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

[SherbertLemon]

Probably the only time I've ever missed arbitrary pre-season small talk about how well we're training.

Will this shit ever end.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Without disagreeing with you Lance, as I think the notion that legal professionals are in on some sort of fix is farcical (the AFL is a whole nother box and dice!), it was reported that "ASADA is of the view it should only be required to hand over evidence it will rely on to prosecute its case.", which doesn't seem to me to meet the requirements. Of course, being reported doesn't make it true , and I could also be wrong.



The obligation applies to litigation (including before courts, tribunals, inquiries, and in arbitration and other ADR processes) involving State Departments and agencies, as well as Ministers and officers where the State provides a full indemnity in respect of an action for damages brought against them personally.

Seems to indicate it should apply. In any event, what Lance said above that I bolded is correct.

nah that was before the tribunal, at SCN stage, remember?

It's not relevant now. Even though a tribunal isn't bound by strict rules of evidence, at the tribunal ASADA well and truly have to confirm to rules that ensure a fair trial, and one of those is full disclosure. Anything requested by the defence must and will be provided. Of course ASADA are going to prosecute their case in the way they feel that has the best chance of success, but you can be utterly and absolutely guaranteed this will be all above board and governed by standard and best practice legal principles

 

[The Prosecutor]

So, has David Grace been training the house down during this adjournment?

 

[DonsRule]

So, has David Grace been training the house down during this adjournment?

Damn well hope so, he's on good money.

 

[Mercurial89]

Probably the only time I've ever missed arbitrary pre-season small talk about how well we're training.

Will this shit ever end.

If you like we can talk how ASADA are flying, and one of the tribunal judges may or may not be wearing a hat?



Edit: Pros appears to have gotten in on this first

 

[SherbertLemon]

If you like we can talk how ASADA are flying, and one of the tribunal judges may or may not be wearing a hat?



Edit: Pros appears to have gotten in on this first

what kind of hat?

 

[DonsRule]

nah that was before the tribunal, at SCN stage, remember?

It's not relevant now. Even though a tribunal isn't bound by strict rules of evidence, at the tribunal ASADA well and truly have to confirm to rules that ensure a fair trial, and one of those is full disclosure. Anything requested by the defence must and will be provided. Of course ASADA are going to prosecute their case in the way they feel that has the best chance of success, but you can be utterly and absolutely guaranteed this will be all above board and governed by standard and best practice legal principles

I'm not so sure there. (It is pointless to argue now I do agree, but

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...cess-to-evidence/story-fni5f6kv-1227130037854


This article is suggesting after the SCN, at the legal teams prepared information for the tribunal when ASADA said only information to prosecute

A DISPUTE over access to evidence could delay the start of the Essendon doping hearings until January.

Lawyers for 32 of the 34 former and current Bombers issued with infraction notices want the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to surrender its entire body of evidence before the AFL anti-doping tribunal sits.

ASADA is of the view it should only be required to hand over evidence it will rely on to prosecute its case.

A tentative hearing date of December 15 was set by tribunal chairman David Jones at a directions hearing on Tuesday.

 

[Jade]

I think you need to realign your interpretation of litigation.

Shut your pie hole Lizard King.

 

[Dave]

nah that was before the tribunal, at SCN stage, remember?

Yes, though I thought a tribunal date had been set when that was reported.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...cess-to-evidence/story-fni5f6kv-1227130037854

It's not relevant now. Even though a tribunal isn't bound by strict rules of evidence, at the tribunal ASADA well and truly have to confirm to rules that ensure a fair trial, and one of those is full disclosure. Anything requested by the defence must and will be provided. Of course ASADA are going to prosecute their case in the way they feel that has the best chance of success, but you can be utterly and absolutely guaranteed this will be all above board and governed by standard and best practice legal principles

Agreed. Regardless of the outcome, the result will be one I accept, albeit that I may not like it.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Shut your pie hole Lizard King.

Admitting you were wrong would have been hard, thought I'd make it a little harder.

 

[HirdyLannister]

http://www.sen.com.au/news/smith-hird-must-back-up-comments-go-to-high-court

Fatprick made me chuckle this morning.

 

[cymarak]

http://www.sen.com.au/news/smith-hird-must-back-up-comments-go-to-high-court

Fatprick made me chuckle this morning.

Let me guess - Patrick Smith is demanding Hird appeals to the High Court, so that Smith can then stick the boot in some more about how Hird is making it all about himself ?

 

[vaughany]

http://www.sen.com.au/news/smith-hird-must-back-up-comments-go-to-high-court

Fatprick made me chuckle this morning.

Surprised Smith is still on the airwaves at SEN!

 

[damochandler]

Bruce whacked both Martin and the gov today didn't he

 

[Jobe Watson]

I don't believe anyone who planned to take as big a risk as systematically doping a top level sporting team with banned substances would risk in excess of 30 players knowing about it, and expect them to all be able to keep it a secret indefinitely.

Nobody but nobody could be stupid enough to take that risk.

That's what I don't get.

If we actually told our players to lie to ASADA about the fact they were told they were getting TB4, then how stupid are we? All it would have taken was a nervous 19-year-old rookie to crack under the pressure of a multi-hour ASADA interview, or a bitter ex-employee spilling their guts for it al to unravel, and once found out it would basically remove any chance the players had of arguing "no fault or negligence."

If we have seriously done this, then ban them all and remove anyone from the club who allowed it/was there and did nothing. As I said though, I hold people like Jobe, Fletch and Hille amongst others in higher regard than that.

 

[yaco55]

which again makes them look guilty. If we as a club dont have a good explanation for what happened in 2012 ASADA will provide on for us

It doesn't make look guilty - There is no compulsion for players to answer questions - You are being silly.

 

[rumply]

Hird's gotta stop now - Tadgh Kennelly has lent his considerable intellect to the debate....& his current employer is....the AFL

 

[yaco55]

Can't see a joint investigation of this type ever occurring again - Legal reps won't allow it to happen.

 

[yaco55]

I think it is a little different, the contract to compel isn't necessarily legal - they was not questioned by the legal teams.

What also wasn't questioned too (up for debate here, there are mixed view on this) was can ASADA legally force the AFL to hand over information from a private contract that gets around their statutory rules. I'm not totally sure whether that was answered. Could the police force your workplace to hand over that information. Further, can the police request your employer to ask certain questioins in their interview, bypassing the right to silence if the police interviewed you.

Legal representatives form a variety of sources had ongoing dialogue behind the scenes with the AFL - What is revealed publically is not the same as what happened privately.

And never forget that the AFL/ASADA strongly implied that nothing would happen to players.

 

[mxett]

It doesn't make look guilty - There is no compulsion for players to answer questions - You are being silly.

ASADA: "what do you remember about the injections you had in 2012"?
PLAYER: "no comment"

that doesnt look guilty?

 

[Jobe Watson]

ASADA: "what do you remember about the injections you had in 2012"?
PLAYER: "no comment"

that doesnt look guilty?

If only they said "I can't recall", this would be all over by now, with the players receiving praise from ASADA for their "truthfulness".

 

[cymarak]

Can't see a joint investigation of this type ever occurring again - Legal reps won't allow it to happen.

Yes, the players and their reps will see ASADA coming next time, and will presumably cooperate with the prosecutors to the absolute minimum degree necessary.

 

[efcboy]

If only they said "I can't recall", this would be all over by now, with the players receiving praise from ASADA for their "truthfulness".

If it went before Middleton he'd give the players a glowing endorsement for saying I can't recall.

 

[yaco55]

ASADA: "what do you remember about the injections you had in 2012"?
PLAYER: "no comment"

that doesnt look guilty?

Players are not compelled to answer questions from ASADA - It's nothing to do with being guilty - And the players went into the 2013 interviews in the belief they were all clear from ASADa.

 

[Bennett.]

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

I contact my member all the time but I rarely get a response. He's such a dick.