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

[efcboy]

What do I think?

I think the AFL are the dirtiest player in this debacle and effectively authored the interim report themselves.

Do you think the ASADA Act envisaged a controlling sporting body having the power to do so (dictate this)?

 

[Dan Cooper]

What do I think?

I think the AFL are the dirtiest player in this debacle and effectively authored the interim report themselves.

I totally agree with you and can't believe anyone would see the interim report as legal, ethical or anything else other than perhaps skulduggery. Skulduggery which ASADA - the supposed model litigant - were up to their necks in.

ASADA appear to have not only provided the AFL with something they shouldn't have. They also appear to have allowed the AFL to dictate what it would and wouldn't contain.

Justice? Lawful?

 

[mxett]

I totally agree with you and can't believe anyone would see the interim report as legal, ethical or anything else other than perhaps skulduggery. Skulduggery which ASADA - the supposed model litigant - were up to their necks in.

The problem as I see it is the AFL tried to manufacture an expediated outcome that saw Essendon punished and removed from the finals, but with no further punishments forthcoming. Realistically if we did cheat these punishments were well below what we deserved. However the AFL do not control ASADA so now we continue to face more consequences if cheating can be proven (to comfortable satisfaction)

 

[rumply]

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

Yes, but thats a different argument

ASADA had a responsibility to conduct a confidential investigation which they failed hopelessly to do the minute they provided the AFL with the interim report - that was their doing alone, not the AFL or EFC.

Anyway thats just all noise now & matters for nought, the players were failed by everyone & now it is rumoured that they also may have lied, & if so, meh, goodnight irene...

 

[cymarak]

What do I think?

I think the AFL are the dirtiest player in this debacle and effectively authored the interim report themselves.

The issue with the AFL is that they have a monopoly, and can use that monopoly power to force clubs and players to do things that probably wouldn't be allowed if it were, say, mobile phone contracts between a company and its customers.

Courts can strike out 'unreasonable' terms included in certain contracts - and say, yes, the customer signed the contract but the company can't enforce certain provisions as they're unreasonable - but presumably haven't touched, or even looked at, any AFL contracts as yet.

And as long as the current financial structure stays in place - where the AFL takes money from the clubs that generate the most income and redistributes it to the poor clubs, making the poor clubs beholden to the AFL - nothing's going to change from within the AFL community itself. Especially as long as the AFL only screws over 1 club at a time - the other clubs don't really care too much, as long as it's not their club being screwed over currently.

The only way there'll be significant change is:

1. A major change of leadership within the AFL, that just happens to bring in some more reasonable types ('benevolent dictator' types, if you will)
2. Something forced on the AFL by government

 

[expires]

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

As far as I understand this is not what the four have said. They have said the investigation was legal. It's an open question whether the publication of a half time summary was legal. Or could be legally used by the AFL.

Probably posted it before but a legal joint investigation should have meant the AFL forwent their right to to mete out punishment related to the investigation. At least until after ASADA has finished their business.

Dunno. Just worried about the tribunal being influenced by the current vibe.

 

[cymarak]

I totally agree with you and can't believe anyone would see the interim report as legal, ethical or anything else other than perhaps skulduggery. Skulduggery which ASADA - the supposed model litigant - were up to their necks in.

ASADA appear to have not only provided the AFL with something they shouldn't have. They also appear to have allowed the AFL to dictate what it would and wouldn't contain.

Justice? Lawful?

The joint investigation was a thing of beauty.

ASADA gained powers of coercion that it wasn't entitled to. The AFL gained an interim report that it wasn't entitled to. The media gained lots of juicy details it wasn't entitled to.

And Carlton gained a finals spot it wasn't entitled to.

Something for everyone.

 

[rumply]

Something for everyone.

Well, almost everyone

 

[be a hero kid]

Question.
Is the tribunal hearing against the 34 players treated as 1 case, or 34 individual cases.

We all know that the 26 vials into 34 players doesn’t fit.

So…
Are ASADA going after a ‘team’ sanction or individual players?
i.e the Herald sun reported last year 12 players were ‘allegedly administered TB4.
If ASADA prove that 12 players are guilty, will the suspension be applied to only these 12 players, or to all 34 players

 

[Dan Cooper]

As far as I understand this is not what the four have said. They have said the investigation was legal. It's an open question whether the publication of a half time summary was legal. Or could be legally used by the AFL.

Probably posted it before but a legal joint investigation should have meant the AFL forwent their right to to mete out punishment related to the investigation. At least until after ASADA has finished their business.

Dunno. Just worried about the tribunal being influenced by the current vibe.

Hard to disagree with the part I've highlighted above. But as Gil said himself "I have finals tickets to sell" and clearly that rated of higher importance to the AFL than any justice we might have been entitled to.

 

[lysp]

That is a concern of mine too.

It appears to me ASADA act as a prosecutor - not an even handed investigator - and if that is the case their priority is not to ascertain guilt or innocence, it is to attempt to prove guilt. So evidence they procure along the way that casts doubt on or disproves guilt isn't something they are likely to willingly bring to the table.

Correct me if I am wrong. But that is my interpretation.

That's the whole problem with this situation i think. ASADA acted as both the police at the prosecutor. As soon as that happens, they manipulate evidence to achieve their goal of prosecution, rather than collect all the evidence, hand it to a 3rd party who then decides if the case is strong enough.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

which would be all evidence collected by asada, not interviews where the players lawyers were present. Do ASADA lawfully need to provide players with all evidence? If so this should have been pursued by their legal team


Again, if their testimonies are ruled inadmissible whats to stop them re-interviewing players and doing the same thing again? The players lawyers were present so they can testify that the players testimonies have been somehow distorted, if that is what happened

Where I have an issue is that ASADA are both investigator and prosecutor. Now while this for all intents and purposes is effectively the same as our legal system, at least the police and legal prosecutors are two separate bodies bound by separate codes of practice.

Additionally, ASADA are meant to act as a model litigant.

Don't misunderstand me, I do not want Essendon or the players to hide behind legal loopholes if indeed they took banned substances. If they did they deserve punishment. However these checks and balances in our systems are not put in place to remove efficiency, they are put in place to ensure those in charge behave in an appropriate manner whereby those who are truly innocent are not put in a position whereby they say something which self incriminates simply because they were misunderstood, felt under pressure and do not know any better. Sure, they might have had a lawyer with them, but that doesn't protect them in the same manner as the right to say nothing.

I have serious issues with our investigative body selectively choosing evidence to hand to the defence. Sure, ASADA shouldn't have to present all the evidence in their role as a prosecutor at the tribunal, but they should not be playing games with regards to providing a complete picture of evidence gathered in the investigation to all relevant stakeholders. If they have a case, doing this should not stop them from successfully prosecuting their case at the tribunal.

I have no idea whether Essendon players were given banned substances and do not want the guilty to remain unpunished, but this investigation and the manner in which ASADA have conducted themselves is poor at best.

I want this all to be over, but completely understand why Hird has felt the need to stand up for what he believes in. Some people believe he is dodging the issue, has things to hide because he helped doped players. That is their right and after the 2 year long media campaign I can understand why they hold those beliefs. I do not and could understand why people may think that's because I'm a delusional Essendon supporter who can't let go of James the player. Those who know me well would know that's far from the truth.

I stand behind James taking things as far as he wants because above all if I believed I had been wronged in the way James believes he has, I would want to take it all the way for one simple reason:
- I like to live life without regret and I would always regret not knowing whether I could have brought what I deemed as justice by taking legal action as far as I could. If I was unsuccessful I could live with the fact that I tried my best.

I believe James already regrets not taking the AFL to the Supreme Court and will not make the same mistake twice.

 

[Jade]

Do you think the ASADA Act envisaged a controlling sporting body having the power to do so (dictate this)?

It doesn't matter what it envisaged.

What matters is what the Act ACTUALLY IS.

 

[cymarak]

Question.
Is the tribunal hearing against the 34 players treated as 1 case, or 34 individual cases.

We all know that the 26 vials into 34 players doesn’t fit.

So…
Are ASADA going after a ‘team’ sanction or individual players?
i.e the Herald sun reported last year 12 players were ‘allegedly administered TB4.
If ASADA prove that 12 players are guilty, will the suspension be applied to only these 12 players, or to all 34 players

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it would come down to whether the proof of guilt for the 12 players is strong enough evidence that the tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the other 22 players doped as well. It wouldn't be anything automatic.

I'm not aware of anything in the anti-doping rules that means that if enough of your teammates are found guilty, you can be found guilty simply by association - the tribunal would have to specifically believe you are guilty (to a standard of comfortable satisfaction) to declare you guilty.

Put another way, ASADA, AFAIK, can't simply take 12 doping suspensions and from that automatically gain 22 bonus suspensions - they still have to convince the tribunal that it's likely those 22 doped as well.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

would really love to hear some of these 'truths and facts'. This has been the most disappointing part of this entire saga, being left in the dark

If you heard them would you believe them? This is the concerning thing for me. After the long media and AFL campaign, the truth might sound like tin foil hat kind of stuff. The truth may also be exactly what we have been told. It's now far too clouded.

 

[Jade]

I totally agree with you and can't believe anyone would see the interim report as legal, ethical or anything else other than perhaps skulduggery. Skulduggery which ASADA - the supposed model litigant - were up to their necks in.

ASADA appear to have not only provided the AFL with something they shouldn't have. They also appear to have allowed the AFL to dictate what it would and wouldn't contain.

Justice? Lawful?

Its post like this that make me wonder whether people are taking in what is being put in front of them.

It WAS legal. The Federal Court said it was.

So they didn't 'provide the AFL with something they shouldn't have'; they did something that was well within their rights to do.

 

[cymarak]

It doesn't matter what it envisaged.

What matters is what the Act ACTUALLY IS.

It depends.

If you only want to talk about what CAN happen, then, yes, it only matters what the Act actually is.

But if you want to talk about what SHOULD happen - e.g. the next time this issue hits the AFL or another sporting body - then it does matter what was envisaged, and it matters even more so if the lawmakers are going to contemplate going back and amending the legislation to enshrine their intent more thoroughly.

 

[Jade]

The issue with the AFL is that they have a monopoly, and can use that monopoly power to force clubs and players to do things that probably wouldn't be allowed if it were, say, mobile phone contracts between a company and its customers.

Courts can strike out 'unreasonable' terms included in certain contracts - and say, yes, the customer signed the contract but the company can't enforce certain provisions as they're unreasonable - but presumably haven't touched, or even looked at, any AFL contracts as yet.

And as long as the current financial structure stays in place - where the AFL takes money from the clubs that generate the most income and redistributes it to the poor clubs, making the poor clubs beholden to the AFL - nothing's going to change from within the AFL community itself. Especially as long as the AFL only screws over 1 club at a time - the other clubs don't really care too much, as long as it's not their club being screwed over currently.

The only way there'll be significant change is:

1. A major change of leadership within the AFL, that just happens to bring in some more reasonable types ('benevolent dictator' types, if you will)
2. Something forced on the AFL by government

I agree with your interpretation.

 

[Jade]

As far as I understand this is not what the four have said. They have said the investigation was legal. It's an open question whether the publication of a half time summary was legal. Or could be legally used by the AFL.

They did. They ruled that information was disclosed simultaneously to both the AFL and ASADA, and as such summarising information the AFL already had was within the bounds of the NAD Act - I would have to find specific reference in the judgement, but thats the cliffs for you.

Probably posted it before but a legal joint investigation should have meant the AFL forwent their right to to mete out punishment related to the investigation. At least until after ASADA has finished their business.

Should it? What law was breached?

Dunno. Just worried about the tribunal being influenced by the current vibe.

I can't answer that.

 

[Jade]

It depends.

If you only want to talk about what CAN happen, then, yes, it only matters what the Act actually is.

But if you want to talk about what SHOULD happen - e.g. the next time this issue hits the AFL or another sporting body - then it does matter what was envisaged, and it matters even more so if the lawmakers are going to contemplate going back and amending the legislation to enshrine their intent more thoroughly.

And I would strongly encourage you to contact your local member if you feel that changes to the Act are required.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

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

They are also investigators and meant to be model litigators, which is the issue.

 

[cymarak]

And I would strongly encourage you to contact your local member if you feel that changes to the Act are required.

I live in a very, very safe electorate - no way is the local member going to do anything for an issue that most of the population is quite happy with (because it doesn't adversely affect anything they care about).

Anyway, bringing it to the attention of politicians isn't mutually exclusive with discussing it here - both can happen independently.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Its post like this that make me wonder whether people are taking in what is being put in front of them.

It WAS legal. The Federal Court said it was.

So they didn't 'provide the AFL with something they shouldn't have'; they did something that was well within their rights to do.

We both know what's been put in front of us. An interim report authorized by the AFL >

What do I think?

I think the AFL are the dirtiest player in this debacle and effectively authored the interim report themselves.

 

[Dave]

I think that's what Hird was referring to yesterday when he claimed the players have less rights than the rest of the community.

Hard to disagree with him on that.

Not really. If I was being investigated for an incident related to my employment I know my employer would expect me to co-operate, and could terminate if I refused.

 

[be a hero kid]

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it would come down to whether the proof of guilt for the 12 players is strong enough evidence that the tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the other 22 players doped as well. It wouldn't be anything automatic.

I'm not aware of anything in the anti-doping rules that means that if enough of your teammates are found guilty, you can be found guilty simply by association - the tribunal would have to specifically believe you are guilty (to a standard of comfortable satisfaction) to declare you guilty.

Put another way, ASADA, AFAIK, can't simply take 12 doping suspensions and from that automatically gain 22 bonus suspensions - they still have to convince the tribunal that it's likely those 22 doped as well.

This is the part that I dont get.
Why are ASADA prosecuting all 34 players.
Would have thought that they should only go after the 12 (or as reported in the Herald Sun, 'The Dirty Dozen)
I recall, that if a few players in a premiership winning team, are found guilty of doping, the AFL has the powers to remove the premiership from that club, (thus penalising the entire team)