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

[efcboy]

A fifth positive test for Melatonium since added to WADA's Prohibited list on 01/01/2016 . You have to worry about how widely and clearly these changes are communicated to athletes. Or is the case of the substance being long acting in the body - So in effect could have been taken three months ago when legal but lingers in the system. Are WADA getting positive tests by stealth.

Surely there would have to be a period of grace following a rule change?

 

[IggypopsTshirt]

And the WADA code isn't something you can pick and choose which parts you like and which parts not so much; it's do or don't.

First let me say I agree with the majority of your post. However, the quoted couldn't be further from the truth. Refer to the AFL illicit drug policy and then take a look at how WADA view use of those substances covered under the policy. Picking and choosing which parts of the code we adhere to is the only way we are able to keep our boys on the park.

 

[efcboy]

ASADA only bills the AFL for AFL-related expenses so how is this going to work? 75% of ASADA staff are casuals on short term contracts.

Because AFL is a large portion of ASADA's work means they won't get as much work meaning even less resources. You've already pointed out ASADA are poorly resourced so not sure what your point is. If anything your statements here support my notion that ASADA need AFL more than AFL need ASADA.

 

[Doss]

I can hear Doss's foot steps.

You can? Why?

 

[efcboy]

All your saying is that the same samples are going to be tested twice, once for illicit drugs and once for PEDs. This might save on containers and swabs but I can't see it making an enormous difference. Testing processes for different drugs are different, so it can't always be done in one test. In fact rarely can it be done in one test.
There is a huge reason why the government should not support the AFL's own integrity system; they have better things to spend money on like things that boost the economy or improve schooling or health. The simple things in life. Enough said. If the AFL wants to fund it, they will be asked to foot the bill as they should be. The only reason that the government funds ASADA is probably the olympics. AFL, League etc. have to pay their own costs to use ASADA albeit at a discounted rate.

You misinterpret my point. My point is one agency does all the testing - both illicit and PED testing. At present these are separate. One agency doing both definitely saves money. I'd argue the government supporting the afl illicit and PED testing does improve health (not only for players but given they are idolised it also flows on to the general population).

 

[efcboy]

It was an error of law in 2007. Nothing that affects this has changed in Swiss Law, nor does the CAS nor the Swiss courts nor WADA specifically state that this will not be considered grounds for an error of law. I concur that this is not their best option as it would be extremely difficult to prove, however it is 100% ground for an appeal as a failure of the court to perform with integrity does indeed constitute a legal error that would be grounds for an appeal, as in any legal system in the world.
This does not mean you are able to say "I disagree with the decision so I believe they have committed an error of law", this means they are identifying a procedural or systematic error in the operation of the court. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that this could not be considered an error of law in any legal system in the world, and definitely not this one as there is no mention of any change relating to this since the Canas case.

I'd be interested to hear lance uppercuts opinion on this.

 

[efcboy]

Listening to senates estimates hearing with McDevitt.

Madigan questions McDevitt about encouraging WADA to appeal a decision made by well respected Australian judges.

McDevitt responds saying he has never questioned the integrity of the judges...hang on didn't he bypass the ASADA appeal stage citing he had no faith in the afl anti doping tribunal to get a fair appeal hearing?

Then he goes on to say the 3 judges were experts in criminal matters and not sporting so they got the burden of proof level wrong...Hang on a second McDevitt - you've spent majority of your career as a police prosecutor in criminal matters, have been with ASADA for a short time and are trying to say these guys don't know the sporting code like he does? What a hypocrite! Conveniently overlooks the fact one of the judges in Wayne Henwood has been a member of the AFL tribunal system for the best part of a decade so clearly does have experience in sporting matters...

 

[efcboy]

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.

 

[Doss]

/yaco

Also, McDevitt vs. Madigan...there's a meeting of anti-luminaries if ever I've seen it.

 

[efcboy]

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]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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?

 

[efcboy]

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.

 

[sameolds33]

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]

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]

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".

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Thank you!! I was trying to remember who and kept coming up with Tintin but I think he said goodness gracious!

don't think he did, but you can never have enough blue blistering barnacles in my opinion

 

[efcboy]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DonsRule]

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.

 

[DonsRule]

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.
P

 

[efcboy]

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%.