AFL: No conflict, Asada report usable

[Vindicater]

So if Essendon invited both the AFL and ASADA to investigate them, what's the problem?

Purely hypothetical answer to this. (as in no basis, just my thoughts out loud)

Essendon asked the AFL to investigate and then followed this by asking ASADA to investigate. (or the AFL asked them).

Essendon did not ask for both of them to run a joint investigation?

 

[Gavstar]

Lance, I guess the point is the convo between Evans and Demetriou is irrelevant to the charge your boys are up against. Even if AD had tipped Evans off, it has no bearing on the charge that illegal drugs were used / no knowledge of exactly what (legal/illegal) drugs were used. That is the case on trial, not the aftermath

The Demetriou/Evans phone call is a sideshow. The call happened well after the fact, and this convo would not be evidence that would need to be tested. So AD would not need to be a witness

Having said that, even if it was relevant, both Demetriou and Evans - who were the only parties to that convo - have the same version of events. Hird's version as a third party would have no weight

Plus, in the Tsoukaris case, the Rear Admiral can sit on the tribunal and give evidence

Nice post, AFL would construct the charges in such a way so that was there was no way the phone call could be drawn into the hearing.

 

[Gavstar]

Purely hypothetical answer to this. (as in no basis, just my thoughts out loud)

Essendon asked the AFL to investigate and then followed this by asking ASADA to investigate. (or the AFL asked them).

Essendon did not ask for both of them to run a joint investigation?

Umm they were both present in all interviews.. Implies consent doesn't it?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

So if Essendon invited both the AFL and ASADA to investigate them, what's the problem?

The problem is the commisioning of an "interim" report prior to the investigation being finalised. This was demanded by the AFL to suit their own timelines, not those of the investigation or natural justice.

These are charges served by a governing body, DURING an ongoing investigation, for the government body's own political purposes, to be heard in front of the governing body's own kangaroo court, in an atmosphere that has been highly prejudiced by the constant leaking of sensitive information by the governing body.

And people want to know why it's being challenged!!???

 

[Vindicater]

Umm they were both present in all interviews.. Implies consent doesn't it?

Yep. As I said, just musing.

Maybe Essendon did not know it was illegal(???) for it to be a joint investigation untill recently so thought all was good.

Grasping at straws here as I think aloud.

 

[jenny61_99]

Purely hypothetical answer to this. (as in no basis, just my thoughts out loud)

Essendon asked the AFL to investigate and then followed this by asking ASADA to investigate. (or the AFL asked them).

Essendon did not ask for both of them to run a joint investigation?

As governing body, surely the AFL is required to call in ASADA as signatories to the WADA code? There were two investigations going on, not just one.

 

[The_Wookie]

The problem is the commisioning of an "interim" report prior to the investigation being finalised. This was demanded by the AFL to suit their own timelines, not those of the investigation or natural justice.

These are charges served by a governing body, DURING an ongoing investigation, for the government body's own political purposes, to be heard in front of the governing body's own kangaroo court, in an atmosphere that has been highly prejudiced by the constant leaking of sensitive information by the governing body.

And people want to know why it's being challenged!!???

Its the AFLs perogative to hold the hearing when it thinks it has enough evidence to proceed. The Commission is after all juding according to its Rules. Theres not a rule that i can see in the ASADA Act that forbids an interim report being commissioned. IIRC the big guns have said its unusual but not wrong per se. (have to find quote sorry). Leaks have gone from all sides too.

 

[Iskender Time]

Nah, the club has already been tarnished by the accusations and the process.
It HAS to defend itself, whether successful or not.
The success or otherwise of court action is almost immaterial to whether Essendon has done wrong, and to what extent. The courts decide things on legalities, not on right and wrong. If we win, it WILL be on a technicality. If we lose, it will probably also be that the courts won't overturn the original AFL decision because there has been no technically illegal process. Nothing will "prove" that Essendon deserves the punishment that the AFL will dish out, or that it doesn't.

We have gone beyond that. It is sad.
But the Essendon football club and all the charged individuals MUST vigorously defend themselves to the best of their ability, using technicalities if that is their only recourse, because they will get no justice in the kangaroo court that the AFL has set up, and in the "court" of public opinion which has been so disgracefully manipulated by the AFL and it puppets in the press (read Wilson and others).

Appeasement is not an option now.
The good reputation of AFL is not Essendon Football Club's responsibility. The AFL has been very successful in keeping the drugs issue under wraps until now. (A legal source associated with the AFL has told me that the AFL was aware of the Eagles using steroids in the 90s and both Brisbane and Geelong using things he would not detail in their successful eras.)

And by the way, nearly 100% of Essendon supporters can see all this and support the club fighting the AFL all the way. We know it will end badly. But sometimes you just need to stand up do what you think is right.

Or sometimes you just need to admit that this was one massive cockup at best, kick those in charge to the kerb, cop your medicine sweet, and implement a new management team to take up the slow process of recovering your clubs shit-stained reputation. Fighting on while resorting to blatant weaseling technicalities that seem clearly to be for the purpose of saving the arse of the cult's messiah is just going to make things worse for longer for Essendon.

 

[nineteen eighty]

It is only my opinion based on guesswork, but I believe you are pretty right about Evans.

Throughout, he was looking out for the players and was acting hand in glove with Demetriou in trying to contain the damage. He was willing to accept sanctions against the club, and Demetriou and he probably had an agreement that that was how it would play out.
What changed and eventually led to Evans downfall was Demetriou's insistence that Hird take a big whack. I don't know why Demetriou adopted that stance, but some believe he is just downright vindictive over Hird (possibly deliberately or possibly inadvertently) spilling the beans to ASADA about Demetriou's phone tipoff to Evans. In any event, Evans was caught in the middle, wanting to pursue his damage control policy with Demetriou but not wanting to sacrifice Hird, whom he (and everyone at Essendon) feels has been unfairly targeted. I think Evans had a genuine health break down of sorts over the position he was in.

Essendon as a club, pretty much unanimously it seems, is unwilling to throw Hird under a bus to appease the AFL and earn a lesser penalty. The club and all supporters are behind Little's aggressive no compromise approach, and I think everyone is resigned to the fact that the AFL will win, and will exact a long harsh revenge over a long time, but are willing to wear it, rather than compromise.

I think the main sticking point is Hird. I don't think it's any sort of hero worship, as some are saying. It is more an unwillingness to accept the injustice of the treatment he has received, not just with the charges from the AFL, but at the hands of Wilson and the Fairfax press. He is the coach, for god's sake. If the supplements program was off the rails, it was Dank's doing, not Hird's. He laid down guidelines that it should be within the rules and safe, and if that didn't occur it wasn't his doing. The coach doesn't look over the shoulder of the sports scientist to ensure everything he is does aligns with what he was instructed to do.

The program may have been off the rail because of Dank but don't you think it was with the blessing of Hird? I know what Hird said in public but he had Charters his old "adviser" buddy and convicted druggie in the picture at one point. Don't you think Hird knew it was being pushed? He may not have known how much of a "MAD SCIENTIST" Dank was. I do contend however that he gave Dank his blessings to "go for it".

 

[SunshineBoy]

Well lets start with the fact he will be called as a witness at some point.

Law and Order Special Drugs Unit

 

[Boxhead_31]

Essendon wanted war now they've got one.

And there can only be one winner.

That's the thing, this is a fight the Bomber just can't possibly win.

Say they do win this battle from here on in any little breach that the Bombers do will be met with sledgehammer response's from the AFL.

"Oh umm look Mr Little we have discovered that you are $50 over the salary cap, so we are giving you a $1m fine and taking your 1st & 2nd round draft picks."

"Hi Mr Little here is your draw for the coming year, you'll notice that you play the top 8 from the previous year twice and you have two trips to Perth a trip to New Zealand and the majority of your games are on the back of 6 day breaks."

 

[Spongebob]

It is only my opinion based on guesswork, but I believe you are pretty right about Evans.

Throughout, he was looking out for the players and was acting hand in glove with Demetriou in trying to contain the damage. He was willing to accept sanctions against the club, and Demetriou and he probably had an agreement that that was how it would play out.
What changed and eventually led to Evans downfall was Demetriou's insistence that Hird take a big whack. I don't know why Demetriou adopted that stance, but some believe he is just downright vindictive over Hird (possibly deliberately or possibly inadvertently) spilling the beans to ASADA about Demetriou's phone tipoff to Evans. In any event, Evans was caught in the middle, wanting to pursue his damage control policy with Demetriou but not wanting to sacrifice Hird, whom he (and everyone at Essendon) feels has been unfairly targeted. I think Evans had a genuine health break down of sorts over the position he was in.

Essendon as a club, pretty much unanimously it seems, is unwilling to throw Hird under a bus to appease the AFL and earn a lesser penalty. The club and all supporters are behind Little's aggressive no compromise approach, and I think everyone is resigned to the fact that the AFL will win, and will exact a long harsh revenge over a long time, but are willing to wear it, rather than compromise.

I think the main sticking point is Hird. I don't think it's any sort of hero worship, as some are saying. It is more an unwillingness to accept the injustice of the treatment he has received, not just with the charges from the AFL, but at the hands of Wilson and the Fairfax press. He is the coach, for god's sake. If the supplements program was off the rails, it was Dank's doing, not Hird's. He laid down guidelines that it should be within the rules and safe, and if that didn't occur it wasn't his doing. The coach doesn't look over the shoulder of the sports scientist to ensure everything he is does aligns with what he was instructed to do.

There is some really good analysis in this post. But there is a point of deviation which points to why people are holding Hird responsible.

Hird set out parameters for the program, well into the implementation and when he was receiving updates. Lots of texts, etc. However, normal management practice is that if you give orders, you make sure that they are followed. This is not micro-management, but regular follow up with those given the orders.

The Ziggy report was very clear, and very damning, in indicating that there was no structured monitoring of the program or the parameters that had been set. While Dank did whatever he did, accountability in an organisation falls to the person who gave orders to ensure that they were followed.

 

[Blues_1864]

Arguing that an interim report shouldn't be used as final proof = not wanting an open hearing? Are you aware of what an open hearing is?

Ah, an open hearing. Would that involve lifting suppression on Hird's texts and emails, thereby getting a proper picture of what he and Essendon were up to?

No, didn't think so.

 

[Kwality]

As governing body, surely the AFL is required to call in ASADA as signatories to the WADA code? There were two investigations going on, not just one.

Jen
Essendon is a stand alone issue for the AFL only, keen to ensure the finals have cred, have respect in the eyes of sports fans.
For ASADA, its about drugs in sport, peptides in the AFL & NRL that are linked ..

 

[lones37]

Yep. As I said, just musing.

Maybe Essendon did not know it was illegal(???) for it to be a joint investigation untill recently so thought all was good.

Grasping at straws here as I think aloud.

I will clear it up for you.

Essendon are guilty, and are trying every trick in the book to delay the inevitable raping that's coming their way.

Only a matter of when.

 

[Albert Ross]

And people want to know why it's being challenged!!???

Because the Bombers are petrified of being declared interimly innocent?

 

[Flying Cloud]

Well it's not that hard, surely.

Demetriou is a conflicted party because he has already expressed views that Hird should stand down, he has been accused by Hird (in his interview with ASADA) of informing Evans details of the ACC briefing, he is the CEO of the AFL, the joint investigator and prosecutor of the charges.......I could go on, but the lawyers will do it better than me. He is the investigator, the prosecutor, a witness with a vested interest, and he wants to be the judge and jury, as well. See how that goes in a court of law.

Any notion of justice requires the judge and jury to independently form a view based on the evidence put before them by both sides. If the AFL lays charges, it cannot sit in judgement of the hearing of the charges. Fundamentally flawed.

It is a kangaroo court because ......well really do I need to spell it out? Does anyone, anyone at all, seriously think that there is any chance the AFL Commission will listen to the defence Essendon put up, weigh it up, and come down with a "not guilty" verdict? Now you may be a smart arse, and say, no they won't do that, because Essendon don't have a case and are as guilty as hell, but the point is, if that view is already set in stone before any defence is put up, it is a kangaroo court.
The definition of a kangaroo court (bing online dictionary) is "a mock court set up spontaneously for the purpose of delivering a judgment arrived at in advance". Sounds like an accurate description to me, especially when the judge's underlings lay and prosecute the charges.

if all it took for a person to become conflicted was the accused accusing them of something then every crim would run around accusing all the judges!

it isn't a Kangaroo court. Essendon along with all the other teams signed up to the anti doping code, which includes the procedures to be followed.

just that now it is Essendon under the pump they think the process should be changed.

 

[The_Wookie]

To return to this and comments I made citing sections 4.21 of the NAD Scheme (ASADA Regulations) and AFL entitlement to the Interim report, ASADA has this on their website

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html#FAQ_investigation

On what legal basis has ASADA provided the interim report to the AFL?

On 2 August 2013, ASADA provided the AFL with an interim report, in accordance with its legislative provisions, on its investigation into the possible use of banned substances at the Essendon Football Club.

Under clause 4.21 of the National Anti-Doping (NAD) Scheme, the ASADA CEO is entitled to disclose information to a sporting administration body (such as the AFL) in connection with ASADA’s investigation. Further, under Article 4.7 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code, ASADA has an obligation to report to the AFL on the exercise of its anti-doping functions, including its investigative functions. These are the bases on which the interim report has been provided to the AFL.
As the AFL is covered by the Privacy Act 1988, use and disclosure of the information by the AFL is subject to the National Privacy Principles (NPPs). There is nothing in either clause 4.21 or the NPPs that would authorise the report being made public.

 

[Jimthegreat]

The problem is the commisioning of an "interim" report prior to the investigation being finalised. This was demanded by the AFL to suit their own timelines, not those of the investigation or natural justice.

These are charges served by a governing body, DURING an ongoing investigation, for the government body's own political purposes, to be heard in front of the governing body's own kangaroo court, in an atmosphere that has been highly prejudiced by the constant leaking of sensitive information by the governing body.

And people want to know why it's being challenged!!???

Given the laws/rules etc..it can all be done.

http://www.asada.gov.au/media/organised_crime_and_drugs_in_sport.html#FAQ_investigation

http://www.upstart.net.au/2013/08/19/the-dangers-of-red-and-black-coloured-glasses/

They can work off an interim report anytime they like during an investigation.

"On 2 August 2013, ASADA provided the AFL with an interim report, in accordance with its legislative provisions, on its investigation into the possible use of banned substances at the Essendon Football Club.

Under clause 4.21 of the National Anti-Doping (NAD) Scheme, the ASADA CEO is entitled to disclose information to a sporting administration body (such as the AFL) in connection with ASADA’s investigation. Further, under Article 4.7 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code, ASADA has an obligation to report to the AFL on the exercise of its anti-doping functions, including its investigative functions. These are the bases on which the interim report has been provided to the AFL.
As the AFL is covered by the Privacy Act 1988, use and disclosure of the information by the AFL is subject to the National Privacy Principles (NPPs). There is nothing in either clause 4.21 or the NPPs that would authorise the report being made public"

EDIT: Just noticed Wookie and posted the same type of thing above.

 

[interestedoz1]

When will this charge information be released?