Will the last person to leave ASADA please turn off the lights

[jenny61_99]

Oh that's not true.

I basically have held very little interest in the thread but jump in at times to rub in what I have always known.

Oh wait wot? Yeah I am gloating

I'd be holding back if I were you. Nobody likes someone that prematurely self congratulates.

 

[I Rock]

I'd be holding back if I were you. Nobody likes someone that prematurely self congratulates.

Especially one that has basically put himself in a position to say I was right unless Essendon are kicked out of the competition and Hird, Dank & Robinson strung up by their nuts in the Middle of Bourke St.

 

[H2F]

To be clear.

I was the first person (before Whately) to tell you ASADA screwed up over AOD9604

I also told you Essendon would be slapped with a wet lettuce and they were. Same penalties as Adelaide.

And I will reiterate again that the players won't get infractions ...

How do you like those apples?

 

[Barkly St End]

To be clear.

I was the first person (before Whately) to tell you ASADA screwed up over AOD9604

I also told you Essendon would be slapped with a wet lettuce and they were. Same penalties as Adelaide.

And I will reiterate again that the players won't get infractions ...

How do you like those apples?

I'm all the way with H2KOF.

 

[H2F]

Thanks mate

 

[Barkly St End]

Thanks mate

As the yoke of censorship is gradually lifted, we are in a better position to express these seemingly self-evident truths.

 

[Percel]

To be clear.

I was the first person (before Whately) to tell you ASADA screwed up over AOD9604

I also told you Essendon would be slapped with a wet lettuce and they were. Same penalties as Adelaide.

And I will reiterate again that the players won't get infractions ...

How do you like those apples?

and I told you before you told them

 

[Barkly St End]

and I told you before you told them

Then it is you who deserves the community's most sincere thanks and gratitude.

 

[Percel]

Then it is you who deserves the community's most sincere thanks and gratitude.

I am merely a drop in your ocean

 

[carnthedons]

I am merely a drop in your ocean

There's a couple of oceans around this place, and i don't want to be in either of them.

 

[H2F]

and I told you before you told them

You did but I asked that you not make that public remember?

 

[Dr Tigris]

I agree, and a finding by the former judge might be exactly along those lines, one of the many gaps in the ASADA process, he'll give the Minister a list as long as your arm:

• he will take great glee in emphasising the many flaws in the ASADA process
• he will report a finding of insufficient evidence and recommend the investigation be formally closed
• the Minister will view this as a job well done.

BSE. I actually think this is slowly grinding toward a large number of infractions. Simply becasue all the evidence we have that we know to be true points that way. That evidence is contained in the Ziggy report and the Interim report. This is about 1% of what has been said. Apart from that 1% we have people consistently being wrong and saying stuff without basis. AFL and journos I am looking at you. Posters can say anythig they want. But bringing in the judge to shut down a case that is a disaster just seems so strange. Why a judge? Why a judge that is from the area which appeals would go to? Why no actual stories of things going wrong? (opinion pieces do not count as evidence) Why don't we believe what ASADA and the minister say? Believing them is that this is a complex case that is slowly grinding to a conclusion - maybe May/June.
Then we'll know. But maybe it is May/June 2020.

 

[ScallyWag1]

BSE. I actually think this is slowly grinding toward a large number of infractions. Simply becasue all the evidence we have that we know to be true points that way. That evidence is contained in the Ziggy report and the Interim report. This is about 1% of what has been said. Apart from that 1% we have people consistently being wrong and saying stuff without basis. AFL and journos I am looking at you. Posters can say anythig they want. But bringing in the judge to shut down a case that is a disaster just seems so strange. Why a judge? Why a judge that is from the area which appeals would go to? Why no actual stories of things going wrong? (opinion pieces do not count as evidence) Why don't we believe what ASADA and the minister say? Believing them is that this is a complex case that is slowly grinding to a conclusion - maybe May/June.
Then we'll know. But maybe it is May/June 2020.

Rational arguments like this one do not play well here. You should save your breath

 

[Barkly St End]

BSE. I actually think this is slowly grinding toward a large number of infractions. Simply becasue all the evidence we have that we know to be true points that way. That evidence is contained in the Ziggy report and the Interim report. This is about 1% of what has been said. Apart from that 1% we have people consistently being wrong and saying stuff without basis. AFL and journos I am looking at you. Posters can say anythig they want. But bringing in the judge to shut down a case that is a disaster just seems so strange. Why a judge? Why a judge that is from the area which appeals would go to? Why no actual stories of things going wrong? (opinion pieces do not count as evidence) Why don't we believe what ASADA and the minister say? Believing them is that this is a complex case that is slowly grinding to a conclusion - maybe May/June.
Then we'll know. But maybe it is May/June 2020.

A well argued opinion.

I'm going to work with you on this one to see if it is as rational as you are presenting it.

We need to assume a few things here, please feel free to correct me if any of these assumptions are incorrect:

• that the ASADA CEO and the Minister have worked co-operatively on this (even that the ASADA CEO approached the Minister for this additional assistance); and
• that the press release was authored by both the ASADA CEO and the Minister.

I personally believe that both of those assumptions are unrealistic.

Where do you stand?

 

[Dr Tigris]

A well argued opinion.

I'm going to work with you on this one to see if it is as rational as you are presenting it.

We need to assume a few things here, please feel free to correct me if any of these assumptions are incorrect:

• that the ASADA CEO and the Minister have worked co-operatively on this (even that the ASADA CEO approached the Minister for this additional assistance); and
• that the press release was authored by both the ASADA CEO and the Minister.

I personally believe that both of those assumptions are unrealistic.

Where do you stand?

1) I don't know quite what you mean by the minister and ASADA working cooperatively. ASADA work to the minister, but not for the minister (in the sense of say a normal CEO). ASADA works to legislation and regulations. The minister's job is to oversight that they do their job right, and are resourced and supervised appropriately. So if by 'cooperatively' you mean working in the structrue I just outlined, then I would say that yes they are working cooperatively.

2) The press release would have been written by the minister's office, almost certainly with ASADA input. that's the way it works. But the press officer at the minister's office has control. The press officer's job is to present the minister in the best possible light. For this sort of thing they usually just use what the public service sends them, add a few embelishments adn then off they go. But if you aren't deeply involved you will have no idea what happened. Minister's offices are strange places, only tangentially connected to the real world. i would take the press release at its word. The judge was sent in to provide expert assitance and to overview the case. That probably means that it is with ASADA's concurrence (I use that word because I don;t know if ASADA requested all this or not). Who is driving what I have no idea. But dealing with ministers, as my organisation does, is very complex and you rarely get your way.

 

[Barkly St End]

1) I don't know quite what you mean by the minister and ASADA working cooperatively. ASADA work to the minister, but not for the minister (in the sense of say a normal CEO). ASADA works to legislation and regulations. The minister's job is to oversight that they do their job right, and are resourced and supervised appropriately. So if by 'cooperatively' you mean working in the structrue I just outlined, then I would say that yes they are working cooperatively.

2) The press release would have been written by the minister's office, almost certainly with ASADA input. that's the way it works. But the press officer at the minister's office has control. The press officer's job is to present the minister in the best possible light. For this sort of thing they usually just use what the public service sends them, add a few embelishments adn then off they go. But if you aren't deeply involved you will have no idea what happened. Minister's offices are strange places, only tangentially connected to the real world. i would take the press release at its word. The judge was sent in to provide expert assitance and to overview the case. That probably means that it is with ASADA's concurrence (I use that word because I don;t know if ASADA requested all this or not). Who is driving what I have no idea. But dealing with ministers, as my organisation does, is very complex and you rarely get your way.

1. The ASADA CEO does not need the Minister's approval to hire someone to assist her with fulfilling her statutory obligations. She has complete control in the manner in which she spends her annual funding. So I am trying to understand (using your perspective) whether the ASADA CEO approached the Minister to hire an "expert" or whether the Minister instructed the ASADA CEO to hire the "expert" (or else). Because within youre reading, I don't quite see how we get to a position where the ASADA CEO is approaching the Minister to undertake this action.

2. Re the question of ASADA concurrence - that brings us back to 1. above - I can't envisage a scenario necessitating the ASADA CEO going to the Minister in order to hire someone - it just doesn't happen in the normal course of events.

 

[H2F]

1. The ASADA CEO does not need the Minister's approval to hire someone to assist her with fulfilling her statutory obligations. She has complete control in the manner in which she spends her annual funding. So I am trying to understand (using your perspective) whether the ASADA CEO approached the Minister to hire an "expert" or whether the Minister instructed the ASADA CEO to hire the "expert" (or else). Because within youre reading, I don't quite see how we get to a position where the ASADA CEO is approaching the Minister to undertake this action.

2. Re the question of ASADA concurrence - that brings us back to 1. above - I can't envisage a scenario necessitating the ASADA CEO going to the Minister in order to hire someone - it just doesn't happen in the normal course of events.

Barkley you're a very clever guy.

We need beer and steak with Chief and Uppercut when this is over.

 

[Laphroaig]

2. Re the question of ASADA concurrence - that brings us back to 1. above - I can't envisage a scenario necessitating the ASADA CEO going to the Minister in order to hire someone - it just doesn't happen in the normal course of events.

In which universe?

It's an absolute given that the decision to engage a high profile outsider to review a case of huge public interest would be the subject, at the very least, of a Hot Issue brief. Zero doubt.

There are several other ways this could have unfolded too. I don't know which. And nor do you. So why not stop pretending?

 

[Barkly St End]

In which universe?

It's an absolute given that the decision to engage a high profile outsider to review a case of huge public interest would be the subject, at the very least, of a Hot Issue brief. Zero doubt.

There are several other ways this could have unfolded too. I don't know which. And nor do you. So why not stop pretending?

Regardless, the ASADA CEO has the authority to engage anyone she wants - she does not need the Minister's permission, especially when the publicly stated investigation process includes a step whereby all evidence is reviewed by legal experts.

Standard procedure - why go to the Minister for that?

 

[Barkly St End]

Barkley you're a very clever guy.

We need beer and steak with Chief and Uppercut when this is over.

The Chief and I don't get on.

 

[I Rock]

Regardless, the ASADA CEO has the authority to engage anyone she wants - she does not need the Minister's permission, especially when the publicly stated investigation process includes a step whereby all evidence is reviewed by legal experts.

Standard procedure - why go to the Minister for that?

Did you not read the clearly written explanation that it is a fair possibility (as bigger reason as any) that the ASADA CEO had in fact done this and the Ministers PR group wrote the press release to paint the Minister of actually being involved and recommending the Judge being appointed.

 

[rumply]

The Chief and I don't get on.

anything is possible BSE

apologies to DonsRule

 

[Barkly St End]

anything is possible BSE

apologies to DonsRule

Excellent - yes indeed - anything is possible - let us all recall that we are all part of the AFL community - one big happy family.

 

[Dr Tigris]

1. The ASADA CEO does not need the Minister's approval to hire someone to assist her with fulfilling her statutory obligations. She has complete control in the manner in which she spends her annual funding. So I am trying to understand (using your perspective) whether the ASADA CEO approached the Minister to hire an "expert" or whether the Minister instructed the ASADA CEO to hire the "expert" (or else). Because within youre reading, I don't quite see how we get to a position where the ASADA CEO is approaching the Minister to undertake this action.

2. Re the question of ASADA concurrence - that brings us back to 1. above - I can't envisage a scenario necessitating the ASADA CEO going to the Minister in order to hire someone - it just doesn't happen in the normal course of events.

Excellent point!!
I'll just answer you here, rather than in multipe threads.

my main thing is ----- I don't know.

But I would suspect that if ASADA was doing this themselves the minister was briefed that this was happening and decided to put out a press release. If the minister was coming over the top i would expect more aggessive wording toward ASADA. But then again, I just don't know.

Essentially to my mind the most likely scenario is that ASADA told the minister of their need for someone with a very good knowledge of the Admin Appeals Tribunal. From there either ASADA or the minister (or Department, which might well be a major player in all this) decided to get a review of the process done. It might be a simple normal administrative thing (as I suspect) or it might be a witch hunt (as you suspect).

I used to always go for the conspiracy, but now I go for the base case of people are at best vaguely competent and shellgrit happens. When people say things I take them at their word, but read carefully to see how it is couched. Often the couching is what tells you what is behind things. To me this is all couched as business as normal, except that they just don't deal with cases of this scale, complexity and focus on investigations rather than testing. So ASADA is struggling to do this quickly. So ASADA looks slow and awkward. Partly because it is in the interests of certian people (journos making 'stories', Dank, Hird) to make this look incompetent and wrong. Partly because this is a very complex investigation that is stretching ASADA and we found out as it started rather than when it finished as it normally the case. Partly because ASADA screwed some things up - especially letting the AFL get involved. The AFL made merry hell out of the investigation until 2013 finals. Since then we haven't seen the leaks etc and it is all conjectures. And the conjectures about when it will end etc have all been wrong so far. Which tells me that ASADA isn't leaking, it was the AFL.

So the difference between you and me is our interpretation of the entrails of what is publically said. I see business as normal(ish). You see things going off the rails. Fine by me. Neither of us has any special insight and we could even both be wrong. I don't want to argue about our impressions of words written with the intent to both impart information and to make the minister look 'good'. i work with 'communications' people, and their care factor about what is actually true and happening is not very high. To them it is all about the message.

 

[neutralguy]

The Chief and I don't get on.

That's a shock