AFL: No conflict, Asada report usable

[brazilblue]

Mud wouldn't be thrown if YOUR CLUB hadn't done whatever it took. FFS! Quit being a victim for one minute and look at the ******* reality of the situation. Your club has either embarked on an illegal doping program deliberately, or are so damned inept, allowed one to occur. There is no other possibility. Either way, those involved must pay the price.

Ahh Jenny I feel your pain ... But don't be sucked in ... We are dealing with a phenom amen that cannot be explained.

Give up and wait for the axe to fall ... Trying to help these poor souls understand is just not possible and will only lead to frustration.

You are too wise for what you are trying to achieve ... It's like trying to preach to the choir.

 

[1970crow]

Bet you didn't have a problem with the commission, featuring Ron "Mr Independent" Evans, handling Carlton's salary cap breaches case in 2002 and dishing out penalties for same.

If the AFL have structured the charges appropriately so there is no discussion of the Feb phone call. Then I can't see AD having a conflict besides the fact he's a bombers supporter. His statement about Hird standing down while the investigation was ongoing was not necessarily prejudging the outcome.

What if was negotiating sanctions with essendons previous CEO and chairman. Would that be prejudging the outcome. Will you change your mind if that ends up being the case.

 

[Albert Ross]

If the AFL have structured the charges appropriately so there is no discussion of the Feb phone call. Then I can't see AD having a conflict besides the fact he's a bombers supporter. His statement about Hird standing down while the investigation was ongoing was not necessarily prejudging the outcome.

I doubt it is enough to allege a COI, or even make a case that there is a COI. I think they would have to approve post-verdict that the COI lead to a biased decision. I think a court would allow Vlad to be on the tribunal - and Essendon would have to prove not that he was biased - but that he actually displayed bias in his conduct. Very tough. Unless he pounds the table and screams "I've got you right where I want you Hird", I don't see the Bombers having much of a case.

 

[Graffy4242]

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.

How about not cheat in the first place ???????

You deserve EVERYTHING you have coming.

 

[yebiga]

Demetriou's conflict
What did he know about Essendons supplement program last year when he was repeatedly rabbiting about the evils of sports science during the 2012 season

What did he know? What was he doing about it?

So yes, Essendon must be punished. But clearly the afl knew about this program, at least by the middle of last year if not earlier. The afl did not act. it sat quiet until the ACC got involved.

So when the body responsible for the integrity of the league fails to act until it has to act because of government involvement - we have far bigger problem than one club going rogue.

Demetriou and the AFL have by this omission created this disaster. Had they acted against Essendon last year the problem would have been contained.

So yes, Hird must be punished but so too must Demetriou

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Doping probe at risk of collapse

• BY:CHIP LE GRAND
• From:The Australian
• August 17, 2013 12:00AM

• Increase Text Size​
• Decrease Text Size​
• Print​

THE Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's six-month investigation into the alleged systematic use of peptides at AFL club Essendon and Cronulla in the NRL is at risk of collapse if lawyers acting for James Hird succeed in challenging the legality of ASADA's decision to involve the major football codes in its search for evidence of doping.

No confirmation on the usability of the ASADA report. The plot thickens.

 

[Ghostwriter]

No confirmation on the usability of the ASADA report. The plot thickens.

Reading that article makes me think Vlad's time is up, if Asada and the AFL have botched this then Vlad has to go, game changer thats for sure.


"Hird's primary case against ASADA -- and by extension the potentially career-threatening AFL charge against him of conduct unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL -- hinges on whether ASADA broke its own act by including the AFL as an investigative partner and whether its 400-page interim report, which forms the basis of the charges against him, contravenes the confidentiality provisions of the National Anti-Doping Scheme.
On Tuesday this week, the day the charges against Hird were announced, his lawyers wrote to ASADA questioning the validity of the interim report and seeking an explanation of how ASADA was permitted to disclose to the AFL confidential information about Essendon players and staff gathered as part of an anti-doping investigation. The letter went on to pointedly question why ASADA's disclosure of the report did not breach a section of the ASADA Act that sets out its confidentiality provisions.
A breach of these provisions, either by ASADA officials or the AFL officials who received the information, attracts a penalty of up to two years' jail."

 

[RonSon]

So the commission will come down harder on them because their authority has been challenged. You're telling us that the independent commission can hold a bit of a grudge eh. Well, best to just roll over and accept their charges. Don't want to upset them by standing up for yourself.

It worked well for Adelaide!

 

[Brown Bottle]

So Essendon might be spared by a legal loophole. Star Chamber anyone?

On an unrelated note...

<Essendon Lawyer> "You are Andrew Demetriou?"
<AD> "That is correct"
<Essendon Lawyer> "And you can confirm that you are the CEO of the organisation known as the AFL?"
<AD> "That is correct"
<Essendon Lawyer> "Can you can confirm that you once played for the North Melbourne Football Club?"
<AD> "That is correct"
<Essendon Lawyer> "The defence rests your honour"

 

[1970crow]

It worked well for Adelaide!

apparently it did. jenny61_99 reckons that our penalties were going to be even more severe if we didn't plead guilty and agree to non-disclosure. of course, jenny's got her head so far up triggies arse that vlad doesn't know whether it's her or triggy's tongue doing the work.

if I had to guess, triggy would have skillfully negotiated adelaide's penalties up and his penalties down. after all, another 6 months without trigg at the helm and I doubt the afc would be still be in existence. without triggy there is no Adelaide football club - 'mates for life' we's are.

 

[Obeanie1]

Reading that article makes me think Vlad's time is up, if Asada and the AFL have botched this then Vlad has to go, game changer thats for sure.


"Hird's primary case against ASADA -- and by extension the potentially career-threatening AFL charge against him of conduct unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL -- hinges on whether ASADA broke its own act by including the AFL as an investigative partner and whether its 400-page interim report, which forms the basis of the charges against him, contravenes the confidentiality provisions of the National Anti-Doping Scheme.
On Tuesday this week, the day the charges against Hird were announced, his lawyers wrote to ASADA questioning the validity of the interim report and seeking an explanation of how ASADA was permitted to disclose to the AFL confidential information about Essendon players and staff gathered as part of an anti-doping investigation. The letter went on to pointedly question why ASADA's disclosure of the report did not breach a section of the ASADA Act that sets out its confidentiality provisions.
A breach of these provisions, either by ASADA officials or the AFL officials who received the information, attracts a penalty of up to two years' jail."

WOW, trying to supress the AFL's access to the facts gathered by the ASADA investigation so the AFL can't use it to determine what happened.

That doesn't sound like the actions of an innocent party does it?

It sounds like an attempt by someone who is guilty to wriggle off the charge due to a technicality.

So much for Hird saying "we look forward for the truth to come out to clear our name"

 

[Brown Bottle]

So much for Hird saying "we look forward to the truth nothing coming out to clear our name"

 

[lucas matthysse]

Reading that article makes me think Vlad's time is up, if Asada and the AFL have botched this then Vlad has to go, game changer thats for sure.

do you want a game changer? Wait until September 7.

Surely the AFL-Asada havnt agreed to cut Wada out...


have they?



Somebody is going to have a little bit of explaining to do.


Goodbye.

 

[Ghostwriter]

do you want a game changer? Wait until September 7.

Surely the AFL-Asada havnt agreed to cut Wada out...


have they?



Somebody is going to have a little bit of explaining to do.


Goodbye.

On a side note I discovered bigfooty around the time of the Carey - Stevens saga at North, I was searching the internet for more info and alas bigfooty appeared, pretty sure the same is happening now, ppl are searching the internet for more info on the Essendon drugs saga and presto, bigfooty appears, wonder how many of these new members will stick around and also how many are insiders, eg journos, media types and club officials, heck even afl officials, plus the odd legal eagle thrown in for good measure?

 

[The_Wookie]

WOW, trying to supress the AFL's access to the facts gathered by the ASADA investigation so the AFL can't use it to determine what happened.

That doesn't sound like the actions of an innocent party does it?

It sounds like an attempt by someone who is guilty to wriggle off the charge due to a technicality.

So much for Hird saying "we look forward for the truth to come out to clear our name"

More Im not sure that the AFL isnt entitled to the information in any case.

ASADA is allowed under the Act to appoint investigators. They could easily say this was the case with the AFL guy who sat in. Thats covered here

3.03 Investigators
ASADA may appoint a person to be an investigator. A person appointed to be an investigator must obtain, at ASADA’s expense, appropriate clearance as required by State or Territory legislation in order to work with minors.

Further Section 4.20 allows for ASADA to disperse information to a sporting body.

4.20 Conditions on the release of information
(1) If a notice or information provided by ASADA under clause 4.17, 4.18 or 4.19 contains information that is not in the public domain (non‑public information), ASADA may give the information to a particular sporting administration body only if:
(a) ASADA has taken reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the non‑public information will not be used or disclosed by the body in a way that would be unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the athlete or support person, including taking reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the non‑public information will be treated in confidence; and
(b) the body has given a written undertaking that the non‑public information will be treated in confidence.
(2) If ASADA becomes aware that an undertaking given under subclause (1) has been breached by a national sporting organisation, ASADA must report details of the breach to the ASC.

4.21 Non‑entry information
(1) This clause applies to information that:
(a) is not information arising out of an entry on the Register; and
(b) relates, or appears to relate, to a person in connection with a possible anti‑doping rule violation by an athlete or support person.
(2) For paragraph 13 (1) (g) of the Act, ASADA may disclose the information to all or any of the following:
(a) a sporting administration body;
(b) the Australian Federal Police;
(c) the Australian Customs Service;
(d) the Therapeutic Goods Administration;
(e) Federal, State or Territory law enforcement bodies.
(3) Nothing in this clause limits, or is limited by, any other provision of the NAD scheme under which ASADA is required or authorised to disclose information.
(4) If a body mentioned in subclause (2) is not subject to the Information Privacy Principles or the National Privacy Principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988 or a law that is substantially similar to the Information Privacy Principles or the National Privacy Principles, before disclosing personal information to the body, ASADA must enter into a legally binding agreement with that body to ensure that any personal information that is disclosed is:
(a) not used or disclosed by that body for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information is given to the body; and
(b) securely retained and restrictions placed on who can access the information; and
(c) destroyed or returned to ASADA once the purpose for which the disclosure is made is completed.

4.22 Making information publicly available
(1) For paragraph 13 (1) (m) of the Act, ASADA is authorised to publish information on and related to the Register only if:
(a) ASADA:
(i) considers the publication to be in the public interest; or
(ii) has received the consent to the publication by the athlete or support person to whom the information relates; and
(b) any of the following apply:
(i) a decision has been handed down for a hearing process conducted in accordance with Article 8 of the World Anti‑Doping Code, in relation to the finding concerning the information, by a sporting tribunal;
(ii) the athlete or support person has waived his or her right to a hearing;
(iii) the athlete or support person has refused to recognise the jurisdiction of a sporting tribunal to conduct a hearing process in relation to the finding concerning the information; or
(iv) no sporting tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing process in relation to the finding concerning the information; and
(c) if the athlete or support person applied to have the decision to make the entry reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal:
(i) for information for which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has granted an order under subsection 35 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 — the review process has been finally determined; or
(ii) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has not granted an order under subsection 35 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; or
(iii) the athlete or support person has not applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the decision within the applicable timeframe.

Note In accordance with the definition of World Anti‑Doping Code in subsection 4 (1) of the Act, the reference in subparagraph (b) (i) to the World Anti‑Doping Code is a reference to the World Anti‑Doping Code as in force from time to time.
(2) For subclause (1), ASADA may determine:
(a) the way in which the information is to be made publicly available; and
(b) the times at which the information is to be made publicly available.

Reference: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00004/Html/Text#param22

Now Im no big city lawyer, but 4.21 tells me that ASADA can send the information to the sporting body, in this case the AFL.

 

[tigerwill]

WOW, trying to supress the AFL's access to the facts gathered by the ASADA investigation so the AFL can't use it to determine what happened.

That doesn't sound like the actions of an innocent party does it?

It sounds like an attempt by someone who is guilty to wriggle off the charge due to a technicality.

So much for Hird saying "we look forward for the truth to come out to clear our name"

The legal eagles are going to be making some good coin from all this. Who has the best ones I wonder. Who is paying for it at Essendon? Even if the court challenge is successful, I bet my bottom dollar, WADA will weigh in once it's all done. Bombers are still in for a world of pain.
Cracks appearing regarding players and their families and the club. It's got to be so bloody stressful for players and families for their future health and well being.

 

[scarecrow2k1]

No confirmation on the usability of the ASADA report. The plot thickens.

Although I'm firmly of the belief that Essendon are in the wrong and need to be held accountable, this seriously highlights the dubious nature of the joint investigation.

The AFL and ASADA have teamed up and use the rules that suit them most at the time to get the results.
ASADA require privacy? No worries, the AFL Don't.
AFL Can't compel people to testify? No worries, ASADA can.
ASADA interim report can't be used in questioning. No worries, AFL's exact copy of it can.
ASADA can't compel extra things such as phone records? No worries, the AFL can.

If I were a Bomber implicated in this scandal I'd be very angry at the way it played out and question the legality of being pressured into this investigation that seems to use whichever rules suit it most.

 

[Harold Larwood]

Just relax folks, don't let another dubious "Chip Le Grand" sway your opinion, he has been a shameless Essendon apologist throughout the last couple of months.

I'm sure ASADA and the AFL went through the appropriate approval mechanisms to have an AFL representative present. And surely I'm allowed to make such assumptions, because as Essendon fans have been arguing for months: "surely Essendon officialy didn't deliberately breach the WADA Code to cheat the system, they're not that stupid".

 

[Obeanie1]

More Im not sure that the AFL isnt entitled to the information in any case.

ASADA is allowed under the Act to appoint investigators. They could easily say this was the case with the AFL guy who sat in. Thats covered here


Further Section 4.20 allows for ASADA to disperse information to a sporting body.



Reference: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00004/Html/Text#param22

Now Im no big city lawyer, but 4.21 tells me that ASADA can send the information to the sporting body, in this case the AFL.

Well after reading that the article doesn't make sense, maybe they are just trying to sell papers.

Before reading it I thought that ASADA would have the power to appoint 'deputies' that worked for sporting body in which the alleged doping infringement had occurred.

It doesn't sound like all the information can be released to the public though because that would breach the privacy provisions.

 

[BRANXDON]

if it was so 'black n white', then we would have had all charges given to us a long time ago and not try drag out the inevitable....this ongoing fiasco just proves that its not all as it seems and there is DEFINATELY reason to beleive bombers have a good/strong defence case, put yourselves in our shoes?

 

[Harold Larwood]

if it was so 'black n white', then we would have had all charges given to us a long time ago and not try drag out the inevitable....this ongoing fiasco just proves that its not all as it seems and there is DEFINATELY reason to beleive bombers have a good/strong defence case, put yourselves in our shoes?

If you're going to use Caps Lock on a word at least spell it correctly. Completely tarnished a vacuous and deluded post.

 

[micool]

if the charges get thrown out surely the AFL ceo, second in charge, medicos, head of umpirings, the afl commision and legal team all need to stand down?

 

[Harold Larwood]

if the charges get thrown out surely the AFL ceo, second in charge, medicos, head of umpirings, the afl commision and legal team all need to stand down?

hahaha why is the charge getting thrown out all of a sudden?!

 

[lucas matthysse]

the wookie - close, but you are not seeing the forrest for the trees. Re-read the whole act.
consider:

scope
process
purpose

on last hint. 3.03 cant be the AFL. DYOR.

out for good/

 

[micool]

hahaha why is the charge getting thrown out all of a sudden?!

you will find it is illegal


1: asada afl were not allowed to do join investigation
2: asada were not allowed to release the investigation to anyone except the parties involved (afl commision not allowed to read)
3: asada are not allowed to release an interim report
4: demetriou is a witness and should not be privy to the progress of investigation
5: the fact that the afl commision have read the "illegal" report means they are unbiased and cannot
legally judge essendon as their opinions are compromised.

all of that doesnt mention how demetriou, it is alleged as a AFL representative may have broken the law
by telling essendon they are being investigated