Are individuals investigated by ASADA legitimately prohibited from talking publicly?

[Deepthroat]

I understand from the ASADA website that the ASADA organisation itself is prohibited from disclosing information publicly during an investigation. It is very clear.

What I cannot find is any reference to those being investigated having to maintain a public silence throughout the investigation. Can someone point me in the right direction?

We constantly receive a line from those at Essendon that they cannot speak because of the investigation and “due process” but I am not so sure they are specifically prohibited from speaking out.

Is the “due process” excuse part of Smokescreen 101 lesson 1 “Wait and see what evidence is out there before possibly contradicting yourself publicly” or are they legitimately not allowed to speak?

 

[zaharakamania]

Well as an 'organisation' is comprised of 'individuals' I think you have answered your own question.

 

[Deepthroat]

Well as an 'organisation' is comprised of 'individuals' I think you have answered your own question.

I have edited the OP for clarity.

 

[zaharakamania]

How would it serve those under investigation to do anything other than keep their silence until said investigation is complete.

It would only serve to feed the beast, which is bloated enough as it is...

 

[jenny61_99]

Perhaps you'd find that in the terms of reference of the investigation? No idea where that would be though!

 

[Chameleon75]

Nothing prevents someone from outing themselves.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

One would assume that when it seems to be that there is a "his word vs our word" game at play that the element of fear, and contradicting each others stories would be enough for the "individual" to wait until everything is out on the table and the story is set before attempting to deny or rebut specifics of it.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

If they were, wouldn't the original press conference have been out of order?

It's about legal arse-covering and PR strategy, who says what publicly and when - up to the people in the organisation how they choose to play it.

 

[Baldur]

All the Essendon folks saying "we CANNOT speak" are lying. They for good reason do not want to speak. One of my pet hates is people saying cannot when they really mean will not.

 

[josephine666]

All the Essendon folks saying "we CANNOT speak" are lying. They for good reason do not want to speak. One of my pet hates is people saying cannot when they really mean will not.

To be fair, 'lying' is a little harsh. Just think of it as 'I cannot speak because if I did, my employer might be pissed off. We find anonymously leaking the odd email or quote for our mates to report is a lot easier to manage than answering tricky questions that might incriminate me'

 

[Baldur]

To be fair, 'lying' is a little harsh. Just think of it as 'I cannot speak because if I did, my employer might be pissed off. We find anonymously leaking the odd email or quote for our mates to report is a lot easier to manage than answering tricky questions that might incriminate me'

Lying is saying something knowing it is untrue or not caring if it is untrue with the intent to mislead. The "I cannot speak while the investigation is ongoing" is being said with the intent to mislead. That is to leave people with the mistaken belief there is some legal reason they cannot speak. Instead of legal advice that they should not speak. So lying, I call it as I see it.

 

[QuietB]

The answer is no. Lance Armstrong spent half his career under investigation and he never shut up.

 

[blackcat]

Is the “due process” excuse part of Smokescreen 101 lesson 1 “Wait and see what evidence is out there before possibly contradicting yourself publicly” or are they legitimately not allowed to speak?

you mean, wait and see what evidence cannot be obfuscated and spun, or is not uncovered, before we make a comment.

 

[blackcat]

The answer is no. Lance Armstrong spent half his career under investigation and he never shut up.

Armstrong was always clean tho.

only guilty after he came out of retirement. he was innocent when he went into retirement. I believe in Lance. It was a witch-hunt

 

[blackcat]

Lying is saying something knowing it is untrue or not caring if it is untrue with the intent to mislead. The "I cannot speak while the investigation is ongoing" is being said with the intent to mislead. That is to leave people with the mistaken belief there is some legal reason they cannot speak. Instead of legal advice that they should not speak. So lying, I call it as I see it.

the problem is, most see the term lie, lying, lies, as an epithet, and then the reactionary vortex gives.

what would you expect hird to do. he knows he is not unique in his viewpoint on performance, and no different to other AFL players and pro sportsmen. only people who give a F are the soccah moms