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

Status
Not open for further replies.

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Madigan asks McDevitt why he bypassed the AFL anti doping appeals tribunal and referred matter directly to WADA to appeal to CAS.

McDevitt answers that it would have cost a million dollars to run that appeal and by referring directly to WADA it saved money.

Madigan responds to McDevitt stating so you put a price on justice for the 34 individuals, their wives and families etc.

McDevitt flustered by this statement.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Madigan asks McDevitt if the afl anti doping tribunal was WADA compliant. McDevitt stumbles across his words, appears unsure but when pressed by Madigan that he didn't know eventually stated that the afl anti doping tribunal operated within the WADA framework so was WADA compliant.

This is an important statement to make as could have implications for any possible future appeal by WADA. If the afl anti doping tribunal was WADA compliant then this by default rules out an error of law in the verdict?
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Another senator (Bracks?) questions McDevitt.

Asks McDevitt to confirm that the club advised all players the substance was legal. Could not deny this.

Asks McDevitt to confirm that not all 34 players received the supplement. Astonishingly McDevitt confirms that this was his understanding.
 
Last edited:

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Same senator questions McDevitt over test declaration forms. McDevitt confirms that the question relates to any substance taken within past 7 days that could result in a positive. Senator asks how many tests - McDevitt confirms 21 tests. Senator states so 13 players were never tested and never required to complete declaration. McDevitt confirms but also states that number could actually be higher in the event of double ups with same player etc. senator also points out that it was possible the players did not receive substance within 7 days of test and were honest. Points out there could be three groups - (a) those not tested (b) those tested who answered honestly and (c) those tested who answered dishonestly. McDevitt could not argue with this logic but then went on the strands theory stating this was one of many strands that were circumstantial but led CAS to believe a doping regime was being protected under stealth etc..

Senator goes on to say it is unacceptable for all 34 to be treated one and the same when there are clearly three possible groups within the 34.
 
Last edited:

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Senator Di Natale then questions McDevitt. Earlier McDevitt claimed no-one knew what the effects of TB4 were and that's why it was dangerous. Later he then claimed that Essendon had a program to make players stronger, recover faster and TB4 was the cornerstone of this program. Di Natale questions McDevitt over these two contradictory statements - on one hand he says no-one knows the effects then you claim makes player stronger etc. when pushed by Di Natale McDevitt is unable to back up his claims on the properties of tb4 with any scientific basis.

Di Natale then goes on to quote McDevitt on radio. In June 2014 he encouraged players to come forward and believed a no significant fault clause was appropriate. Then later in year also quoted to state that a 50% reduction in sentence would be appropriate. Then later this stance changed quoted as stating worst case of team doping etc. questions why the change?
 
Last edited:

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
I won't bother posting any of the questions asked by senator Nova Peris. That was painful and embarrassing to watch/listen to. She was hopelessly out of her depth.

The senators on the whole requested a significant amount of further information. The senate chair requested McDevitt (ASADA) provide these documents by COB Friday. Gave the impression that more questions would be raised again by senate.
 
Last edited:

sameolds33

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Posts
4,193
Likes
2,548
AFL Club
Essendon
Another senator (Bracks?) questions McDevitt.

Asks McDevitt to confirm that the club advised all players the substance was legal. Could not deny this.

Asks McDevitt to confirm that not all 34 players received the supplement. Astonishingly McDevitt confirms that this was his understanding.
Astonishing!
 

Mercurial89

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Posts
9,931
Likes
12,252
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Same senator questions McDevitt over test declaration forms. McDevitt confirms that the question relates to any substance taken within past 7 days that could result in a positive. Senator asks how many tests - McDevitt confirms 21 tests. Senator states so 13 players were never tested and never required to complete declaration. McDevitt confirms but also states that number could actually be higher in the event of double ups with same player etc. senator also points out that it was possible the players did not receive substance within 7 days of test and were honest. Points out there could be three groups - (a) those not tested (b) those tested who answered honestly and (c) those tested who answered dishonestly. McDevitt could not argue with this logic but then went on the strands theory stating this was one of many strands that were circumstantial but led CAS to believe a doping regime was being protected under stealth etc..

Senator goes on to say it is unacceptable for all 34 to be treated one and the same when there are clearly three possible groups within the 34.
So the official stance of CAS/WADA/ASADA is that it was a deliberate doping regime, the players knew and it was trying to be covered up?

I See.
 

George Washington

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Posts
4,399
Likes
1,883
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Another senator (Bracks?) questions McDevitt.

Asks McDevitt to confirm that the club advised all players the substance was legal. Could not deny this.

Asks McDevitt to confirm that not all 34 players received the supplement. Astonishingly McDevitt confirms that this was his understanding.
Follow up question here should have been.

"So some of the 34 must be innocent then, is that correct? Some portion of the players are innocent?"

"Correct"

News headlines... "ASADA Boss: Players innocent".
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,857
Likes
61,063
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
I'd be interested to hear lance uppercuts opinion on this.
I agree with asian kittens, it's absolutely the case that if the players weren't given a fair hearing then it's an error of law. Why? Because it's not based on the evidence per se, it's based on procedural errors and a failure to uphold the proper process, resulting in an unfair result. I also agree that it's extremely hard to prove, and that is doubly so discussing evidence originally written in English, in French, in a Swiss court room
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
So the official stance of CAS/WADA/ASADA is that it was a deliberate doping regime, the players knew and it was trying to be covered up?

I See.
Yes McDevitt said as much.

What was interesting was in one argument McDevitt stated a complete lack of records (no records) as a reason why WADA/CAS came to their conclusion.

Then McDevitts assistant at ASADA in another instance cited records at EFC that led to the successful prosecution. There were clear inconsistencies in their responses - none of the senators picked them up on this but when reviewing this should be clear.

It is fundamentally flawed for McDevitt to declare players were charged with a reason being no records. And then minutes later use their consent forms (which is a documented record) against them that they were complicit in a clandestine doping regime. He is a hypocrite who regularly contradicts himself when making statements.

I hope these senate estimate hearings continue as if they give McDevitt enough rope he will eventually hang himself.
 

2one2

Premiership Player
Joined
May 30, 2012
Posts
3,442
Likes
5,224
AFL Club
Essendon
Senator Back and Di Natale had the most robust lines of questioning. Peris was a garbled mess sadly and McDevitt smelled blood when he talked to her, Madigan, well I can see why he has the word "mad" in his name.

A lot of what Back and Di Natale were going on was the general vibe of the whole thing, effectively that the punishment that these players have received was disproportionate, which is not the angle I would have taken, but if I did there were a few things that needed to be followed up on.

If we want to go on the ordeal that the players have been put through there are a few very important pieces. One that the joint investigation, legal, fine we've ascertained that, led to a culture of leaking and slander, where journalists were fed pieces of the information and were able to snipe at the club and players for the entire duration of the investigation. Ultimately it was the newspaper articles, many of which got the situation quite wrong, that made up McDevitt's knowledge base when he first started in the job and that is clear as day when you hear his initial pressers after moving forward with IN recommendations. Go back and listen he

Nor was he pressed on his appalling reasoning for changing his mind re: no significant fault, and actually no-one has properly pressed him on this. He came out guns blazing asking the players to "tell the truth and you could get a no significant fault reduction". There was an assumption there that the players had not told the truth, and yet ultimately their own testimony re: injections was the major evidence used to stitch them up. Having it both ways McDickhead.

Finally, and there was a lot more but this stuck out the most for me, when asked why TB4 was on the banned list, McDevitt said he would have to take that on notice and find out. He said a lot of things that really made his anti doping knowledge abysmally clear. He continued to talk about players with substances pumping through their bodies making them big and strong. Then asked about what the actual perfomance enhancement of TB4 he said recovery so you can "pump iron sooner". What a ****en joke this whole ****en thing is.

And now we have Hirdy in the paper saying that the players who got off had lied to ASADA. Here's an idea Hirdy, shut the **** up. I have backed you up on a lot of things and have put up with your truly abysmal personal PR campaign. I understand your angle, that the players who told the truth were the only ones found guilty and that it truly shit, but once again, you have chosen the absolute worst way to communicate this. If you are really going to start throwing grenades like these, which implies we have lying drug cheats playing for us while we are trying so desperately for a clean slate, then ****. right. off.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Follow up question here should have been.

"So some of the 34 must be innocent then, is that correct? Some portion of the players are innocent?"

"Correct"

News headlines... "ASADA Boss: Players innocent".
The follow up questions were raised - Bracks suggested at least 13 or more were innocent of covering up any doping regime and many others who were tested 7 days earlier or later than when the supplement was given were also telling the truth therefore innocent. This is what he meant by 3 player groups potentially. What he didn't go into is that the form states to list any substance that could constitute a positive - if the players believed it was legal then you could also argue they wouldn't list this as believed it was legal and would not produce a positive.

What is explained to the players is more along the lines if you take something out of protocol and you couldn't be certain of its content then you should list it etc. for example if you took some cold or flu tablets, some herbal treatment etc then list it in case it contains a banned substance you are unaware of.
 
Last edited:

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
I agree with asian kittens, it's absolutely the case that if the players weren't given a fair hearing then it's an error of law. Why? Because it's not based on the evidence per se, it's based on procedural errors and a failure to uphold the proper process, resulting in an unfair result. I also agree that it's extremely hard to prove, and that is doubly so discussing evidence originally written in English, in French, in a Swiss court room
I probably clarified that a little. You can question that but in general you have to make a submission on that front during the hearing

Does not mean you can't argue it, just that the slope becomes far steeper that you are only appealing because the result didn't go your way. Someone pointed out on that front they could argue their is no way the players lawyers could have predicted the panel went to infer what happened with one, or a few players was infered across all 34 with very little reasoing at times If a submission was made during the hearing this becomes far easier. Or that is my understanding - are you appealing because the hearing was unfair ot because it went against you.
 
Last edited:

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
I agree with asian kittens, it's absolutely the case that if the players weren't given a fair hearing then it's an error of law. Why? Because it's not based on the evidence per se, it's based on procedural errors and a failure to uphold the proper process, resulting in an unfair result. I also agree that it's extremely hard to prove, and that is doubly so discussing evidence originally written in English, in French, in a Swiss court room
Also keep up with it. The hearing will be in German - players request.
:pP
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
I agree with asian kittens, it's absolutely the case that if the players weren't given a fair hearing then it's an error of law. Why? Because it's not based on the evidence per se, it's based on procedural errors and a failure to uphold the proper process, resulting in an unfair result. I also agree that it's extremely hard to prove, and that is doubly so discussing evidence originally written in English, in French, in a Swiss court room
When discussing this with lawyers involved they have said to me we cannot appeal to challenge the judges interpretation of the law (ie the level of comfortable satisfaction). This is not an error of law was my understanding.

The problem with the principle of comfortable satisfaction is it is vague. In the senates hearing McDevitt described it as revolving between the balance of probabilities (which he said was 70%) and beyond reasonable doubt (which he placed at 97-98%). He theorised that the afl tribunal judged closer to 97-98% whereas CAS were closer to 70%.

Now to me this is fundamentally flawed to allow inconsistencies - these are not my numbers but McDevitts. He states that there is a possible degree of difference of up to 28% between judges who operate within these rules. You could have a different result each time a case is heard with these inconsistencies.

I also have an issue that someone's livelihood can be stripped based on something close to 70% confidence. I could cop up to a 3 month penalty using 70% or thereabouts but if you are talking about a 2 year penalty that could ruin someone's career then the probability should be raised closer to 97%.
 

efcboy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
10,178
Likes
7,767
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
Senator Back and Di Natale had the most robust lines of questioning. Peris was a garbled mess sadly and McDevitt smelled blood when he talked to her, Madigan, well I can see why he has the word "mad" in his name.

A lot of what Back and Di Natale were going on was the general vibe of the whole thing, effectively that the punishment that these players have received was disproportionate, which is not the angle I would have taken, but if I did there were a few things that needed to be followed up on.

If we want to go on the ordeal that the players have been put through there are a few very important pieces. One that the joint investigation, legal, fine we've ascertained that, led to a culture of leaking and slander, where journalists were fed pieces of the information and were able to snipe at the club and players for the entire duration of the investigation. Ultimately it was the newspaper articles, many of which got the situation quite wrong, that made up McDevitt's knowledge base when he first started in the job and that is clear as day when you hear his initial pressers after moving forward with IN recommendations. Go back and listen he

Nor was he pressed on his appalling reasoning for changing his mind re: no significant fault, and actually no-one has properly pressed him on this. He came out guns blazing asking the players to "tell the truth and you could get a no significant fault reduction". There was an assumption there that the players had not told the truth, and yet ultimately their own testimony re: injections was the major evidence used to stitch them up. Having it both ways McDickhead.

Finally, and there was a lot more but this stuck out the most for me, when asked why TB4 was on the banned list, McDevitt said he would have to take that on notice and find out. He said a lot of things that really made his anti doping knowledge abysmally clear. He continued to talk about players with substances pumping through their bodies making them big and strong. Then asked about what the actual perfomance enhancement of TB4 he said recovery so you can "pump iron sooner". What a ****en joke this whole ****en thing is.

And now we have Hirdy in the paper saying that the players who got off had lied to ASADA. Here's an idea Hirdy, shut the **** up. I have backed you up on a lot of things and have put up with your truly abysmal personal PR campaign. I understand your angle, that the players who told the truth were the only ones found guilty and that it truly shit, but once again, you have chosen the absolute worst way to communicate this. If you are really going to start throwing grenades like these, which implies we have lying drug cheats playing for us while we are trying so desperately for a clean slate, then ****. right. off.
Strongly disagree with this - Madigan asked the most pertinent questions for mine and have listed some of these. Di Natale agreed went with a vibe angle whereas Bracks being an equine vet was focused on scientific details and agency procedures along with the forms etc. Bracks and Madigan asked the most relevant questions.

Hird is stating that self incrimination is the only reason 34 players are suspended.
 

Doss

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Posts
70,963
Likes
96,359
AFL Club
Essendon
Thread starter Admin #64,971
So.


38 Consent forms
34 charged
2 denied injections
2 were not avalible for their original interview and no follow up interview was held. Players were not charged)
It's the bolded that underlines the farcical nature of the whole process most succinctly.

I mean, really think about that.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
14,901
Likes
15,613
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
It's the bolded that underlines the farcical nature of the whole process most succinctly.

I mean, really think about that.
Yep, thats just odd to me surely it wasn't much effort to have a follow up interview. More, well I guess so much for being up front and open with ASADA in the future.
 

2one2

Premiership Player
Joined
May 30, 2012
Posts
3,442
Likes
5,224
AFL Club
Essendon
It's the bolded that underlines the farcical nature of the whole process most succinctly.

I mean, really think about that.
It rubbishes the argument that this is all about "a level playing field". Couple that with the lack of meaningful followup on the NRL players and it is clear that this is about being seen to take a scalp and that is it. It is completely reactionary to the public sentiment as well. They are no better than the AFL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom