ASADA completes probe, now preparing briefs

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crankyhawk said:
It's like naming a suspect for a sex offence, there is still stigma even if cleared. Here if no INs a lot of footy fans will still call essendon drug cheats so naming individuals will attract stigma unfairly if the player doesn't get IN
Click to expand...

A voice of common-sense :thumbsu:
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Haha can someone tell slow old me why the ASADA barrackers are so up and about? The investigation is being wound up, as I've been saying. And get this. Despite being told for 8 months that it was all waiting for Dank to be interviewed, that didn't even happen!! And there's nothing to suggest infractions are coming? Maybe I'm missing something so do let me know ;)

The good news is it looks like we can all get back to just worrying about the footy hey!
Click to expand...
You need to ask "Why are briefs of evidence being prepared by ASADA Investigators for ASADA Lawyers"?

If no charges were being pursued by ASADA Investigators briefs of evidence would not be required.
A simple memo would be prepared stating "Insufficient Evidence....etc etc"

A brief to a Lawyer will contain the Investigators recommended charges.
Of course, ASADA Lawyers might disagree with the Investigator, but in practice the Lawyers will instigate charges even if the evidence is not as strong as the Investigator believes as long as the basic elements of the charge exist. It will be the Particulars that get argued (mitigation) between the parties.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Duckworth said:
I can't believe I have to spell this out for you...
Advice from ASADA on the classification of AOD-9604 = unclear. when did ASADA advise this FACT
Use of Thymosin, circumstantial evidence, and which type was used = unclear.Fact receipt of goods was produced and later doctored FACT

you can't just make up s**t - like saying there is a receipt for TB4 and then say 'it's now clear because I invented this piece of evidence'. Fact receipt of goods was produced and later doctored FACT

You take one statement from WADA and assume that everything else in the case doesn't exist. Or maybe you are unclear on what the word 'clear' means.
Click to expand...

And WADA is the overall governing body FACT
 
Gough said:
I wonder if something should be read into the fact that betting agencies are still taking bets on the wooden spoon and that the Bombers odds haven't shortened in any way. Those guys usually have their ears pretty close to the ground.
Click to expand...
Maybe they think the saints are still worse than a bomber team without 10 of their best!
 
Gough said:
I wonder if something should be read into the fact that betting agencies are still taking bets on the wooden spoon and that the Bombers odds haven't shortened in any way. Those guys usually have their ears pretty close to the ground.
Click to expand...

Yep, that proves it's all a beat up. Innocence of all charges your honour.
 
Gough said:
I wonder if something should be read into the fact that betting agencies are still taking bets on the wooden spoon and that the Bombers odds haven't shortened in any way. Those guys usually have their ears pretty close to the ground.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt make a difference you wouldnt be able to bet on such easy odds anyway they will just simply remove Essendon from betting
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not sure if it's been posted here already but the transcript from senate estimates is finally out.

CHAIR: I do not think anybody has got any more questions. We are up to ASADA now.
Senator FARRELL: Welcome. Could you tell us a little bit about the recent appointment of Garry Downes and the role that he is going to be performing for ASADA?
Ms Andruska: Throughout the process of the investigation, I have sought to get expert advice along the way. For example, there was much in the media around the organisation potentially leaking—and from other quarters. I brought in Deloitte and the AFP to actually make an examination of any leaks that may have been occurring. There were none. Earlier on, there were also suggestions—
Senator FARRELL: I will stop you there for a moment. There was an investigation by the AFP and Deloitte and they concluded that there were no leaks from ASADA?
Ms Andruska: That is correct.
Senator FARRELL: When was that issue determined?
Ms Andruska: I would have to go back, but there was a particular peak of interest and at that time there were media suggestions that the organisation—and from other quarters—was leaking. So I decided—
CHAIR: Was that pre- or post- election?
Ms Andruska: Pre-election. So I was keen then to get the information and then be confident that the organisation was not leaking. The next part of the process where I sought review was in relation to the investigation itself: the timing and the capability of the people involved. I sought advice from the ex-AFP Commissioner Mick Palmer, so for him to come in and have a look.
Senator FARRELL: I was obviously aware of Mr Kelty's involvement.
Ms Andruska: Mr Palmer's view was that it had been professionally, comprehensively and timely in its undertaking. We have completed the investigation phase of the Operation Cobia, so in other words we have now completed the investigation stage into the AFL and into the NRL. The next step for us is now the review of the evidence and the formation of briefs. For me, another step of that review process is to have an outside expert—an independent person—able to make an opinion about what we are doing.
Senator FARRELL: Is he going to make recommendations about whether infraction notices will be issued to either AFL or NRL players? Is that the role he is performing?
Ms Andruska: His role largely is to look at the evidence we have and to determine, from his position, whether or not the evidence is sufficient to take cases forward. This does not mean—it has been quite clear and he has been quite clear—that he is holding up the process. We are continuing to work through that process. We have briefs that we are preparing right now. We will continue to work through that by issuing show-cause letters and taking matters through the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel and other tribunals as the process proceeds.
Senator FARRELL: Let us be clear about this. Proposed infraction notices are being given to Mr Downes for him to determine whether or not those infraction notices should be continued with. Is that correct?
Ms Andruska: No. The first part of the process is that a show-cause letter is given to an athlete or player and they are given the opportunity to make a submission. They are given 10 days. Generally they ask for longer, and we give them longer to provide that material. If they come back with a submission, then we take that into account in the information that we provide to the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel. The Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel considers all the material and makes a decision about whether they believe there has been a possible violation. That then is forwarded on to the athlete and on to the sport. The sport issues the infraction notice. So there is a number of steps down the track before we get to that spot.
In the same way that I have been keen to have people review whether we were leaking and what the quality of the work was in terms of the investigation, I am also keen to have an external view in terms of the evidence going forward.
Senator FARRELL: I am still not clear what Mr Downes's role is in that process you have just outlined. At what point does he look at it—
Ms Andruska: In the same way that Mr Palmer—
Senator FARRELL: Is he examining the process? Is that what he is looking at?
Ms Andruska: He is not examining the process. I am saying that he is acting in the same way as Mr Palmer looked at the conduct of the investigation and the material that was gathered. Mr Palmer made judgements about whether we were going down rabbit holes, whether we were doing it in a timely manner and whether there were key bits of information missing. In the same way that he was able to review that, Mr Downes will be able to have a look at the material we have to see whether the evidence is such that the cases will be taken forward.
Senator FARRELL: I may have to put some questions on notice. Is he looking at processes that have already occurred, or is he looking at processes that are going to occur into the future? In other words: has he taken an example of a particular process and is he looking at that and will give you some advice as to whether he thinks the steps you have taken are correct? Is that what he is doing?
Ms Andruska: No, he is providing an independent view so that I will be allowed to cite it as I have been able to sit here and say, 'Mick Palmer said' or 'the AFP said'. This has been an investigation that has been under extreme scrutiny from the beginning. At some point, someone was going to come into ASADA and undertake a complete review. As is good administrative practice, I have decided along the way to undertake reviews, and that is part of that process.
Senator SESELJA: I apologise Ms Andruska, I was not here from the beginning. When did the leaks you referred to occur?
Ms Andruska: There were no leaks; I think that is the point I was making. There were suggestions from many quarters—all quarters, in fact—that ASADA was leaking. I decided that it was important to get the AFP and Deloittes in to examine all communications leaving the organisation and also all communications going back—some years archived and so forth. The outcome was that ASADA was not leaking.
Senator SESELJA: There was information out there, but you are satisfied that it did not come from ASADA? So there must have been another—
CHAIR: So who was leaking?
Ms Andruska: I can only speculate.
CHAIR: That is what I am inviting you to do.
Ms Andruska: I do not think that is an answer that I want to give.
CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Andruska. That concludes outcome 15.
Click to expand...
 
I have two questions. Jobe Watson has already admitted publicly to taking banned substances, first question is why wasn't he made to hand back the Brownlow Medal (as far as I'm aware it is awarded to the Best and Fairest not the best drug cheat)? second question, if he is handed an infraction will he be made to give the medal back then?
 
Ultimatt said:
Not sure if it's been posted here already but the transcript from senate estimates is finally out.
Click to expand...

Just reading over that, my god, who the hell votes for these people?! If Farrell could just shut up and listen maybe he'd see she had already answered his questions before he interrupted.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy just doesn't work.
 
xflamedancer said:
I have two questions. Jobe Watson has already admitted publicly to taking banned substances, first question is why wasn't he made to hand back the Brownlow Medal (as far as I'm aware it is awarded to the Best and Fairest not the best drug cheat)? second question, if he is handed an infraction will he be made to give the medal back then?
Click to expand...

Would he even want it anymore? I think he's secretly praying that the AFL just come along and take it from him.
 
invinciBlues said:
Just reading over that, my god, who the hell votes for these people?! If Farrell could just shut up and listen maybe he'd see she had already answered his questions before he interrupted.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
In his defence he was either fishing for a comment to drag her over the coals on. Or get her to clarify the statement so there was no confusion.
 
invinciBlues said:
Would he even want it anymore? I think he's secretly praying that the AFL just come along and take it from him.
Click to expand...

If that was true, then he should have handed it back, in my mind he would have generated a lot more respect for doing so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top