http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...l/news-story/96ca4c7a0dadb8339b4470016c1e0fd7
I'm convinced he and Bruce must be flatmates.
I'm convinced he and Bruce must be flatmates.
Allan Hird has his say
- Thread starter Demon in Hell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Percel
Percel doesn't like microwave meals
cliffs
Allan Hird: WADA inquiry needed in light of Essendon drug scandal
Allan Hird, Herald Sun
February 9, 2017 8:00pm
BRITAIN’S House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee has established an inquiry, Combatting Doping in Sport, into WADA and the UK anti-doping authority. Olivier Niggli, WADA Director General, flew to London from Montreal to give evidence.
Niggli was asked about how WADA handled Russia’s doping program and the potential misuse of Therapeutic Use Exemptions by cyclists and other athletes.
Allan Hird says Australia’s Parliament should have a hard look at WADA’s anti-doping structure.
Our parliament has difficulty getting Ben McDevitt, the outgoing ASADA CEO, to travel the five kilometres from Fyshwick to Parliament House.
If it’s good enough for the UK to have a hard look at the WADA anti-doping architecture, it’s good enough for our Parliament.
WADA made two statements to the UK committee that highlight why we should have misgivings about how the 34 Essendon players were treated. The first was: “ ... WADA does not believe doping needs to be made a criminal offence for athletes.”
If the 34 Essendon players had been charged under the Australian criminal system, they would have been exonerated. The AFL tribunal that investigated them comprised two judges and a QC and applied Australian legal principles. The tribunal threw out the ASADA case because of lack of evidence. The players were found to have no case to answer.
Having failed in its case against the players, ASADA didn’t appeal to another Australian tribunal because any appeal would have been held under Australian legal principles and ASADA knew it would lose. Instead it gave WADA $US100,000 and ASADA lawyers to try the players afresh in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
CAS doesn’t apply Australian law as it relates to evidence or proof. In my view WADA manipulated the “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof used in anti-doping cases. It did not have to produce evidence, as defined by the Australian legal system, but merely present information rejected by the AFL tribunal.
Anyone familiar with the Essendon case knows the CAS process works for the prosecutor when it should work for justice.
CAS could never have found the players guilty under Australian law, as WADA and ASADA know. That is why they sidestepped an appeal in Australia and went to CAS where the cards were stacked against the players.
WADA would run a mile from making doping by athletes a criminal offence. If it was, WADA would have to present evidence that a player took a banned substance and have that evidence tested. Further, cases would not be determined by CAS, part of the WADA/IOC set up, but in independent courts.
WADA’s second curious statement to the UK committee was: “WADA does, however, strongly encourage governments to introduce laws that penalise … individuals … putting banned substances into the hands of athletes.”
Yet in the case of Stephen Dank, WADA has been completely inactive.
While CAS found the players took a banned substance, thymosin beta 4, it hasn’t convicted Dank with supplying or administering TB4. Why? WADA did not bring charges against Dank despite the WADA case against the players being built around him supplying and administering TB4.
The AFL Tribunal found there was no evidence Dank supplied and administered TB4 to the players. ASADA did not appeal, WADA did not charge Dank at CAS and consequently, under the WADA architecture, Dank is not guilty of supplying or administering TB4 to the players.
Yet the WADA case against the players, which CAS accepted, was built on the argument Dank did supply and administer TB4. This is a nonsense. WADA said Dank gave the players TB4, CAS accepted he did but under the WADA anti-doping architecture, Dank is innocent. Explain how that works.
Why does WADA say it wants to go hard on people supplying banned substances to athletes when it does nothing to prosecute people it believes to have done so? For WADA to be credible, what it says has to match what it does.
Which gets back to the question: why are British MPs examining the anti-doping system in sport and our parliament is sitting on its hands?
It’s time for our politicians to act. After all, Australian athletes have rights, or they should, and the public needs to have confidence in the taxpayer-funded ASADA.
Allan Hird, Herald Sun
February 9, 2017 8:00pm
BRITAIN’S House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee has established an inquiry, Combatting Doping in Sport, into WADA and the UK anti-doping authority. Olivier Niggli, WADA Director General, flew to London from Montreal to give evidence.
Niggli was asked about how WADA handled Russia’s doping program and the potential misuse of Therapeutic Use Exemptions by cyclists and other athletes.
Allan Hird says Australia’s Parliament should have a hard look at WADA’s anti-doping structure.
Our parliament has difficulty getting Ben McDevitt, the outgoing ASADA CEO, to travel the five kilometres from Fyshwick to Parliament House.
If it’s good enough for the UK to have a hard look at the WADA anti-doping architecture, it’s good enough for our Parliament.
WADA made two statements to the UK committee that highlight why we should have misgivings about how the 34 Essendon players were treated. The first was: “ ... WADA does not believe doping needs to be made a criminal offence for athletes.”
If the 34 Essendon players had been charged under the Australian criminal system, they would have been exonerated. The AFL tribunal that investigated them comprised two judges and a QC and applied Australian legal principles. The tribunal threw out the ASADA case because of lack of evidence. The players were found to have no case to answer.
Having failed in its case against the players, ASADA didn’t appeal to another Australian tribunal because any appeal would have been held under Australian legal principles and ASADA knew it would lose. Instead it gave WADA $US100,000 and ASADA lawyers to try the players afresh in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
CAS doesn’t apply Australian law as it relates to evidence or proof. In my view WADA manipulated the “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof used in anti-doping cases. It did not have to produce evidence, as defined by the Australian legal system, but merely present information rejected by the AFL tribunal.
Anyone familiar with the Essendon case knows the CAS process works for the prosecutor when it should work for justice.
CAS could never have found the players guilty under Australian law, as WADA and ASADA know. That is why they sidestepped an appeal in Australia and went to CAS where the cards were stacked against the players.
WADA would run a mile from making doping by athletes a criminal offence. If it was, WADA would have to present evidence that a player took a banned substance and have that evidence tested. Further, cases would not be determined by CAS, part of the WADA/IOC set up, but in independent courts.
WADA’s second curious statement to the UK committee was: “WADA does, however, strongly encourage governments to introduce laws that penalise … individuals … putting banned substances into the hands of athletes.”
Yet in the case of Stephen Dank, WADA has been completely inactive.
While CAS found the players took a banned substance, thymosin beta 4, it hasn’t convicted Dank with supplying or administering TB4. Why? WADA did not bring charges against Dank despite the WADA case against the players being built around him supplying and administering TB4.
The AFL Tribunal found there was no evidence Dank supplied and administered TB4 to the players. ASADA did not appeal, WADA did not charge Dank at CAS and consequently, under the WADA architecture, Dank is not guilty of supplying or administering TB4 to the players.
Yet the WADA case against the players, which CAS accepted, was built on the argument Dank did supply and administer TB4. This is a nonsense. WADA said Dank gave the players TB4, CAS accepted he did but under the WADA anti-doping architecture, Dank is innocent. Explain how that works.
Why does WADA say it wants to go hard on people supplying banned substances to athletes when it does nothing to prosecute people it believes to have done so? For WADA to be credible, what it says has to match what it does.
Which gets back to the question: why are British MPs examining the anti-doping system in sport and our parliament is sitting on its hands?
It’s time for our politicians to act. After all, Australian athletes have rights, or they should, and the public needs to have confidence in the taxpayer-funded ASADA.
Four years of this melodrama and all we have to show for it is more lies and information.
This is how clowns like Trump get elected.
Almost everything he says in that rant has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect yet the same lies get repeated. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of ASADA but all of the crap spewed forth in that article doesn't cover any of that. A lie repeated doesn't add credibility, it just gets more pathetic
This is how clowns like Trump get elected.
Almost everything he says in that rant has been repeatedly proven to be incorrect yet the same lies get repeated. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of ASADA but all of the crap spewed forth in that article doesn't cover any of that. A lie repeated doesn't add credibility, it just gets more pathetic
- Jan 16, 2016
- 4,275
- 9,071
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Yeah Ok Alan, I see your point.
If it was tried under criminal law with all of the denials and subterfuge they should have got off.
What about thinking of the game,the players health, the communities belief in the sport. Are any of these things worthy of looking out for?
Getting off on a technicality would not have put Jimmy's reputation back in order or stopped any health risks to the players later in life from drugs unknown!
If it was tried under criminal law with all of the denials and subterfuge they should have got off.
What about thinking of the game,the players health, the communities belief in the sport. Are any of these things worthy of looking out for?
Getting off on a technicality would not have put Jimmy's reputation back in order or stopped any health risks to the players later in life from drugs unknown!
He's spoken about 10 times. Same thing every time
??Allan Hird: WADA inquiry needed in light of Essendon drug scandal
Allan Hird, Herald Sun
February 9, 2017 8:00pm
BRITAIN’S House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee has established an inquiry, Combatting Doping in Sport, into WADA and the UK anti-doping authority. Olivier Niggli, WADA Director General, flew to London from Montreal to give evidence.
Niggli was asked about how WADA handled Russia’s doping program and the potential misuse of Therapeutic Use Exemptions by cyclists and other athletes.
Allan Hird says Australia’s Parliament should have a hard look at WADA’s anti-doping structure.
Our parliament has difficulty getting Ben McDevitt, the outgoing ASADA CEO, to travel the five kilometres from Fyshwick to Parliament House.
If it’s good enough for the UK to have a hard look at the WADA anti-doping architecture, it’s good enough for our Parliament.
WADA made two statements to the UK committee that highlight why we should have misgivings about how the 34 Essendon players were treated. The first was: “ ... WADA does not believe doping needs to be made a criminal offence for athletes.”
If the 34 Essendon players had been charged under the Australian criminal system, they would have been exonerated. The AFL tribunal that investigated them comprised two judges and a QC and applied Australian legal principles. The tribunal threw out the ASADA case because of lack of evidence. The players were found to have no case to answer.
Having failed in its case against the players, ASADA didn’t appeal to another Australian tribunal because any appeal would have been held under Australian legal principles and ASADA knew it would lose. Instead it gave WADA $US100,000 and ASADA lawyers to try the players afresh in the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
CAS doesn’t apply Australian law as it relates to evidence or proof. In my view WADA manipulated the “comfortable satisfaction” standard of proof used in anti-doping cases. It did not have to produce evidence, as defined by the Australian legal system, but merely present information rejected by the AFL tribunal.
Anyone familiar with the Essendon case knows the CAS process works for the prosecutor when it should work for justice.
CAS could never have found the players guilty under Australian law, as WADA and ASADA know. That is why they sidestepped an appeal in Australia and went to CAS where the cards were stacked against the players.
WADA would run a mile from making doping by athletes a criminal offence. If it was, WADA would have to present evidence that a player took a banned substance and have that evidence tested. Further, cases would not be determined by CAS, part of the WADA/IOC set up, but in independent courts.
WADA’s second curious statement to the UK committee was: “WADA does, however, strongly encourage governments to introduce laws that penalise … individuals … putting banned substances into the hands of athletes.”
Yet in the case of Stephen Dank, WADA has been completely inactive.
While CAS found the players took a banned substance, thymosin beta 4, it hasn’t convicted Dank with supplying or administering TB4. Why? WADA did not bring charges against Dank despite the WADA case against the players being built around him supplying and administering TB4.
The AFL Tribunal found there was no evidence Dank supplied and administered TB4 to the players. ASADA did not appeal, WADA did not charge Dank at CAS and consequently, under the WADA architecture, Dank is not guilty of supplying or administering TB4 to the players.
Yet the WADA case against the players, which CAS accepted, was built on the argument Dank did supply and administer TB4. This is a nonsense. WADA said Dank gave the players TB4, CAS accepted he did but under the WADA anti-doping architecture, Dank is innocent. Explain how that works.
Why does WADA say it wants to go hard on people supplying banned substances to athletes when it does nothing to prosecute people it believes to have done so? For WADA to be credible, what it says has to match what it does.
Which gets back to the question: why are British MPs examining the anti-doping system in sport and our parliament is sitting on its hands?
It’s time for our politicians to act. After all, Australian athletes have rights, or they should, and the public needs to have confidence in the taxpayer-funded ASADA.
So the issue now, is that Dank didn't get done too?
And yet, under criminal law they would be able to subpoena so who knows what the outcome would be
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Has he gone to visit his son yet?
Maybe, the true truth might have been forced out... the whole truth. With criminal outcomes. Like Jail time for the perpetrators if found guilty, based on the additional evidence that might have been discovered.
gavaniacono
Cancelled
One should be careful what one wishes for.
