http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...yers-hanging-by-a-thread-20141201-11xqig.html
I don't really get all this. If the interview transcripts can be used as evidence, why do they need sworn statements or witness appearances?
Exclusive
The anti-doping case against 34 former and current Essendon players is hanging by a thread, with the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority set to head to the Supreme Court in a bid to have their two key witnesses provide evidence.
A directions hearing at 8am on Monday in front of the AFL's anti-doping tribunal heard that ASADA could still not yet guarantee disgraced biochemist Shane Charter and compound pharmacist Nima Alavi would appear at the tribunal, scheduled to begin on December 15. The pair has also yet to provide an affidavit of the evidence they gave during interviews with ASADA. However, their transcripts could still be used.
I don't really get all this. If the interview transcripts can be used as evidence, why do they need sworn statements or witness appearances?