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

[Jade]

It's the bending of the truth and testimony omissions that is unreasonable

ASADA are prosecutors. That's their jobs to present evidence in a manner likeliest to achieve a conviction.

 

[DonsRule]

If there was one thing I'd be certain of, it's that mxett doesn't work for the AFL.

Did work for the AFL than?

Was Vlad's PA, but left when Vlad left?







But yeah, no way would I say Mxett was pro AFL in all this, has largely stood up for the club and copped a lot for it on the HTB.

 

[rumply]

ASADA are prosecutors. That's their jobs to present evidence in a manner likeliest to achieve a conviction.

& that'd probably be fine if much of their interpretation of 'the evidence' hadn't been played out in public

 

[cymarak]

I agree the process wasnt appropriate, but that shouldnt mean the information collected isnt appropriate. If ASADA did start again, and they players told the truth like they should, why should their testimonies be any different?

For me, the key question is whether the way the information was collected impacts on its trustworthiness.

In other words, as long as the trustworthiness / integrity / believability of the information collected isn't compromised by how it was collected, I don't have a problem with it being used. If laws were broken as part of the collection process, then appropriate punishments / discipline should also be handed out.

So if you put a suspect in a cell and beat them to extract a confession, this seriously compromises the trustworthiness of the confession - the beating makes the confession more likely to be fake and / or the suspect telling the police just what they want to hear - which should render it legally unusable / inadmissible.

On the other hand, if you tap a phone line, but don't quite complete the paperwork 100% correctly, there may be no impact to the trustworthiness of the information collected, but there may separately be administrative sanctions against the people involved for not complying with the required process.

The issues of whether ASADA 'fairly' use the information collected, and whether their role is to properly investigate or simply to try to maximise the chances of getting a conviction, are separate issuesm that would still be relevant even if the information were collected without coercion.

 

[Doss]

Did work for the AFL than?

Was Vlad's PA, but left when Vlad left?







But yeah, no way would I say Mxett was pro AFL in all this, has largely stood up for the club and copped a lot for it on the HTB.

More than just about any Essendon supporter, to boot.

 

[Jade]

& that'd probably be fine if much of their interpretation of 'the evidence' hadn't been played out in public

Of course. The players were denied their right to confidentiality.

Unfortunately I think the club is as guilty as the AFL/ASADA in stomping on this right.

 

[efcboy]

My opinion is thus:

The ASADA Act was setup to eliminate the possibility of a controlling sporting body dictating the outcome of an investigation.

In this instance the AFL have done exactly that - the intention was (all along) to oust support staff and spare the players. This was their best result to maximise attendances and profits. This designed path was set before innocence or guilt were established. This is where it was wrong from either side of the fence. An anti-Essendon or normal fan would want justice served and if players were guilty then face normal penalties. An Essendon fan or neutral would want exoneration if found not guilty. The AFL plan would not deliver either outcome under its original design.

ASADA under their Act should have not have allowed the AFL in to act as a co-investigator and co-prosecutor. I have no issue of sharing of information but the line was crossed beyond this point.

 

[rumply]

Of course. The players were denied their right to confidentiality.

Unfortunately I think the club is as guilty as the AFL/ASADA in stomping on this right.

Maybe but ASADA being the body they are, have a much greater responsibility here.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

ASADA are prosecutors. That's their jobs to present evidence in a manner likeliest to achieve a conviction.

Model litigants.....

 

[Dave]

Not only did it evoke a lot of emotional outrage, it was the decisive point of no return in terms of how public opinion (and thus, pressure on us to submit to the AFL's desired outcome in August 2013) swung so violently, decisively and finally against us.

There's actually a grain of truth to the quote in the sense that yes, if we did indeed take TB4 or any other illegal substances, then it all becomes something of a sideshow to the main game.

However, the thing that stuns me is how there seems to be little sign of people saying "well, if the AFL manufactured that particular outcome in that manner, just what else were they prepared to do".

When their club is on the end of it they will howl though.

 

[Jade]

Maybe but ASADA being the body they are, have a much greater responsibility here.

No ASADA only has to make sure they don't disclose information.

The same as the AFL, the same as EFC, lest either one of them breach the NAD Act.

ASADA are no more of less liable than any other party.

 

[efcboy]

ASADA are prosecutors. That's their jobs to present evidence in a manner likeliest to achieve a conviction.

I think they're crossing the line interpreting an admission of thymosin as an admission of TB4. It's an admission of thymosin and nothing more than that.

Also ASADA didn't accept responsibility for the AOD9604 bungle. And it is not ASADA's role to investigate governance and procedural matters and provide evidence on those matters.

ASADA are not only prosecutors - they also exist to assist athletes in preventing them inadvertently taking a banned substance. Hence the hotline to call for their assistance.

 

[cymarak]

My opinion is thus:

The ASADA Act was setup to eliminate the possibility of a controlling sporting body dictating the outcome of an investigation.

The problem for me here is that ASADA got into bed with the AFL in a way that compromised ASADA's independence.

Basically, the AFL gave ASADA access to the AFL's power of coercion, which made ASADA beholden to the AFL, and allowed the AFL to dictate parts of the way the saga unfolded - notably, the interim report.

If ASADA hadn't sold its soul to the AFL to get access to the AFL's powers of coercion, things might have played out quite differently.

I wonder if there is any appetite in Parliament to modify the relevant legislation to further separate ASADA from the sporting bodies it's meant to investigate ?

 

[Dan Cooper]

My opinion is thus:

In this instance the AFL have done exactly that - the intention was (all along) to oust support staff and spare the players. This was their best result to maximise attendances and profits....

..."but I've got finals tickets to sell".

 

[Mercurial89]

No, he's suffering from 'not obtuse and can see that what occurred was legal, if immoral' syndrome.

That sounds serious? Is it treatable?

Maybe but ASADA being the body they are, have a much greater responsibility here.

The club has a duty to their players. I would say they have equal responisbility

 

[Jade]

I think they're crossing the line interpreting an admission of thymosin as an admission of TB4. It's an admission of thymosin and nothing more than that.

It's an admission of use of Thymosin. Entirely relevant when trying to build a case for use of Thymosin Beta 4.

Also ASADA didn't accept responsibility for the AOD9604 bungle.

They don't have to accept responsibility. They declined to prosecute on it's use.

And it is not ASADA's role to investigate governance and procedural matters and provide evidence on those matters.

They summarised information that the AFL already had. Four Federal Court judges have now said they were within their powers to do so.

 

[Dan Cooper]

ASADA are prosecutors. That's their jobs to present evidence in a manner likeliest to achieve a conviction.

That ASADA ran an investigation or a joint investigation appears to be farce.

They have merely collected information supporting a guilty verdict and binned anything that suggested anything to the contrary.

Investigation be ****ed

 

[Jade]

That ASADA ran an investigation or a joint investigation appears to be farce.

They have merely collected information supporting a guilty verdict and binned anything that suggested anything to the contrary.

Investigation be ****ed

And prosecutors do what exactly?

 

[cymarak]

They don't have to accept responsibility. They declined to prosecute on it's use.

They let our players hang out to dry for months, let WADA et al bang on unchallenged and in public about how AOD-9604 was banned, and then eventually issued a weak statement as to why no prosecution was going to happen, without admitting or allocating any blame whatsoever.

Not good enough.

Not by a long way.

 

[Jade]

They let our players hang out to dry for months, let WADA et al bang on unchallenged and in public about how AOD-9604 was banned, and then eventually issued a weak statement as to why no prosecution was going to happen, without admitting or allocating any blame whatsoever.

Not good enough.

Not by a long way.

Preaching to the choir. I thought their response to AOD-9604 was piss poor. Write to the Federal Sports Minister and complain about it.

 

[cymarak]

And prosecutors do what exactly?

That's the key message for the sporting community - ASADA are not here to 'investigate', they are here to try to find you guilty of something. ASADA are not your friends - remember that.

 

[Jade]

That's the key message for the sporting community - ASADA are not here to 'investigate', they are here to try to find you guilty of something. ASADA are not your friends - remember that.

That would seem to cover it I would think.

 

[Dan Cooper]

And prosecutors do what exactly?

A legal party responsible for presenting a case AFTER an individual has been accused of breaking rules or the law.

In this matter ASADA have played the role of both policeman AND prosecutor.

 

[Jade]

A legal party responsible for presenting a case AFTER an individual has been accused of breaking rules or the law.

In this matter ASADA have played the role of both policeman AND prosecutor.

They have.

Which doesn't change the fact that the role of a prosecutor is to present an argument that a defendant did in fact breach the rules/law.

 

[cymarak]

It's safe to say it'll be a long while until we see anyone else 'self-report' and voluntarily invite ASADA in the door.

EDIT: yes, I know the 'self-report' wasn't really a true self-report.