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.)

Mercurial89

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Posts
9,929
Likes
12,239
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
I've seen a few people claiming that ASADA should act as a model litigant in its prosecution of the players, yet we are not involved in litigation.
Its one of those new buzzwords that people believe they know the meaning of and repeat ad nausem and that are now in general everyday speech. Right up there with corporate governance and peptides.


On an unrealated note, i saw Hirds Channel 7 inteview for the first time this afternoon. Funny how far we have come, he wouldnt have been able to give that inteview 8 months ago without it being front page news and quoted for weeks, now it doesnt really even promote discussion. Just on it, you can tell by the way he spoke the guy is fuming, dont think he will be calling it quits anytime soon.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
23,219
Likes
8,903
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Its one of those new buzzwords that people believe they know the meaning of and repeat ad nausem and that are now in general everyday speech. Right up there with corporate governance and peptides.


On an unrealated note, i saw Hirds Channel 7 inteview for the first time this afternoon. Funny how far we have come, he wouldnt have been able to give that inteview 8 months ago without it being front page news and quoted for weeks, now it doesnt really even promote discussion. Just on it, you can tell by the way he spoke the guy is fuming, dont think he will be calling it quits anytime soon.
what does he hope to achieve now that the players fates will be decided well before any High court action
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,802
Likes
10,010
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
I've seen a few people claiming that ASADA should act as a model litigant in its prosecution of the players, yet we are not involved in litigation.
And?

Its one of those new buzzwords that people believe they know the meaning of and repeat ad nausem and that are now in general everyday speech. Right up there with corporate governance and peptides.
True, but there are some pesky sites on the interwebs that define in quite simple language (strange for anything legal related!) what it is, who it relates to and what it requires of them.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,857
Likes
61,063
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
I've seen a few people claiming that ASADA should act as a model litigant in its prosecution of the players, yet we are not involved in litigation.
model litigant doesn't mean they are engaged in litigation. It is a doctrine that, boiled down, says if a government body is prosecuting another party, because that body has all the considerable powers and weight of the state behind it, then it is obliged to act in a way that is fair, over and above what might be considered fair in the normal course of events.

In practice, I think there's been far too much emphasis put on it. Federal court judges are far more aware of the obligations of a model litigant than any of us, and they didn't raise any issues with it. The tribunal is being run by extremely well regarded professionals and they will ensure obligations are met if required.

The other thing that people should get through their heads is that ASADA are NOT faking/falsifying/omitting key evidence. Please just stop that nonsense. They have obligations and they are meeting those obligations.

The whole "omitting evidence" thing is an artefact of the interim report, and whilst it was most distasteful it was for the purpose of the interim report - not the tribunal. Please have a little bit of faith that the chairs of the tribunal have long and storied careers in teh legal industry and they would not allow that kind of thing to go on.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,369
Likes
9,439
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
I've seen a few people claiming that ASADA should act as a model litigant in its prosecution of the players, yet we are not involved in litigation.
Not how I see it. I could be wrong...

http://www.asada.gov.au/about/

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) is a government statutory authority that is Australia's driving force for pure performance in sport.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00098/Html/Text#_Toc252530687

Appendix B The Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant

The obligation

1 Consistently with the Attorney‑General’s responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards in litigation, the Commonwealth and its agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.
http://www.asada.gov.au/about/#

ASADA enforces any breach of a policy by ensuring those violating anti-doping rules are prosecuted and sanctioned.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prosecute

Prosecute:
Institute
or conduct legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/litigate

http://www.asada.gov.au/about/

Disclosure notice
Aspects related to the issuing of the disclosure notice are specified in the legislation. This includes the format and content of the disclosure notice; conduct of interviews; retaining and making copies of documents and the use of information gathered from the disclosure notice. The amended legislation will also require ASADA to inform the person of their rights and the possible consequences for failing to comply with a disclosure notice. These rights include permitting an interviewee to have someone accompany them to the interview and not being required to answer questions that may incriminate, or expose the person to a penalty.

ASADA will only issue a disclosure notice when it is necessary to compel a person to assist with an investigation. This will usually be as a last resort.
I see us as being involved in litigation and that ASADA has not acted as model litigants as they are supposed to do for the above reasons.

Now as I said I could be wrong and this has nothing to do with the legality of a joint investigation and whether Middleton's decision was correct, as according to what the suit was about, he was IMO technically and legally correct.

However, ASADA have not, as I believe they should, acted as a model litigant.
 

lysp

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Posts
1,857
Likes
2,056
AFL Club
Essendon
But the players are not involved in litigation, I think this line is consistently ignored.

This is a potential breach of sporting rules, it isn't a case determining a breach of the law.
The principal applies to "legal proceedings" generally. I assume the tribunal would come under that.

Lawyers giving opening arguments, cross examination and closing arguments in front of an ex-judge should easily fit under the umbrella of "legal proceedings".

http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/justice+system/laws+and+regulation/victorian+model+litigant+guidelines said:
Victoria has its own Model Litigant Guidelines. These are policy guidelines originally issued in 2001 and revised in 2011. They set standards for how the state should behave as a party to legal proceedings.

All Australian governments have a common law responsibility to act as model litigants.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,369
Likes
9,439
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
But the players are not involved in litigation, I think this line is consistently ignored.

This is a potential breach of sporting rules, it isn't a case determining a breach of the law.
I think you misunderstand. The players are very much involved in litigation. Just because they are players in a sport that does not mean they are not legally bound by obligations that are legally enforced by ASADA. The player contracts are legally binding with the AFL who have signed to the WADA code that ASADA are tasked with enforcing in Australia.

I struggle to think how you believe the players are not involved in litigation, at least to the point whereby they should expect ASADA to behave appropriately according to their own act.
 

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
But the players are not involved in litigation, I think this line is consistently ignored.

This is a potential breach of sporting rules, it isn't a case determining a breach of the law.
Probably gets very interesting though, ASADA's role is not to investigate criminal or legal matters, their primary role in investigation of doping wheir they core investitions apply,

I've seen some views of where you're coming from. SO am a little curious
 

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
model litigant doesn't mean they are engaged in litigation. It is a doctrine that, boiled down, says if a government body is prosecuting another party, because that body has all the considerable powers and weight of the state behind it, then it is obliged to act in a way that is fair, over and above what might be considered fair in the normal course of events.

In practice, I think there's been far too much emphasis put on it. Federal court judges are far more aware of the obligations of a model litigant than any of us, and they didn't raise any issues with it. The tribunal is being run by extremely well regarded professionals and they will ensure obligations are met if required.

The other thing that people should get through their heads is that ASADA are NOT faking/falsifying/omitting key evidence. Please just stop that nonsense. They have obligations and they are meeting those obligations.

The whole "omitting evidence" thing is an artefact of the interim report, and whilst it was most distasteful it was for the purpose of the interim report - not the tribunal. Please have a little bit of faith that the chairs of the tribunal have long and storied careers in teh legal industry and they would not allow that kind of thing to go on.
Just as much, we would have heard a lot more from the players lawyers if they weren't offering relevant information to the case. No one outside forum posters is questioning that now. And as you said it all stems from teh interim report, not the tribunal.
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,802
Likes
10,010
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
model litigant doesn't mean they are engaged in litigation. It is a doctrine that, boiled down, says if a government body is prosecuting another party, because that body has all the considerable powers and weight of the state behind it, then it is obliged to act in a way that is fair, over and above what might be considered fair in the normal course of events.

In practice, I think there's been far too much emphasis put on it. Federal court judges are far more aware of the obligations of a model litigant than any of us, and they didn't raise any issues with it. The tribunal is being run by extremely well regarded professionals and they will ensure obligations are met if required.

The other thing that people should get through their heads is that ASADA are NOT faking/falsifying/omitting key evidence. Please just stop that nonsense. They have obligations and they are meeting those obligations.

The whole "omitting evidence" thing is an artefact of the interim report, and whilst it was most distasteful it was for the purpose of the interim report - not the tribunal. Please have a little bit of faith that the chairs of the tribunal have long and storied careers in teh legal industry and they would not allow that kind of thing to go on.
Without disagreeing with you Lance, as I think the notion that legal professionals are in on some sort of fix is farcical (the AFL is a whole nother box and dice!), it was reported that "ASADA is of the view it should only be required to hand over evidence it will rely on to prosecute its case.", which doesn't seem to me to meet the requirements. Of course, being reported doesn't make it true :p, and I could also be wrong.

But the players are not involved in litigation, I think this line is consistently ignored.

This is a potential breach of sporting rules, it isn't a case determining a breach of the law.
The obligation applies to litigation (including before courts, tribunals, inquiries, and in arbitration and other ADR processes) involving State Departments and agencies, as well as Ministers and officers where the State provides a full indemnity in respect of an action for damages brought against them personally.

Seems to indicate it should apply. In any event, what Lance said above that I bolded is correct.
 

Jade

Smug lives here.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Posts
32,942
Likes
48,356
AFL Club
Essendon
I think you misunderstand. The players are very much involved in litigation. Just because they are players in a sport that does not mean they are not legally bound by obligations that are legally enforced by ASADA. The player contracts are legally binding with the AFL who have signed to the WADA code that ASADA are tasked with enforcing in Australia.

I struggle to think how you believe the players are not involved in litigation, at least to the point whereby they should expect ASADA to behave appropriately according to their own act.
Yep you've convinced me. I went searching for the definition of 'litigation' and came up with; "the process of taking legal action" - which doesn't apply here, but then went and searched for 'legal' and was met with 'appointed or REQUIRED by the law' - which would seem to fit IMO (as the NAD Act is law).

Still doesn't sit right with me though, as the inference would be that ANY tribunal or arbitration conducted by or involved in by an empowered government agency would in fact be 'litigation' by that definition. But whether it sits well or not would be irrelevant.
 

Mr Mojo Risin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
7,369
Likes
9,439
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Celtics, Colts, Renegades, Kings
Yep you've convinced me. I went searching for the definition of 'litigation' and came up with; "the process of taking legal action" - which doesn't apply here, but then went and searched for 'legal' and was met with 'appointed or REQUIRED by the law' - which would seem to fit IMO (as the NAD Act is law).

Still doesn't sit right with me though, as the inference would be that ANY tribunal or arbitration conducted by or involved in by an empowered government agency would in fact be 'litigation' by that definition. But whether it sits well or not would be irrelevant.
I think you need to realign your interpretation of litigation. ;)

In any case I think ASADA have not acted as they should at many stages, especially under the role of investigator, but am aware it doesn't change much to where we are now they are in the role of the prosecution. I only ever brought it up in the scope of Hird's actions and why I understand what he has done/is doing and nothing to do with any tribunal corruption as I don't believe that to be likely at all.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,857
Likes
61,063
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
Without disagreeing with you Lance, as I think the notion that legal professionals are in on some sort of fix is farcical (the AFL is a whole nother box and dice!), it was reported that "ASADA is of the view it should only be required to hand over evidence it will rely on to prosecute its case.", which doesn't seem to me to meet the requirements. Of course, being reported doesn't make it true :p, and I could also be wrong.



The obligation applies to litigation (including before courts, tribunals, inquiries, and in arbitration and other ADR processes) involving State Departments and agencies, as well as Ministers and officers where the State provides a full indemnity in respect of an action for damages brought against them personally.

Seems to indicate it should apply. In any event, what Lance said above that I bolded is correct.
nah that was before the tribunal, at SCN stage, remember?

It's not relevant now. Even though a tribunal isn't bound by strict rules of evidence, at the tribunal ASADA well and truly have to confirm to rules that ensure a fair trial, and one of those is full disclosure. Anything requested by the defence must and will be provided. Of course ASADA are going to prosecute their case in the way they feel that has the best chance of success, but you can be utterly and absolutely guaranteed this will be all above board and governed by standard and best practice legal principles
 

Mercurial89

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Posts
9,929
Likes
12,239
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Probably the only time I've ever missed arbitrary pre-season small talk about how well we're training.

Will this shit ever end.
If you like we can talk how ASADA are flying, and one of the tribunal judges may or may not be wearing a hat?



Edit: Pros appears to have gotten in on this first ;)
 

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
nah that was before the tribunal, at SCN stage, remember?

It's not relevant now. Even though a tribunal isn't bound by strict rules of evidence, at the tribunal ASADA well and truly have to confirm to rules that ensure a fair trial, and one of those is full disclosure. Anything requested by the defence must and will be provided. Of course ASADA are going to prosecute their case in the way they feel that has the best chance of success, but you can be utterly and absolutely guaranteed this will be all above board and governed by standard and best practice legal principles
I'm not so sure there. (It is pointless to argue now I do agree, but

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...cess-to-evidence/story-fni5f6kv-1227130037854


This article is suggesting after the SCN, at the legal teams prepared information for the tribunal when ASADA said only information to prosecute

A DISPUTE over access to evidence could delay the start of the Essendon doping hearings until January.

Lawyers for 32 of the 34 former and current Bombers issued with infraction notices want the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to surrender its entire body of evidence before the AFL anti-doping tribunal sits.

ASADA is of the view it should only be required to hand over evidence it will rely on to prosecute its case.

A tentative hearing date of December 15 was set by tribunal chairman David Jones at a directions hearing on Tuesday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom