile (which is not the same as political) cases would be one such example.

2) Doesn't mean they're beyond the scrutiny of the people who sign their cheques. 'Independent' is always a shade of gray thing with any government body.

3) which pretty much defines a 'non political' issue.

 

[Argy]

Seems like McLure was half right - Allegedly Peter Gordon colluded with the AFL to try to get a deal for Prismall and Crameri, without ASADA approval. Anyway it looks like this deal has fallen over.

It's not rocket science - The players are informed that if found guilty they will get a backdated 6 month penalty - Accept a deal as alleged by McLure and get the same penalty - Why would you plead guilty when there is a 50% chance you will be found not guilty.

Based on what has been published here I believe the AFL was approached about a potential plea bargain but rightly rejected it. The players instigated it, not the AFL.

 

[Apex Predators]

I am not disputing the independence of Justice Downes. And I am not disputing the appointment of retired judges to hear Royal Commissions I find it is highly unusual for a Statutory Authority to ask the Federal Government to review a case - Especially seeing that ASADA has their own legal team.

How has the 'federal government' been asked to review a case when it was Justice Downes reviewing it? Am I missing a piece of information that would mean Justice Downes = Federal Government.