No Oppo Supporters The ASADA Thread... from a Tiger perspective

[Bird Man]

man how badly dose some people in the media want the bombers not to be slammed for this.

AFL cannot be dictated by the media or big name past players.

If this was FIFA or NBA or NFL this would be a lot worse

 

[TigermanM2]

Spot on, EFC still won't accept they have done anything wrong vs AFL who want to penalise them to keep the media and public perception happy.

I think the other clubs want to see decent punishment handed out too. Especially Melbourne and Carlton.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

man how badly dose some people in the media want the bombers not to be slammed for this.

AFL cannot be dictated by the media or big name past players.

If this was FIFA or NBA or NFL this would be a lot worse

Media on all sides has been a farce on this - agendas of the journo and the "source" have taken precedence over truth too many times to count.

Don't get too caught up on what those organizations do though. FIFA is one of the most corrupt sporting organizations on the planet (read up on how Qatar "won" the 2022 World Cup), the NBA is great at massive fines for spitting but like the NFL they are coming very late to the part on PED's.

IMO most sports pretend its not an issue until it becomes too big to ignore. We are no different. Remember only Essendon is using these supplements

 

[Bird Man]

Media on all sides has been a farce on this - agendas of the journo and the "source" have taken precedence over truth too many times to count.

Don't get too caught up on what those organizations do though. FIFA is one of the most corrupt sporting organizations on the planet (read up on how Qatar "won" the 2022 World Cup), the NBA is great at massive fines for spitting but like the NFL they are coming very late to the part on PED's.

IMO most sports pretend its not an issue until it becomes too big to ignore. We are no different. Remember only Essendon is using these supplements

Spot on
Just wish there was a jurno or person that can call out all these people hold them accountable for there bias in a Un- Bias world

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Why is questioning a bad thing?

If the AFL exec is rushing through a process that:

1) doesn't allow EFC to call rebuttal witnesses

2) doesn't give sufficient time to allow a response to the specific allegations

3) has one member of the tribunal who said Hird should be sacked several months ago

dont you think EFC at a minimum have the right to ask if the process is protecting their right to a just trial and fair verdict?

The AFL have scheduled the meeting for EFC to answer the sanctions, as per the rules inwhich they are asked and expected to govern.
The commission has arranged the personel to hear this matter, as per the rules inwhich they are asked and expected to govern .
The overwelming majority of the stake holders are very satisfied with the way the commissioning are governing the league .

 

[CoggaRules]

Which means Essendon play finals?

IMO, this not to play finals is the point that is irrelevant. I for one want them to play finals, it would remove the BS that surrounds that point. I mean, WTF is them not playing or playing finals going to achieve? The bummers have sold a beauty with that. Tipping they have the pen ready and thinking when they offer that to us, we will sign it immediately. The real deal in all this is that they should play for no points next year, along with a whole truckload of shit that puts them into the wilderness for the next decade. Thats the f****ing message a protector of a code should be handing out.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The AFL have scheduled the meeting for EFC to answer the sanctions, as per the rules inwhich they are asked and expected to govern.
The commission has arranged the personel to hear this matter, as per the rules inwhich they are asked and expected to govern .
The overwelming majority of the stake holders are very satisfied with the way the commissioning are governing the league .

The exec only gave Bomber his final charges Sunday night, hours before he was pleaing his case

The exec gave the defendants no details of the evidence supporting the charge sheet

The exec gave the defendants no right to rebuttal witnesses

The exec only allotted two days to hear a case which is based upon a 37 page charge sheet (and most involved concede its impossible to even hear a portion of this evidence in just two days).

How can you receive a just hearing if you have no access to rebuttal witnesses, insufficient time to prepare your case, and no access to discovery?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

IMO, this not to play finals is the point that is irrelevant. I for one want them to play finals, it would remove the BS that surrounds that point. I mean, WTF is them not playing or playing finals going to achieve? The bummers have sold a beauty with that. Tipping they have the pen ready and thinking when they offer that to us, we will sign it immediately. The real deal in all this is that they should play for no points next year, along with a whole truckload of shit that puts them into the wilderness for the next decade. Thats the f****ing message a protector of a code should be handing out.

Well said. I know we disagree on much of this, but the obsession with getting them out of finals has compromised everything.

Ignore that, wait till the final ASADA report is ready, and then hit them with everything.

My big fear with this is if this goes to court, the AFL have screwed up some procedural issue, which sees much of their case get tossed, and EFC let off lightly as a result.

Still, hopefully a deal can be done today....

 

[Schlurp]

From what I can gather out of this chaotic mess, the crux of the case against the Essendon Football Club and the four nominated people is that they presided over a process that involved the injection of players over a period of time with substances that may have been banned by ASADA/WADA. Another element of the case are that the players were required to sign a form of confidentiality agreement (which might also have included a clause that indemnified the EFC against adverse outcomes). It is significant that the Club doctor formally advised James Hird of his concerns over this process from a player health perspective. Finally, the lines of control between the various parties appears to have been ineffective.

I would be surprised if the key issue before the defendants now is the question of the legality of the substances injected into the players. From the drip feed leaks over the last six months, it would seem unlikely that a case beyond reasonable doubt could be made that those substances were prohibited. That doubt would be enhanced by Stephen Dank refusing to respond to questions on his role and the apparent shabby records kept. So it seems to me that the main issue that the EFC should be required to respond to is it's role in possibly compromising the health and welfare of its player group.

The process undertaken in 2012 seems, to all intents and purposes, to be a defacto clinical trial that involved administering substances to a group of people to then measure the effect of those substances on players' performances. There is nothing wrong with conducting this kind of test. It's done in academic institutions and pharmacology companies every day of the year. However, in recognition of the risks to participants, clinical trials must be clearly articulated, approved by a neutral third party (an ethics committee), and rigorously monitored and recorded. Most importantly, the participants must give their fully informed consent, meaning they must be advised of every aspect of the test including any risks to their health.

It's round about here that the questions start. Allowing for the possibility that no EFC official ever wanted to stray into the field of banned substances, the Club still needs to satisfy the AFL that the processes it undertook were done with the full and informed consent of the players and that all due rigour was applied during the injection process. There are also questions as to whether the injections and monitoring of players involved claims on Medicare and whether the Club doctor fully complied with his professional duties over this period. Everything points to him being a very decent man but he may yet face quesions from the appropriate regulatory authorities.

The best thing that may come out of this is that the AFL puts protocols in place to ensure that the next Club that experiments with a new procedure or substance in the interests of enhanced player performance does so in a way that protects not only the players but also the Club.

 

[tigs2010]

If the court grants them the injunction

I'm still hoping everyone pulls their heads in and we make a deal though. Me don't need this dragging on through 2014

You seem to have followed this whole thing pretty closely. Can you tell me why are the AFL negotiating a deal that Essendon won't agree to? Why don't they just say, Points gone, 1st 2 picks of '13 & '14 gone and a fine. Done.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

The exec only gave Bomber his final charges Sunday night, hours before he was pleaing his case

The exec gave the defendants no details of the evidence supporting the charge sheet

The exec gave the defendants no right to rebuttal witnesses

The exec only allotted two days to hear a case which is based upon a 37 page charge sheet (and most involved concede its impossible to even hear a portion of this evidence in just two days).

How can you receive a just hearing if you have no access to rebuttal witnesses, insufficient time to prepare your case, and no access to discovery?

The afl outlined the charges it is up to EFC to defend them , it is how the AFL system is required and how it works and the overwhelming majority of stakeholders are happy for it to work.
The only error I can see on the AFL's part is the alleged entering into negotiations .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You seem to have followed this whole thing pretty closely. Can you tell me why are the AFL negotiating a deal that Essendon won't agree to? Why don't they just say, Points gone, 1st 2 picks of '13 & '14 gone and a fine. Done.

Just IMO, but there is a lot of both sides thinking they will blink, but neither has to date.

I personally think the AFL strategy is to play the Hird card. Make him bigger than the club, and build the pressure on Little to sack him and agree to the deal.

The AFL have gone in very hard on this, and expectations on the sanction are huge. People now think a $2m fine is small, yet its more than double the previous biggest fine in AFL history (and 7 times larger than the recent Crows fine). Similar with the penalties. Six months ago taking points was unprecedented and huge, now its a nothing penalty. This has always been about perception, and the AFL cannot be perceived to be soft.

Don't discount the effect the MFC deal is having on this either. Their "not guilty, but you're fined" outcome was a farce and everyone knew it. The massive roadblock on the current discussion is the wording of the charge. EFC want no fault charges, so they take the hit, but dont get labelled as deliberate drug cheats. I suspect the AFL is inclined to agree with this, but after Melbourne they don't want to do it again.

Just personal guesswork, but while I'm hoping, I cant see a deal being done. If the AFL line in the sand is a drug cheat charge, points, picks, and a lifetime ban for Hird (apparently they are wanting EFC to be banned from re-hiring him), EFC are stupid if they don't take it to court. A worse case charge isn't much worse than this, and a court challenge may get some of the charges tossed (due to the way the info was collected).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The afl outlined the charges it is up to EFC to defend them , it is how the AFL system is required and how it works and the overwhelming majority of stakeholders are happy for it to work.
The only error I can see on the AFL's part is the alleged entering into negotiations .

And under Victorian law, sporting organizations and the like who have these administrative processes need to ensure they protect the ideal of natural justice. If the AFL process denies EFC natural justice, its their right under Victorian law to have the courts intervene on the processes.

Remember the AFL didn't have the right to appeal tribunal hearings until recently. Their systems are not perfect.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

And under Victorian law, sporting organizations and the like who have these administrative processes need to ensure they protect the ideal of natural justice. If the AFL process denies EFC natural justice, its their right under Victorian law to have the courts intervene on the processes.

Remember the AFL didn't have the right to appeal tribunal hearings until recently. Their systems are not perfect.

The AFL commission have every right to govern the AFL as set out by the AFL rules . They are also entitled to hand down any penalty which affects the membership of those within the league .
I believe they have every to disqualify Hird, Essendon etc or any other member and request certain criteria is met before membership is re-considered , provided they follow the process required by them within the AFL rules .
You can argue natural justice all you like , the bottom line is the commission must follow the process outlined within the AFL rules , they do that and they have the support of the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who appear extremely comfortable to support them .
If Essendon believe the rules within the AFL are not correct and do not provide natural justice then that is a completely different matter and something they will have to fight the whole of the AFL stakeholders .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The AFL commission have every right to govern the AFL as set out by the AFL rules . They are also entitled to hand down any penalty which affects the membership of those within the league .
I believe they have every to disqualify Hird, Essendon etc or any other member and request certain criteria is met before membership is re-considered , provided they follow the process required by them within the AFL rules .
You can argue natural justice all you like , the bottom line is the commission must follow the process outlined within the AFL rules , they do that and they have the support of the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who appear extremely comfortable to support them .
If Essendon believe the rules within the AFL are not correct and do not provide natural justice then that is a completely different matter and something they will have to fight the whole of the AFL stakeholders .

So they just get to ignore Victorian law?

The commission have every right to punish and judge as they see fit, BUT BUT BUT they have the obligation to ensure that these processes are administered in such a way that ensures natural justice

Do you think natural justice is served if defendants have only hours to assess their final charges, no access to discovery, and no right to call rebuttal witnesses?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

So they just get to ignore Victorian law?

The commission have every right to punish and judge as they see fit, BUT BUT BUT they have the obligation to ensure that these processes are administered in such a way that ensures natural justice

Do you think natural justice is served if defendants have only hours to assess their final charges, no access to discovery, and no right to call rebuttal witnesses?

Are Essendon disagreeing with the rules or the interpretation , because I believe they have a leg each side and have no idea what they are fighting other than to avoid a penalty .
If they are disagreeing with the rules IMO the remaining stake holders have appeared to have backed those rules and shown no indication they support Essendon wish to change them .
Likewise it appears to me that all other clubs are more than happy with how they have been interpreted .

 

[Sterge]

Don't discount the effect the MFC deal is having on this either. Their "not guilty, but you're fined" outcome was a farce and everyone knew it. The massive roadblock on the current discussion is the wording of the charge. EFC want no fault charges, so they take the hit, but dont get labelled as deliberate drug cheats. I suspect the AFL is inclined to agree with this, but after Melbourne they don't want to do it again.

Just personal guesswork, but while I'm hoping, I cant see a deal being done. If the AFL line in the sand is a drug cheat charge, points, picks, and a lifetime ban for Hird (apparently they are wanting EFC to be banned from re-hiring him), EFC are stupid if they don't take it to court. A worse case charge isn't much worse than this, and a court challenge may get some of the charges tossed (due to the way the info was collected).

Why can't they hand down no fault penalties now and go again later if ASADA issue notices to the players?

We all know the AFL had to be seen to be completing something before finals and this is why we have this situation

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Why can't they hand down no fault penalties now and go again later if ASADA issue notices to the players?

We all know the AFL had to be seen to be completing something before finals and this is why we have this situation

You dont re-break up with your ex girlfriend, you do it like a band aid.

We dont want to keep revisiting this mess.

 

[Sterge]

You dont re-break up with your ex girlfriend, you do it like a band aid.

We dont want to keep revisiting this mess.

So we keep going around in circles because of the time constraints of finals and the apparent need of the AFL to 'appease' the media/general public

Either they dish out full punishments now if required or wait until there is a clear picture which will be after ASADA is done.

Like you said the AFL has cocked the whole thing up by forcing themselves to be seen to be doing something before finals, either they have enough now to throw the book at them or they don't, there should be no negotiations.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Are Essendon disagreeing with the rules or the interpretation , because I believe they have a leg each side and have no idea what they are fighting other than to avoid a penalty .
If they are disagreeing with the rules IMO the remaining stake holders have appeared to have backed those rules and shown no indication they support Essendon wish to change them .
Likewise it appears to me that all other clubs are more than happy with how they have been interpreted .

The elements Hird has gone to court over are procedural, nothing about the evidence and its weight.

The key ones are:

- having people removed from the hearing who have read the inadmissible ASADA report
- having the hearing delayed until two weeks after final game
- having the AFL provide discovery
- agreement for rebuttal witnesses

If none of these are granted, the defense case will basically be just their "story", with no actual evidence to support it - which makes any guilty verdict highly likely.

This is why I am so in favour of killing the interim report, and doing all of this after the asada report is brought down

- no issue with the legality of the report then
- no tap dancing around definitions, it will be a drug use hearing
- no need to rush the hearing, plenty of time for a defense to be built before the season starts

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

The elements Hird has gone to court over are procedural, nothing about the evidence and its weight.

The key ones are:

- having people removed from the hearing who have read the inadmissible ASADA report
- having the hearing delayed until two weeks after final game
- having the AFL provide discovery
- agreement for rebuttal witnesses

If none of these are granted, the defense case will basically be just their "story", with no actual evidence to support it - which makes any guilty verdict highly likely.

This is why I am so in favour of killing the interim report, and doing all of this after the asada report is brought down

- no issue with the legality of the report then
- no tap dancing around definitions, it will be a drug use hearing
- no need to rush the hearing, plenty of time for a defense to be built before the season starts

You didn't answer my question , are they suggesting the Rules the commission are following are flawed or the interpretation of those rules is flawed .

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You didn't answer my question , are they suggesting the Rules the commission are following are flawed or the interpretation of those rules is flawed .

I'm suggesting the process if flawed, and that is what needs revision.

The case should provide the defense with every opportunity for a fair and equatible hearing

giving final charges hours before your hearing doesnt do this
giving no access to rebuttal witnesses denies you a key element of your defense, so doesn't do this
refusing defense access to discovery doesn't do this

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I'm suggesting the process if flawed, and that is what needs revision.

The case should provide the defense with every opportunity for a fair and equatible hearing

giving final charges hours before your hearing doesnt do this
giving no access to rebuttal witnesses denies you a key element of your defense, so doesn't do this
refusing defense access to discovery doesn't do this

Well in that case Essendon are fighting with all clubs who I beleive have the right to request a change in the process . Why have that not asked that the process be altered , afterall the process that the commissioners were and are bound would have been known by all , including Essendon, for some time .
I may be well wrong but the message I got took from the press conference after the presidents meeting was that all president are very satisfied with the process for this matter .

 

[Dr Tigris]

The big issue to me is not really what the AFL do. It is what ASADA and the players do.

I can't see the players avoiding bans. If they are banned they have a strong case to sue for loss of earnings - say $8-$9 million per year. Standard two year ban = $17 mil. Add in punitive damages and we are looking at tens of millions of dollars potentially.

Add in the EFC having to rely on a state league squad for 2 years, they lose current players due to contracts being breached and running out over the next 2 years, and poor performance hampering income --> massive cash injections required to keep the EFC alive.

Given that there appears to be overwhelming evidence of banned drugs being given in a poorly controlled manner, with some drugs injected being unkown, how the club can get off I don't know. The current penalties are about the EFC here and now. They will weaken but not do any long term damage to the club. That is, the EFC will overcome the financial and player penalties in 10 years. But if 38 guys get suspensions (some retired or left club - but still could sue) then it could be about 10 times bigger, or more. I don't know but maybe the EFC lawyers are trying to avoid this by not getting a formal guilty verdict.

However, if it is the worst case then will the AFL prop the EFC up? Or let them go to save the $?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Well in that case Essendon are fighting with all clubs who I beleive have the right to request a change in the process . Why have that not asked that the process be altered , afterall the process that the commissioners were and are bound would have been known by all , including Essendon, for some time .
I may be well wrong but the message I got took from the press conference after the presidents meeting was that all president are very satisfied with the process for this matter .

Why have they not asked for it to be altered?

Because they are the guy making the sausage, they really don't care how its made, they just want a sausage on the table before finals.

Worth remembering the AFL commission rules for this sort of stuff was made probably never forceeing these kind of issues. It failed on Melbourne. The just charge was ignored because the just charge would cost the Dees their licence. Did people ask for the process to be amended though? Of course not. They just plodded along, agreed the Dees were innocent, and pretended all was good. Problem is this is too big and too ugly to ignore.

Also these changes are not significant. The commission still hears the case, and determines guilt on its own criteria. All that would be done is the roadblocks the AFL exec (not the commission) put in place re: time, lack of discovery, and lack of rebuttal witnesses are removed. The commission can allow all of these now. AFL exec however IMO is restricting these in order to increase the pressure on EFC to agree to a plea.

This is kabuki, its not justice