which would be all evidence collected by asada, not interviews where the players lawyers were present. Do ASADA lawfully need to provide players with all evidence? If so this should have been pursued by their legal team
Again, if their testimonies are ruled inadmissible whats to stop them re-interviewing players and doing the same thing again? The players lawyers were present so they can testify that the players testimonies have been somehow distorted, if that is what happened
With respect of the so called interim report, testimonies were omitted. Obviously it is hoped at the tribunal that such is intolerable.
I was replying to your Hird quote with respect of the recent federal court ruling.
I am not sure if Hird even realizes it. What he is doing is challenging the legality of ASADA providing an interim report. The legality of the investigation has probably been the wrong way to go about it.
I would suggest that an ASADA report prior to infraction notices was not within the rules. You take the AFL out of it. ASADA is just being ASADA. They don't report. They charge. The interim report was the payoff for use of the AFL's ability to get players to talk. Hird knows a wrong has been done with respect of what came out of lips.
I have no problem with him trying to bring to a head the legality of ASADA providing an interim report. Just wish that was precisely what he is trying to do if he appeals to the high court.