No Opposition Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Posts
56
Likes
25
AFL Club
Essendon
Question.
Is the tribunal hearing against the 34 players treated as 1 case, or 34 individual cases.

We all know that the 26 vials into 34 players doesn’t fit.

So…
Are ASADA going after a ‘team’ sanction or individual players?
i.e the Herald sun reported last year 12 players were ‘allegedly administered TB4.
If ASADA prove that 12 players are guilty, will the suspension be applied to only these 12 players, or to all 34 players
 

Dan Cooper

Victory Salute
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Posts
8,071
Likes
4,801
Location
Red Corner
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boxing
As far as I understand this is not what the four have said. They have said the investigation was legal. It's an open question whether the publication of a half time summary was legal. Or could be legally used by the AFL.

Probably posted it before but a legal joint investigation should have meant the AFL forwent their right to to mete out punishment related to the investigation. At least until after ASADA has finished their business.

Dunno. Just worried about the tribunal being influenced by the current vibe.
Hard to disagree with the part I've highlighted above. But as Gil said himself "I have finals tickets to sell" and clearly that rated of higher importance to the AFL than any justice we might have been entitled to.
 

lysp

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Posts
1,856
Likes
2,056
AFL Club
Essendon
That is a concern of mine too.

It appears to me ASADA act as a prosecutor - not an even handed investigator - and if that is the case their priority is not to ascertain guilt or innocence, it is to attempt to prove guilt. So evidence they procure along the way that casts doubt on or disproves guilt isn't something they are likely to willingly bring to the table.

Correct me if I am wrong. But that is my interpretation.
That's the whole problem with this situation i think. ASADA acted as both the police at the prosecutor. As soon as that happens, they manipulate evidence to achieve their goal of prosecution, rather than collect all the evidence, hand it to a 3rd party who then decides if the case is strong enough.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,362
Likes
9,427
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
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
Where I have an issue is that ASADA are both investigator and prosecutor. Now while this for all intents and purposes is effectively the same as our legal system, at least the police and legal prosecutors are two separate bodies bound by separate codes of practice.

Additionally, ASADA are meant to act as a model litigant.

Don't misunderstand me, I do not want Essendon or the players to hide behind legal loopholes if indeed they took banned substances. If they did they deserve punishment. However these checks and balances in our systems are not put in place to remove efficiency, they are put in place to ensure those in charge behave in an appropriate manner whereby those who are truly innocent are not put in a position whereby they say something which self incriminates simply because they were misunderstood, felt under pressure and do not know any better. Sure, they might have had a lawyer with them, but that doesn't protect them in the same manner as the right to say nothing.

I have serious issues with our investigative body selectively choosing evidence to hand to the defence. Sure, ASADA shouldn't have to present all the evidence in their role as a prosecutor at the tribunal, but they should not be playing games with regards to providing a complete picture of evidence gathered in the investigation to all relevant stakeholders. If they have a case, doing this should not stop them from successfully prosecuting their case at the tribunal.

I have no idea whether Essendon players were given banned substances and do not want the guilty to remain unpunished, but this investigation and the manner in which ASADA have conducted themselves is poor at best.

I want this all to be over, but completely understand why Hird has felt the need to stand up for what he believes in. Some people believe he is dodging the issue, has things to hide because he helped doped players. That is their right and after the 2 year long media campaign I can understand why they hold those beliefs. I do not and could understand why people may think that's because I'm a delusional Essendon supporter who can't let go of James the player. Those who know me well would know that's far from the truth.

I stand behind James taking things as far as he wants because above all if I believed I had been wronged in the way James believes he has, I would want to take it all the way for one simple reason:
- I like to live life without regret and I would always regret not knowing whether I could have brought what I deemed as justice by taking legal action as far as I could. If I was unsuccessful I could live with the fact that I tried my best.

I believe James already regrets not taking the AFL to the Supreme Court and will not make the same mistake twice.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Posts
2,977
Likes
4,007
Location
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
Question.
Is the tribunal hearing against the 34 players treated as 1 case, or 34 individual cases.

We all know that the 26 vials into 34 players doesn’t fit.

So…
Are ASADA going after a ‘team’ sanction or individual players?
i.e the Herald sun reported last year 12 players were ‘allegedly administered TB4.
If ASADA prove that 12 players are guilty, will the suspension be applied to only these 12 players, or to all 34 players
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it would come down to whether the proof of guilt for the 12 players is strong enough evidence that the tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the other 22 players doped as well. It wouldn't be anything automatic.

I'm not aware of anything in the anti-doping rules that means that if enough of your teammates are found guilty, you can be found guilty simply by association - the tribunal would have to specifically believe you are guilty (to a standard of comfortable satisfaction) to declare you guilty.

Put another way, ASADA, AFAIK, can't simply take 12 doping suspensions and from that automatically gain 22 bonus suspensions - they still have to convince the tribunal that it's likely those 22 doped as well.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,362
Likes
9,427
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
would really love to hear some of these 'truths and facts'. This has been the most disappointing part of this entire saga, being left in the dark
If you heard them would you believe them? This is the concerning thing for me. After the long media and AFL campaign, the truth might sound like tin foil hat kind of stuff. The truth may also be exactly what we have been told. It's now far too clouded.
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,928
Likes
48,353
AFL Club
Essendon
I totally agree with you and can't believe anyone would see the interim report as legal, ethical or anything else other than perhaps skulduggery. Skulduggery which ASADA - the supposed model litigant - were up to their necks in.

ASADA appear to have not only provided the AFL with something they shouldn't have. They also appear to have allowed the AFL to dictate what it would and wouldn't contain.

Justice? Lawful?
Its post like this that make me wonder whether people are taking in what is being put in front of them.

It WAS legal. The Federal Court said it was.

So they didn't 'provide the AFL with something they shouldn't have'; they did something that was well within their rights to do.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Posts
2,977
Likes
4,007
Location
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
It doesn't matter what it envisaged.

What matters is what the Act ACTUALLY IS.
It depends.

If you only want to talk about what CAN happen, then, yes, it only matters what the Act actually is.

But if you want to talk about what SHOULD happen - e.g. the next time this issue hits the AFL or another sporting body - then it does matter what was envisaged, and it matters even more so if the lawmakers are going to contemplate going back and amending the legislation to enshrine their intent more thoroughly.
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,928
Likes
48,353
AFL Club
Essendon
The issue with the AFL is that they have a monopoly, and can use that monopoly power to force clubs and players to do things that probably wouldn't be allowed if it were, say, mobile phone contracts between a company and its customers.

Courts can strike out 'unreasonable' terms included in certain contracts - and say, yes, the customer signed the contract but the company can't enforce certain provisions as they're unreasonable - but presumably haven't touched, or even looked at, any AFL contracts as yet.

And as long as the current financial structure stays in place - where the AFL takes money from the clubs that generate the most income and redistributes it to the poor clubs, making the poor clubs beholden to the AFL - nothing's going to change from within the AFL community itself. Especially as long as the AFL only screws over 1 club at a time - the other clubs don't really care too much, as long as it's not their club being screwed over currently.

The only way there'll be significant change is:
  1. A major change of leadership within the AFL, that just happens to bring in some more reasonable types ('benevolent dictator' types, if you will)
  2. Something forced on the AFL by government
I agree with your interpretation.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,928
Likes
48,353
AFL Club
Essendon
As far as I understand this is not what the four have said. They have said the investigation was legal. It's an open question whether the publication of a half time summary was legal. Or could be legally used by the AFL.
They did. They ruled that information was disclosed simultaneously to both the AFL and ASADA, and as such summarising information the AFL already had was within the bounds of the NAD Act - I would have to find specific reference in the judgement, but thats the cliffs for you.

Probably posted it before but a legal joint investigation should have meant the AFL forwent their right to to mete out punishment related to the investigation. At least until after ASADA has finished their business.
Should it? What law was breached?

Dunno. Just worried about the tribunal being influenced by the current vibe.
I can't answer that.
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,928
Likes
48,353
AFL Club
Essendon
It depends.

If you only want to talk about what CAN happen, then, yes, it only matters what the Act actually is.

But if you want to talk about what SHOULD happen - e.g. the next time this issue hits the AFL or another sporting body - then it does matter what was envisaged, and it matters even more so if the lawmakers are going to contemplate going back and amending the legislation to enshrine their intent more thoroughly.
And I would strongly encourage you to contact your local member if you feel that changes to the Act are required.
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Posts
2,977
Likes
4,007
Location
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
And I would strongly encourage you to contact your local member if you feel that changes to the Act are required.
I live in a very, very safe electorate - no way is the local member going to do anything for an issue that most of the population is quite happy with (because it doesn't adversely affect anything they care about).

Anyway, bringing it to the attention of politicians isn't mutually exclusive with discussing it here - both can happen independently.
 

Dan Cooper

Victory Salute
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Posts
8,071
Likes
4,801
Location
Red Corner
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boxing
Its post like this that make me wonder whether people are taking in what is being put in front of them.

It WAS legal. The Federal Court said it was.

So they didn't 'provide the AFL with something they shouldn't have'; they did something that was well within their rights to do.
We both know what's been put in front of us. An interim report authorized by the AFL >

What do I think?

I think the AFL are the dirtiest player in this debacle and effectively authored the interim report themselves.
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,802
Likes
10,010
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
I think that's what Hird was referring to yesterday when he claimed the players have less rights than the rest of the community.

Hard to disagree with him on that.
Not really. If I was being investigated for an incident related to my employment I know my employer would expect me to co-operate, and could terminate if I refused.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Posts
56
Likes
25
AFL Club
Essendon
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it would come down to whether the proof of guilt for the 12 players is strong enough evidence that the tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the other 22 players doped as well. It wouldn't be anything automatic.

I'm not aware of anything in the anti-doping rules that means that if enough of your teammates are found guilty, you can be found guilty simply by association - the tribunal would have to specifically believe you are guilty (to a standard of comfortable satisfaction) to declare you guilty.

Put another way, ASADA, AFAIK, can't simply take 12 doping suspensions and from that automatically gain 22 bonus suspensions - they still have to convince the tribunal that it's likely those 22 doped as well.
This is the part that I dont get.
Why are ASADA prosecuting all 34 players.
Would have thought that they should only go after the 12 (or as reported in the Herald Sun, 'The Dirty Dozen)
I recall, that if a few players in a premiership winning team, are found guilty of doping, the AFL has the powers to remove the premiership from that club, (thus penalising the entire team)
 

Pevers-Legend

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Posts
7,358
Likes
1,885
Location
Like Anyone Cares
AFL Club
Essendon
No ASADA only has to make sure they don't disclose information.

The same as the AFL, the same as EFC, lest either one of them breach the NAD Act.

ASADA are no more of less liable than any other party.
Except how McDevitt said Dank was on RoF and when reported to police nothing happened.

or like how Vlad got us to self report and nothing happened.

Yup when the truth comes out the right thing is done......
 

cymarak

Go Gators !
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Posts
2,977
Likes
4,007
Location
Over it. All of it.
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
49ers, Gators
This is the part that I dont get.
Why are ASADA prosecuting all 34 players.
Would have thought that they should only go after the 12 (or as reported in the Herald Sun, 'The Dirty Dozen)
I recall, that if a few players in a premiership winning team, are found guilty of doping, the AFL has the powers to remove the premiership from that club, (thus penalising the entire team)
There are rules in the anti-doping code about escalating a punishment to a team punishment - I think it's this bit, which is very generic, and deliberately unconstrained:

"If more than one Player in a Club is found to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation during a season, the Club may be subject to sanctions to be determined, in their absolute discretion, by the Commission".
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,900
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Not really. If I was being investigated for an incident related to my employment I know my employer would expect me to co-operate, and could terminate if I refused.
I think it is a little different, the contract to compel isn't necessarily legal - they was not questioned by the legal teams.

What also wasn't questioned too (up for debate here, there are mixed view on this) was can ASADA legally force the AFL to hand over information from a private contract that gets around their statutory rules. I'm not totally sure whether that was answered. Could the police force your workplace to hand over that information. Further, can the police request your employer to ask certain questioins in their interview, bypassing the right to silence if the police interviewed you.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,362
Likes
9,427
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
Not really. If I was being investigated for an incident related to my employment I know my employer would expect me to co-operate, and could terminate if I refused.
I would also assume you would expect confidentiality and accurate unbiased investigative procedures with your co-operation.
 

expires

Club Legend
Joined
May 20, 2014
Posts
1,233
Likes
561
Location
vic
AFL Club
Essendon
Should it? What law was breached?
The law of common sense and decency. If ASADA can't get a conviction, the poor governance and bringing the game into disrepute almost becomes a moot point. Particularly as the stopping of the injections was an Essendon decision.

Just say the tribunal can't get reasonably satisfied in the coming weeks and the penalties of 2013 had not been handed out then, do you think anything akin to the 2103 penalties would follow now?

A former posted stated that we should have challenged the penalties in court back in 2013.

We should only have accepted them with a guarantee that things were all said and done with those penalties. ASADA wouldn't and couldn't give that guarantee.

With the benefit of hindsight we should not have gone along with 2013.

I know laws aren't being broken. But the law is being used in a scandalous manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom